Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a post-modern cult

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a post-modern cult

Post by Diogenes »

tomclarke wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
tomclarke wrote:I'm posting this to provide a place to discuss GIThruster's alarming anti-science views which have been aired on another thread. Such views are common, and at least one other poster here shares some of these ideas.
I must have missed this thread. In what manner is GIThruster professing an "anti-science" view.
for example:
Oh please. . .almost all of academia is based upon completely subjective relations between teachers and students. If the instructor gets what he wants the student succeeds. If the instructor does not get what he wants, it does not matter how gifted and insightful a student is, nor how well he/she has mastered the material. Academia is as corrupt at its core as Hollywood. I can't count the number of times I saw high school teachers and tenured university profs receiving sexual favors for grades. In any event, most serious universities censor the work of their profs so they are not implicated in crackpot notions. Work that can't pass peer review is not an acceptable subject for consideration and we all know it's publish or perish. Just as example, there are no institutions I am familiar with that will allow a student to do his or her doctoral thesis on ZPF physics, because most physicists consider it crackpot. Sonny White tried to focus his doctoral work at Rice on ZPF and was denied. This is the standard, not the deviation.

Just search if you want examples of persecution of academics, by academics based upon things like Evolution or AGW.
From
viewtopic.php?t=3200&start=4560&postday ... highlight=

around pages 301-305

If that is your best example, I am more confused than ever. I don't see anything in that comment which is anti-science, I see an anti-groupthink anti-bias comment. GIThruster seems to be pointing out the age old problem of intellectual phase-lock, and I agree with him that it is a serious problem.

I recall all the opprobrium heaped upon Pons and Fleischman for daring to challenge conventional Wisdom. Science history is littered with examples of people challenging the prevailing accepted beliefs all to eventually be subsequently proven right.

How do you see this as anti-science?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a post-modern cult

Post by tomclarke »

Diogenes wrote:
tomclarke wrote:
Diogenes wrote: I must have missed this thread. In what manner is GIThruster professing an "anti-science" view.
for example:
Oh please. . .almost all of academia is based upon completely subjective relations between teachers and students. If the instructor gets what he wants the student succeeds. If the instructor does not get what he wants, it does not matter how gifted and insightful a student is, nor how well he/she has mastered the material. Academia is as corrupt at its core as Hollywood. I can't count the number of times I saw high school teachers and tenured university profs receiving sexual favors for grades. In any event, most serious universities censor the work of their profs so they are not implicated in crackpot notions. Work that can't pass peer review is not an acceptable subject for consideration and we all know it's publish or perish. Just as example, there are no institutions I am familiar with that will allow a student to do his or her doctoral thesis on ZPF physics, because most physicists consider it crackpot. Sonny White tried to focus his doctoral work at Rice on ZPF and was denied. This is the standard, not the deviation.

Just search if you want examples of persecution of academics, by academics based upon things like Evolution or AGW.
From
viewtopic.php?t=3200&start=4560&postday ... highlight=

around pages 301-305

If that is your best example, I am more confused than ever. I don't see anything in that comment which is anti-science, I see an anti-groupthink anti-bias comment. GIThruster seems to be pointing out the age old problem of intellectual phase-lock, and I agree with him that it is a serious problem.

I recall all the opprobrium heaped upon Pons and Fleischman for daring to challenge conventional Wisdom. Science history is littered with examples of people challenging the prevailing accepted beliefs all to eventually be subsequently proven right.

How do you see this as anti-science?
(1) he thinks scientists are corrupt. It is not true where I work.

(2) he thinks scientists feel angst when fundamental theories are challenged. this is a misunderstanding. Scientiststs live to change theories, or make new ones. Nothing more exciting than a challenge to a solidly held theory. It is also given high rating by journals which value novelty explicitly.

His view of scientists is wrong and very derogatory.

Scientists challenge the prevailing theories all the time. It is how science progresses. There is, at any time, a wide variety of theories in the literature. Over time those that pan out remain, those that do not fall. And new theories are generated. Sometimes (not often) solidly held theories get overturned. More often, theories that are less strongly held get overturned.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

tomclarke wrote: GIThruster will probably claim that science involves subjective jusdgements. I will happily argue, from a standpoint of objective Bayesian epistomology, that any such subjective jusgements are not intrinsic (in principal, though maybe not in practice, they could be avoided), and anyway they reduce in significance as evidence increases.
No, I'm not going to make this argument as this would never occur to me. As I posted in the other thread, you have completely mischaracterized me because you don't understand the nature of the debate you're raising.

