A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 19th, 2017, 12:23 am 

"Tanquam ex ungue leonem" (the lion is known by his claw) -- Bernoulli on Newton


Having lived in Taiwan for more years than I care to recall, I'm frequently accused, by those locals apprised of only limited information regarding my provenance, or else just plain geographically challenged, as being English.

"So, you're from England"

Egad! Well, ladies and gentlemen, claymores have been unsheathed for less. Readers are advised to exercise extreme caution, as you might before enquiring whether a tumescent young woman is pregnant, in imputing Englishness to a Scot.

After years of protesting, though -- drawing maps on blackboards, administering history lessons, and appeals to Braveheart -- the process of correction does tend to get mighty wearisome. More often than not these days, I just bite my tongue, heave a sigh, and nod, hoping the ghost of William Wallace will forgive me.

"Aye, I'm from England"

Meanwhile, here in the SPCF forums, the credulity of certain members is stretched beyond breaking point by the possibility that a person raising misgivings over evolutionary theory might not be, in some way or another, deficient, deluded, or deranged. As Dawkins puts it: "stupid, ignorant, insane, or wicked".

Hyksos, through the sedulous application of Sherlock Holmes detective work -- the laying of bait, and so forth, which I foolishly mistook for a rancid fish -- has cleverly been able to expose a cunning plot of the most nefarious order, helping to ensure the continued safety and wellbeing of our members.

Yes, folks, the game's up. It's a fair cop, guv'. My cover's blown. Faced with such a watertight case, I find myself with no option but come clean and lay my cards on the table:

It's all true. Guilty on all four charges: stupid, ignorant, insane, and wicked. As Hyksos already suspects, the facts of the case are that I'm an Infant Earth Creationist (I believe it's a fortnight old) with a visceral loathing of all scientists whom I murder in their beds at night; moreover, thick as shit, knowledgeable as a snail, mad as a hatter, and evil as sin itself. It had been my hope to throw sleuths less perspicacious than Hyksos, whom I drastically underestimated, off the scent by relocating to Taiwan -- a notorious hotbed of underground Creationist activity, eating lots of beef noodles, and frequently saying things on these forums like "I'm not religious" and "I couldn't give a flying **** about God".

Alas, all to no avail.

I beg your forgiveness.

Why, it's enough to drive a man to drink...
Last edited by NoShips on June 19th, 2017, 12:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 19th, 2017, 12:38 am 

hyksos » June 19th, 2017, 12:22 pm wrote:
The lesson is that good christian children should not believe science -- why? Well because scientists are actively conspiring to both create and publish theories for the promotion of their Godless, secular worldview.


Not quite. The lesson is that a good Christian child should not believe science because, as you yourself revealed to a stunned world a few pages ago, science does not produce any knowledge.

Not one iota. Not a scintilla. Zilch!

Sounds like the ravings of a madman to me. But hey, you're the detective.

(Shellshocked readers may refer to my final post on page 16 for the gory details)
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby hyksos on June 19th, 2017, 2:37 am 

I admitted my instrumentalism extends beyond the boundaries of quantum mechanics. Maybe science produces no knowledge. I see clearly how that might be plausible. However at the least, measurements taken from the world constitute knowledge.
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 984
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby hyksos on June 19th, 2017, 3:25 am 

Egad! Well, ladies and gentlemen, claymores have been unsheathed for less. Readers are advised to exercise extreme caution, as you might before enquiring whether a tumescent young woman is pregnant, in imputing Englishness to a Scot.

After years of protesting, though -- drawing maps on blackboards, administering history lessons, and appeals to Braveheart -- the process of correction does tend to get mighty wearisome. More often than not these days, I just bite my tongue, heave a sigh, and nod, hoping the ghost of William Wallace will forgive me.

