Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But Ben - surely an overstatement or two there?
Surely. Naturally nowhere near all orthodox scientists are 'extremely arrogant', nor does arrogance serve 'no good purpose' in all cases. I think most scientists who do actual scientific research are humbled by nature on a daily basis, and will seek inspiration wherever they can find it. They are aware that they, as individuals, push back the boundaries of knowledge very slowly and painstakingly, and that they 'stand on the shoulders of giants' in order to reach into the unknown.
But in cases where there is arrogant overreach, and dismissiveness to alternative views, then it doesn't serve any good purpose. It's something to watch out for, and I think putting science on a pedestal can make an attitude like that tempting. If scientific method slips towards dogma, then it will stagnate.
I like Popper's way of seeing scientific method - that it's a theory which in itself could be disproved, revised, improved. Seeking to legislate over it is a recipe for the death of true science and the beginning of a cult of science. Such a cult would be very hard to dislodge.
Older theories about scientific method than Popper's do seem rather quaint (there are many), especially those theories that come from actual scientists themselves. Newton wrote about what he thought the scientific method was, and despite being one of the all-time great scientists, his method doesn't shed much light at all. He seems to place supreme importance on Occam's Razor as his first principle. I see this as basically an aesthetic choice rather than an important starting point for science - OK more elegant theories are better than less elegant, but they are not necessarily any more true . The other laws pertain to the power of induction to confer truth to a theory. Principles 2 and 3 pretty much says that we should reason from the particular to the general (often known as making sweeping generalizations). Principle 4 suggests that this truth continues until disproof by contrary observation (which suggests that it was not true after all). The obsession with induction=truth continues in most theory of science right up until Popper, despite Hume's extremely powerful challenge to the idea.
All of this theory, which was and still is extremely influential over scientific minds, proposes to legislate against alternative beliefs from being considered scientific. That is Newton's scientific method, in a nutshell - gather data, then make inductive inference. What is supported is true, what is not supported, false. I think this is quite probably still what most people think science is.
The idea that you could conceive of theories for which there was, as yet, no evidence, seems to be something Newton rejected out of hand. This might explain why it took several hundred years for his theories to actually be improved upon - it took Einstein to simply dare to believe in his mathematics and maintain in absence of any evidence that the universe worked the way he said it did. Einstein's mathematics violates Newton's first principle by being far less elegant. It had slightly more explanatory power, in particular offering a solution to the conundrum of the perihelion of Mercury, but it also suggested that light bends around gravitational fields, something that had never yet been observed. It was many years later that the effect was actually observed, courtesy of a complete solar eclipse providing the opportunity to observe the 'gravitational lens' effect.
Physicists are not ignorant of the lesson in humility regarding induction here, but they often fail to generalize this lesson to science itself, and simply replace the 'naive inductionism' of the likes of Newton with something more like the falsificationism of Popper. They see evidence of falsificationism at work throughout the history of science, and conclude that it must be how it works, this must be the scientific method. Which is again, just a form of naive inductionism. It denies the possibility that entire methodologies of science could exist outside of this orthodoxy but have not yet gained enough legs to run. This is the danger inherent in over trusting the 'methodology of science' - the method itself is simply not a settled matter, by any stretch.
Criticisms of Feyerabend are probably at their most powerful simply by pointing out that in proposing no method he is pretty much making no account at all of science. He is failing to make any distinction between it and any old quackery, and he does not hide this. Which can be seen to mean that he considers all opinion about the nature of the universe to be equal, that no scientific theory is more true than another. I think he would disagree with this. He is simply arguing that science is a far more slippery beast than often imagined, and attempts to box it should be treated with the highest skepticism. He assuredly thinks most orthodox theories are of far higher worth than most quackery, on account of a great many factors - the amount of effort spent, care taken, results obtained, engagement with competing beliefs, etc. But he steadfastly refuses to make any general statement of what those factors are and how they can be evaluated, feeling that such an attempt damages more than it helps. Science gets on just fine without philosophers of science, thank you very much, is replete with methods (many of which are highly specific to particular sciences), and has performed miracles. It does not need a general theory of scienceness, and such a thing would only be limiting. The corollary of this is that quackery must be tolerated. If history of science teaches us anything it is that today's quackery is tomorrow's orthodoxy. Actually I think that's one of history's lessons, period.