Still, anyone who knows kiddy logic or scientific method understands that science does not prove anything, but rather disproves the alternatives. Your continual misunderstanding about the limitations of science--that you think one can prove a negative, that you can't tell fact from truth, that you can't note the limits of induction and deduction, that you consider science as some sort of ultimate method that can provide all knowledge--is a childish grasp at subjects you know nothing about. As I wrote in the other thread:

Well Tom, I'll post a reply here out of courtesy but to to be honest, I don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm not anti-science and neither was Popper or Kuhn. It's not true to say they or I were post-modernists. It is true to say they made less severe claims about science than it seems you or Stove would (who both seem to be advocates of scientism), though I'll need to pick up Stove's book and see better what he's on about.

I can tell you that Kuhn never taught anything like this:

"What Stove did in the first part of this book (which he entitled 'Philosophy and the English Language: How Irrationalism About Science Is Made Credible'), was to brilliantly and hilariously analyse the means by which four of the most famous philosophers of science of the century, Sir Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend, managed to sound convincing whilst putting forward doctrines that entailed that scientific knowledge was impossible."

Skepticism has always taught that knowledge is impossible. You have seen me argue many times that I disagree with this completely, as well as seen me argue against post-modernism and relativism, so I can't see where you get your presumptions. I can only tell you you're wrong. I have to wonder did you ever read Kuhn or just Stove, because it doesn't seem to me you understand Kuhn's points at all.

Past this I don't think we have a discussion to be had. You're making all sorts of ridiculous claims about me, about Kuhn, about Kuhn's remarkable work, and none of it is true. I can't stand post-modernism and I'm completely opposed to skepticism as anyone reading these forums ought to be able to attest. Epistemologically I am a common sense philosopher along the lines of G. E. Moore and Alvin Plantinga. If you want to understand my take on epistemology, I'd suggest pick up Plantinga's excellent work http://www.amazon.com/Warrant-Proper-Fu ... 0195078640

In short Tom, you're writing about stuff you don't understand and making vacuous charges against people you ought to know do not match the descriptions you're ascribing to them. I see no evidence you have read Kuhn. You merely reject him out of hand. Likewise, though I am a great fan of induction, pretending it can come to the same sorts of certitude as deduction is pretty wrong headed. Also, pretending that science makes use of induction in a unique way is wrong. Several forms of theology use reason in just the same sorts of ways that scientific method does. As I said, it is the observations that differ. (Just search "Inductive Bible Study" for a host of hits.) In science the observations are of the world. In theology they are of a text. The reasoning that goes with the observations is nearly identical, and the two yield completely different things. You're still confusing fact with truth and this is philosophy 101 stuff. We can't have a philosophical discussion about the nature of science, or theology, or falsification, or skepticism, or intellectual justification, when you don't understand the difference between fact and truth.

Final observation: it appears you're guilty of scientism, meaning you think scientific method is applicable to all forms of knowledge, including both facts and truth. This is a dopey freshman mistake. Science only applies to what can be observed. It is never going to tell you if your wife loves you, or if murder is evil, or if there is an afterlife since these are not things we can discern through observation of the natural world. Science has limitations. It is not THE school for all knowing. It is the primary school for knowing facts. It is not the only school for knowing facts. Pure reason or rationalism, is the way we know that 1+1=2. We don't need to make observations to ascertain the laws of mathematics, logic, etc. They're apprehended through reason alone. Most of knowing concerns not fact, but truth. If you understood this, you would have a much less inflated and self-serving view of science and scientists, and a much more esteemed view of philosophers, theologians and the common man. It is your childish, freshman misunderstanding of the role of science that is the issue here, not post-modenism, nor skepticism, nor any of that other.

So how about this: I'll go read Stove and you go read Kuhn? You're obviously not going to hear what I am saying, as you've mistaken and mischaracterized me several times now and it's not that I've been unclear.
Last edited by GIThruster on Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

PS. Opprobrium on P&F

Contrast this with FTL neutrinos.

Both P&F and FTL neutrino group gave PRs on results before paper had been published. Bad science. Both were wrong.

