Scientists and Virtue

Crunchy cat

so can one make advancement in science without being a science?

Can that question be paraphrased? It didn't quite make sense.

there are various general noble qualities associated with being open minded - the question is whether these foster being open minded

Don't know.

How do you think maliciousness and open mindedness marry as compatible disposition traits?

You can maliciously ferret out and destroy ideas that are not science while being open minded to those that are. BenTheMan's treatment of gluon's (Reiku's) ideas would be an example.
 
strikes you as a meritorious act, eh?
:D

It sure strikes me that way!:D

Bad science isn't "bad" simply because it's wrong - it's greatest impact is that of spreading false information and confusing those who would like to gain REAL knowledge and make advances.
 
Still incorrect. If it is a related field - just you stated above - they will still have considerable knowledge about it. And although unrelated fields might be a different matter, a genuine, professional scientist will STILL be light-years ahead of ANY puny pseudo-scientist. (One cannot become a real scientist without more than just a basic knowledge of ALL scientific fields of inquiry.)

True. Most pseudo scientists only make claims. Doesn't do it the scientific ways. Now a scientist can actually pick on the traces and examine the details and dig into the field. But most current day scientists doesn't do that. Instead they expect the one who has loads of limitations to come up with more convincing explanations. Which cannot happen as easy as a scientist acquiring knowledge and further inquiring into the debatable subject.

I have a very serious mental block calling the current day scientists as scientists. They lack what the older generation had - a touch of philosophy and reality. Current day ones seems more inclined towards competition and fame.
 
It sure strikes me that way!:D

Bad science isn't "bad" simply because it's wrong - it's greatest impact is that of spreading false information and confusing those who would like to gain REAL knowledge and make advances.
So I guess you would disagree that Ben is malicious by nature then, eh?
;)
 
Recently read this quote by Maurice Wilkins

To say that the essence of science is that you are always inquiring and open-minded is to say that you are in fact living a virtuous life.This, of course, refers to how the scientist ideally works; in practice, you find that it is very different.

Is open-mindedness a prerequisite for successful science?
Does open-mindedness require virtue, even for a scientist?

This is the essence and the requirement of being a up standing scientist.

To be Objective
To be Open Minded
To Seek the Truth
To be Open to Correction

If you are a Scientist and cannot live up to all these requirements then you are not a trustworthy individual in your field.
 
The terms "scientist" and "pseudo-scientist" are just labels given to people either rightly or wrongly. To say that any given scientist is more knowledgeable than any given pseudo-scientist (and whose authority labels these people anyways??), is complete conjecture - do you have any statistical evidence? I know how you "scientists" love your statistics.

Are you basing this opinion on your own experiential evidence? That's the same method a lot of theists use for their claims. :rolleyes:

But although theists employ this same method, for some reason their opinion is "stupid" and "ignorant", according to most "scientists."

A lot of "scientists" considered Nassim Haramein a quack, and some still do even after his theory that there was a black hole at the center of every galaxy was later accepted long after his prediction.

People call him a pseudo-scientist but he's one of the most genuine and true scientists that I have ever seen.

The opinions of the masses are almost always WRONG.
 
The terms "scientist" and "pseudo-scientist" are just labels given to people either rightly or wrongly. To say that any given scientist is more knowledgeable than any given pseudo-scientist (and whose authority labels these people anyways??), is complete conjecture - do you have any statistical evidence? I know how you "scientists" love your statistics.

Are you basing this opinion on your own experiential evidence? That's the same method a lot of theists use for their claims. :rolleyes:

But although theists employ this same method, for some reason their opinion is "stupid" and "ignorant", according to most "scientists."

A lot of "scientists" considered Nassim Haramein a quack, and some still do even after his theory that there was a black hole at the center of every galaxy was later accepted long after his prediction.

People call him a pseudo-scientist but he's one of the most genuine and true scientists that I have ever seen.

The opinions of the masses are almost always WRONG.

Mostly just a bunch of rhetoric - let's cut straight through it to real chase:

A true scientist is a PAID professional; a pseudo-scientist is an amateur and a quack - the sort you often see posting here (like Rieku, Bishida, and several others). Now that we've established that which is apparent and obvious to ANY truly thinking individual, we'll deal with your comment about Haramen. It has often been the case that an actual breakthrough has been questioned by the scientific community and later accepted. And that's a GOOD thing - it keeps science from leaping onto the latest "announcement" and wasting a lot of time, effort and other resources only to discover it was false.

Issac Asimov was proud of what he called his "built-in doubter" - and rightly so. Every PROFESSIONAL scientist has a very active doubter, just as he/she should.
 
The terms "scientist" and "pseudo-scientist" are just labels given to people either rightly or wrongly. To say that any given scientist is more knowledgeable than any given pseudo-scientist (and whose authority labels these people anyways??), is complete conjecture - do you have any statistical evidence? I know how you "scientists" love your statistics.

The opinions of the masses are almost always WRONG.

