"True" Science vs Science - can you comment?

[Donn]

Hello again, tis I.
I hope this board does not get frustrated with me posting the stuff I receive in my email!
I am looking for comment and to learn from the way the logic is pulled apart.
I want to see the process of Skeptical Analysis being applied to this kind of writing.
I hope you enjoy this, it's typical of the stuff I am getting and I feel a little, well, spooked by it and I want to satisfy myself that my inner suspicion is that this is total bunk - only it's so slick and this chap is so very practised.
Here goes...
---------------------------
The Bigger Picture, etc:
Most people are very weary of conspiracy theorists, mostly because they are
very radical in their views and virtually always go against the 'accepted
norm'. In fact, most people have a kind of dismissal trigger that goes off
whenever they even hear the word 'conspiracy', with no help from the
conspiracy theorists here. From an informed perspective, most conspiracy
theorists who like to tackle things from a scientific perspective can be
proven wrong since they often tend to overlook other potential reasonable
explanations other than their often-narrow view of things. The views of
most conspiracy theorists can surely NOT be called 'balanced'.

I am no conspiracy theorist - as I prefer to include as many tangible facts
within my perceptual experience of something. I am NOT interested in plain
theories and conjecture without any tangible substance (that gets nobody
anywhere). Indeed, the Evidence is what matters. [Interestingly enough,
Evidence is subjective for most people... and quite so, the 'weight of
evidence' will vary from person-to-person and society-to-society; a concept
that is NOT too foreign in the practise of Law in all civilized cultures
around our planet]. For a Scientist, indeed, the measure of evidence should
be strict; however, it should NOT be so strict as to cause barriers within
the mind of the Scientist himself... at the very least, the Scientist should
be aware of this should he or she wish to make significant progress or any
great advance in his/her field of Science (and until Scientists stop
limiting Themselves, they will have to continue to rely upon most new
discoveries happening by 'accident').
At Heart, I am a Scientist and indeed I call myself a Scientist whether or
not I have a piece of paper to 'show for anything' (something that others
who call themselves scientists would prefer as a means of categorisation) as
it certainly is NOT the piece of paper that makes the Scientist (look up the
term in a dictionary). [Yes, the definition of a Scientist can be argued to
be a matter of semantics, however, unfortunately, it has also become an
issue of trust due to the lack of honour prevalent in our society.] Indeed
the Domain of Science truly isn't an exclusive field and no-one has a
monopoly over it, even though there are many today who actively present
themselves as 'scientists', when in actual fact they are monopolists who
seek dominion and control of True Science and 'superiority' over others
along with Their own generational dogma - today usually the ones shouting
the loudest about 'how right they are and how wrong some other Scientist
might be' or whom have the greatest on-going media exposure. As I have put
it before, to many-a-sceptic, today's 'Science' is NO better than a dogmatic
religion, along with all it's vices (if you don't believe me, just compare
some of the reactions of some of today's so-called 'scientists' to that of
fundamentalist religious fanatics when their belief-system is perceived to
be 'under attack')... this statement should also NOT be seen as a forthright
judgement over the many True Scientists among us today and the many True
Scientists that have in the past contributed to our society. Indeed, the
original meaning of the meaning of a Scientist is A Seeker of Truth.

A True Scientist Questions Everything and Dismisses Nothing (to believe that
his and other's perceptions of reality are perfect would be arrogant in the
extreme). How is it therefore that what many 'scientists' of today find
themselves dismissing many ideas and concepts MORE than accepting them as
possibility? How is this, I ask, different from a fundamental religious
fanatic going around calling everything that disagrees with his doctrine
"Evil!"?

It boils down to a fundamental matter of an attitude of Limitation verses
Limitlessness and Positivity verses Negativity. Which one do You chose?

Another bit of impetus as backing for what I say, for whatever it is worth
to you or anyone reading this, is the fact that, unlike the conspiracy
theorists, I have personally dealt with agents of some Illuminati groups;
both directly and indirectly and therefore have no question in my mind that
these organisations do indeed exist, and exist at the very highest levels of
government... because I have had a taste of just who these people are and
how they operate there are some things that I am aware of, and this also
connects to another aspect of what I am involved in, which if I had to go
around telling people I would be labelled delusional and paranoid. I am
neither, and let me tell you: Nothing compares to just how paranoid They
are, especially these days.
Yes, I am quite aware that there is INDEED a great manipulation of world
governments, medicine (I know several medical doctors who will agree with
me), science, educational institutions, world events, politics and
(especially) the media. Truth is NOT difficult to twist if one has the
power and 'seeming' authority to do so.
What amazes me is that most people know that 99% of politicians are
self-serving, dishonourable, power-hungry people who really don't have
anyone else's best interest except their own at heart; and yet they find it
difficult to believe that these same people (who are always wealthy) get
together and amongst themselves and other influential groups and do whatever
they can to strengthen and promote Their agendas? They certainly DO, and
yet sadly this is only the tip of the Iceberg...
Anyway, I am NOT here to prove anything to anyone or to make any specific
point! (unless there is a dire need for it or I am asked about my opinion,
in which case I will do what I can to convey it as clearly as possible).

Nobody can 'prove' anything to you unless you chose to prove it to yourself.

I do NOT know how anyone can call this World 'natural', 'normal' or
'healthy'. It has been very UNHEALTHY for a very long time...

Anyway, this is just my perspective... It wasn't supposed to turn into an
essay, like it almost did! ...and the Iceberg doesn't get any smaller.

[Andonyx]

At Heart, I am a Scientist and indeed I call myself a Scientist whether or
not I have a piece of paper to 'show for anything' (something that others
who call themselves scientists would prefer as a means of categorisation) as
it certainly is NOT the piece of paper that makes the Scientist (look up the
term in a dictionary). [Yes, the definition of a Scientist can be argued to
be a matter of semantics, however, unfortunately, it has also become an
issue of trust due to the lack of honour prevalent in our society.]

AaaaoooOOOOOgaaaaaa!
AaaaoooOOOOOgaaaaaa!

Quack alert.

Hey I'm very interested in science. I even got an undergrad degree in science, concentrating in physics.

I love science. But I am not a scientist.

I'm a "Science enthusiast."

I'm willing to bet I have a better grasp of science and the scientific method than this tool, and I'm certainly no damn scientist.

Calling youself a scientist does not make you a scientist any more than if I called myself a major league pitcher.

I love baseball too, does that mean Clemens and Prior are " monopolists who
seek dominion and control of baseball?"

No it means I'm NOT a major league pitcher because I don't know how to pitch, and even if i did, I have not demonstrated through disciplined hard work and repeated examples that I can.

You become a scientist by doing solid, evidence based scientific work, wether applied, theoretical, or clinical. Just philosophizing about science out of your a$$ does not a scientist make.