FTL neutrino group had a very well-written carefully checked paper prepared, and gave PR because they knew otherwise it would leak.

P&F had no decent paper prepared, it turned out their methodology (on which the amazing results depended) was wrong.

Both got into a lot of trouble, with resignations etc. Not for being wrong. But for replacing the proper scientific process, which allows errors to be checked pre-publication, by a press conference.

There is a reason for following the proper process. It serves to reduce effect of personality on science, and means all new stuff can be evaluated on equal basis. It is not perfect, but it is a lot better than science throiugh press conference.

Because both groups claimed extraordinary results they would have been forgiven if these had tuned out to be true. Neither did.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Diogenes wrote:
AcesHigh wrote:
303 wrote:GITThruster And if your neighbour is a child rapist, or wife beater, or leader of the local racial supremacy group?
or EVEN WORSE...

...

...

a MUSLIM!!!
:shock: :shock: :shock:
From my reading, you guys are pretty much talking about the same people.
Are you saying Muslims are child rapists, wife beaters, or leaders of racial supremacy groups? Hope I'm reading this wrong.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a post-modern cult

Post by GIThruster »

tomclarke wrote:(1) he thinks scientists are corrupt. It is not true where I work.
Correction, I think people are corrupt and that you are out of touch with the facts. Previously you made this outrageous claim that "But where I work we are not corrupt. Not one little bit." and now you're doubling down about a subject of which you know you cannot have full knowledge. Half the men in your department could be getting blown for grades and you would not know, so you obviously are continuing to discredit your position by doubling down and claiming to have knowledge you cannot have.

Nothing against Cambridge which I hold in the highest esteem, but anyone who searches "Cambridge corruption" is going to get an eyeful. You obviously do not know what your talking about.
(2) he thinks scientists feel angst when fundamental theories are challenged. this is a misunderstanding. Scientiststs live to change theories, or make new ones. Nothing more exciting than a challenge to a solidly held theory. It is also given high rating by journals which value novelty explicitly.

His view of scientists is wrong and very derogatory.
Look at the examples if how scientists have always responded during every change in scientific paradigm, provided by Kuhn in his work. There is no denying these facts. It is NORMAL for scientists to act human. For you to pretend they are above such behavior is ridiculously out of touch with humanity.

Recognizing that changes in paradigm generate angst and anger is simply to observe the history of science, of which you seem absurdly ignorant.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

ScottL wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
AcesHigh wrote: or EVEN WORSE...

...

...

a MUSLIM!!!
:shock: :shock: :shock:
From my reading, you guys are pretty much talking about the same people.
Are you saying Muslims are child rapists, wife beaters, or leaders of racial supremacy groups? Hope I'm reading this wrong.

do you really think there is a probability Diogenes was NOT saying that? :lol:

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

GIThruster wrote:
tomclarke wrote: GIThruster will probably claim that science involves subjective jusdgements. I will happily argue, from a standpoint of objective Bayesian epistomology, that any such subjective jusgements are not intrinsic (in principal, though maybe not in practice, they could be avoided), and anyway they reduce in significance as evidence increases.
No, I'm not going to make this argument as this would never occur to me. As I posted in the other thread, you have completely mischaracterized me because you don't understand the nature of the debate you're raising.

Still, anyone who knows kiddy logic or scientific method understands that science does not prove anything, but rather disproves the alternatives.
That was Popper's view. He is wrong. He (and other philosophers of the time) did not understand that epistomology can use an objective Bayesian methodolgy. If you do this a theory with high explanatory power for its information content can properly be strongly prefered over one which is more complex and explains teh sam einfo. This is a quantifiable objective veriosn of Occam's Razor. It allows theories to be compared and held without falsifiability, although something quite similar (ability to predict observations well) is still needed.

Please read modern objective Bayesian work, e.g.:
Jon Williamson
From Bayesian Epistemology to Inductive Logic 2012

(currently he provides the strongest version of objective Bayesianism around - this is needed if science is to be what all scientists from common sense know it really is).
Your continual misunderstanding about the limitations of science--that you think one can prove a negative, that you can't tell fact from truth, that you can't note the limits of induction and deduction, that you consider science as some sort of ultimate method that can provide all knowledge--is a childish grasp at subjects you know nothing about.
Don't you think we would have to spend some time, referencing literature, on each of those points, to determine whether I'm BSing as you claim or have substance to my arguments? I'm game for this, and here is a thread ready to do it. But in absence of such debate I claim you are BSing.

