Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
some steps will be excluded and some included, programmers seldom draw flow charts they "draw" programmer models instead.
So much for THE scientific method then..
some steps will be excluded and some included, programmers seldom draw flow charts they "draw" programmer models instead.
So much for THE scientific method then..
18.) - I am not "at odds with science".
Now, substituting what you posted immediately above, here I insert the relevant statement you made in post #1:1.) - I have never had any "Fear and Loathing" to convey in any way. I do not suffer those shortcomings.
2.) - I have not ever, nor do I see any reason that I would ever, "disparage" true science in any way.
3.) - I have never stated or claimed "that scientists are overly rigid, set in their ways, etc". In my OP, I clearly stated :
The operative words you used are "adherence", "rigid", "dogmatic", "written in stone" and "single". These are all words of disparagement in contradiction to (3). By definition then (2) is contradicted. That leaves (1) as a question still unexplained: what is the source of that disparagement? What attitudes (fear and loathing) are in play, and what is their root cause?My intent in Posting this information is to hopefully assuage the adherence of some to the idea that all science must follow a rigid, dogmatic or "written in stone" single "Scientific Method".
There is nothing imaginary about the above-mentioned aspersions directed at "science" (to mean "scientists"). That leaves you with the choice between "fear and loathing" vs. "phobia". Typically technophobes are not concerned with this level of complaint, so we need to coin a new word to accurately categorize your specific reaction.(responding to the question of whether you prefer the word
"phobia" ) 4.) - As far as what I would "prefer"? Well...Aqueous Id, since it seems to be your imaginary construct, you have every right to refer to your imaginary construct in any way you want to.
You haven't understood what I posted. My use of "solidarity" was in reference to a mentally healthy response to questions of scientific integrity. The healthy person would be roused to a sense of pride in this, our highest form of ethical expression. I said the antagonists are typically depraved people, generally fundamentalists, but also industrialists seeking deregulation. My statement to you was to ask: why you would wade in those waters, understanding that they are tainted by the lowest forms of human expression?Whether that "Fear and Loathing" is put into practice by a group, or "arises" in another group, either way, or indeed in any way, I do not need, nor do I have any use for any group that embraces "Fear and Loathing", regardless of any rationale or excuse for said embracing.
There is nothing deep about my posts. I am simply calling a spade a spade. All of the evidence is prima facie, taken from the plain reading of the words "adherence", "rigid", "dogmatic", "written in stone" and "single". Again, you are reversing. What you ought to be doing is furnishing evidence of "scientific dogmatism" etc., not asking me produce evidence to the contrary. I'm not the claimant; you are. The burden of evidence is on you.6.) - You use the word : evidently. Are you a Psychiatrist, Psychoanalyst or Psychologist that has been trained to analyze behavioral problems by reading On-Line Forum Posts? Would you be so kind as to Post your "evidence"?
Given that experience, we would expect you to have a love of knowledge, not to speak against it. So what went wrong?7.) - Actually I have never had any "bad experience(s)" in any of my education - I graduated early, and started my first year of college at nearly the same time time that my previous classmates were entering their Senior year of High School.
You may actually believe so, but your words express contempt for the highest of ethical behavior, characterizing it as "rigid" and "dogmatic". Hence the question: what triggered this?8.) - The paramount reason for never giving any "underlying causes" for any "anti-science stance", is that I do not have any "anti-science stance"!
That statement directly opposes the statement the idea that all science must follow a rigid, dogmatic or "written in stone" single "Scientific Method". You have thrown down the gauntlet out of some feeling of injury not yet explained. Lacking any grounds from you for feeling this way, you have relegated your readers to inferring for themselves that you hold a grudge. My idea was to excise that sentiment out of you and put on the examining table for further analysis.9.) - I cannot follow how you can state : "It stands to reason that something left you holding a grudge against science". For, as I clearly stated before, I hold no grudges against anyone or anything, including any of the Sciences.