And pretty much after making such an asinine statement as that, I really can't be motivated to read any further.

[cbish]

Donn,
Why are you getting e-mails like this? Relative? Friend?

Evidence is subjective for most people... and quite so, the 'weight of
evidence' will vary from person-to-person and society-to-society;

Perhaps! Pretty vague. Wouldn't it depend on what we're talking about?

even though there are many today who actively present
themselves as 'scientists', when in actual fact they are monopolists who
seek dominion and control of True Science and 'superiority' over others
along with Their own generational dogma - today usually the ones shouting
the loudest about 'how right they are and how wrong some other Scientist
might be' or whom have the greatest on-going media exposure

This person as a very poor understanding of scientific philosophy!



'Science' is NO better than a dogmatic
religion,

Right out of the Fundamentalist Handbook.



How is it therefore that what many 'scientists' of today find
themselves dismissing many ideas and concepts MORE than accepting them as a possibility?

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Positivity verses Negativity. Which one do You chose?

Irrelevent!


What amazes me is that most people know that 99% of politicians are
self-serving, dishonourable, power-hungry people who really don't have
anyone else's best interest except their own at heart; and yet they find it
difficult to believe that these same people (who are always wealthy) get
together and amongst themselves and other influential groups and do whatever
they can to strengthen and promote Their agendas? They certainly DO, and
yet sadly this is only the tip of the Iceberg...

Irrelevent to scientific philosophy. Opinion.


I am NOT here to prove anything to anyone or to make any specific
point!

I see that!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by cbish
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it therefore that what many 'scientists' of today find
themselves dismissing many ideas and concepts MORE than accepting them as a possibility?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


Actually, a better response to this is because so many of these supposed "ideas and concepts" have long ago been dimissed in favor of hypothesis that are better consistent with what we know and see.

For example, to claim that scientists are "closed minded" to creationism is really stupid. For a long time, creationism was THE working model, until it became clear that the claims of creationism were totally inconsistent with what we knew about the world. Thus, it was abandoned in favor of a model that better explained the data.

That's not closed minded. That's progress.

[Donn]

Why are you getting e-mails like this? Relative? Friend?
He is an old school friend and I have recently (after 20 years) run into him again. It has actually been his wild notions that have spurred me to find sites like the JREF and Skepdic etc.

Before W (I don't want to use his name), I had no idea about the polarity of opinion regarding Science (and any other supposed 'known' topic).

So I have that much to thank him for.

Mainly he has been at me about NASA and the red/blue Mars business and I have put both feet solidly into the metaphysical doo-doo by trying to answer him. I have a thread in general skepticism and another started on Bad Astronomy (no answers yet) on the Mars subject - this post is more about his dogma.

[Skeptical Greg]

We have had many discussions based on the proposal that Science is insufficient for investigating certain ideas or that it ignores certain possibilities because they are not ' mainstream '..


So far, proponents of those ideas have not been able to suggest how science might improve it's methods in this regard..

They seem to ignore the obvious, in that no one has more to gain by improving the scientific process, than scientists themselves...

[Donn]

He seems to suggest that "True Scientists" are somehow more honest, more open, more flexible, more creative than plain Scientists.

He does not say what methods these "True Scientists" use to get anything done.

Is a phrase like "True Scientist" similar to one like "Alternative Medicine"?

[cbish]

pgwenthold,
Agreed!:D

Donn wrote:
He is an old school friend and I have recently (after 20 years) run into him again. It has actually been his wild notions that have spurred me to find sites like the JREF and Skepdic etc.

I've had similar experiences. However with me, it was a co-worker.

Donn also wrote:
Is a phrase like "True Scientist" similar to one like "Alternative Medicine"?

Probably....or something along those lines. His approach definitely has a tone of mysticism. I have a friend who says the same type of stuff. It is clear to me from the post that your friend really has no idea what science is or how science works. The best thing you could do would be to educate him. That's what I've done with my friend. Explain details such as double-blind studies and the peer review process. Most people don't even know these things exist. To many, science is some diabolical scheme to defraud and deceive.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Donn

Is a phrase like "True Scientist" similar to one like "Alternative Medicine"?


Or more likely " Can't get published..." :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by cbish


Probably....or something along those lines. His approach definitely has a tone of mysticism. I have a friend who says the same type of stuff. It is clear to me from the post that your friend really has no idea what science is or how science works. [/B]

I think this is just impossible to ascertain from what he's written. Same goes for the charge that he knows nothing about the philosophy of science.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think this is just impossible to ascertain from what he's written. Same goes for the charge that he knows nothing about the philosophy of science.

The philosophy of science? And what would that be?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


The philosophy of science? And what would that be?

It's a huge branch of philosophy. How does science progress? Do our scientific theories depict a literal state of affairs? What should govern our choice between mutually incompatible theories which adequately describe the same macroscopic state of affairs? Is there such a thing as a "scientific method" for generating new knowledge? etc

http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/Q120SECT2

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's a huge branch of philosophy.

But philosophy is not science, as much as you'd like it to be. And I aked you to answer the question, not the author of your link. You can answer the question, no?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


But philosophy is not science, as much as you'd like it to be. And I aked you to answer the question, not the author of your link. You can answer the question, no?

Of course philosophy is not science. And I certainly would not like it to be! :eek: Philosophy is not about empirical investigations, but is all about reason and rationality and applying these to exam our presuppositions regarding the nature or character of reality, of knowledge, and of values. It has absolutely nothing to do with science.

And I did explain what the philosophy of science is. The link was simply an expansion. You can read many many books devoted entirely to the whole philosophy of science. Indeed you get many books entirely devoted to a small sub-branch of the philosophy of science. I simply gave a definition. Do your own exploring if you want to learn more.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And I did explain what the philosophy of science is.

I must have missed it. May I see it please?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


I must have missed it. May I see it please?

It is concerned with such issues as:

How does science progress? Do our scientific theories depict a literal state of affairs? What should govern our choice between mutually incompatible theories which adequately describe the same macroscopic state of affairs? Is there such a thing as a "scientific method" for generating new knowledge? etc

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How does science progress? Do our scientific theories depict a literal state of affairs? What should govern our choice between mutually incompatible theories which adequately describe the same macroscopic state of affairs? Is there such a thing as a "scientific method" for generating new knowledge? etc

A series of questions is not a definition.

What is the "philosophy of science?" If you don't know or can't summarize it in a sentence or two just say so.

[cbish]

Hi Ian,

I think this is just impossible to ascertain from what he's written. Same goes for the charge that he knows nothing about the philosophy of science.

I disagree! I think his post is abundantly clear that he has demonstrated this. If you have a true understanding of science and it's process then you can pick it apart.