Were your born on the Isle of Skye?


the credulity of certain members is stretched beyond breaking point by the possibility that a person raising misgivings over evolutionary theory might not be, in some way or another, deficient, deluded, or

...raising misgivings.
My scorecard for the thread so far,
Number of times epigenetics was mentioned : 0
Number of times eusociality was mentioned : 0
Number of times the suspicious "Cambrian Explosion" was mentioned : 0
Number of times that mitochondrial DNA was mentioned : 0
Number of times that horizontal gene transfer was mentioned: 0
Number of times that retroviruses were mentioned : 0
Number of times that punctuated equilibrium was mentioned : 0

I'll see you in the Raising Misgivings Section , viewforum.php?f=37
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 984
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 19th, 2017, 4:52 am 

Well, given that your stated position is that science, somewhat embarrassingly, to say the least, produces no knowledge whatsoever, what's the point?

Here's your scorecard again as interpreted through your own extremely silly position:

Amount of knowledge science has on epigenetics : 0
Amount of knowledge science has on eusociality : 0
Amount of knowledge science has on the Cambrian Explosion : 0
Amount of knowledge science has on mitochondrial DNA : 0
Amount of knowledge science has on horizontal gene transfer : 0
Amount of knowledge science has on retroviruses : 0
Amount of knowledge science has on punctuated equilibrium : 0


And I thought philosophy was in bad shape!
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Braininvat on June 19th, 2017, 9:06 am 

This envatted brain will be offline this week and unable to post. Anyone can PM Eclogite or Lomax, if moderation is need for this thread. It's been a swell party.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5493
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 19th, 2017, 9:12 am 

But... but... they don't have what you have. Are they trained in unarmed combat as you are? Otherwise, who's gonna take care of me?

Another free paid vacation in Bali? Where do I apply for moderationship?

Talking of swell parties, dunno what made me think of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1CTxa-FuKc

It's about bonnie Prince Charlie, who had to flee to Skye due to his misunderstood instrumentalist beliefs that science produces no knowledge. By boat of course. Tee hee. You can always trust a dugout canoe in Hebridean waters.

Oh, how I don't miss shite weather and getting mugged twice a week in darkest Glasgow. Freeeeeeeeddddooooommmmmm!!!

Jesus loves you
Jesus loooves yoouuu

Born again, I tell ya.
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Sivad on June 20th, 2017, 1:31 pm 

Should We Believe Scientists?

We should pay attention to scientists, but we should keep in mind that there is an inextricable human element to science which means there are always going to be politics, money, status, ambition, ideology, groupthink, etc. influencing the process from within and without.

"Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made."
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Athena on June 21st, 2017, 12:05 pm 

What happened to my post? Someone else noticed I posted to this thread, and it is not good for my mental health to know I did something, and for that something to disappear. Laugh, is this proof of demons and jinns?
Athena
Active Member
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Athena on June 21st, 2017, 12:14 pm 

Sivad » June 20th, 2017, 11:31 am wrote:Should We Believe Scientists?

We should pay attention to scientists, but we should keep in mind that there is an inextricable human element to science which means there are always going to be politics, money, status, ambition, ideology, groupthink, etc. influencing the process from within and without.

"Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made."


Now that is a good comment. Especially with the science on how to share public opinion and all the surveys to know our opinion and if the advertising is having the desired effect, we need to be very careful about who to believe and who to distrust. We have educated for a smart but amoral society and we are now facing what is wrong with that. Science and technology without morality is a dangerous thing.
Athena
Active Member
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Sivad on June 21st, 2017, 9:16 pm 

A lot of the time there's a big discrepancy between what the politicians, pundits, and activists are claiming about the science and where the science is actually at. Another major problem is that the systems under study are so incredibly vast and complex that it's extremely difficult to construct accurate models. Science isn't very good about publishing null results and it's also got a big replication problem. The quality of our science is about what you'd expect from an only recently evolved species of primate. Don't get me wrong, we've come a long way, the body of knowledge we've managed to establish is remarkable(especially given our cognitive limitations and character defects), but we still have a long way to go as people before we can rationally invest our full confidence in any human institution.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 22nd, 2017, 9:16 am 

To both the above posters:

The questions I've been trying to address here pertain not so much to matters of trust, which might imply deception, but rather epistemic warrant; i.e., reasons for belief. Rare cases of fraud or related departures from the norms of good science are of little concern to us here.