Whether or not the emotions you express here are manifesting as problems in your personal life is way beyond the scope of my remarks and strictly between you and your advisors. I am limiting my comments to the plain meaning of the words your used, while searching for the motives behind them. Typically these are motivated by religious fundamentalism and/or solidarity with the deregulation lobbies. Since you haven't expressed these as your motives, I have assumed them not to be in play. That leaves the source of this cynicism unexplained. As I said, without stating your foundations, you left it up to the reader to assume you had a personal grudge. That was why I suggesed it might be due to childhood trauma.10.) - Regardless of how you chose to answer my point #1 ^^above^^, I suffer no emotional problems, of any kind.
You may actually believe that, but the terms you used, "adherence", "rigid", "dogmatic", "written in stone" and "single", contradict that self-assessment.11.) - I am not "being cynical".
My intent was to help you better understand my posts, and I see now that this was futile. In order for you to better understand readers, you would need to empathize with them. I specifically picked a Bible verse to test your sensitivity to the religion vs science polemic. In the case of the very wry quip "You must first remove the plank from your own eye so that you may see to remove the speck from mine" we are challenged to understand the authority from which all critical analysis springs. If the complainant can not speak from a higher ethical ground than the party he is attacking, then there is a valid question of authority which would bar him from expecting his complaints to be heard. I gave that to you as an opportunity to rise to the occasion and speak to the authority which motivates you. I wasn't interested in your credentials, only the facts that form the basis of your claims.It would seem to make as much sense as you bringing up the "splinters" and "stones" in the first place.
The status quo is that science is a form of ethical conduct expressed as the acquistion of knowledge. Therefore, characterizing learning as "dogmatic" etc is an attack on the status quo.12.) - I am not "attacking" any "status quo".
No I never said that. From the outset I asked why you would wade in those same waters. Would you disparage people on account of their color, culture, gender or disabilities? As you know there is a phenomal history of human atrocity written around such attitudes. So what is it about scientists that motivates you to single them out for criticism? Specifically, given the pathos surrounding cynical thinking, why associate with such an outlook? In celebrating our solidarity with a higher ethic (my other remark) we reinforce that "that's not who we are" (borrowing the prez's remarkable phrase). For this reason I said you should be enjoying solidarity with the good folks here rather than wading in these other waters.13.) - Regardless of any "intent" on your part, to use any "relevant philosophy from the playbook of the social conservatives, to show the irony of attacking knowledge from a position of illiteracy". What, it seems, to me at least, is that you are doing nothing but attempting in some way to make the assertion that I am Illiterate.
I think I've covered this adequately.14.) - Odd, I find it "ironic" that you would make any statement "conveying" any "irony" of any imagined "attack on science" from me, since I have never made any "attack on science".
Something has colored your beliefs about how scientists do their work. The plain word for that is "jaded". What remains to be seen is how you arrived at this conclusion. Ideally you would have laid the grounds for that in the OP.15.) - My eyes are not "jaded" by anything.
You left this is as a vague highly general assessment of all of science. That leaves the reader not only to believe you are attacking contemporaries but great minds from throughout history. Thus I am left wondering how Gauss or Maxwell were "dogmatic" or how Mendel or Darwin were "rigid" or how Einstein, Lorentz and Poincare were plauged by "adherence". Any reasonable inquiry would reveal that such folks were driven by the best virtues, talents and tenacity imaginable. They were the intellectual equivalent of decathalon athletes. So how do you arrive at the conclusion that there is a fly in the ointment? Who are the bad guys you are complaining about? Who is wronging the world by their dogmatism and rigidity? I haven't understood this at all since you haven't named any culprits.16.) - I hold no "cynicism of science", nor any "cynicism(s)" of anything. Though, it could be said that I have, of late, become somewhat weary of the "experts in every discipline that seem to frequent these on-Line Forums - yet have never, and will probably never, hold a Professional Position in any of the Disciplines that they claim to be such an expert in, and so adept at"!
That's the necessary result of "rigid" "dogmatism". I don't understand why you are retreating from this position.17.) - I have not, in any way "offer(ed) to improve the "vision" of scientists at large (the I of that statement) who you seem to think are hardened -- like stone -- so much so that they can't see straight". Please refer to my #3.) - ^^above^^.