How does science progress? Do our scientific theories depict a literal state of affairs? What should govern our choice between mutually incompatible theories which adequately describe the same macroscopic state of affairs? Is there such a thing as a "scientific method" for generating new knowledge?

Yes,? yet you also have to consider history (what has been eliminated in the past), degree of claim v. degree of evidence. This original posts says that science should consider all possibilities. I would think that you would agree this is a daunting task. Science has to consider pragmatic possibilties and even that is open to change. But again, the bigger the claim the bigger the proof.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by cbish


Yes,? yet you also have to consider history (what has been eliminated in the past), degree of claim v. degree of evidence. This original posts says that science should consider all possibilities. I would think that you would agree this is a daunting task. Science has to consider pragmatic possibilties and even that is open to change. But again, the bigger the claim the bigger the proof.

Where does he state that science should consider all possibilities precisely? He certainly didn't seem to be saying that to me, although I really can't be bothered to read it again (I almost fell asleep the first time, despite, in the main, agreeing with him) At least I thought I agreed with him. I agree that science shouldn't consider all possibilities, but I repeat, where does he state this??

I would say that any hypothesis which appears to accommodate the empirical data of interest, and is not unduly at tension with current theories, should certainly be considered.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
[B]

A series of questions is not a definition.



It certainly can tell you what something is about. The philosophy of science, and indeed philosophy as a whole, is not susceptible to a precise definition. One conveys what it means by referring to the type of questions it deals with.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It certainly can tell you what something is about. The philosophy of science, and indeed philosophy as a whole, is not susceptible to a precise definition. One conveys what it means by referring to the type of questions it deals with.

Political Conservativism and Political Liberalism are distinct philosophies; yet were you to define them by the questions they deal with (How large and involved should government be? What rights to individuals have? etc) they would sound exactly the same.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Political Conservativism and Political Liberalism are distinct philosophies; yet were you to define them by the questions they deal with (How large and involved should government be? What rights to individuals have? etc) they would sound exactly the same.

Exactly.

Ian, there's no "philosophy" of science that I'm aware of. If you want to articulate something feel free, but you've so far used a lot of words to say nothing.

What is the "philosophy" of science and what does that mean?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN

The philosophy of science? And what would that be?

(here is a random sampling from the internet)

Take some classes:

http://www.indiana.edu/~hpscdept/
http://hps.elte.hu/
http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/hps/
http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/philsciov.html
http://hypatia.ss.uci.edu/lps/home/
http://www.pitt.edu/~hpsdept/
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/ph31.htm

Go to some philosophy of science centers:

http://www.pitt.edu/~pittcntr/
http://www.mcps.umn.edu/
http://logica.rug.ac.be/centrum/

Read some journals:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PHILSCI/
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/routledge/02698595.html
http://www3.oup.co.uk/phisci/

Join some associations:

http://www.usyd.edu.au/hps/aahpsss/
http://www.phil.vt.edu/ISHPSSB/
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/PSA/Default.htm
http://scistud.umkc.edu/hopos/
http://www.psych.yorku.ca/orgs/cshps/

[Donn]

Phew! I awake to find a sword fight about the philosophy of science.
Could a CT who drops hints at his psychic powers be clever enough to have stimulated such confusion?

I mean that if he can tie you people up in semantic knots, then I haven't a prayer and I better just stop debating him totally!

[Donn]

'Science' is NO better than a dogmatic
religion, along with all it's vices

I have read a Dawkins article about this one, trying to remember the URL...

The funny thing is that after a while I forget the points in the article and blatant statements like this one stump me for an answer that has an equally powerful analogy.

I wonder how his "True" Science compares to a religion - I reckon it will be all mystical and "don't upset the vibrations.": kinda religious really.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Donn

I hope you enjoy this, it's typical of the stuff I am getting and I feel a little, well, spooked by it and I want to satisfy myself that my inner suspicion is that this is total bunk - only it's so slick and this chap is so very practised.

Sorry, but it just seems like word salad to me. Perhaps you could describe what it is that makes you judge it as slick.

[Donn]

epepke -
"Word Salad", I love that!

I find his stuff slick because I am not practiced in this skeptic<->woo^2 business. I am a newbie you see.

This is why I am posting, to get some help in tearing down the irrationality and preparing a reply that is appropriate and fitting, without being inane and dismissive.

[Donn]

I have started a reply to the CT, I will post my sections of it here for further assistance and input:
-----------------------
[Interestingly enough, Evidence is subjective for most people... and quite so, the 'weight of evidence' will vary from person-to-person and society-to-society; a concept that is NOT too foreign in the practise of Law in all civilized cultures around our planet].
-----------------------
D> Law is not science. In a courtroom reasonable doubt is the order of the day and this is painted with all kinds of emotive and emotional arguments. Many times the forensic and other evidence is too complex for ordinary people (the juries) to understand. It's small wonder that Law and Science are poles apart.

The whole point of the scientific method is to remove human perception (cultural, political, emotional etc) from the equation. To view the mysteries of the physical world with dispassionate eyes and gain a measure of reason. You could fix a computer bug in an app written in C++, Python, Javascript or assembly because you know the basic rules and thus the language is a mere hurdle not another interpretation.

If gravity stopped working because you visited another country, then we would have to scrap that as a theory and start again.

Science has been doing this re-writing process for hundreds of years and that is the whole point - it represents our "best-bet" on thousands of theories and the more that fall into place, the better they all strengthen each-other.

It's like a vast jigsaw puzzle and the picture that forms is a stunning human achievement - a picture of real reality without distortions of opinion or personal gain.
Each piece only slots in when all the surrounding pieces are 'just-so' and the more pieces the more sure the design.
I do not think we have sight of the overall picture yet, but we certainly have a lot of the borders done and some islands in the middle - atolls of pieces that hold together through mutual compatibility.
Science keeps building, it also tears down. Sometimes is rebuilds what it tore down before, othertimes a new atoll replaces the old - so it continues.

It also means that no single person can lay claim to the skills, education, talent and experience in all fields of science. That's like knowing the intricate design on every puzzle piece.

I say this to indicate that humility and patience is required; to jump ahead and claim to know things 'greater' than science is to claim to know all of science.
-----------------------

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Political Conservativism and Political Liberalism are distinct philosophies; yet were you to define them by the questions they deal with (How large and involved should government be? What rights to individuals have? etc) they would sound exactly the same.

No no no. I didn't say a philosophy. I said philosophy. What political philosophy is can best be conveyed by the types of questions raised. When talking about particular philosophies, then obviously we can give satisfactory definitions.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Political Conservativism and Political Liberalism are distinct philosophies; yet were you to define them by the questions they deal with (How large and involved should government be? What rights to individuals have? etc) they would sound exactly the same.