To those unfamiliar with the philosophical literature, the question "Ought scientific claims be believed?" may well appear absurd, or even impertinent on first hearing. "Of course you should believe scientists, dumbass!!" one is liable to howl in outrage.

But slow down now. Believe every scientific claim ever made by every scientist? Not even scientists do that! Disagreement is fairly commonplace, perhaps even encouraged (a topic itself worthy of 18 pages. Tee hee!). Scientists of any given period frequently regard their contemporaries' claims with a skeptical eye. A person believing every claim ever made by every scientist in every time and place would surely fall under the same suspicion of madness as a person believing nothing that science produces.

Moreover, as we delve into the history books, we find that a great many, perhaps most, claims of past science, even those regarded as highly confirmed, have later been rejected as false by scientists themselves. It seems, then, that even the very finest science conducted under the highest standards of propriety can, and not infrequently does, turn out to be will-o-the-wisp. More cause for prudence, would you not agree?

The fact that the very finest science can be wrong, indeed often wrong, is in itself, no cause to cast aspersions on the validity of the enterprise as a whole, as far as I can see. It does, however, raise questions for the epistemologist; namely, what ought, and what not to be believed. A simple claim like "I see a cat" is clearly far more trustworthy. No one ever said science was easy. Any idiot can reliably see a cat LOL, thereby yielding knowledge. Few idiots are able to "lift a corner of the great veil".

At the very least, then, any claim to the effect that scientists ought to be believed must be cautiously qualified. One might, for example, propose a commitment only to the approximate truth of only the best theories in only the mature sciences. This is the kind of sensible "scientific realist" position that we've seen people like Steven Weinberg and my bon ami, Braininvat, endorse.

Others might want to go further, insisting perhaps that science can only generate bona fide knowledge about the observable parts of reality; all those unobservable entities (quarks, Hilbert spaces -- whatever they are LOL, wave functions, etc.) that regularly appear in the theoretical discourse of science should be properly regarded as mere façons-de-parler; useful fictions whose existence needn't detain us unnecessarily. Many scientists have adopted such a position. I'm inclined to suspect most quantum physics do adopt such a position. But we'd have to ask them... "Are quarks real?" They're talked about a lot, but should their existence be believed?

This is the so-called "anti-realist" position, which comes in as many forms as Heinz beans. The realist-antirealist argument was played out most notably between Einstein and Bohr: the former insisting on science "getting the world right"; the latter content to settle for more of a "what you see is what you get" attitude.

This is, more or less, the raison d'être of this swell partie.
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Sivad on June 22nd, 2017, 11:02 am 

Others might want to go further, insisting perhaps that science can only generate bona fide knowledge about the observable parts of reality; all those unobservable entities (quarks, Hilbert spaces -- whatever they are LOL, wave functions, etc.) that regularly appear in the theoretical discourse of science should be properly regarded as mere façons-de-parler; useful fictions whose existence needn't detain us unnecessarily.


Constructive empiricism seems like a reasonable middle ground between that and realism. On CE theories are construed literally, they're either true or false, but the aim of science isn't truth or reality, it's empirical adequacy. So the normative question "should we believe scientists?" doesn't really apply, the only question is whether a theory is empirically adequate.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 22nd, 2017, 11:15 am 

Sivad » June 23rd, 2017, 12:02 am wrote:
Constructive empiricism seems like a reasonable middle ground between that and realism. On CE theories are construed literally, they're either true or false, but the aim of science isn't truth or reality, it's empirical adequacy. So the normative question "should we believe scientists?" doesn't really apply, the only question is whether a theory is empirically adequate.