All of my posts have been asking you that. I can't speak for the others here but there are similar ideas in their remarks.Honestly, Aqueous Id, after going back through the previous 10 Pages of this Thread, I can find no Posts, by you or any other Poster, wherein I was asked : "What in the world puts you at odds with science?"
I would beg to differ with you. Thus far you haven't said who is guilty of "rigid" "dogmatism" and just offhand I'd find it hard to believe you would pick Gauss or Poincare or any other icon of science as the poster boy for that kind of accusation. That just leaves it up to you to decide what you really mean by all of this.As you should be able to perceive, I, dmoe, do my darnedest to answer all proper, and many of the improper, questions that are asked of me.
You may not be, but your words are. Why is that?So... 18.) - I am not "at odds with science".
Now, substituting what you posted immediately above, here I insert the relevant statement you made in post #1:
My intent in Posting this information is to hopefully assuage the adherence of some to the idea that all science must follow a rigid, dogmatic or "written in stone" single "Scientific Method".
The operative words you used are "adherence", "rigid", "dogmatic", "written in stone" and "single". These are all words of disparagement in contradiction to (3). By definition then (2) is contradicted. That leaves (1) as a question still unexplained: what is the source of that disparagement? What attitudes (fear and loathing) are in play, and what is their root cause?
There is nothing imaginary about the above-mentioned aspersions directed at "science" (to mean "scientists"). That leaves you with the choice between "fear and loathing" vs. "phobia". Typically technophobes are not concerned with this level of complaint, so we need to coin a new word to accurately categorize your specific reaction.
You haven't understood what I posted. My use of "solidarity" was in reference to a mentally healthy response to questions of scientific integrity. The healthy person would be roused to a sense of pride in this, our highest form of ethical expression. I said the antagonists are typically depraved people, generally fundamentalists, but also industrialists seeking deregulation. My statement to you was to ask: why you would wade in those waters, understanding that they are tainted by the lowest forms of human expression?
There is nothing deep about my posts. I am simply calling a spade a spade. All of the evidence is prima facie, taken from the plain reading of the words "adherence", "rigid", "dogmatic", "written in stone" and "single". Again, you are reversing. What you ought to be doing is furnishing evidence of "scientific dogmatism" etc., not asking me produce evidence to the contrary. I'm not the claimant; you are. The burden of evidence is on you.
If you cannot answer that question, honestly, with a "yes", then...6.) - You use the word : evidently. Are you a Psychiatrist, Psychoanalyst or Psychologist that has been trained to analyze behavioral problems by reading On-Line Forum Posts? Would you be so kind as to Post your "evidence"?
Given that experience, we would expect you to have a love of knowledge, not to speak against it. So what went wrong?
You may actually believe so, but your words express contempt for the highest of ethical behavior, characterizing it as "rigid" and "dogmatic". Hence the question: what triggered this?
That statement directly opposes the statement the idea that all science must follow a rigid, dogmatic or "written in stone" single "Scientific Method". You have thrown down the gauntlet out of some feeling of injury not yet explained. Lacking any grounds from you for feeling this way, you have relegated your readers to inferring for themselves that you hold a grudge. My idea was to excise that sentiment out of you and put on the examining table for further analysis.
Whether or not the emotions you express here are manifesting as problems in your personal life is way beyond the scope of my remarks and strictly between you and your advisors. I am limiting my comments to the plain meaning of the words your used, while searching for the motives behind them. Typically these are motivated by religious fundamentalism and/or solidarity with the deregulation lobbies. Since you haven't expressed these as your motives, I have assumed them not to be in play. That leaves the source of this cynicism unexplained. As I said, without stating your foundations, you left it up to the reader to assume you had a personal grudge. That was why I suggesed it might be due to childhood trauma.
You may actually believe that, but the terms you used, "adherence", "rigid", "dogmatic", "written in stone" and "single", contradict that self-assessment.
My intent was to help you better understand my posts, and I see now that this was futile. In order for you to better understand readers, you would need to empathize with them. I specifically picked a Bible verse to test your sensitivity to the religion vs science polemic. In the case of the very wry quip "You must first remove the plank from your own eye so that you may see to remove the speck from mine" we are challenged to understand the authority from which all critical analysis springs. If the complainant can not speak from a higher ethical ground than the party he is attacking, then there is a valid question of authority which would bar him from expecting his complaints to be heard. I gave that to you as an opportunity to rise to the occasion and speak to the authority which motivates you. I wasn't interested in your credentials, only the facts that form the basis of your claims.
