The "Stage Theory of Theories" - Cause for Concern?

[James R]

Now compare with what the Wiki page specific to constructive empiricism says, and notice the inconsistency:

It sounds like there is some confusion among philosophers of science - or perhaps among those who wrote the relevant wikipedia entries - as to whether "constructive empiricism" is or is not a kind of instrumentalism.

Possibly there is some hair splitting going on. Or maybe a philosopher of science made a mistake (shock horror!).

 

[James R]

If what you were telling us here is correct, and the majority of scientists take a instrumentalist view of scientific theories, then what we would typically hear being expressed is something like the following:

* Theories -- being mere tools -- are neither true nor false, at least as these terms are commonly understood. The aim of a scientific scientific theory is to save the phenomena, as they say, or "fit the facts", and nothing more.

It really depends on the level that you're looking at to discover truth or falsehood. If a theory accurately predicts the results of experiments, then it is true to say that it accurately predicts the results of experiments. It would be fair to say, I think, that the theory is true insofar as it makes those accurate predictions. On the other hand, if you want to demand that any unobservable entities that the theory uses to make its predictions also have to actually exist (or something like that) in order for the theory to deserve the label "true", then you're going to find yourself in a difficult position. How are you going to show that the unobservable actually exists? I don't think it's possible. Therefore, you'll have to conclude that no theories are ever true, or ever could be. At least, no theories that postulate unobservable entities or mechanisms.

* If an instrumentalist does use the words true/false, he is using them in a nonstandard way: "true" is identified with empirical adequacy. If, for example, two dozen or so theories of quantum mechanics exist (as is the case), all positing different and incompatible unobservable mechanisms and processes (as they do), then insofar as they are all empirically adequate, they are all true.

That sounds fair.

They are true in the same way that the "Mummy and Daddy" theory and the "Santa Claus" theory are both true, just so long as they save the phenomena.

Well, no. The Santa Claus theory fails to survive empirical investigation, whereas the Mummy and Daddy theory is well supported by observations. One might even suggest that the Santa theory has been falsified.

All the various and incompatible accounts of the ghost ship Mary Celeste mystery are also true in this nonstandard sense.

There's a long and proud history of doubt and skepticism in science. I wonder whether you might be overlooking that.

Science often finds itself in the position where scientists just don't know what "the answer" is yet. There are a bunch of observations that are crying out for explanation. There are a number of competing hypotheses that offer possible explanations. In such circumstances, scientists don't tend to say "all of the competing hypotheses are true". Instead, they tend to say "none of the competing hypotheses has strong enough evidence in its favour to allow us to rule out the other hypotheses yet, so we'll try to gather more data, wait and see."

Point is: it's okay not to know all the answers now. It's okay to wait until you've narrowed down the list of competing theories to something manageable, before committing to one.

Perhaps more importantly: good scientists never completely commit to one theory. Sure, Newton's theory of gravity looks good for now, but we can never be certain that an Einstein won't come along to upset the Newtonian apple cart.

Luckily, scientists aren't obliged to commit to any theory. It's quite acceptable to keep and open mind and do the best with what you've got for now. Science wasn't built on dogma.

* Again, assuming standard usage of the words true/false. scientific theories can neither be shown to be true (i.e. proven) nor shown to be false (i.e. falsified). The reason for this has nothing to do with evidence. Scientific theories, like hammers and screwdrivers, are not the kinds of things than can be true or false. The terms do not apply. No amount of evidence will prove or falsify a hammer or a screwdriver or a scientific theory; they're not in that line of business, as it were. They are not asserting anything. Scientific theories, however, may be appraised for empirical adequacy, i.e., how well they "fit the facts" or "save the phenomena".

Again, it really depends on what sort of "truth" you're looking for. If you're looking for a forever-unattainable truth, then you're going to be looking for a very long time. Scientists can be more pragmatic than the philosophers in this regard.

* The unobservable posits in scientific theories (e.g. photons, genes, dark matter, spacetime) do not exist. Again, it's not a matter of insufficient evidence. These things are not advanced as candidates for the furniture and architecture of our universe at all. Once again, they're not in that line of business. They are useful fictions, and nothing more. They serve the same function in scientific theories as, for example, "ideal gas" and "point mass" do. They are not meant to be real. To take such statements literally is to misunderstand what a scientific theory is.