I have posted a reference above that answers many of these qestions in a manner consistent with my statements and contrary to yours. It is work that build on previous epistomology, not some isolated crackpot. So you should look at it carefully.
As I wrote in the other thread:

Well Tom, I'll post a reply here out of courtesy but to to be honest, I don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm not anti-science and neither was Popper or Kuhn. It's not true to say they or I were post-modernists. It is true to say they made less severe claims about science than it seems you or Stove would (who both seem to be advocates of scientism), though I'll need to pick up Stove's book and see better what he's on about.
If you shared my "severe claim" view of science you would reckon you were anti-science.

But that is a long epistomological argument.

However your statements about necesary corruption of scientists, necessary angst at theory change, are also anti-scientific at a more practical level. It was that to which I object, although I will argue you all down this thread on the epistomological isues and win.

Stove is amusing and has some incisive insights but his criticism of Popper depends on the existence of objective Bayesian epistomology, which he did not annunciate. However he was right, even though he did not have all the tools to prove it. I'm quoting Stove because the objective Bayesian stuff will not be of interest to many on this board.
I can tell you that Kuhn never taught anything like this:

"What Stove did in the first part of this book (which he entitled 'Philosophy and the English Language: How Irrationalism About Science Is Made Credible'), was to brilliantly and hilariously analyse the means by which four of the most famous philosophers of science of the century, Sir Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend, managed to sound convincing whilst putting forward doctrines that entailed that scientific knowledge was impossible."


Skepticism has always taught that knowledge is impossible. You have seen me argue many times that I disagree with this completely, as well as seen me argue against post-modernism and relativism, so I can't see where you get your presumptions. I can only tell you you're wrong. I have to wonder did you ever read Kuhn or just Stove, because it doesn't seem to me you understand Kuhn's points at all.
I may have mistaken your view since you have not enunciated it clearly. However it is clear that Kuhn has an irrationalist view of science, and one that is grievously wrong as philosophy, as well as being wrong according to common sense.

Again I'll argue you this. That is not to say that what Kuhn, and (less objectionable) Popper say does not have some validity. However they miss a crucial element of scientific knowledge which makes there statements about science irrational. Essentially, they have no conception that induction could have a well-founded quantitative and objective basis, and therefore must view science, which is based on comparison of theories based on evidence, as weaker than it actually is.
Past this I don't think we have a discussion to be had. You're making all sorts of ridiculous claims about me, about Kuhn, about Kuhn's remarkable work, and none of it is true. I can't stand post-modernism and I'm completely opposed to skepticism as anyone reading these forums ought to be able to attest. Epistemologically I am a common sense philosopher along the lines of G. E. Moore and Alvin Plantinga. If you want to understand my take on epistemology, I'd suggest pick up Plantinga's excellent work http://www.amazon.com/Warrant-Proper-Fu ... 0195078640

In short Tom, you're writing about stuff you don't understand and making vacuous charges against people you ought to know do not match the descriptions you're ascribing to them.
I admit that Stove's characterisation of Popper is harsh. In the absence of anything better (and at the time what was better looked too flawed to be a serious contender) Popper's ideas of falsifiability are pro-science. But, equally, his overall position, like that of most philosophers, is anti-science (even though he personally did not wish this).

Stove's characterisation of Kuhn has much more merit. Kuhn's view of science is relativist in a most objectionable way.
I see no evidence you have read Kuhn. You merely reject him out of hand. Likewise, though I am a great fan of induction, pretending it can come to the same sorts of certitude as deduction is pretty wrong headed.
You, here are talking about stuff you do not understand. We all now from common sense that inductive certitude can be as good as deductive (sun rising tomorrow?). The issue is that philosophers have been unable to make any sense of this and so deny it. To be fair, the mechanics needed to to this without contradictions is not simple, and although it has been around since the 1970s its correct application to philosophy is pretty recent. See reference above and related stuff in the last 10 years.
Also, pretending that science makes use of induction in a unique way is wrong. Several forms of theology use reason in just the same sorts of ways that scientific method does.
Ha. then they are by definition science. But I bet they don't, because they do not use inductive inference applied to real world observations. I suspect therefore there will be inherent contradictions in their use of objective Bayesian methods at all. But maybe not. I'm willing to be convinced.