The status quo is that science is a form of ethical conduct expressed as the acquistion of knowledge. Therefore, characterizing learning as "dogmatic" etc is an attack on the status quo.
No I never said that. From the outset I asked why you would wade in those same waters. Would you disparage people on account of their color, culture, gender or disabilities? As you know there is a phenomal history of human atrocity written around such attitudes. So what is it about scientists that motivates you to single them out for criticism? Specifically, given the pathos surrounding cynical thinking, why associate with such an outlook? In celebrating our solidarity with a higher ethic (my other remark) we reinforce that "that's not who we are" (borrowing the prez's remarkable phrase). For this reason I said you should be enjoying solidarity with the good folks here rather than wading in these other waters.
I think I've covered this adequately.
Something has colored your beliefs about how scientists do their work. The plain word for that is "jaded". What remains to be seen is how you arrived at this conclusion. Ideally you would have laid the grounds for that in the OP.
You left this is as a vague highly general assessment of all of science. That leaves the reader not only to believe you are attacking contemporaries but great minds from throughout history. Thus I am left wondering how Gauss or Maxwell were "dogmatic" or how Mendel or Darwin were "rigid" or how Einstein, Lorentz and Poincare were plauged by "adherence". Any reasonable inquiry would reveal that such folks were driven by the best virtues, talents and tenacity imaginable. They were the intellectual equivalent of decathalon athletes. So how do you arrive at the conclusion that there is a fly in the ointment? Who are the bad guys you are complaining about? Who is wronging the world by their dogmatism and rigidity? I haven't understood this at all since you haven't named any culprits.
That's the necessary result of "rigid" "dogmatism". I don't understand why you are retreating from this position.
All of my posts have been asking you that. I can't speak for the others here but there are similar ideas in their remarks.
I would beg to differ with you. Thus far you haven't said who is guilty of "rigid" "dogmatism" and just offhand I'd find it hard to believe you would pick Gauss or Poincare or any other icon of science as the poster boy for that kind of accusation. That just leaves it up to you to decide what you really mean by all of this.
18.) - I am not "at odds with science".
You may not be, but your words are. Why is that?
The status quo is that science is a form of ethical conduct expressed as the acquistion of knowledge. Therefore, characterizing learning as "dogmatic" etc is an attack on the status quo.
dumbest man on earth said:Once again, Yazata, Magical Realist and exchemist, thank you.
If there are any principles arching over everything that scientists do and applicable to all of it, they are philosophical in nature - basic logic, reason and epistemology.
That basic rhetorical/epistemological principle isn't all that complicated, even if it might occasionally be rocket-science. It certainly isn't anything that's unique to science. It's something that we encounter routinely in every-day life.
But in the case of natural science, things do start to get complicated, very fast, when actual reasons for why a particular assertion is supposedly plausible are finally presented. There are apt to be all kinds of technical questions about experimental procedure. There might be deep disagreements about the nature of whatever underlying assumptions are being baked in. There might be questions about mathematical derivations, modeling, probabilities or whatever. When active disagreements exist in real-life science, scientists are often arguing about those kind of technical issues.
i know what the method is, you know what the method is, and so does dmoe.As a party to this debate, I also wish to thank the likes of Russ Watters, Trippy, leopold, Fraggle Rocker, Aqueous Id and any others I have missed.
...the reasons for posting it are not as you probably think.
The "game" here is called conversation. You lobbed the opening serve. All I did was return the ball. I'm still waiting for your volley.Since, it seems that you are "parsing" the statement, the "relevant" part of that statement - which you seem to conveniently miss, ignore or omit is: "... to hopefully assuage the adherence of some to the idea...".
1.) - Aqueous Id, please go and "play your game" with someone else. I am not bothered or upset that you "play your game", nor am I amused.
It is simply a "game" that I do not care to "play"!