TLN
Exactly.



{Sighs}

No, read my post above.



Ian, there's no "philosophy" of science that I'm aware of.



Then you are stunningly ignorant. I remind you though I was talking about philosophy of science not *a* philosophy of science.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Donn
[B]Phew! I awake to find a sword fight about the philosophy of science.
Could a CT who drops hints at his psychic powers



Where does he do this precisely?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Donn
'Science' is NO better than a dogmatic
religion, along with all it's vices



I have read a Dawkins article about this one, trying to remember the URL...
[/B]

I wouldn't bother with Dawkins, he's an idiot.

I think your friend means that the way that scientists go about science it becomes effectively a dogmatic religion. This is of course very much of an overstatement. In practice they have certain presuppositions about how the world is. These presuppositions will govern the type of hypotheses they will entertain etc. It will also determine which hypotheses they would tend to reject out of hand, in addition to rejecting out of hand some reported phenomena which do not fit into their background assumptions.
But to say it is a dogmatic religion is to go too far. I would say they're definitely dogmatic about naturalism being correct though, and even arguably materialism. In addition they tend to be naturally conservative.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by epepke


Sorry, but it just seems like word salad to me. Perhaps you could describe what it is that makes you judge it as slick.

I agree, it really doesn't seem to say much specific. Hence my being bored when reading it! I'm baffled as to why anyone should feel "spooked" by it :confused:

[thaiboxerken]

I'd say there is a little "dogma" in science. The dogma would be it's reliance on evidence, testing and a pursuit of finding out what is true.

I wouldn't call that "dogma" bad, and science has proven to be the most reliable method of finding out new knowledges, truths, and technologies.

What other methods actually works to do these things?

[Donn]

Well, forgive me for trying to engage you in the very topic that you all gather here to debate about in the first place. Skepticism, pseudo-science, irrationality etc.

If I have the wrong forum, please let me know.

I have been upfront with you and said that I am a newbie and that I am looking for help and I want to see skepticism at work on something real and tangible to me. Instead I am getting facetious comments and a lot of noise from you.

I thank the few who have tried, but I despair of the spirit of my thread ever taking off.

[Correa Neto]

The bottomline is IMHO the following (and I guess many if not most of us have already seen it a couple of times)-

1) Person no.1 comes with a hipothesis (usually labelling it a theory). The person claims it "solves several problems or poorly-explained phenomena" and asks for opinions or comments.

2) Person no.2 starts to point the flaws and the evidence that contradicts the proposed hipothesis. Note that this is the very basis of science. Note also that it is widely used on a daily basis in several fields that are not commonly labelled as scientific or academic (example-> "hmmm, I guess we can make some money with this product... Lets do some research to see how the consumers would react").

3) Person no.1 finds himself or herself cornered after the exposure of basic mistakes in his/hers great idea. Person no.1 gets confused, "how come you don't see what I see? I can't be wrong!" and quite often angry.

4) Person no.1 starts to attack person Person no.2 and/or what is now labelled as "conventional science" or something like that. Person no.1 claims that the scientific stabilishment refuses to investigate new and bold ideas, is too conservative, closed-minded, etc. From this to a cover-up conspiracy theory sometimes its just a small step.

See? No need for sophisticated discussions on what is the philosophy of scence and similar. Its most likely a defense reaction. And don't think that this happens only with people that dont not have enough knoweledge on the field that he/she ventured. I have seen this happen among academics. More then once I saw geologist no.1 present his/hers pet hipothesis, that subsequently was submitted to deadly flak by the academic geological community. And geologist no.1 reacted quite like person no.1. Actually I have seen even worse episodes, some of which involved traffic of influence, that were not supposed to happen on the scientific and technical environments, but they do happen.

Remember, we are all humans and we all share the same flaws.

[thaiboxerken]

Don't let Ian discourage you. We enjoy it when a rational person joins the forum and discusses his views.

Ian is just an idiot and considers anyone that doesn't believe in the afterlife as being irrational.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Donn
Well, forgive me for trying to engage you in the very topic that you all gather here to debate about in the first place. Skepticism, pseudo-science, irrationality etc.

If I have the wrong forum, please let me know.

I have been upfront with you and said that I am a newbie and that I am looking for help and I want to see skepticism at work on something real and tangible to me. Instead I am getting facetious comments and a lot of noise from you.

I thank the few who have tried, but I despair of the spirit of my thread ever taking off.

Yes! That told TBK! :D

[Donn]

Well - I am glad to hear it. It's hard to know which members are obstructional and antsy.

I will not post any more of my reply to the CT until what I have posted has some chance of being looked at - I don't want to waste my time, or anyone else's.

Thanks for the word on Int Ian though.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Correa Neto


See? No need for sophisticated discussions on what is the philosophy of scence and similar.



No need at all? :(

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Donn
Well - I am glad to hear it. It's hard to know which members are obstructional and antsy.

I will not post any more of my reply to the CT until what I have posted has some chance of being looked at - I don't want to waste my time, or anyone else's.

Thanks for the word on Int Ian though.

TBK is an absolute moron and you'd be well advised not to take notice of anything he says.

If you have any complaints about my responses then argue with me, don't just whine. What do you disagree with precisely??

[thaiboxerken]

I wouldn't bother arguing with Ian, once you've pointed out all of his fallacies, he'll just keep repeating them or call you a "moron".

Ian is like the guy discussed in the original post who is declaring himself a "true scientist".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I wouldn't bother arguing with Ian, once you've pointed out all of his fallacies, he'll just keep repeating them or call you a "moron".

Ian is like the guy discussed in the original post who is declaring himself a "true scientist".

Scarcely. His friend is very vague and imprecise, and it's unclear what he is saying. I don't think I can be accused of that.

[TLN]

It's funny how you and TC can call my ignorant and tell me to take calsses...

yet neither of you can define the "philosophy" of science.

It's amusing how quickly you turn to insults (classic Ian) when backed into a corner.

Define the "philosophy" of science. TC, see if you can do this with posting links, but on your own. But don't call me ignorant if you can define your own terms.

[Donn]

I live in South Africa where telephone time is obnoxiously costly - I pay a lot of money for my 2 days online over the weekend.
This is why I am a little rushed and thus irked by the nature of discussion on this thread.

I don't mean to be rude, but I have such a short window of opportunity and I cannot really afford the bandwidth for a bunch of noise and flames.

Have I chosen the wrong sub-forum, can you suggest another place where I might get real feedback on my topic?

Ian - respect, peace, philosophy of science - whatever. Great. Fantastic. Fabuluous. So very interesting. Can you relate it directly to my requests for help in a reply to the CT?
If not please post elsewhere.