Oh gosh, you know your stuff. This is rare. :-)

Thought only sad losers like myself read van Fraassen. Nice to meet ya!

But P.S. Isn't van Fraassen's position one of "acceptance" as opposed to belief? Belief ends up costing you a sheep when you might've hung for a lamb. "Acceptance" meaning "believe you eyes" more or less; never mind quarks.

I find his books hard. Al Pacino is easier.

Moral of the story: "I'm hanging for a lamb. You're hanging for a sheep. See ya in heaven, Barabas. Ouch! Another hernia!"
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan
RoccoR liked this post


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Athena on June 22nd, 2017, 12:06 pm 

Sivad » June 21st, 2017, 7:16 pm wrote:A lot of the time there's a big discrepancy between what the politicians, pundits, and activists are claiming about the science and where the science is actually at. Another major problem is that the systems under study are so incredibly vast and complex that it's extremely difficult to construct accurate models. Science isn't very good about publishing null results and it's also got a big replication problem. The quality of our science is about what you'd expect from an only recently evolved species of primate. Don't get me wrong, we've come a long way, the body of knowledge we've managed to establish is remarkable(especially given our cognitive limitations and character defects), but we still have a long way to go as people before we can rationally invest our full confidence in any human institution.


And isn't that the way we want it? I think it would be just awful if everything was known and there was nothing left for us to explore and argue about. The delight is in the discovery and I hope we never loose that.

{sarcasm tag}
Forget philosophy of science. We just pretend to talk about it, because that's how we wiggle shiny trinkets in front of philosophers to draw them into conversation. In the end we don't need Philosophy of Science, because the main take-home point is that Atheist scientists are actively conspiring to censor and "keep out" those who challenge their naturalism and their godless secularism. They are actively suppressing censoring and removing dissenting worldviews from their hallowed corridors.
{/sarcasm tag}
User avatar
hyksos
Member

Posts: 916
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


If I understand correctly, there is so much fun in discovering and sharing what we have learned, but some people ruin this fun. I am sure their intentions are good but the conversation gets stuck and goes round and round instead of moving forward and then it stops being funny. I know the subject of the hijacking of the US democracy, I tend to hammer away at a few points until everyone drops out. I think the point that not all science is good science, and even good science is an ongoing process, has been made. Okay, and moving on.... Is there really any more to say on the subject?
Last edited by Athena on June 22nd, 2017, 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Athena
Active Member
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby RoccoR on June 22nd, 2017, 12:10 pm 

Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists? OFF-TOPIC
※→ NoShips, et al,

I'm very much surprised that anyone has heard of this San Francisco State University Professor.

NoShips » June 22nd, 2017, 11:15 am wrote:
Thought only sad losers like myself read van Fraassen.

But P.S. Isn't van Fraassen's position one of "acceptance" as opposed to belief? Belief ends up costing you a sheep when you might've hung for a lamb. "Acceptance" meaning "believe you eyes" more or less; never mind quarks.


(COMMENT)

Under the The Pragmatic Theory of Explanation (Bas C. Van Fraassen) --- an explanation is a form of an "answer." This is not to be confused with a proposition, or an argument, or (∑) compilation of propositions.

In this context there are some explanations that are accepted as "background theory" to the proposition(s). In our discussions on this board (Science and Philosophy), → I've seen this many times. We do it and not even take notice of it.

Most Respectfully,
R
User avatar
RoccoR
Member
 
Posts: 72
Joined: 05 Feb 2017
SciameriKenAthena liked this post


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Sivad on June 22nd, 2017, 1:05 pm 

NoShips » June 22nd, 2017, 8:15 am wrote:
Sivad » June 23rd, 2017, 12:02 am wrote:
Constructive empiricism seems like a reasonable middle ground between that and realism. On CE theories are construed literally, they're either true or false, but the aim of science isn't truth or reality, it's empirical adequacy. So the normative question "should we believe scientists?" doesn't really apply, the only question is whether a theory is empirically adequate.