Your call. You opened, not me.2.) - Did I mention "game"?
...Please refer to : 1.) - !
I answered that question. I said I was not interested in your credentials but only the facts that lead to the conclusions you opened with. I'm still waiting for you to answer me. Who is guilty of dogmatism? Where are the facts to support your claim that science is plagued by some single rigid method? If it turns out that there is no such case, then we can wrap this up, right?3.) - I did not ask if there was anything "deep about" your Posts. What I asked was:
If you cannot answer that question, honestly, with a "yes", then...
...Please refer to : 1.) - !
You precisely said scientists are "rigid" and "dogmatic". It's a bald claim, not accompanied by any facts. It's your opinion, nothing more. For some reason you feel science is broken, although in all my attempts to coax out of you your basis for forming that opinion, you still have offered no rationale for holding it.6.) - Aqueous Id - I am entirely unimpressed - with your inane attempt to put your own thoughts, ideas, problems and imaginations into my clearly and precisely worded Posts.
Yes, now you need only repeat back to me which words I am at odds with: "rigid", "dogmatic", "single (method" . . .7.) - No, Aqueous Id, I am not "at odds with science".
It seems, to me at least, that it is the "words that you Posted" that are not only at "odds with science", but are directly at "odds with" my actual words!
@ - Aqueous Id
This is to let you know that I did not put you on ignore, and to inform you of the following :
If and when you see fit to Directly Answer : # 6.) of my Post #218, on Page 11 of this Thread, we may, and I repeat , may then engage in a conversation.
Until that Direct Answer is provided, honestly and openly by you - well...
My intent in Posting this information is to hopefully assuage the adherence of some to the idea that all science must follow a rigid, dogmatic or "written in stone" single "Scientific Method".
There are, indeed, many different "methods" utilized by scientists, and they all demand rigorous testing and validation to be given any credence within the greater scientific community.
It is my firm belief that the plural form of the word "method" should be used when speaking of or referring to "The Scientific Methods"
Rather than following a single scientific method, scientists use a body of methods particular to their work. Some of these methods are permanent features of the scientific community; others evolve over time or vary from discipline include all of the techniques and principles that scientists apply in their work and in their dealings with other scientists. Thus, they encompass not only the information scientists possess about the empirical world but the knowledge scientists have about how to acquire such information.
National Academy of Sciences.
I can see that. It's easier to debunk pseudoscience if you have a proper procedure you can point to that must be rigidly followed to qualify as real science. But other standards might be invoked instead, like replicability, peer approval, and falsifiability. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on these rather than giving the impression that the scientific method is absolutely crucial to doing real science.
For the sake of extending an olive branch, I'll take a step back from that but I did want to acknowledge your many posts since you recently became active here. For any readers who may want to join in but perhaps aren't sure where to set the hook, how to launch some idea rolling around in their head, I think you serve as a good example to them: just go ahead and say it and let the chips fall where they may.If there's a nail to be hit, this post has hit it fair, square on the head! [Despite so many claims to the contrary]
I wouldn't be too bothered by it if I hadn't been sensitized to the appalling abuses and slander against scientists here in the US during the dreaded reign of George Bush and his cronies. In fact, I find it hard to believe this question would even be on the table if not for that nightmare.Science is not a religion, and is not treated like one. That is patently obvious in the changes, advances, progress that applies to science every day. The scientific theory itself attests to that.
Yeah that's for sure - if they're in that first category. I really like debating those folks. I think I should have taken my arguments with many of them to the debate threads, so as not to bother the gentler readers here, but it seems you never really know when that moment has arrived. Plus, there are usually several people in on the discussion anyway.So why do some see it as a religion??? Maybe because science is so quick to refute, invalidate and deride all the pseudoscience, quackery, nonsense religious claims, unsupported alternative theories, and conspiracies that abound on science forums in general.