They might be useful fictions, as you say. Or they might be real. There's no way to know for sure, one way or the other, since to know would require observing the unobservable.

* Scientific theories do not explain. They explain nothing, hence they yield no understanding at all, at least as far as unobservable causes, processes, entities, and mechanisms are concerned. Scientific theories are analogous to the bare formalism of quantum mechanics: it describes and predicts what is observed; it does not explain why.

Ironically, it's often the unobservable entities, processes and causes that are perhaps best understood. It's the observable world that often tends to be messy and complicated. The theorical entities, on the other hand, are invented to solve problems, so they tend to be well-understood by their inventors and those who come after them.

What would a genuine, real world, flesh-and-blood instrumentalist sound like then?

Would I qualify as such, in your expert opinion? If so, then I suppose he might sound like me.

Can you even imagine Richard Dawkins, say, shrugging his shoulders and telling the world "The theory of evolution is a useful tool and nothing more. It is not to be understood literally. We're not telling you what really happened."

Dawkins is well known for his idea of the "selfish gene". I think he would be the first to agree with you that it is a tool and "nothing more", as you put it.

I'm not sure why you have such a disdain for useful tools.

 

[James R]

axocanth:

I am curious: in your opinion, are there any pseudosciences? Or is every "theory" of an observed phenomenon an example of science, in your opinion?

If you do think there is some distinction between science and pseudoscience, can you tell me what you think it is?

 

[axocanth]

re James' recent posts . . .

Post #444 represents one massive misunderstanding of what the instrumentalist position is, as I've explicitly characterized it. James' post is a reaction to my post #416 in which it is explicitly stated that if one adopts the instrumentalist view then the following consequences are entailed. The entire post, then, assumes the instrumentalist view; it is not a defense of the appropriateness of the instrumentalist view.

At the core of instrumentalism is a semantic -- not an epistemological -- thesis which might be captured in slogan form as "All is not what it seems".

This has already been explained, but to repeat: Statements in scientific theories containing unobservables are not to be read literally. A statement containing the term electron, for example, is not understood to be asserting that electrons exist. The statement is not asserting what it seems to be asserting; it is not asserting what it would normally and pre-reflectively be taken to be asserting. The statement may be reduced or translated (or something similar) into that which is entirely observable, à la some versions of logical positivism.

In short -- appearances to the contrary -- the statement is making no assertions about unobservable reality.

Likewise, according to Osiander's instrumentalist take on Copernican heliocentrism, the theory is not asserting what it appears to be asserting. It is not to be understood literally. It is nothing more than a "useful fiction" -- as a matter of instrumentalist semantic stipulation. (i.e. evidence has nothing to do with it.)

James' misunderstanding, evident throughout the entire post, is summarized in the following remark:

They might be useful fictions, as you say. Or they might be real. There's no way to know for sure, one way or the other, since to know would require observing the unobservable.

Notice that James introduces epistemological considerations ("There's no way to know") into what is not an epistemological thesis. It is a semantic thesis. Anyone who ponders the questions of whether electrons (understood in the realist sense) exist, whether there is sufficient evidence to believe in their existence, etc. is not adopting an instrumentalist position. And any instrumentalist (e.g. Ernst Mach) who begins to feel that atoms, say, might actually be real and not just useful fictions is abandoning his instrumentalist stance. That is, he has altered his semantics from a non-literal to a literal reading.




Similarly, I would suggest that post #445 constitutes a misunderstanding of PE doctrine. It is not logically possible both that the forces driving microevolution are identical to those driving macroevolution, and that they are not. If this constitutes an "extension" of traditional theory, then "Mrs Peacock killed the victim" constitutes an extension of "Mrs Peacock did not kill the victim."

I wonder if James has even read Gould, Eldredge, Stanley, et al, for every time I've been in this situation in the past it has invariably turned out that my interlocutor has not. You may be told (by Dawkins maybe) that PE is old hat and saying nothing new; you will not be told this by the proponents themselves, indeed since the above conflict represents a direct contradiction in views, it is not even logically possible that nothing new is being claimed.