But, if they used such methods, then theology would not have the arguments it does. Of course the arguments you consider were from before such methods existed. [specifically we need a strong objective Bayesian approach to epistomology in which probability norm, calibration norm and equivocation norms are all held - that allows the type of strong statements about objective scientiic knowledge that I am making]
As I said, it is the observations that differ. (Just search "Inductive Bible Study" for a host of hits.) In science the observations are of the world. In theology they are of a text. The reasoning that goes with the observations is nearly identical, and the two yield completely different things. You're still confusing fact with truth and this is philosophy 101 stuff. We can't have a philosophical discussion about the nature of science, or theology, or falsification, or skepticism, or intellectual justification, when you don't understand the difference between fact and truth.
Hah. You are right, I have never done Philosophy 101 and in some areas will be reasoning on the hoof. My statements about science come from an application of probability theory, which I do understand, and luckily a few recent philosophers are with me on this so I can argue on your terms too. In fcat I'll enjoy doing so.

As for truth vs fact that sounds to me like the sort of specious distinction that theologians might make. I don't have much to say about theology except that you are claiming:
  • (1) it necessarily does not have the elements of objective reality characteristic of science
    (2) it is equivalent to science, tehrefore science cannot have those elements.
If you persist in this argument I'll delve more into theology, but perhaps in the light of your truth/fact distinction you could just leave theology out of all your arguments about science and then I will too.
Final observation: it appears you're guilty of scientism, meaning you think scientific method is applicable to all forms of knowledge, including both facts and truth. This is a dopey freshman mistake. Science only applies to what can be observed. It is never going to tell you if your wife loves you, or if murder is evil, or if there is an afterlife since these are not things we can discern through observation of the natural world.
Hah agiain. It may be a dopey freshman mistake but as you know has also been held by many others better than you. The issue is not that I conflate these two matters, but that I do not admit what you call "truth" to be a proper part of knowledge unless it can be grounded in observations.
  • In the case of knowing if your wife loves you that might be true, because neurophysiological correlates could possibly be found and measured.

    In the case of knowing what is evil this is a very complex and interesting issue about human feelings and gut reactions. It does not have anything like the status of objective knowledge that is applicable to science. Viewing it as knowledge because it subjectively seems like knowledge is a grave anthropomorphic mistake.

    In the case of knowing whether there is an afterlife I suspect the question to be badly formulated - in that you will have no acceptable definition of afterlife that allows any useful statements to be made. But I'll address the matter further if you can find a meaningful definition. Again, the subjective feeling we may have that there is an afterlife or no, together with subjective ideas about what that might entail, are quite different from scientific knowlege. using the same word to describe these phenomena is grievously reductionist, and imagining that the same reasoning can be applied is equally wrong. In one cae the matter to be reasoned is defined, in the other there is no such grounding, and we are all a-sea.
In the past such a strong view of knowledge has often been either reductionist or led to inconsistency. I don't think either trap is necessary. Williamson has done a good job of dealing with inconsistency objections - and I'll elaborate in some areas if needed. If you want to discuss some of the "not knowledge" areas we will see whether you think my approach reductionist. I doubt you will find this.

In summary you accuse me of conflating knowledge and truth. In fact I claim that you are (partially) conflating the two by allowing truth incorrectly qualities which apply solely to knowledge.
Science has limitations. It is not THE school for all knowing. It is the primary school for knowing facts. Most of knowing concerns not fact, but truth. If you understood this, you would have a much less inflated and self-serving view of science and scientists, and a much more esteemed view of philosophers, theologians and the common man. It is your childish, freshman misunderstanding of the role of science that is the issue here, not post-modenism, nor skepticism, nor any of that other.
I understand why you have that view. It is true that scientific methods cannot be applied to what you call truth. The word is a misnomer, although I am sure you use it correctly as a philosopher, but it is as far from mathematical or deductive truth as is possible. So by using such a word philosophers are appearing to give the matter more solidity than is proper.

I am in no way reductionist. I'm not saying that "truth" matters are uninteresting, or unimportant, or even that it is impossible to make useful statements about them. Personally, I'm not brave enough to try. I am saying that it is not possible, without extraordinary work not normally done by philosophers, to give such statements the authority that can properly be given to scientific truth. With such extraordinary work you would get something much more complex,a nd not recognisable.

