Why many scientists are so ignorant

[Schmelzer]

I'm for real that freedom of science is important. And that part of freedom of science is that any theory, however dubious, can be proposed and discussed.

Do you think that proponents of scientific theories rejected by the mainstream should be imprisoned?

So you have come here, to a site full of Americans with no such limitations on the damaging nonsense they can spout, and direct information on the topic (ancestors who liberated the camps, eyewitness accounts, childhood neighbors who had survived Dachau, etc), and lives far from the German government, to become better informed? Why no.

Indeed, no. This particular historical question is not that interesting for me. For me, all the participating sides in WW II are horrible war criminals anyway, and Germany the worst of them anyway too.

Instead, you make assessments of reality based on your presumptions in dealing with propaganda - one error leading to another, the entire lineage taking you into delusion. You leave physical reality behind, and spin little fantasies of what could be in front of dozens of people who know better.

No, I make no claims about the history of that time. I do not "spin little fantasies". I openly say that I'm not sure, because I have no reason to believe the mainstream variant and not interested enough to study this problem in detail. The only point I care about is freedom of science today.

But everybody else's is. So if you don't trust the German ones, why pay any attention to them - when you have so many others not afflicted with State cooties?

If you want to claim that Holocaust denial is forbidden only in Germany, you are wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial Add the Zündel case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial were living in Canada and US has not saved Zündel from ending in German prison.

Whatever, I do not think it would be impossible or difficult for me to find reliable sources. But it would require a lot of time, as usual in politically distorted sciences.

Meanwhile, there is a thread of Zen teaching that values careful and rigorous study of philosophy, not because it is necessarily valuable but because it is inevitable - if you don't acquire competence in it, you will be victimized by your incompetence in it.
This has also been said of economics, and as alertly: officials and political powers who do not study economics will be victimized by their incompetent economic presumptions.

So, you see, there are more important things to study, beyond the history of some 12 year period in German history of the last century, where I do not expect to learn anything new, given that I despise this regime as extremely rouge anyway, with or without Holocaust.

PS: I'm very sorry about all this off-topic, but, sorry, I simply defend myself against defamations.

 

[Schmelzer]

But common sense itself is a vague term. It cannot be defined because we are all distinct and different individuals with different sets of beliefs and different levels of intelligence and education and interpretation of the data placed before us. What one might consider common sense, another might consider absolute rubbish. And that is all based on one's education and beliefs.

I agree, "common sense" is, unfortunately, extremely vague.

What I think would be a consistent meaning would be that "common sense" is the set of ideas shared by almost everybody. But then this cannot be particular beliefs or theories, but it has to be restricted to the usual ways of reasoning. Logic, plausible reasoning, rules to evaluate the power of arguments.

There are people (Dawkins is one of my bete noires in this regard) who try to elevate science to the status of a religion. That I would agree is very silly and inappropriate.

I think this is not fair to Dawkins.

 

[Bells]

I agree, "common sense" is, unfortunately, extremely vague.

What I think would be a consistent meaning would be that "common sense" is the set of ideas shared by almost everybody. But then this cannot be particular beliefs or theories, but it has to be restricted to the usual ways of reasoning. Logic, plausible reasoning, rules to evaluate the power of arguments.

I would say that common sense would dictate that denying the deaths of millions of people shows a distinct lack of common sense. But that is just me. The Holocaust is not just a particular belief or theory. It is a fact. Proven the the hundreds of mass graves, eye witness accounts of survivors and the perpetrators of the atrocity, evidence left behind of what was committed.. To question or deny that shows a lack of reasoning.

But that's just me..

And in case you are curious. The sneering disdain in my response to you is not implied or imagined.

 

[Yazata]

I agree, "common sense" is, unfortunately, extremely vague.

What I think would be a consistent meaning would be that "common sense" is the set of ideas shared by almost everybody.

I agree with that.

But then this cannot be particular beliefs or theories

I think that some propositional beliefs can be called common sense: Drinking water is a solution to thirst. Falling from heights causes injuries. Fluids need to be contained in vessels with closed bottoms if the fluid is to be retained. Being naked can become uncomfortable then the weather turns cold. Human beings everywhere on Earth have probably agreed on most of them throughout history. But I guess that I agree that none of these beliefs are really theoretical in any scientific sense. They are more like rules of thumb derived from our living in a world like this one.

but it has to be restricted to the usual ways of reasoning. Logic, plausible reasoning, rules to evaluate the power of arguments.

Yes, that's another category of common sense, and a fascinating and extremely important one too. Logical deduction and plausible reasoning (things like inductive reasoning and abductive inference to the 'best explanation') do seem to be innate modes of thought in human beings. They are what's referred to when people speak of man being a 'rational animal'. I'm inclined to think that things like mathematics (and theoretical physics by extension) may depend on intuition to a larger degree than many people want to acknowledge.