Slightly different. What i mean is that scientists accuse so called pseudo scientists that they dont have necessary proof. What pseudo scientists dont have is the kind of proof scientists need within the limitations of science. Now a pseudo scientist cannot prove his theory within the limits of science but a scientist can try to unprove it within the limits of science after carefully examining the claims than resorting to logical arguments without examining the claims. But they don't. That's silly imho. On top of it, suppose if a scientist dare to use the scientific methods to study a field of pseudo science, he would eventually become a pseudo scientist and rest of the scientist community would say he is stupid.

Conclusions: Scientists are not open minded as they are meant to be.

I might deduct a bit more about your last line and say masses are stupid and ignorant. Simply because the way they acquire information is flawed.
 
Slightly different. What i mean is that scientists accuse so called pseudo scientists that they dont have necessary proof. What pseudo scientists dont have is the kind of proof scientists need within the limitations of science. Now a pseudo scientist cannot prove his theory within the limits of science but a scientist can try to unprove it within the limits of science after carefully examining the claims than resorting to logical arguments without examining the claims. But they don't. That's silly imho. On top of it, suppose if a scientist dare to use the scientific methods to study a field of pseudo science, he would eventually become a pseudo scientist and rest of the scientist community would say he is stupid.

Conclusions: Scientists are not open minded as they are meant to be.

I might deduct a bit more about your last line and say masses are stupid and ignorant. Simply because the way they acquire information is flawed.

A couple of VERY silly, ignorant things there!! First off, no scientist works to disprove anything - that's pure nonsense. No one with any brains attempts to prove a negative.:bugeye: And secondly, no scientist is going to even bother wasting one moment of his time going into a "field of pseudoscience."

For shame for even saying such things as that!
 
A couple of VERY silly, ignorant things there!! First off, no scientist works to disprove anything - that's pure nonsense. No one with any brains attempts to prove a negative.:bugeye: And secondly, no scientist is going to even bother wasting one moment of his time going into a "field of pseudoscience."

For shame for even saying such things as that!
So what do you make of Carl Sagan's comments about reincarnation?

:D
 
A couple of VERY silly, ignorant things there!! First off, no scientist works to disprove anything - that's pure nonsense. No one with any brains attempts to prove a negative.:bugeye: And secondly, no scientist is going to even bother wasting one moment of his time going into a "field of pseudoscience."

For shame for even saying such things as that!

:D Exactly my point. They are prejudiced. Bcoz unless they try to acquire sufficient knowledge, anything they argue against it is purely out of common knowledge making their judgement a prejudice.
 
:D Exactly my point. They are prejudiced. Bcoz unless they try to acquire sufficient knowledge, anything they argue against it is purely out of common knowledge making their judgement a prejudice.

You're doing nothing but wasting my time.

Goodbye.
 
ReadOnly said:
A true scientist is a PAID professional; a pseudo-scientist is an amateur and a quack

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a pseudo-scientist anyone who does research in an unknown or uncertain field?

The real difference between the two (because a pseudo-scientist, though not as common, can be paid for his/her work) is that the "scientist" works only in the fields of accepted inquiry - the pseudo-scientist doesn't have these limitations.

Do you agree with that?

ReadOnly said:
And secondly, no scientist is going to even bother wasting one moment of his time going into a "field of pseudoscience."

Wasn't every "science" at one point considered or treated first as a pseudo-science?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a pseudo-scientist anyone who does research in an unknown or uncertain field?

The real difference between the two (because a pseudo-scientist, though not as common, can be paid for his/her work) is that the "scientist" works only in the fields of accepted inquiry - the pseudo-scientist doesn't have these limitations.

Do you agree with that?



Wasn't every "science" at one point considered or treated first as a pseudo-science?

No.

No.

And no. Wrong on every single point. Obviously you don't even know what a pseudo-scientist is. He/she is a crackpot, an idiot, an uneducated fool, a woo-woo that doesn't understand science at all.

I only broke my 'goodbye' with you to explain that very simple point. And now that you actually KNOW what a pseudo-scientist is, perhaps you'll drop all your nonsense - OK?
 
ReadOnly said:
Obviously you don't even know what a pseudo-scientist is. He/she is a crackpot, an idiot, an uneducated fool, a woo-woo that doesn't understand science at all.

Maybe we're talking about two different kinds of people and we've defined them differently. What would you call a person who does research in a field that isn't acknowledged by the scientific community?

lightgigantic said:
Strangely enough, some things that were considered science are now considered pseudo science - eg - heliocentricism

And yet they're still so sure!
 
You're doing nothing but wasting my time.

Goodbye.

I hope I have not wasted your time, Read-Only. You have given me exellent observations of established Science in refuting my assumptions. I depend on individuals like yourself to set straight the parameters within our dialogue.
 
Last edited:
I hope I have not wasted your time, Read-Only. You have given me exellent observations of established Science in refuting my assumptions. I depend on individuals like yourself to set straight the parameters within our dialogue.

No, you haven't - and that's to your credit. :)

It finally turned out that the primary problem here was an individual making up his own definition of a term. No one can carry on any type of sensible discussion with someone that does that. And so I refuse to have anything more to do with him.
 
Back
Top