Think, if you like, of this approach as being rather like Hume. He required so high a standard of proof that induction did not cut it. Respectable and consistent, if unuseful. Here we require at least inductive evidence for my statements. (We of course also allow deductive statements in maths which are provable tautologies). And We claim an objective standard for the evaluation of our belief in an inductive statement, given real world observations either before or after the statement is made.
So how about this: I'll go read Stove and you go read Kuhn? You're obviously not going to hear what I am saying, as you've mistaken and mischaracterized me several times now and it's not that I've been unclear.
That seems fair if you like. But I must warn you that if you do not also read Williamson or the like you will come up with a whole load of freshman arguments against the very strong brand of Bayesianism needed to support my statements (and in some cases Stove's arguments).

On the other hand, Kuhn is pretty gross. Perhaps Stove will be enough. We will see.

To help you:
Bayesian epistomology Some background on what is objective Bayesian approach, though out of date.

http://www.the-rathouse.com/AnythingGoes.html
Here is a thoughtful defense of Popper and (therefore) criticism of Stove.

My position in this is that we now have a framework for scientific knowledge which Popper does not allow and which looks a bit like positivism, but without ots defects. In the above context where Stove criticises Popper this is valid if it is understood that Popper denies the validity of objective bayeian inference of scientific belief. He does this.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Re: Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a post-modern cult

Post by IntLibber »

tomclarke wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
tomclarke wrote: for example: From
viewtopic.php?t=3200&start=4560&postday ... highlight=

around pages 301-305

If that is your best example, I am more confused than ever. I don't see anything in that comment which is anti-science, I see an anti-groupthink anti-bias comment. GIThruster seems to be pointing out the age old problem of intellectual phase-lock, and I agree with him that it is a serious problem.

I recall all the opprobrium heaped upon Pons and Fleischman for daring to challenge conventional Wisdom. Science history is littered with examples of people challenging the prevailing accepted beliefs all to eventually be subsequently proven right.

How do you see this as anti-science?
(1) he thinks scientists are corrupt. It is not true where I work.

(2) he thinks scientists feel angst when fundamental theories are challenged. this is a misunderstanding. Scientiststs live to change theories, or make new ones. Nothing more exciting than a challenge to a solidly held theory. It is also given high rating by journals which value novelty explicitly.

His view of scientists is wrong and very derogatory.

Scientists challenge the prevailing theories all the time. It is how science progresses. There is, at any time, a wide variety of theories in the literature. Over time those that pan out remain, those that do not fall. And new theories are generated. Sometimes (not often) solidly held theories get overturned. More often, theories that are less strongly held get overturned.
I know some scientists are corrupt, have been corrupted by government funding that conditions continued funding on the scientist finding the results the government wants to see (i.e. you only get continued funding if your results prove the validity of CAGW), were corrupt to begin with, or were corrupted by a boundary issue political agenda. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Trenberth, Romm, and the rest of the Hockey Team are rotten to the core.

choff
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

If science is the pursuit of facts over truth then science is free to tell lies since facts taken out of context can decieve.

For example, if Darwinian evolution renders a supreme diety nonexistent then telling undetected lies or using facts out of context has no moral penalty.

The scientist is then free to create or interpet any data or nonexistent data as facts, self deception becomes the ultimate result.

You haven't spelled out in this thread exactly what GIT's failings are.
CHoff

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a post-modern cult

Post by tomclarke »

IntLibber wrote:
tomclarke wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
If that is your best example, I am more confused than ever. I don't see anything in that comment which is anti-science, I see an anti-groupthink anti-bias comment. GIThruster seems to be pointing out the age old problem of intellectual phase-lock, and I agree with him that it is a serious problem.

I recall all the opprobrium heaped upon Pons and Fleischman for daring to challenge conventional Wisdom. Science history is littered with examples of people challenging the prevailing accepted beliefs all to eventually be subsequently proven right.

How do you see this as anti-science?
(1) he thinks scientists are corrupt. It is not true where I work.

(2) he thinks scientists feel angst when fundamental theories are challenged. this is a misunderstanding. Scientiststs live to change theories, or make new ones. Nothing more exciting than a challenge to a solidly held theory. It is also given high rating by journals which value novelty explicitly.

His view of scientists is wrong and very derogatory.