Other examples of this more innate and intuitive kind of common sense might include most people's innate social instincts of fairness and 'golden rule' reciprocity. A great deal of ethics is an elaboration of things like that.

 

[Schmelzer]

I would say that common sense would dictate that denying the deaths of millions of people shows a distinct lack of common sense. The sneering disdain in my response to you is not implied or imagined.

A nice way to defame in a quite innocent form.

And I think, it is common sense, that it is not very moral behavior to defame somebody as a denier after he has clarified that he does not deny the Holocaust, considers it as quite plausible that the Holocaust has happened, but only refused to make definitive statements about this, given that he has not studied this in detail.

 

[origin]

And I think, it is common sense, that it is not very moral behavior to defame somebody as a denier after he has clarified that he does not deny the Holocaust, considers it as quite plausible that the Holocaust has happened, but only refused to make definitive statements about this, given that he has not studied this in detail.

Do you also think that it is quite plausible that World War II occurred? Have you studied it in detail so that you feel you can make any definitive statements as to the veracity of said war?

 

[danshawen]

http://theweek.com/articles/443656/how-botched-understanding-science-ruins-everything

Both Bill Nye and Neil Tyson both have backgrounds associated with the late Carl Sagan:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/watch-bill-nye-reminisce-about-carl-sagans-college-ast-1548961117
http://www.openculture.com/2014/04/...-to-17-year-old-neil-degrasse-tyson-1975.html

Nye took an astronomy course with Sagan. Tyson was inspired early in his young career by receiving a personal letter from Sagan.

So, if, as Bells has pointed out, that most of Carl Sagan's most famous writings involved philosophy of science, why would both Nye and Tyson go on record as dissing philosophy?

Science is all about the trial and error. What we think we understand is determined by performing experiments based on observation of a problem we don't have a complete understanding about.

Pseudoscience doesn't come close to scaffolding as well as established science does for the purposes of investigating new science, and this is understood well enough to know bad science whenever and wherever we see it.

But how would anyone know if something was genuine philosophy or some pseudo-philosophy? Because philosophy doesn't really scaffold any better than a stack of hula hoops, that's why. It's all about semantics and definitions, and circular reasoning all endlessly picked apart in a manner befitting a study in morality facilitated by a a background in law.

Mind you, I'm not saying that philosophy useless, although I agree with most of what Nye said in that short clip. But philosophy is manifestly not the same endeavor as science.

Karl Popper was trying to make sense of a philosophy of science and came up with Natural Selection as a model rather than induction. I think he was probably right, but science without induction is going to cripple experimentation because you won't be able to use any of the instruments that have made what we know a science in the first place.

I think my one semester Philosophy 101 course would have been best left for the law and humanity students. I never found any of it in the slightest way useful in my long and successful engineering career.

However I would still be interested in two topics that were conveniently omitted from my introductory philosophy 101 course which should have been nearer the top of the syllabus:

1) the nature of truth, and
2) the taxonomy of ignorance (yes, there is such a thing)

 

[river]

http://theweek.com/articles/443656/how-botched-understanding-science-ruins-everything

Both Bill Nye and Neil Tyson both have backgrounds associated with the late Carl Sagan:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/watch-bill-nye-reminisce-about-carl-sagans-college-ast-1548961117
http://www.openculture.com/2014/04/...-to-17-year-old-neil-degrasse-tyson-1975.html

Nye took an astronomy course with Sagan. Tyson was inspired early in his young career by receiving a personal letter from Sagan.

So, if, as Bells has pointed out, that most of Carl Sagan's most famous writings involved philosophy of science, why would both Nye and Tyson go on record as dissing philosophy?

Science is all about the trial and error. What we think we understand is determined by performing experiments based on observation of a problem we don't have a complete understanding about.

Pseudoscience doesn't come close to scaffolding as well as established science does for the purposes of investigating new science, and this is understood well enough to know bad science whenever and wherever we see it.

But how would anyone know if something was genuine philosophy or some pseudo-philosophy? Because philosophy doesn't really scaffold any better than a stack of hula hoops, that's why. It's all about semantics and definitions, and circular reasoning all endlessly picked apart in a manner befitting a study in morality facilitated by a a background in law.

Mind you, I'm not saying that philosophy useless, although I agree with most of what Nye said in that short clip. But philosophy is manifestly not the same endeavor as science.

Karl Popper was trying to make sense of a philosophy of science and came up with Natural Selection as a model rather than induction. I think he was probably right, but science without induction is going to cripple experimentation because you won't be able to use any of the instruments that have made what we know a science in the first place.

I think my one semester Philosophy 101 course would have been best left for the law and humanity students. I never found any of it in the slightest way useful in my long and successful engineering career.

Hmmm...

What like about philosophy ; and what the scientists of the 1500's and really the Greeks ; was that they were ALL more broad Minded . The Universe was More than A Specific ology. See my point ?