Anyone else on this board?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Donn
I live in South Africa where telephone time is obnoxiously costly - I pay a lot of money for my 2 days online over the weekend.
This is why I am a little rushed and thus irked by the nature of discussion on this thread.

I don't mean to be rude, but I have such a short window of opportunity and I cannot really afford the bandwidth for a bunch of noise and flames.

Have I chosen the wrong sub-forum, can you suggest another place where I might get real feedback on my topic?

Ian - respect, peace, philosophy of science - whatever. Great. Fantastic. Fabuluous. So very interesting. Can you relate it directly to my requests for help in a reply to the CT?
If not please post elsewhere.

Anyone else on this board?

They'll be arguments and disputes wherever you go. That's the lifeblood of forums and newsgroups, otherwise they would quickly die. People on the whole welcome my presence on this board even though I'm not a skeptic.

As to your reply I suggest that you ask him what he means.

[thaiboxerken]

Here are a few comments I have about your friend's essay.


"I have put it before, to many-a-sceptic, today's 'Science' is NO better than a dogmatic religion, along with all it's vices (if you don't believe me, just compare some of the reactions of some of today's so-called 'scientists' to that of fundamentalist religious fanatics when their belief-system is perceived to be 'under attack')... this statement should also NOT be seen as a forthright
judgement over the many True Scientists among us today and the many True Scientists that have in the past contributed to our society. Indeed, the original meaning of the meaning of a Scientist is A Seeker of Truth."

I'd ask him for examples of such "fundamental scientists".

"A True Scientist Questions Everything and Dismisses Nothing (to believe that his and other's perceptions of reality are perfect could be arrogant in the (extreme)"

This is his own false opinion about "true scientists". Scientists will often dismiss things that have been shown to be false.

"How is it therefore that what many 'scientists' of today find
themselves dismissing many ideas and concepts MORE than accepting them as
possibility? "

Because many concepts and ideas are just plain absurd. They fly in the face of what is currently known and rarely have any evidence to support the assertions. This is a burden of evidence problem, those that make silly claims should back them up or prepare to be dismissed.

"How is this, I ask, different from a fundamental religious
fanatic going around calling everything that disagrees with his doctrine
"Evil!"?"

Because scientists based their "dismissals" on evidence and reality, not a silly book or belief. Scientists will occasionally entertain weird claims, but if those claims come with no evidence, it's just a waste of time.

"It boils down to a fundamental matter of an attitude of Limitation verses Limitlessness and Positivity verses Negativity. Which one do You chose?"

This is a false dichotomy, each claim is different and all have different levels of absurdity. If I claim that I can jump 3 feet in the air, it's totally different than if I claim that I can shoot laser beams out of my arse. It comes down to a fundamental matter of belief or skepticism. Comparing what is known with what is being presented is a good philosophy. Sometimes what is being presented will change what is known, but this is done using science.

"I have personally dealt with agents of some Illuminati groups;...."

Who are "they"? Names and evidence please.

[Donn]

Thanks TBK, all good points.

Have I got this bit right:

"Indeed the Domain of Science truly isn't an exclusive field and no-one has a
monopoly over it,
------------------------
D> This much is true.
------------------------
even though there are many today who actively present
themselves as 'scientists', when in actual fact they are monopolists who
seek dominion and control of True Science and 'superiority' over others
along with Their own generational dogma
------------------------
D> Ok here you start to introduce some CT topics.
You set up a strawman called 'scientists' and then you tear them down as monopolists etc.
You then invent a new term called "True Science" in preparation of shifting the virtues of truth and honesty to it just now."

And:

"today's 'Science' is NO better than a dogmatic religion..."
-------------------------
D>I would say that your "True Science"(TS) (or pseudoscience)(PS) is "no better" (another way of phrasing a direct comparison) than a religion because:
1. It, by your own words, doesn't really need evidence and when there is some (darn that inconvenient stuff) then it can be looked at in any degree of 'strictness' that the TS cares to.

2. The metaphysical overtones of TS/PS place it well within the remit of religion - where Faith is the major vice. Don't question, accept the given doctrine (of crystals, stargates, vibrations et al) and this whole thing will just "work". Start to demand proof or evidence to backup your faith and suddenly the TS/PS church do not want you in their flock anymore. Or, you simply splinter off a church of your own and press on.

3. You look for as much evidence as you can with selective intention. Study the numbers that will 'prove' your theory, ignore all the rest. This is just like religious scientists looking for the 'historical Jesus' or Noah's Ark.
This is like trying to work on the great puzzle by forcing your pieces to fit into what's already there, and, if failing, you simply dismiss the legitimate pieces and distort the pattern.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Donn
Hello again, tis I.
I hope this board does not get frustrated with me posting the stuff I receive in my email!
I am looking for comment and to learn from the way the logic is pulled apart.
I want to see the process of Skeptical Analysis being applied to this kind of writing.
I hope you enjoy this, it's typical of the stuff I am getting and I feel a little, well, spooked by it and I want to satisfy myself that my inner suspicion is that this is total bunk - only it's so slick and this chap is so very practised.
Here goes...
---------------------------



Yeah, he's practiced, however polishing turds will get him nowhere.



The Bigger Picture, etc:
Most people are very weary of conspiracy theorists, mostly because they are
very radical in their views and virtually always go against the 'accepted
norm'. In fact, most people have a kind of dismissal trigger that goes off
whenever they even hear the word 'conspiracy', with no help from the
conspiracy theorists here. From an informed perspective, most conspiracy
theorists who like to tackle things from a scientific perspective can be
proven wrong since they often tend to overlook other potential reasonable
explanations other than their often-narrow view of things. The views of
most conspiracy theorists can surely NOT be called 'balanced'.




This is a great tactic, write something that people can agree with in order to cast a pallor of "truth" onto the rest of the essay. This is pretty common in sales and political speeches.





I am no conspiracy theorist - as I prefer to include as many tangible facts
within my perceptual experience of something. I am NOT interested in plain
theories and conjecture without any tangible substance (that gets nobody
anywhere). Indeed, the Evidence is what matters. [Interestingly enough,
Evidence is subjective for most people... and quite so, the 'weight of
evidence' will vary from person-to-person and society-to-society; a concept
that is NOT too foreign in the practise of Law in all civilized cultures
around our planet].



How is evidence subjective? A fingerprint is a fingerprint. DNA is DNA, no matter where you go. An eyewitness is an eyewitness in Nebraska or Nepal.

In China, it is said that the faintest ink is better than the best memory and in the western world we agree and provide stenographers and video cameras to keep a permanant record.

And notice that he capitalizes "evidence". As if all evidence is created equal. No, it is not. A fingerprint in the victim's blood is much better evidence than a eyewitness who saw someone who looked like you twenty feet from the crime scene.