I may have missed that remark. I'll go back and see if I can figure out what you're referring to. But yeah, in general this is characteristic of a lot of the folks who are quasi-trolls operating just below the radar.Then we have the closet supporters of the above.....Those that claim or insinuate that the nutters that fit into the above groups, are not given a fair go, and then insinuate parrot fashion, that "it's only a theory" and that the nutters claims are on [or should be on equal footing]
The only thing about that which gets under my skin is that "mainstream" has now become an epithet for them to sling around, and they use it in their own proprietary sense to mean "rigid", "dogmatic", that kind of thing. They superimpose this definition on top of the way it's conventionally used -- which has no such connotation -- and it poisons the thread all the more.What a lot seem to forget is that this forum first and foremost is a science forum and the scientific method applies as does the mainstream scientific views.
That's for sure. On the one hand they want to be assured that a given result is infallible and on the other hand they want evidence that it's falsifiable. Then at the same time they equate it with being false. There are all kinds of moronic games like this they play.If they are wrong, that will be shown in time, and modified. After all that is what science and the scientific method is all about.
Oh good point. I ran into this arguing over the reasons climate data had to be "calibrated" (not the exact term they use but you get my point). One person (a denialist) had a collection of data before and after the adjustments were made. He was beating on his chest proudly extolling the virtues of being a cop who had just uncovered fraud. (This is not exactly the same as what you're saying but it's close.) In a word, the data in one continuous plot look messed up until the corrections were applied. So the interpretation was that the adjustments were a cover up. But unknown to his brain dead readers was that these were different data sets from different instrument sites stitched together in a single plot. So the purpose for the corrections was to calibrate the data to a common baseline, to account for the differences in instruments (and sites). I guess that's not a great example since it shows how it unfolded in the other camp, but anyway we could go on about this for hours. All kinds of updating is going on all the time, constantly sending people back to rethink a prior interpretation. In fact I would put this in my top 10 list for "what scientists do for a living".It's not. It's the interpretation that is askew.
Yeah that the assumption from the get go. Some thing are set in concrete, you have a foundation to build from . . . but at any point if you discover something that screams at you that the foundation is tilted, you have to reconcile it. 99.999% of the time it's something else, but that 0.001% does come around.The basic common sense logical foundation of the scientific method, allows for variability. No one has ever said any different.
The problem is that irrational people don't have a very good grip on common sense. They don't trust the experts because they've been brainwashed. So even common sense comes under fire. That's what makes the US culture wars so pathetic.That is just plain rubbish and has already been commented on. All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking and common sense: [I should attribute that to someone, but I have forgotten who]
Yazata said:Here's what DMOE said in the first post in this thread.
My intent in Posting this information is to hopefully assuage the adherence of some to the idea that all science must follow a rigid, dogmatic or "written in stone" single "Scientific Method".
There are, indeed, many different "methods" utilized by scientists, and they all demand rigorous testing and validation to be given any credence within the greater scientific community.
It is my firm belief that the plural form of the word "method" should be used when speaking of or referring to "The Scientific Methods"
That looks to me to saying essentially the same thing as this more recent quote:
Rather than following a single scientific method, scientists use a body of methods particular to their work. Some of these methods are permanent features of the scientific community; others evolve over time or vary from discipline include all of the techniques and principles that scientists apply in their work and in their dealings with other scientists. Thus, they encompass not only the information scientists possess about the empirical world but the knowledge scientists have about how to acquire such information.
National Academy of Sciences.
Here I am setting in bold the question I have been seeking an answer to. If "some" are "adhering" to the "rigid, dogmatic or 'written in stone' single method" then why are they being touted here as scientists at all? By the definition I gave they don't even meet that criteria. It's this discrepancy I am trying to unravel.
So many laypeople start to think of science as if it was the highest (and perhaps the only) source of truth and authority, and think that its authority is somehow guaranteed by its possession of and adherence to some unique procedural method.
'The Scientific Method' transforms in their mind into a grand bulwark against bullshit. That suggests that if anyone is raising questions about the scientific method, then the damnable questioner must be a champion of bullshit. And that in turn can lead to what might have been interesting discussions of the philosophy of science being choked off by what amount to accusations of heresy and blasphemy.
That's how I saw it, at any rate, and it's why I stepped in to defend DMOE. I think that his basic point in the original post is defensible and quite possibly right. It's certainly something that Sciforums should be discussing thoughtfully, not shouting down. That's where I'm coming from.