Also, Gould's punctuated equilibrium is not the "profound departure" you seem to think it is. It was a big deal in the pop science press back in the 1980s, but it has largely been absorbed into the mainstream modern synthesis in the 40 years since then. In the 80s, Dawkins and Gould went back and forth about it in their pop-science books. There was, of course, also discussion and some debate in the peer-reviewed literature back then. The wash-out was that punctuated equilibrium is mostly just evolution-as-usual happening faster than usual, under the right environmental conditions. It is also something of an illusion brought on by the incomplete fossil record.

Gould's mature views on PE are laid out in his 2002 "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory". He died shortly thereafter presumably taking these views with him to the grave. In one fascinating section, he bemoans the frequent distortion of PE doctrine. Caveat emptor.




Finally . . .

axocanth:

I get it that you think you're trying to be edgy and provocative. But when you start calling those who are kind enough to indulge you "idiotic" and dismissing their thoughts as "jawdropping stupid remarks", your act starts to grate.

Remember that this sort of thing is what saw you exit this forum in a very short time, last time you were here. Are you the guy who likes to barge in, kick up a fuss and then make the Grand Clomping Exit? If not, you might want to up your level of cordial politeness.

You can do that, I hope.

My own view, for what it's worth, supported by my recent perusal of older threads not involving myself, is that James is quite possibly the most abusive poster on the site. Impartial readers are invited to enter James' name and the words "stupid", "liar", etc. into the site's search engine and decide for themselves. Watch out for the search engine overheating!

His attitude towards myself has been repeatedly abusive, hostile, and condescending, not to mention an unfortunate habit of bloviating on subjects he obviously knows little or nothing about, thus I will be not be responding to him further. Evidently the site has an "ignore" function, for another member (Pinball) has stated that he has myself on ignore. Presumably I am entitled to do the same thing to members that I regard as abusive. Readers may also notice that his post above is "liked" by another member (exchemist) who refers to myself as a "cunt" in post #150 of this thread, with no discernible repercussions.

Civil discussion is most welcome. I've no desire to discuss anything in such a hostile atmosphere, however. Life is too short.

Er, now if someone will just be kind enough to tell me where the ignore function is . . .

 

[axocanth]

On a slightly different note, my nomination for Straw Man of the Year goes to JamesR (post 444) for this comment:

"I'm not sure why you have such a disdain for useful tools."

Any member who can locate a post of mine that says or implies anything remotely like this wins a night of passion with TheVat. I would add further that this is far from being an isolated case, hence my disinclination to continue discussion at all. It's a shameful way to behave on a supposedly intelligent site.

 

[TheVat]

Any member who can locate a post of mine that says or implies anything remotely like this wins a night of passion with TheVat.

I do expect them to buy me dinner and, if possible, possess a vagina. I have standards. And dignity, always dignity!

Try not to soil the rugs or break the furniture while I'm gone.

 

[James R]

I see that it didn't take too long for axocanth to reach his boiling point.

This sort of behaviour is not uncommon. When the questions get too difficult or inconvenient, some people find it easiest to make up an excuse not to engage, on dubious personal grounds.

That's all fine. Nobody is obliged to read or respond to anybody else here.

re James' recent posts . . .

Post #444 represents one massive misunderstanding of what the instrumentalist position is, as I've explicitly characterized it.

As axocanth has explicitly characterised it. The question natually arises as to how deep axocanth's understanding of what the position entails actually goes. Perhaps we'll never know.

At the core of instrumentalism is a semantic -- not an epistemological -- thesis which might be captured in slogan form as "All is not what it seems".

This has already been explained, but to repeat: Statements in scientific theories containing unobservables are not to be read literally. A statement containing the term electron, for example, is not understood to be asserting that electrons exist. The statement is not asserting what it seems to be asserting; it is not asserting what it would normally and pre-reflectively be taken to be asserting. The statement may be reduced or translated (or something similar) into that which is entirely observable, à la some versions of logical positivism.

In short -- appearances to the contrary -- the statement is making no assertions about unobservable reality.

I agree. I already agreed with all of that. I'm not sure what has got axocanth so irate.