Oh gosh, you know your stuff. This is rare. :-)

Thought only sad losers like myself read van Fraassen. Nice to meet ya!


You as well, but we're not sad losers, we're high brow losers. There's dignity in that.

But P.S. Isn't van Fraassen's position one of "acceptance" as opposed to belief? Belief ends up costing you a sheep when you might've hung for a lamb. "Acceptance" meaning "believe you eyes" more or less; never mind quarks.

I find his books hard. Al Pacino is easier.

Moral of the story: "I'm hanging for a lamb. You're hanging for a sheep. See ya in heaven, Barabas. Ouch! Another hernia!"


The controversy in evolutionary theory over whether the modern synthesis is adequate or needs to be extended or radically revised highlights that problem. I smell mutton, Hooah!
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 22nd, 2017, 7:21 pm 

Sivad » June 23rd, 2017, 2:05 am wrote:
The controversy in evolutionary theory over whether the modern synthesis is adequate or needs to be extended or radically revised highlights that problem. I smell mutton, Hooah!


I advise caution. The whole place is booby-trapped.
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 22nd, 2017, 7:39 pm 

RoccoR » June 23rd, 2017, 1:10 am wrote:Under the The Pragmatic Theory of Explanation (Bas C. Van Fraassen) --- an explanation is a form of an "answer." This is not to be confused with a proposition, or an argument, or (∑) compilation of propositions.

In this context there are some explanations that are accepted as "background theory" to the proposition(s). In our discussions on this board (Science and Philosophy), → I've seen this many times. We do it and not even take notice of it.


Well, RoccoR, there's a great deal of talk about "explanation", "explanatory power", etc., in science, but the more you think about it, the more peculiar the whole idea becomes, and one begins to wonder whether it has any connection with truth whatsoever.

An explanation seems to be something that brings relief to cerebrally distressed creatures such as ourselves, the kind of thing that makes us grin and say "Aha! I see now". But one man's explanation may be another man's irrelevancy.: E.g.

Q: Why did Smith die?

Explanation 1: Oxygen deprivation to the brain - a physician
Explanation 2: He was messing around with another guy's wife - a cop
Explanation 3: All men must die. Dust ye are and unto ... - a poet

Now what's all this got to to with truth?

See also, "Why do you rob banks, Willie?" "Coz dat's where da money is, duh!"
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby edy420 on June 23rd, 2017, 3:27 am 

It depends on what knowledge base, you have to use when considering the validity of a scientists claims.

I don't have any knowledge when it comes to certain areas, so then I have to take what is most agreed apon, as truth.
A consensus is usually enough for me to have faith in a scientists work.
If I wanted to rid myself of the need for faith, I would first have to study the topic.
This would build my own knowledge base and be used to criticise their work or compare it to my own.
The problem is, I don't have the time to study every topic in science, faith is necessary.

My question would be, do we have to believe scientists?
I'm an agnostic when it comes to God, and to be honest I have the same mindset when it comes to science, either it's real or it's not, it doesn't matter. (Most times)
It's only important to differentiate between right or wrong, when I need to use the information for myself.

If there is an opposing belief, it's often worth investigating to get a "two sides of the coin" perspective.

When it comes to hardcore science like Higgs Boson hunting, I don't need to believe or disbelieve.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Brisbane, Oz


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 23rd, 2017, 4:10 am 

Athena » June 23rd, 2017, 1:06 am wrote:
{sarcasm tag}
Forget philosophy of science. We just pretend to talk about it, because that's how we wiggle shiny trinkets in front of philosophers to draw them into conversation. In the end we don't need Philosophy of Science, because the main take-home point is that Atheist scientists are actively conspiring to censor and "keep out" those who challenge their naturalism and their godless secularism. They are actively suppressing censoring and removing dissenting worldviews from their hallowed corridors.
{/sarcasm tag}
User avatar
hyksos



If I understand correctly, there is so much fun in discovering and sharing what we have learned, but some people ruin this fun. I am sure their intentions are good but the conversation gets stuck and goes round and round instead of moving forward and then it stops being funny. I know the subject of the hijacking of the US democracy, I tend to hammer away at a few points until everyone drops out. I think the point that not all science is good science, and even good science is an ongoing process, has been made. Okay, and moving on.... Is there really any more to say on the subject?