Scientists challenge the prevailing theories all the time. It is how science progresses. There is, at any time, a wide variety of theories in the literature. Over time those that pan out remain, those that do not fall. And new theories are generated. Sometimes (not often) solidly held theories get overturned. More often, theories that are less strongly held get overturned.
I know some scientists are corrupt, have been corrupted by government funding that conditions continued funding on the scientist finding the results the government wants to see (i.e. you only get continued funding if your results prove the validity of CAGW), were corrupt to begin with, or were corrupted by a boundary issue political agenda. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Trenberth, Romm, and the rest of the Hockey Team are rotten to the core.
With respect you don't know that. You have read and believe a story to that effect.

But even were it true that is <1% of climate scientists, and an even smaller proportion of all scientists.
It is rather like saying that because Nixon was a crook all politicians are corrupt. Except the incidence of corruptness in politicians is likely much higher than in scientists for obvious reasons.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

choff wrote:If science is the pursuit of facts over truth then science is free to tell lies since facts taken out of context can decieve.

For example, if Darwinian evolution renders a supreme diety nonexistent then telling undetected lies or using facts out of context has no moral penalty.

The scientist is then free to create or interpet any data or nonexistent data as facts, self deception becomes the ultimate result.

You haven't spelled out in this thread exactly what GIT's failings are.
GIT uses a technical meaning of truth distinct from scientific truth (which he calls facts I think, see above). And you are now conflating scientific and moral issues. Thee is no sense in which correct (or incorrect) scientific argument addresses moral issues, or vice versa.

Darwinian evolution says nothing for or against the existence of a supreme deity. Indeed science says nothing about this unless the deity has some clear scientific reality. It is difficult to know what that would be, since, for example, miracles, do not per se imply a supreme deity.

GIT's most grievous fault was to state that scientists are essentially corrupt, will usually have abusive sexual relations with students, and motivated by angst at the possibility that theories held might change so that they resist such change. He has a very very low opinion on them - so low I find it quite insulting and certainly unlike those I know.

choff
Posts: 2435
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

A lot of respectable scientists used to believe in eugenics, and a lot of people think what they promote now is called 'soft kill eugenics'. I've read the climate gate emails, they weren't taken out of context, not when they repeat the same theme hundreds of times.

The current attitude of the AGW group is ' well yes we fudged the numbers and suppressed data and tried to shut people up, but we've rechecked our figures and have new data to support our old conclusions, so you can trust us now'.

Does it not occur to you that if they lied before we can reasonably conclude they're lying now.
CHoff

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

choff wrote:A lot of respectable scientists used to believe in eugenics, and a lot of people think what they promote now is called 'soft kill eugenics'. I've read the climate gate emails, they weren't taken out of context, not when they repeat the same theme hundreds of times.

The current attitude of the AGW group is ' well yes we fudged the numbers and suppressed data and tried to shut people up, but we've rechecked our figures and have new data to support our old conclusions, so you can trust us now'.

Does it not occur to you that if they lied before we can reasonably conclude they're lying now.
I'm not going to address AGW arguments on this thread. It would go on forever and be OT.

As for "scientists believing in eugenics" I was not aware that eugenics was a scientific theory? But if it is you had better expand.

I thought it was a politically motivated breeding program.

I'm not saying scientists are any different from others when it comes to nasty politics.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

ScottL wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
AcesHigh wrote: or EVEN WORSE...

...

...

a MUSLIM!!!
:shock: :shock: :shock:
From my reading, you guys are pretty much talking about the same people.
Are you saying Muslims are child rapists, wife beaters, or leaders of racial supremacy groups? Hope I'm reading this wrong.

Not all of course, but there is a pretty strong vein of that sort of stuff amongst various Muslim groups around the world. You seem like you are not at all familiar with Muslim ideology and practices.


Seriously, this stuff is so prevalent in the Muslim community that I am surprised that you are even asking this question. For which accusation would you like to see evidence?

Image

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... tihit.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dancingboys/

http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/mu ... gs-britain

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... hears.html


Seriously, just google any of those issues with the word "Islam" or "Muslim" and you will come back with an avalanche of articles on the topic. Explicit and bone chilling Racism (Against the Jews), Child Rape, (except it isn't regarded as "rape" when it's legal), and wife beating is simply rampant within Muslim communities around the world.


You seem like a relatively nice sort, I just wish you were better informed about societies.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Locked