James' misunderstanding, evident throughout the entire post, is summarized in the following remark:

axocanth is referring to a remark of mine that looks outside of the instrumentalist view. Actually, I was comparing instrumentalism to realism, there.

This is the problem when you assume you must be the smartest person in the room. You don't read carefully. You assume you can just skim. But then you make silly errors. You fail to keep up.

Notice that James introduces epistemological considerations ("There's no way to know") into what is not an epistemological thesis. It is a semantic thesis. Anyone who ponders the questions of whether electrons (understood in the realist sense) exist, whether there is sufficient evidence to believe in their existence, etc. is not adopting an instrumentalist position. And any instrumentalist (e.g. Ernst Mach) who begins to feel that atoms, say, might actually be real and not just useful fictions is abandoning his instrumentalist stance. That is, he has altered his semantics from a non-literal to a literal reading.

Again, I mostly agree with this, as I have all along.

The entire realist-instrumentalist debate is about "epistemological considerations". Perhaps axocanth missed that, somehow.

Similarly, I would suggest that post #445 constitutes a misunderstanding of PE doctrine. It is not logically possible both that the forces driving microevolution are identical to those driving macroevolution, and that they are not.

The micro/macro distinction is one that is mostly confined to discussions involving Creationists. Real biologists tend to talk about things like speciation instead. They know that drawing an arbitrary line between micro- and macro- is generally unhelpful.

I wonder if James has even read Gould, Eldredge, Stanley, et al, for every time I've been in this situation in the past it has invariably turned out that my interlocutor has not.

Keep on wondering, axocanth.

You may be told (by Dawkins maybe) that PE is old hat and saying nothing new; you will not be told this by the proponents themselves, indeed since the above conflict represents a direct contradiction in views, it is not even logically possible that nothing new is being claimed.

The proof is largely in the pudding. Following Gould's death, the "controversy" has mostly gone away. That suggests to me that PE is not something that evolutionary biologists regard as a major problem for the modern synthesis.

 

[James R]

My own view, for what it's worth, supported by my recent perusal of older threads not involving myself, is that James is quite possibly the most abusive poster on the site.

Wow! axocanth sure was quick to jump to that conclusion. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that he came to this view after I disagreed with him on a number of issues. No doubt he has carefully and impassionately reviewed my record of posts on this site and made an entirely impartial assessment.

I wonder whether axocanth and I might have a history that goes back further than his most recent two identities. Is he carrying a large chip on his shoulder due to being banned before by me? Perhaps we'll find out.

Are you important enough that I should recognise you, axocanth?

Impartial readers are invited to enter James' name and the words "stupid", "liar", etc. into the site's search engine and decide for themselves. Watch out for the search engine overheating!

I wonder whether axocanth is familiar with the term "confirmation bias".

Did he try searching my name in combination with the words "knowledgable", "interesting", "honest" and such? I bet he didn't.

Maybe axocanth is jealous of my "likes" tally.

His attitude towards myself has been repeatedly abusive, hostile, and condescending, not to mention an unfortunate habit of bloviating on subjects he obviously knows little or nothing about, thus I will be not be responding to him further.

What was it I said about the Grand Clomping Exit? Is this the start?

That bit about being abusive, hostile and condescending is cute, coming from the guy who signed up specifically to try to stir up a hornet's nest or three. The bloviating part is ironic, too, coming from the guy who posts 16 posts in a row unless he gets an immediate reply.

Evidently the site has an "ignore" function, for another member (Pinball) has stated that he has myself on ignore. Presumably I am entitled to do the same thing to members that I regard as abusive.

You can self-regulate, axocanth. Just skip over my posts.

Readers may also notice that his post above is "liked" by another member (exchemist) who refers to myself as a "cunt" in post #150 of this thread, with no discernible repercussions.

No complaints have been received, to date.

Civil discussion is most welcome.

It's a good idea to try to set the example that one wants to see from others.

One wouldn't want to be thought a hypocrite, would one?

 

[James R]

My own view of the whole brouhaha -- somewhat speculative of course -- is that Dawkins and Dennett are particularly nasty individuals, dirty rotten scoundrels the pair of them lol, at every opportunity trying to misrepresent, distort, downplay and discredit the rival view.

There's a lesson to be learned here.