Athena: Regarding your comments above, and the post to which you were yourself responding...

Yes, scientists have been known to comment rather caustically to the effect that an au fait grasp of the philosophy of science is about as useful to working scientists as is knowledge of ornithology to birds. Ouch! This, I feel, though, is to miss the point, which, for me at least, is simply an enhanced understanding of the scientific enterprise.

It's certainly true, I think I can safely say, that philosophy of science in an earlier period was aimed at helping scientists in their work. The Logical Positivists, for example, among their other pursuits, tried to develop a logic of inductive confirmation. If successful, which it was not, this would've allowed scientists to say that given the evidence available to them, a certain theory (general relativity, evolutionary theory, etc) has a 64%, say, objective probability of being true -- a resource surely that science would dearly love to have at its disposal. 64%, then, would be the probability assignment of a perfectly rational agent, as opposed to the subjective probability assignments of actual rational agents, the best anyone can muster at present.

But logical positivism collapsed, and the philosophy of science took a so-called "historical turn", focusing largely thereafter on how actual science is conducted, then and now, rather than trying to identify some timeless, ahistorical logic or method of science.

Returning to your comments now, why would scientists care? Well, as pointed out, it's doubtful at best that phil of science can offer any guidance on how their scientific work ought to proceed. What it can offer, I suggest, is just a better understanding of their own vocation.

It's rather painful for someone like myself to have to listen to high profile scientists (Dawkins, Krauss, etc) on TV or wherever advancing claim after claim about science -- what we might call "metascientific claims" (issues pertaining to method, evidence, confirmation, falsification, etc.) -- that are known to be false... hugely false... outrageously false!

Given that such men are supposedly in the business of disseminating truth and vanquishing irrational and unjustified beliefs from the thick thousands, I do wish for the love of God they'd pick up a book or two on these matters and do a little reading.
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Sivad on June 23rd, 2017, 7:45 am 

what we might call "metascientific claims"


Scientistic.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 23rd, 2017, 8:03 am 



By the way, Imre Lakatos' tu quoque to the ornithology quote was "Most scientists tend to understand little more about science than fish about hydrodynamics".

And listening to Dawkins and Krauss, it's hard not to sympathize. I'm guessing it's as groan-inducingly obvious to you, Sivad, as it is to me that the extent of Dawkins, Krauss et al's reading on metascientific issues amounts to roughly zilch.

One has to wonder whether these men are just cheerfully unaware that there are highly competent academics out there who devote careers to examining the nature of science (as opposed to doing science), or whether they think it just doesn't matter. ("There is nothing to learn from these people").

Given their level of competence on these matters, we'd be as well putting my pet parrot (Captain Grue) or goldfish up on stage.

"Pieces of evidence, squawk!"

I mean, FFS, imagine me lecturing on quantum physics... "Yes, ladies and gentlemen, two Hilbert spaces are company; three is a cloud chamber".

That's what Dawkins sounds like to me on the philosophy of science.

Homework question: Why do people get on stage bloviating on stuff they know nothing about?

Some loser has to say this. I just did. Otherwise we can all pretend the emperor is dressed like a ... um, emperor, I suppose.

Oops, sorry, I mean "looser". If you can't beat 'em...
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 23rd, 2017, 10:13 am 

And if you don't believe me...

