Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:40:33 -0400 (EDT)
"Malcolm" regniztar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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.
> M:-
> 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.
JE:-
To my knowledge I have never employed the word "stupid". I argue that
this and similar words are almost entirely subjective so they remain
useless. However, I do employ more meaningful terms such as "non
sensical", "absurd", "incompetent" etc within informal sbe type
discussion because they are objective terms, e.g. "absurd" means an
absolute self contradiction. I do not agree that any of these terms
constitute terms of abuse.
If a professional does not wish to risk their professional status
position then they should not post here or more simply, not use their
real name. I only post using my actual name because I am happy stand or
fall by what I write. The fact that non professionals risk less than
professionals is balanced by the fact that non professionals are mostly
not remunerated.
A Popperian would reply to Malcolm that a researcher cannot lose any
status by being refuted within any rational system simply because the
aim of a scientist is to refute a theory by replacing it with a better
one. The fact that some professionals feel that refutation represents a
personal risk to themselves only provides evidence that the system that
employs them may not be reasonable. It seems to me evasion is based on
the misconception that refutation is "bad for you" and should be avoided
at any cost. All this achieves is a stagnant system providing anomalies
like "Haldane's Dilemma". AFAIK the incorrect/misused assumptions that
allowed Haldane's false dilemma have never been corrected.
I argue that sbe type discourse is invaluable to the sciences because
anybody can become "a fly on the wall" and listen in to a more informal
"kitchen table" type discussion between professionals and non
professionals alike, where the politics which normally retards more
formal "front room" discussion is more easily disregarded allowing
people to argue in their own way what they really think. The enormous
costs and the plodding snail pace that exists today for the formal
publication of a paper is outdated and Victorian and IMO retards the
advance of sciences. Since the majority of research is publicly funded
it should be electronically published free of charge to the public who
have paid for it.
Science can only exist within a free market of ideas. As we all know,
free markets can be ruthless in their action simply because they are
required to be so. It is my view that for ideas, this provides more gain
than pain to both the sciences in general and those partaking in the
sciences because competition increases efficiency (as any evolutionary
theorist knows). The faster science as a whole progresses the better off
we all are even if everybody is required to tolerate the "humiliation"
of refutation. The evasion of refutation is simply not a rational option
for the biological sciences.
> > JE:-
> > Evasion remains the no 1 enemy of any rational discourse
> > and therefore, the sciences.
> M:-
> 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:-
Yes but the sciences are not politically based even if funding for the
sciences mostly is. No 5th amendment exists for the sciences. Nobody can
validly claim that they can refuse to answer a question on the grounds
that their reply may refute their pet theory. One of my biggest
objections is that some of the professionals that post here (e.g. Dr Guy
Hoelzer) have put themselves on record as discarding Popper's basic
requirement that any valid theory be refutable. Confusion abounds. Dr
Hoelzer argues that all models are testable but Prof. Felsenstein argues
none of them are. It appears to me that Felsenstein et al mostly care if
their algebra is correct, caring much less about the accuracy of what
any algebraic term means/fails to mean within the science of biology. Do
Neo Darwinians in general really think that epistemology is unimportant
to valid evolutionary theory?
> > 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.
> M:-
> You need both empirical data and a mathematical model, for most
scientific
> theories.
JE:-
I agree that "empirical data and a mathematical model" is required but I
cannot understand why you appear to be equating a
simplified/oversimplified model with the theory it was
simplified/oversimplified from. If you wish to assume that a
simplified/oversimplified model is a theory-in-its-own-right and not
just a simplification/oversimplification of another theory, then please
explain what these models were simplified/oversimplified from?
> M:-
> 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).
JE:-
The model was indeed simplified but it was not oversimplified, i.e.
constants were not changed/deleted. What is the theory that the model
you employed was simplified from?
> > JE:-
> > 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.
> M:-
> 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.
JE:-
I cannot see any problem. The solution is to post a short note to this
effect. IMHO this should have been be done anyway out of courtesy.
> M:-
> It also pulls the moderator into judging whether a response consists
of an
> answer or not.
JE:-
All that is required by the moderator is to judge if the answer provided
was not simply nonsensical. If somebody asked "Please define what you
mean by a gene?" and the answer provided was "any quantity of whipped
cream" then a valid answer has been provided so the moderator's job is
done. If the answer given was "any circular square" then no answer has
been provided.
> M:-
> 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.
JE:-
Yes, this has happened to myself and I agree that that the moderator has
the final call. However, it remains a separate issue to tackling chronic
evasion within sbe. I am arguing that it is unreasonable to argue that
the tone of sbe discussion can improve without proposing a mechanism to
limit chronic evasion.
> > JE:-
> > 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
> > better understand their arguments? IMHO nothing but good could from
sbe
> > vetted papers.
> M:-
> 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.
JE:-
I agree. But importantly, it provides a formal mechanism for what may
only appear to be just a "kooky" dissident idea. Science and the public
cannot afford to allow good ideas to just slip past them only because
somebody in authority thinks it may be "kooky".
> >> M:-
> >> 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.
JE:-
But the reason why you cannot debate to a conclusion any non
evolutionary solution as to what life may be is because all of these
type views that have been provided so far are non refutable, i.e. only
beliefs. Theories and beliefs are not the same epistemological beasts. A
theory cannot oust a belief and likewise, a belief cannot remove a
theory. Both utilise quite different but valid mental processes, i.e.
all of us have, require and use, both. What matters is to separate and
be able to utilise both of them in creative but rational ways.
> M:-
> 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.
JE:-
But sbe discussion is quite different. Nobody forces anybody to respond
to a post. If they do choose to respond and a larger investment by both
occurs then the cost of evasion to both, increases.
>snip<
> M
> 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.
JE;-
If anybody looks more carefully at most Neo Darwinistic arguments I
argue they must conclude that they remain relatively based. Science is
not based on only relative arguments it is also based on the abolute
assumptions that allow any relative based argument.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: my email address
- Next by Date: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Previous by thread: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Next by thread: Paper: Directionality theory - an empirical study of an entropic principle in life-history evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