Consider the possibility that people can disagree with one another and yet all remain nice, cordial individuals who are kind to fluffy animals and children.

Together, you and I can make this our world, axocanth! I invite you to join me for a Better Tomorrow, in which people don't feel like they need to be nasty, dirty rotten scoundrels every time they have an opinion that clashes with the other guy's.

Readers can make up their own minds, though I could not recommended Gould's 2007 "Punctuated Equilibrium" more highly for anyone interested. The book, published after Gould's death, is simply an excerpt from his monster 1000+ pages 2002 "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" of the parts related to PE. Perhaps the most fascinating section of all is the final one where he drops the science and offers his personal reflections on the reception of the new theory: intelligent scientific criticism from some opponents (most welcome) and gross distortion and personal attacks from others (Dawkins, Dennett). Essential reading!

I wonder whether axocanth has read anything from the "other" side of this particular fence, for many times when I've been in this situation in the past it has turned out that my interlocutor has not.

 

[axocanth]

From a very interesting article CC posted in "Philosophy Updates" . . .

"Scientistic televangelism is alienating genuine truth-seekers, eroding public trust in science, and indoctrinating young minds."

Science publishing is a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme | Àlex Gómez-Marín

iai.tv

Think Aron Ra! Think Forrest Valkai and Professor Dave! Think Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson!

In sum, scientistic televangelism is alienating genuine truth-seekers, eroding public trust in science, and indoctrinating young minds. Let us reject such terms of disservice and reverse the dead-ending of science from within and without. The truth is that true experts don’t know “the truth”. Nobody really knows what is going on. We live in a wild, weird, wonderful world. The scientist of the future needs intellectual humility, epistemic vulnerability, and metaphysical sincerity. We also need true collegiality, individual bravery, and “fuck-you money”. We need to wake up, stand up, and call the bullshit out. Let us practice a different game and tell a different story. Let us yearn for “the truth” and tell it to the best of our ability. The time is ripe. We are pilgrims towards the unknown, not squatters of the familiar or broken records of ideological mantras. We can excel at the theatre of ideas while being honest about what is going on at the backstage of science. We need more Jaimungals, Morgans, Kuhns, Mishloves, Nolans, and Weinsteins, and fewer crabby Dawkins, trickster Randis, and cocksure deGrasse Tysons. Preaching dogma in the name of science is a dagger at the heart of society.

(my emphasis)

Think Sabine!

 

[axocanth]

"We need more Jaimungals, Morgans, Kuhns, Mishloves, Nolans, and Weinsteins . . . "


Um, I only recognize Kuhn's name in that list. Who are these other people !!?? Links please!

 

[axocanth]

"Scientistic televangelism is alienating genuine truth-seekers, eroding public trust in science, and indoctrinating young minds."


Think Aron Ra! Think Forrest Valkai and Professor Dave! Think Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss and Neil deGrasse Tyson!

Just out of curiosity, let me ask other members. I'll be as clear as I can first: I DO NOT TRUST THESE PEOPLE ! - not one bit! I've caught them talking manifest crap, exaggerating, distorting, and saying things are known to be untrue too many times.

How about you?

 

[axocanth]

This is so good that I have to quote more ('scuse me!) . . .

You probably know who I am talking about without indulging in specific examples but, if you don’t, lucky you (and stay tuned). Such sci-com gurus (and their minion wannabes blogging and trolling from their couches) conflate scientific outreach with scientific outrage. They hunt academic dissenters down and bully good-spirited amateurs. They think of themselves as the self-appointed arbiters of fact versus fiction, dismissing people’s exceptional experiences as illusions, delusions, or hallucinations (you are either crazy or simply stupid). They have a blast ridiculing half-witted flat earthers, fundamentalist creationists, and lovely old ladies who believe in spirits, but would not survive a round of debate with a grown-up heterodox intellectual. Similarly, they flippantly challenge frail positions but never dare to go after the big fish of the status quo (i.e. Big Pharma is your friend, but acupuncturists are dangerous). Curiously, they love the feeling of telling you that science does not care about your feelings. As it turns out, (their) “science is true whether or not you believe in it” (say hi, you have finally met your new masterclass indoctrinator). Confusing solemnity with seriousness, they make fools of themselves, as John Cleese brilliantly illustrates here.

But that’s not all. At the risk of being scathingly clear, let me continue to say out loud what plenty of my colleagues have to think in silence. The self-aggrandised middlemen of “Science ®” are too quick to tell the public (and other scientists!) what they can and cannot believe in, investigate, or even entertain. They don’t bother to read the literature of those genuine subject-matter experts, the pioneers who have been at the real cutting-edge of science for decades. It is so wonderful to be a skeptic of everything except your own beliefs. Why spend the time checking the data if the phenomenon is impossible in theory? It is one thing to be dogmatic but another to be lazy (and being both is surely too much). They say they would change their mind (as they should say), but they know they won’t: their priors about the potential reality of certain important phenomena are so infinitesimally small that any Bayesian update of their beliefs upon new evidence, no matter how “extraordinary”, is chimeric. To cover that up, they are used to posing the two-alternative forced choice between their body of authorized truths or science denialism; it’s their way or the highway. But dilemmas betray trilemmas. There is life beyond real fakes and fake reals.

How did science become so unscientific? To make a long story short, we have been sold a triple pseudo-intellectual flimflam for decades: if you want to be a respectable homo academicus, then you must embrace the unholy trinity of mechanistic reductive materialism, plus skepticism in its most dogmatic declination, and finally secularism in the mode of viciously naive atheism. In a word, scientism has been institutionalized in the name of science. But, in the end, scientism is more dangerous than pseudoscience because it is an inside job. Error, bias, and hype are minor sins compared to scientific hubris. Arrogance is antithetical to progress.

Bravo x 1000000000000000

 

[axocanth]

As it turns out, (their) “science is true whether or not you believe in it” (say hi, you have finally met your new masterclass indoctrinator). Confusing solemnity with seriousness, they make fools of themselves, as John Cleese brilliantly illustrates here.

Next up, ladies and gentlemen, Neil deGrasse Tyson makes what just might be the dumbest comment of the century . . . to thunderous applause!

 

[axocanth]

"We need more Jaimungals, Morgans, Kuhns, Mishloves, Nolans, and Weinsteins . . . "


Um, I only recognize Kuhn's name in that list. Who are these other people !!?? Links please!

Oops, never mind. I see the links now. I actually was directed to the Kehlan Morgan (didn't know his name) vid last year, thought it was an absolute delight compared to the simpleminded "Ministry Of Scientistic Propaganda" rubbish of Professor Dave that he was reacting to, and commented on it at some length.

Prof Dave silenced me after my first (civil!) critique, as he is wont to do. Have you seen the mouth on that fella? (look at the comments section - he often responds personally). It's quite staggering, the vulgarity putting a Glasgow dockworker to shame! Is it not just insane that a spokesperson for "good science" gets away with this, indeed is encouraged by his Red Guard following? Does anyone seriously believe that Professor Dave and his ilk are doing a service to the scientific community by behaving in such an appalling manner?

Speaking of John Cleese . . .

 

[axocanth]

A Neil deGrasse Tyson vid is linked in CC's article that I've been reacting to in the last few posts. This one . . .

Between 0:40 and 0:55, engaging a bit of heavy-duty philosophy (which he dismisses as crap in other places), with furrowed brow Tyson explains his groundbreaking "Three Categories of Truth" theory:

"I've come to realize that there are three categories of truth: personal truth, political truths, and the objective truths that shape our understanding of the universe. The interesting thing about an objective truth is that it's true no matter what. Imagine that!"

Imagine indeed! A truth that is true. Why, it's almost as staggering as a dog that is canine no matter what. Gasp!

Yes, folks, you can count on science, and science alone, to deliver truths that never lose the property of being true . . .

. . . unless of course you have an alternative theory of scientific truth such as that proposed by Jerry Coyne, echoing the standard Ministry of Propaganda line, and rehashed by science fans everywhere. I quote from post #231 on page 12 . . .

Because a theory is accepted as "true" only when its assertions and predictions are tested over and over again, and confirmed repeatedly, there is no one moment when a scientific theory suddenly becomes a scientific fact. A theory becomes a fact (or a "truth") when so much evidence has accumulated in its favor -- and there is no decisive evidence against it -- that virtually all reasonable people will accept it. This does not mean that a "true" theory will never be falsified. All scientific truth is provisional, subject to modification in light of new evidence.

On Coyne's alternative theory of "punctuated truth", then, a scientific truth is not, in fact, true no matter what. It's provisional. Truth in science is not necessarily true, and some truths have the property of being false.

On whether or not the caninity of dogs is provisional in science too, Coyne does not say.

See their respective new bestsellers "This Book is a Book No Matter What" and "This Book May Not Be a Book" for further details.




Edit: From CC's article . . .

"Confusing solemnity with seriousness, they make fools of themselves, as John Cleese brilliantly illustrates here."

 

[C C]

Just an alert where this focus on Alex Gomez-Marin will probably go eventually...

He's a Spanish theoretical physicist turned neuroscientist.

He seems to have some degree of interaction with "infamous" Rupert Sheldrake, that appears amiable, and thereby might or might not shed partial light on his fulmination.

Due to its philosophical liberalness, or balance, or whatever motive for tossing caution to the wind occasionally -- iai is noted for giving platforms to celebrated iconoclasts with a pedigree. Like Denis Noble, for instance. (Really, any enterprise with one leg in the humanities doesn't need an excuse or apology for showcasing contrarianism -- it's in the nature of it.)
_

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Some posts have been split off into separate threads.

axocanth started to discuss the ins and outs of the punctuated equilibrium evolutionary theory. Discussion of the details of the relevant science is better had in the Biology forum, so I created a new thread, here:

Is the theory of punctuated equilibrium a gamechanger for evolutionary biology?

Ax, You and Parm are both well read in Phil of Sci, so I may have to sit on the sidelines for a while with this thread and just try to keep up. Occasionally I may ask for clarification. E.g. when one speaks of a challenge to evolutionary theory, it is helpful to ask what part. The bucolic...

www.sciforums.com

Magical Realist started a complaint about moderation that does not belong in this thread. It can found in Site Feedback, here:

MR complains about being moderated

James R posted: Consider the possibility that people can disagree with one another and yet all remain nice, cordial individuals who are kind to fluffy animals and children. Together, you and I can make this our world, axocanth! I invite you to join me for a Better Tomorrow, in which people...

www.sciforums.com

 

[James R]

From a very interesting article CC posted in "Philosophy Updates" . . .

"Scientistic televangelism is alienating genuine truth-seekers, eroding public trust in science, and indoctrinating young minds."

Science publishing is a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme | Àlex Gómez-Marín

iai.tv

We've now drifted quite a long way from where this thread started.

To me, it looks like axocanth has chosen a team and is barracking for it as loudly as he can.

It's not hard to find opinions similar to the one in the article. The author makes some valid points, but he mixes them in with a lot of rhetorical flourishes and dubious claims. It's not very hard to get this sort of diatribe published, either.

Just out of curiosity, let me ask other members. I'll be as clear as I can first: I DO NOT TRUST THESE PEOPLE ! - not one bit! I've caught them talking manifest crap, exaggerating, distorting, and saying things are known to be untrue too many times.

I wonder how axocanth rates the author of the above article. Has he managed to identify any "crap" or exaggerations or distortions or simple untrue claims in the article? Or does this kind of thing get a free pass through the axocanth's intellectual filters, because he has already made up his mind about these matters?

This is so good that I have to quote more ('scuse me!) . . .

The bubbling enthusiasm is infectious, isn't it?

Bravo x 1000000000000000

Is there any point in picking the article apart, at the risk of deflating axocanth's balloon? I think not. Far be it from me to interrupt this simple moment of pure joy.

 

[axocanth]

Richard Dawkins, in a charming Mr Humble frame of mind, opens in the following video thus:

"So where science is filled with doubt, skepticism, willingness to learn, openness to correction, faith is exactly the opposite."

In the next video, evidently having grown weary of Mr Humble, he reads from his own "The Greatest Show on Earth" and begins thus:

"Evolution is a fact, beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane informed intelligent doubt. Beyond doubt evolution is a fact."

What can one really say? Science is filled with doubt except the bits where it isn't filled with doubt?