For a Scientist, indeed, the measure of evidence should
be strict; however, it should NOT be so strict as to cause barriers within
the mind of the Scientist himself... at the very least, the Scientist should
be aware of this should he or she wish to make significant progress or any
great advance in his/her field of Science (and until Scientists stop
limiting Themselves, they will have to continue to rely upon most new
discoveries happening by 'accident').



Define "strict". Scientists limit themselves to that which can be tested and compared. Is that too strict?

New discoveries are not made by accident. Even if the discovery is unexpected, scientists make it through systematic testing to prove or disprove an hypothesis. They make these unexpected discoveries by using the strict methods that scientists should use.





At Heart, I am a Scientist and indeed I call myself a Scientist whether or
not I have a piece of paper to 'show for anything' (something that others
who call themselves scientists would prefer as a means of categorisation) as
it certainly is NOT the piece of paper that makes the Scientist (look up the
term in a dictionary). [Yes, the definition of a Scientist can be argued to
be a matter of semantics, however, unfortunately, it has also become an
issue of trust due to the lack of honour prevalent in our society.]



That "piece of paper" shows that the person was willing to put in the hours needed to learn the basics.

Here's the definition in dictionary.com

"A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science."

How does one know whether or not someone has expert knowledge? Through the documentation of that study. That piece of paper is that documentation. It says that the holder has aquired expert knowledge in that field.

However it does not say that this person should be taken on his authority no matter what.




Indeed
the Domain of Science truly isn't an exclusive field and no-one has a
monopoly over it, even though there are many today who actively present
themselves as 'scientists', when in actual fact they are monopolists who
seek dominion and control of True Science and 'superiority' over others
along with Their own generational dogma - today usually the ones shouting
the loudest about 'how right they are and how wrong some other Scientist
might be' or whom have the greatest on-going media exposure.


Now we get the inkling of the conspiracy theory. Again giving a shallowly correct statement that science isn't an exclusive field. It isn't an exclusive field, however, science does demand a certain amount of discipline and work. If one isn't willing to put the effort in, then he or she cannot say that he or she is a scientist.

Next, he calls scientists "monopolists who seek dominion and control of True Science" What is True Science? The author has never answered this question.

As for monopolists, anybody who puts in the hard work is welcome to join. And if you really have the evidence to overthrow a theory, they would welcome you to bring it.





As I have put
it before, to many-a-sceptic, today's 'Science' is NO better than a dogmatic
religion, along with all it's vices (if you don't believe me, just compare
some of the reactions of some of today's so-called 'scientists' to that of
fundamentalist religious fanatics when their belief-system is perceived to
be 'under attack')



This is an old canard of science as religion. Of course, you realize that if scientists didn't defend their work that they would be seen as "stuck up in their ivory towers"

The passionate presentation of evidence is not the same as the defense of a belief system that is obviously flawed.



... this statement should also NOT be seen as a forthright
judgement over the many True Scientists among us today and the many True
Scientists that have in the past contributed to our society. Indeed, the
original meaning of the meaning of a Scientist is A Seeker of Truth.

A True Scientist Questions Everything and Dismisses Nothing (to believe that
his and other's perceptions of reality are perfect would be arrogant in the
extreme). How is it therefore that what many 'scientists' of today find
themselves dismissing many ideas and concepts MORE than accepting them as
possibility? How is this, I ask, different from a fundamental religious
fanatic going around calling everything that disagrees with his doctrine
"Evil!"?



The author creates his own definition of "True Scientist" and expects us to accept it on his authority. And let's look at the definition.

"A True Scientist ...dismisses nothing" How can a scientist dismiss nothing? You might as well say to a sculptor not to chisel away stone to create a statue. Scientists must dismiss the experiments that do not work. They must dismiss hypothesis that cannot bear the weight of evidence. If they cannot dismiss nothing, then they would be stalled in their progress, bogged down by the weight of what does not work.

The reason why scientists came up with double blind testing is because scientists know that they are prone to fallible thinking as much as everybody else.

And scientists often dismiss their own ideas and concepts more than anyone else's. A religionist will never say, "I was wrong, let's go back and try this again."

A scientist will often say that. They will try to find flaws in their work before anyone else can. If they don't, other scientists will try to find those flaws. Every scientific theory today has someone or several someones searching for its flaws. This onslaught is the strength of science, not a weakness.




It boils down to a fundamental matter of an attitude of Limitation verses
Limitlessness and Positivity verses Negativity. Which one do You chose?



I have a simpler choice, what works verses what doesn't.

Going with what doesn't work is very limiting, you are bogged down with all these old notions that you must study over and over again and can never dismiss. Kind of like a sculptor who must not remove any stone from a block, ever.

Positivity versus negativity? What is more negative: that you must continue to study hypothesis that do not work or that you study what actually works and find more things that do work?





Another bit of impetus as backing for what I say, for whatever it is worth
to you or anyone reading this, is the fact that, unlike the conspiracy
theorists, I have personally dealt with agents of some Illuminati groups;
both directly and indirectly and therefore have no question in my mind that
these organisations do indeed exist, and exist at the very highest levels of
government... because I have had a taste of just who these people are and
how they operate there are some things that I am aware of, and this also
connects to another aspect of what I am involved in, which if I had to go
around telling people I would be labelled delusional and paranoid. I am
neither, and let me tell you: Nothing compares to just how paranoid They
are, especially these days.


Who are the Illumanati? I'm sorry, but every criminal conspiracy, no matter how high it goes, gets exposed and with exposure names are named.

Buried bodies are recovered, not all, but enough so you know that something is afoot. Often very important bodies like the Romanovs.

Evidence is always left behind of meetings et. If archeologists can reconstruct life a few millinia ago through refuse heaps, surely we'd be able to find something by now.

If you know illumanati agents, name names and tell us where the bodies are buried, where they met so we can have some evidence.




Yes, I am quite aware that there is INDEED a great manipulation of world
governments, medicine (I know several medical doctors who will agree with
me), science, educational institutions, world events, politics and
(especially) the media.



Name those doctors who agree, please. Who is doing the manipulation and how? Reread the above.




Truth is NOT difficult to twist if one has the
power and 'seeming' authority to do so.
What amazes me is that most people know that 99% of politicians are
self-serving, dishonourable, power-hungry people who really don't have
anyone else's best interest except their own at heart; and yet they find it
difficult to believe that these same people (who are always wealthy) get
together and amongst themselves and other influential groups and do whatever
they can to strengthen and promote Their agendas? They certainly DO, and
yet sadly this is only the tip of the Iceberg...
Anyway, I am NOT here to prove anything to anyone or to make any specific
point! (unless there is a dire need for it or I am asked about my opinion,
in which case I will do what I can to convey it as clearly as possible).



Tell us something we don't know. I'm sorry but people who seek power and wealth will get together and use it. Probably to acquire more wealth and power.

Even people who don't have wealth will get together and use what power they can, look at the Martin Luther King's bus boycott. They weren't wealthy people, they had no social status, but they used the small amount of power they had to change their situation.




Nobody can 'prove' anything to you unless you chose to prove it to yourself.

This is an interesting quote from a guy trying to convince us of things like "True Scientists" and the "Illumanati"

Notice how he shifts the burden of proof to the questioner. The author makes the assertions, the author back the assertions.

The basic question to the author should be, "why should we believe you?"




I do NOT know how anyone can call this World 'natural', 'normal' or
'healthy'. It has been very UNHEALTHY for a very long time...

Anyway, this is just my perspective... It wasn't supposed to turn into an
essay, like it almost did! ...and the Iceberg doesn't get any smaller.


Define "unhealthy".

And it's just his perspective, the defense of the lack of evidence. "I've spouted enough fertilizer to grow an impressive crop, but it's just my perspective so I don't have bring any evidence to the table."

See the basic question: "why should we believe you?"

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN
It's funny how you and TC can call my ignorant and tell me to take calsses...


I didn't call you ignorant. I simply gave some resources so you could study up if you wanted to.


yet neither of you can define the "philosophy" of science.


Your point is... ? We need to provide you with our personal definitions or you've 'won' the debate or until you can even discuss the philosophy of science? I don't think so. Others sources can provide better definitions that I can.


Define the "philosophy" of science. TC, see if you can do this with posting links, but on your own.


Sorry. I fail to be impressed by such tactics. We're on the internet here and you are trying to make it so I can't post links? heh.

This link has a good description though: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_sci_index.htm. My definition would simply be a paraphrase of it.


But don't call me ignorant if you can define your own terms.


As mentioned I didn't call you ignorant. Second, 'philosophy of science' surely isn't my term, as it has been around for a long, long time.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Scarcely. His friend is very vague and imprecise, and it's unclear what he is saying. I don't think I can be accused of that.
Can I just say "unchanging self"?:D

[Donn]

dmarker - great comments thanks.
I like your examples such as fingerprints and DNA.
I also enjoyed
"A True Scientist ...dismisses nothing" How can a scientist dismiss nothing? You might as well say to a sculptor not to chisel away stone to create a statue. Scientists must dismiss the experiments that do not work. They must dismiss hypothesis that cannot bear the weight of evidence. If they cannot dismiss nothing, then they would be stalled in their progress, bogged down by the weight of what does not work.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by dmarker

How is evidence subjective? A fingerprint is a fingerprint. DNA is DNA, no matter where you go. An eyewitness is an eyewitness in Nebraska or Nepal.[/B]
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with that, fingerprints and DNA is objective (though they can have various quality), but I don't see how you can objectively determine the reliability of a witness.

[cbish]

Donn

I feel terrrible that your thread got hammered this way. The only thing I can suggest is take away what you need and discard all the rest. You had a good thread! Please feel free to ask questions here.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Correa Neto

See? No need for sophisticated discussions on what is the philosophy of scence and similar.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No need at all? :(

When it comes to the issue in question, no. Its OT. Better leave that to another thread, but this is my humble personal opinion.

Donn, the person with whom you are exchanging opinions demonstrates ignorance and prejudice. First of all, he should understadn that we are all humans, ans subject to the same mistakes. A scientist, regardless of his/hers field may commit great errors and mistakes. He/she may maintain a completely baseless position just because thats his or hers pet theory/hipothesis. Sure, there are cases when one single voice withstood a lot of flak, and after some time, managed to prove he/she was right.

A biologist, an engineer, a cosmologist, a reporter, they all deal with data sets. As anyone with a basic knoweledge of statistics (or a bit of common sense) will tell you, all sets of data contain spurious data. They are generated by unrelated phenomena, equipment glitches, background noise, operational errors, etc. So, scientists can not dismiss nothing. Data sets, as well as failed hipothesis are dismissed. It is relatively common to hear things like- "but the current views of stabilished science does not explain why the data from *add data set and source here*".

In some cases the "spurious data points" are relevant and may result on dumping an hipothesis, but quite often they are just that- spurious, due to one of the reasons pointed above. People that are not used to the issue in question may see this as a flaw. Sometimes they just don't know, for example, that the given "anomalous or unexplained data" has been explained or debunked.

And these people, when cornered and left with nothing but an empty hand go for the traditional attack (or defense) against what they label "conventional science".

When he claims that " 'Science' is NO better than a dogmatic
religion, along with all it's vices"he is agin showing ignorance when it comes to scientific methodology. A sacred text is seen as the truth. It can not be denied, it can not be tested. Science is based on data. Data, and the theories and hipothesis based on data can be (and are) tested and questioned. Show a data set that deems a given theory as wrong, and the theory goes to the waste bucket. The Bible is never questioned, for example, because it is the word of God. Among other things, there was an universal deluge and the Sun stopped to rotate around the Earth because its written there.

"Scientist is A Seeker of Truth"- nice sentence. So I ask, why should the truth be as you think it is? What evidence are you using to cast the truth? Do you really know how to handle the evidence? Are you being completely impartial when considering a theroy, hipothesis or data set? To me, this guy sees as truth only his particular conception of thruth.

"it certainly is NOT the piece of paper that makes the Scientist " I disagree. Nowdays its quite hard or even impossible to be a scientist without a diploma.

Witnesses are a big problem. There are several studies demonstrating how unreliable they can be. That's one of the reasons why witnesses reports of UFOs, ghosts and mysterious animals, among other things are not usually taken in to account.

"I have personally dealt with agents of some Illuminati groups;"OK... Sorry, but I just can't take this seriously. Here's the truth- this is an Iluminati forum. We are all iluminati or agents from the Iluminati. Now that you know the truth, I will give you two chouces, death (you will die now but with the knoweledge of the truth) or the neuralizer used by the MIB (you will forget all of this but will be allowed to carry on with your life).

[Donn]

Heh, Neto you have a fine turn of phrase!

Thanks for the sugestions that have been posted. I have been taking bits from the good ones.
I guess I just chose a bad weekend for it - must be a flamers public holiday or something like that!

:o

[Donn]

Corea - thanks for a great post. After reading it I have reflected on my response to the CT and I wonder if I should reply at all.
What is my duty? To combat the silly nonsense and possibly incur his wrath or to simply be polite and disdain to get into further debate?

I think he may be delusional and maybe if his back is against the wall he may have to take me on with all he's got...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Originally posted by Correa Neto

See? No need for sophisticated discussions on what is the philosophy of scence and similar.



quote:Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No need at all?



When it comes to the issue in question, no. Its OT.



Oh for Chr*st sake! Have you no sense of humour??




Better leave that to another thread, but this is my humble personal opinion.



I think you should mind your own business is my humble personal opinion and not be such an obnoxious ar*sehole.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Donn
[B]Corea - thanks for a great post. After reading it I have reflected on my response to the CT and I wonder if I should reply at all.



I told you, why don't you ask what he means?? It's quite clear that no-one on here knows what he means given that everyone keeps making up what he said, including you.


What is my duty? To combat the silly nonsense and possibly incur his wrath or to simply be polite and disdain to get into further debate?


I think he may be delusional



Yeah, but at least he might not be a loony.

"spooky" :rolleyes: LMAO!

[Donn]

Here endeth
the thread.
Interesting Ian
killed it dead.
He's but a simian
with an open head.



:(

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Donn
Here endeth
the thread.
Interesting Ian
killed it dead.
He's but a simian
with an open head.



:(

A*sewipe features.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by cbish
Donn

I feel terrrible that your thread got hammered this way.

Do you have a problem with any of my contributions???

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by dmarker

Original author
I am no conspiracy theorist - as I prefer to include as many tangible facts
within my perceptual experience of something. I am NOT interested in plain
theories and conjecture without any tangible substance (that gets nobody
anywhere). Indeed, the Evidence is what matters. [Interestingly enough,
Evidence is subjective for most people... and quite so, the 'weight of
evidence' will vary from person-to-person and society-to-society; a concept
that is NOT too foreign in the practise of Law in all civilized cultures
around our planet].


dmarker
How is evidence subjective? A fingerprint is a fingerprint. DNA is DNA, no matter where you go. An eyewitness is an eyewitness in Nebraska or Nepal.

In China, it is said that the faintest ink is better than the best memory and in the western world we agree and provide stenographers and video cameras to keep a permanant record.

And notice that he capitalizes "evidence". As if all evidence is created equal. No, it is not. A fingerprint in the victim's blood is much better evidence than a eyewitness who saw someone who looked like you twenty feet from the crime scene.



All our experiences are a result of interpretation, of low level theory. It is quite clearly the case that, depending on ones background assumptions, evidence will be viewed in a differing light. So I see nothing wrong with what the original author said here.

[asthmatic camel]

Oh dear, Interesting Ian goes off on one yet again. It's a shame really, an obviously clever chap without any proof to support his position other than intellectual games.

Come on Ian, get that planet-sized brain in gear and show us just one, just one incident that is conclusive proof of the existence of the paranormal.

You claim that the evidence for life after death is compelling. I disagree; the recent tests asking those who have had "O.O.B.E.s" to determine messages written on cards which could not have been viewed otherwise have failed.

I'd be interested to know whether you turned to philosophy in an attempt to justify preconceived beliefs, or whether philosophy caused you to believe the improbable and unprovable.

[cbish]

Ian wrote:

Do you have a problem with any of my contributions???

No, I just get tired of off topic petty bickering. It's not just you. There seems to be combinations of people who jump in on threads and start peeing on each others leg.:(

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by
It is quite clearly the case that, depending on ones background assumptions, evidence will be viewed in a differing light.
So we should be able to have, say, a feminist biology with no cells? Or, perhaps, there should be a dualist science with proof of spirits? We should also never have experienced the great classic surpises of science, should we? How does this claim possibly explain Rutherford's gold foil experiment? How does it possibly explain Margulie's discovery that mitochondria were actually separate organisms that eventually became organelles?

[Donn]

Thanks Bill, I am off to google Rutherford and Margulie!

I know that evidence is not relative (as he suggests), but good, fighting reasons why are pretty thin on my ground; hence my thanks for your examples.
Now I just gotta read up on 'em.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by TLN
[B]

Exactly.

Ian, there's no "philosophy" of science that I'm aware of.

Yes, you have shown your ignorance more than once already. We get it. You've never heard of the philosophy of science.

Now, care to take the time to educate yourself instead of just being hostile to Ian?

The philosophy of science is not a 'theory', it's a branch of philosophy. It considers such questions as Ian suggested. In University I took a class called "Philosophy of Science", we studied works by Kuhn, Popper, Carnap, Quine amongst others I cannot remember right now. It is a large branch of philosophy that was particularily active throughout the 20th century.

If you want to know more, google "philosophy of science".

Ian's description was one normally given. The philosophy of science discusses such questions as he gave.

Sheesh.

Adam

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by TLN
It's funny how you and TC can call my ignorant and tell me to take calsses...

yet neither of you can define the "philosophy" of science.

It's amusing how quickly you turn to insults (classic Ian) when backed into a corner.

Define the "philosophy" of science. TC, see if you can do this with posting links, but on your own. But don't call me ignorant if you can define your own terms.

You are clearly still misuderstanding at this point. It is not a "philosophy" of science that Ian is talking about. As he's said more than once, he's talking about "philosophy of science". A chunk of philosophical studies. Just like there is epistomology, the "philosophy of knowledge", which studies theories of knowledge, justification, what makes a statement 'true', what 'true' means, etc...

You seem to be thinking that Ian is talking about there being a particular "philosophy" which "science" adheres to, this is not what he was talking about at all.

Adam

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Donn
Thanks Bill, I am off to google Rutherford and Margulie!

I know that evidence is not relative (as he suggests), but good, fighting reasons why are pretty thin on my ground; hence my thanks for your examples.
Now I just gotta read up on 'em.

Donn,

A correction to my typo: That should have been "Margulis." Her full name is Lynn Margulis.

[Donn]

Yeah - I got corrected by Google; it suggested "Margulis" instead. Amazing engine!

[Quasi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Donn,

A correction to my typo: That should have been "Margulis." Her full name is Lynn Margulis.

Edited to add: Quite a lady, I met her many times and took a class she taught in my undergrad days.

Getting back to the philosophy of science, look up Karl Popper. I could not presennt it better myself. As for logical fallacies, http://skepdic.com is a great place to read about logic.

Oh, and anyone claiming to be something where they have no experience or education is probably more than a few cards short of a deck. Science is heavily math and logic based. Further, science builds on itself, so without education or experience, you have absolutely no clue what you are doing and will merely reinvent the wheel over and over. Just because someone can eloquently put together an article does not mean anything. Look at the content and ignore the charismatic nonsense. The same goes for politicians, and one thing they left out is that the politicians in power in a democracy are a reflection of the voters who put them there- got ignorant voters who believe some silver tongue charismatic white male who went to Harvard or Yale? Guess what, that is what you will get. So once again, the alternative crowd is avoiding any discussion of personal responsibility.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

TBK beats up believers by the hundreds!

[Keneke]

Sorry to come in late. I just have one thing to point out:


I have personally dealt with agents of some Illuminati groups

Um, yeah. Leaving now.