 

[Schmelzer]

Do you also think that it is quite plausible that World War II occurred? Have you studied it in detail so that you feel you can make any definitive statements as to the veracity of said war?

I have enough details, inclusive personal interviews with participants, to know that WW II has happened. Moreover, I have no reason to doubt official history about this. Nobody imprisons WW II deniers.

 

[Schmelzer]

Karl Popper was trying to make sense of a philosophy of science and came up with Natural Selection as a model rather than induction. I think he was probably right, but science without induction is going to cripple experimentation because you won't be able to use any of the instruments that have made what we know a science in the first place.

In Popper's approach, there is a large place for induction: The invention of new theories. In Popper's method, you are free to invent new theories, and there is no prescription how to do this. So, induction (whatever this means) can be used if one likes. Induction is problematic only if one hopes to prove something (outside mathematics) with induction. This will fail. But if used to invent a new theory, this new theory does not have to be proven. So this is not a problem.

 

[river]

In Popper's approach, there is a large place for induction: The invention of new theories. In Popper's method, you are free to invent new theories, and there is no prescription how to do this. So, induction (whatever this means) can be used if one likes. Induction is problematic only if one hopes to prove something (outside mathematics) with induction. This will fail. But if used to invent a new theory, this new theory does not have to be proven. So this is not a problem.

Kind of contradiction ; how does one use induction without mathematics ?

 

[sweetpea]

A nice way to defame in a quite innocent form.

And I think, it is common sense, that it is not very moral behavior to defame somebody as a denier after he has clarified that he does not deny the Holocaust, considers it as quite plausible that the Holocaust has happened, but only refused to make definitive statements about this, given that he has not studied this in detail.

What form of evidence or proof would personally satisfy you that the Holocaust did happen?

 

[river]

What form of evidence or proof would personally satisfy you that the Holocaust did happen?

WHAT has this anything to do with this thread ? Nothing

Start another thread on this topic; the thread is being hyjacked and is going on a tangent. Irrlevent to this thread.

 

[sweetpea]

and is going on a tangent.

Is that a bicycle made for two?

 

[river]

Is that a bicycle made for two?

Start a new thread sweetpea and you will notice no input from me on this new thread.

 

[paddoboy]

I have enough details, inclusive personal interviews with participants, to know that WW II has happened. Moreover, I have no reason to doubt official history about this. Nobody imprisons WW II deniers.

And there is just as much details, and personal accounts, along with thousands of eye witness accounts, for any sensible person to know that the holocaust occurred with 100% certainty.
To question that in any way, shape or form, is the height of ludicrousness and suggests some warped agenda by the denier.

 

[river]

And there is just as much details, and personal accounts, along with thousands of eye witness accounts, for any sensible person to know that the holocaust occurred with 100% certainty.
To question that in any way, shape or form, is the height of ludicrousness and suggests some warped agenda by the denier.

Start a new thread pad , schmelzer and sweetpea.

If you don't I will report the lot of you ; as of the next post related to this holocaust topic.

 

[Schmelzer]

Sorry, river, for answering these off-topic defamation campaign against my person. I would also hope this defamation campaign would stop. But I think I have the right to defend myself. I would not object if the whole thread would be cleared of this defamation campaign.

What form of evidence or proof would personally satisfy you that the Holocaust did happen?

Why do you care about this? Is it important that I believe into some particular claim about the history of WW II?

By the way, it is not even clear what "the Holocaust did happen" means. Some "Holocaust deniers" do not doubt at all that a lot of Jews have been murdered, but have doubts about particular methods like the gas chambers or particular numbers. Is a history with lower numbers of Jewish victims or without gas chambers yet "Holocaust"? My personal rejection of the Nazi regime does not depend on such details at all. And therefore I see no reason to care about these details.

My personal method is very simple: If there is some alternative theory, take a look at what this alternative theory claims, which arguments are proposed. For most alternative theories, this is already the death penalty. If not, take a look at the counterarguments. I would be satisfied if this would be possible in this case too.

And there is just as much details, and personal accounts, along with thousands of eye witness accounts, for any sensible person to know that the holocaust occurred with 100% certainty.

Fine. I have not checked, and, given that I cannot even access the arguments of the deniers, I cannot even identify which parts of official history are questioned, and even less which counterarguments would be sufficient to show they are wrong.

 

[Schmelzer]

Kind of contradiction ; how does one use induction without mathematics ?

Induction in mathematics and induction in natural science are quite different things. Induction in mathematics is a precise technique to prove some theorems. Induction in natural science is a vague feeling of similarity between very different situations. Once in all similar situations similar causes have similar effects, there will be a general law that in all such situations such a cause will have such an effect.

 

[sweetpea]

WHAT has this anything to do with this thread ? Nothing..

Using a twisted science to say some races are sub-human and so allowing cruel 'experiments ' on people, as happened in the Holocaust.