"Darwin's self-deception is one that nearly all scientists practice, for they are not in the habit of thinking about matters of methodological policy. Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be, and he will adopt an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare. If taunted he would probably mumble something about 'Induction' and 'Establishing the Laws of Nature', but if anyone working in a laboratory professed to be trying to establish Laws of Nature by induction we should begin to think he was overdue for leave."

and...

"You must admit that this adds up to an extraordinary state of affairs. Science, broadly considered, is incomparably the most successful enterprise human beings have ever engaged upon; yet the methodology that has presumably made it so, when propounded by learned laymen, is not attended to by scientists, and when propounded by scientists is a misrepresentation of what they do. Only a minority of scientists have received instruction in scientific methodology, and those that have done seem no better off."

-- Peter Medawar, inventor of chain mail armour

Seems like a nice bloke to me. Oh, you probably want sources... Nothing but the best is good enough for you :-)

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28336

Shifty eyes? Well, I've seen a few. Hard to interpret though. Might be love. Might be a falling piano. However, since when did a good squashing, or threats of Justin Bieber's Greatest Hits, deter a philosopher from the search for truth.

If Socrates can do hemlock without flinching, I can do Steinways.
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby Sivad on June 23rd, 2017, 10:52 am 

NoShips » June 23rd, 2017, 5:03 am wrote:




And listening to Dawkins and Krauss, it's hard not to sympathize. I'm guessing it's as groan-inducingly obvious to you, Sivad, as it is to me that the extent of Dawkins, Krauss et al's reading on metascientific issues amounts to roughly zilch.


I take it for what it's worth. It's not helpful for understanding science but it is useful for moving the culture. This isn't a thinking culture, it's a culture of religion and consumerism, so we need like an anti-religion religion, scientism, to serve as a big stupid antithesis that can be slammed into the big stupid thesis, and hopefully that collision will open a path within the culture for a more intelligent thoughtful third way out of this ignorant dialectic.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 23rd, 2017, 10:57 am 

Sivad » June 23rd, 2017, 11:52 pm wrote:
I take it for what it's worth. It's not helpful for understanding science but it is useful for moving the culture. This isn't a thinking culture, it's a culture of religion and consumerism, so we need like an anti-religion religion, scientism, to serve as a big stupid antithesis that can be slammed into the big stupid thesis, and hopefully that collision will open a path within the culture for a more intelligent thoughtful third way out of this ignorant dialectic.


With all due respect, my well-read interlocutor, not sure I agree.

Dawkins talks rubbish. So do religious nutters. I, for two, will not tolerate this.

Will you three?

You seem to be implying: "Better listen to scientific rubbish than religious rubbish".

To repeat: "When intellectual integrity breaks down, we break down" - Sgt Barnes
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 23rd, 2017, 11:02 am 

In layman's terms... Dawkins is talking crap and misleading people. Religious loonies do that too. Why doesn't anyone say anything?

I draw no distinction between semolinas of untruth. Do you?

Say it and you'll loose [sic] friends. I don't have any. I call Dawkins' bluff.

Dead soon, but a martyr (hic)
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby SciameriKen on June 23rd, 2017, 11:38 am 

NoShips » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:02 pm wrote:In layman's terms... Dawkins is talking crap and misleading people. Religious loonies do that too. Why doesn't anyone say anything?


Do you have specific untruth's by Dawkins, or do you just not like the message? No way is he on the same level as the religious "loonies" if we are thinking about the same "loonies"
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 23rd, 2017, 11:40 am 

Ken, you're so young


You make me feel like spring has sprung
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?

Postby NoShips on June 23rd, 2017, 11:44 am 

Ok Ken, just before I go to bed (outta booze, sigh) ...

It became apparent very quickly to me that you were determined, no matter what, to defend a silly position, no matter how silly that position may make you look.

See also "There are no contradictions in the Quran"

I say "How about this contradiction-looking thingy?"

"That's not a contradiction" - you

Might as well be spring

But I love ya anyway
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests