Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion


"John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> JE:-
> I have no problem with just a zero status position. In fact, I argue can
> be bonus because it removes the overpowering stresses of tribal
> conformity.
>
You do have the advantage that you can express the truth as you see it. You
do have to be sensitive to the pressures on another poster. Let's say
someone has an academic post at a university, a mortgage to pay and wife and
children to support. he is now accused of taking a certain postion because
of "stupidity". If the accusation is false it is merely irritating. If there
is any grain of truth in it, it may be deeply damaging. There goes the
house.
So if someone does identify himself as a professional you must be very
sensitive to these matters.
>
> Evasion remains the no 1 enemy of any rational discourse
> and therefore, the sciences.
>
It often happens that you will see a political discussion on TV. "Were you
informed that Bloggs was taking bribes, Mr President?" "Well before I answer
that question I'd just like to say that Bloggs has reduced our total
spending on arms procurement by ...".
If Mr President has any excuse that the interviewer is being rude, the of
course it is much easier for him to evade.
"Your corrupt adminstration covered up that fact that Bloggs was taking
bribes, didn't it, Dubya?".
"I'm sorry sir but no charges of corruption against any member of my
adminstration have yet been proved. Next question."
>
> JE:-
> While evasion is allowed to thrive in sbe the "tone" of any debate must
> degenerate. I have made two concrete proposals which I continue to argue
> may improve the tone of any debate. However, both were rejected. I
> remain a 100% democrat. I argue that science is a democratic process
> within which anybody at all can and should be encouraged to contribute
> irrespective of their status but only if everybody agrees that nature is
> the one and only authority that can rule on the truth/untruth of any
> proposition. IMHO any so called "science" that attempts to exist without
> rigorous empirical testing, i.e. testing against nature must end up
> becoming the hopeless dictate of some tribal norm.
>
You need both empirical data and a mathematical model, for most scientific
theories. For instance it seems that gravitational attraction falls away
with the square of distance, from measurements of the planets, and that also
makes sense if we have a theoretical model of a cloud of very tiny gravitons
moving away from the gravity emitter, their density at any point determined
by the surface area of the enclosing sphere.
(Nowadays most physicists would say that this basic model is pretty
hopelessly simplified, but still better than nothing as a stab at the
truth).
>
> I have proposed that any sbe poster should be able to appeal to the
> moderator to require a poster to answer a question they have previously
> refused to answer but only as a last resort and only as long as the
> question asked has been logically structured. The status of any accused
> evader should have absolutely no bearing on the matter. If no response
> is provided the moderator should have the right to name the poster as an
> evader. This tag should only be able to be removed at the behest of the
> moderator after he/she has judged that the poster in question has
> provided an answer to the stated question no matter if that answer is
> judged to be correct or incorrect. Of course any poster tagged to be an
> evader can simply ignore the tag and carry on regardless but because
> their personal integrity is now _publicly_ compromised continued efforts
> may now, not be worth their while.
>
This is unworkable. For instance I sometimes have to take time away from the
ng, so any failure to reply might not be a refusal but circumstances beyond
my control.
It also pulls the moderator into judging whether a response consists of an
answer or not. Sometimes moderators reject posts, maybe because they are
leading too far off-topic. Usenet convention is that a rejected post remains
a secret between the poster and the moderator. So the response may in fact
have been provided.
>
> My second proposition was to allow sbe posters to submit a more formal
> paper to be democratically vetted by sbe readers and hopefully
> electronically published as an sbe paper after being accepted by some as
> yet unnamed formal sbe vetting process. What this process may be I
> propose should be debated and voted on within sbe. I do not argue that
> sbe papers would provide some sort of equal alternative to conventional
> publication but for some sbe posters it may provide a useful "purgatory"
> for people to redistil their ideas in a more formal way. Also, it would
> provide the casual reader with a life example of the sort of scrutiny
> that any paper must undergo within the sciences before it can be
> published. Maybe Walter ReMine would have considered publishing his
> rejected paper here if such a system was in place? Perhaps Tom other
> enthusiastic posters who have something to say may wish to attempt to
> publish an sbe paper where their attempts to do can only help all of us
> btter understand their arguments? IMHO nothing but good could from sbe
> vetted papers.
>
This is a more workable idea. People could distinguish between a question, a
hastily thought out reply to a question or correction of a point, and a
"position post", setting out ideas in a more formal way, as one would do in
an academic paper.
>>
>> We wouldn't want him to report back to his friends that evolutionists
>> consider each other stupid and illogical kooks who evade arguments, would
>> we?
>
> JE:-
> IMO, ReMine would be quite correct to report back such a negative
> finding. Evolutionary theory has a lot of dirty washing to do before it
> re-establishes the confidence of the public. Has nobody here noticed
> just how much evolutionary theory has lost the public trust particularly
> in the USA where public opinion can more swiftly act?
>
It is easy to see how a creationist reading sbe might get the impression
that evolutionary biology is a very bad tempered discipline, and maybe feel
reinforced in his position.
I think there are lots of factors in the present situation.
Firstly it is a tactical error to refuse to debate creationists. It is
easily presented as evasion, and it is ill mannered. If someone shows up in
your town promoting an idea, an important part of the university's purpose
is to provide facilities for discussion, and naturally they expect someone
to debate with them. However they don't have right to Professor Dawkins
every time. Putting up a biology undergraduate who is also a member of the
debating society would be a reasonable response. If that speaker isn't
acceptable, then it is they who are at fault.

Another factor is that, whilst questioning the evolution of the body is
considered scientifically off-limits, questioning the evolution of behaviour
is considered respectable. This is not very logical, except that a religious
bias is somehow considered worse than a political bias.

Another problem is that science generally is under attack. Relativism in
religion and morals is hard to reconcile with the objective statements we
need to make as scientists. So "marriage works for you but for me and my
boyfriend living together is right" becomes "aromatherapy works for me but
you can choose artificial medicine if you prefer". Right wing Christians
often think they have overcome this problem by rejecting the specific claim
made in statement one. Unfortunately they have just substituted an arguably
more prudent "lifestyle choice" for casual relationships. They haven't got
round the problem that truth isn't a fashion.

So yes, we do have to restore public confidence.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
    ... I choose to remain independent because I argue tribal ... While evasion is allowed to thrive in sbe the "tone" of any debate must ... I have proposed that any sbe poster should be able to appeal to the ... publication but for some sbe posters it may provide a useful "purgatory" ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
    ... In fact, I argue ... The fact that non professionals risk less than ... I argue that sbe type discourse is invaluable to the sciences because ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)