-
I find the rarity of bisexuals quite bizarre. I can't believe it's entirely because of stigma because surely credible surveys about sexuality are confidential. Seems odd to me that the majority of people choose one sex or the other.
It doesn't seem odd that the biggest group are hetero...that kind of makes sense. But it's really odd that homosexuals outnumber bisexuals so much. Perhaps it's just that I understand homosexuality less than I understand bisexuality that such a thing would even seem odd.
-
@Rich, I've heard a number of people linking dairy to eczema. I have asked dermatologists about this on several occasions and always their answer has been that there is no proven link. But they have not discounted the possibility of food group allergies being a contributing factor. They do, however, point out that actually being systematic about working out if there is a connection is a really big job for the individual concerned. It's not a simple matter to see if something is helping - the problem is cyclical over a long time cycle, and I'm unwilling to stop other treatments just to isolate the variables, because it can get so bad, so fast, that life can suck for several days at time, and the only way out is prolonged exposure to strong steroids.
-
Steve
but the article you linked to makes it pretty clear astrology, as well as rain dances, were examples of practices that he considered scientists dismissed because of racism or elitism or both.
It could probably do with some clarification then. I read that as saying that scientists sometimes dismiss either view, for either or both reasons. Which does not necessarily say that they dismiss either one for racist reasons - it's not clear which one is meant, or if both are meant. I'll go to the primary source as soon as I can get to the library.
There are plenty of good reasons scientists have to be fairly dismissive of astrology, say, so that it is a stretch to assume the predominant one is elitism or some other irrational prejudice.
If racism or elitism play any part at all then that undermines quite a lot of the claims of rationality.
It’s difficult for science to conclusively prove something wrong, by its very nature. It’s a bit like proving God doesn’t exist, or conclusively proving leprechauns do not exist. How many folk tales, myths and traditional practices should scientists take seriously because they haven’t been absolutely, conclusively disproven?
I'm not so sure it's difficult to prove scientific theories wrong. Popper's entire theory of science rests on falsifiability. He would rate claims about God and leprechauns mostly unscientific when they could not be in any way proven wrong. But generalized claims for which experiments could be conducted fall within his umbrella of science, and many of them have been proved wrong by many experiments. But many also have not been. This includes many non-mainstream theories. It is their own business what scientists take seriously, but how seriously should their claims that things are bunk be taken, if they have not actually proved that?
Who are these cheerleaders?
Here you hit upon one of the straw men that I'm fairly sure 81stcolumn was hinting at upthread. Certainly Feyerabend is inventing his antagonist here. I feel pretty sure he'd put most of the earlier philosophers of science under that umbrella, though, and many prominent scientists. You don't have to look too far to find scientists saying all sorts of dismissive stuff about all sorts of non-mainstream-scientific beliefs. I guess he's talking to anyone who actually made such a claim without doing a hell of a lot of research to back it up. We already had a scientific evangelist on this thread earlier, telling me not to bother doing any alternative research of my own into my skin problem, because science had already proven that nothing else was going to help. IIRC Against Method seemed to rag on Popper a lot. Not surprising, considering that Popper made it his business to say "this is scientific, that isn't" about a great many theories.
If we must consider science an ideology and compare it to other ideologies (such as religion), I think science is a relatively humble enterprise. Religion makes a lot more claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity.
I don't see how we can consider it anything other than an ideology. What else would you call it? A simple truth? Can you even describe what it is?
Is it humble? I don't think so for a second. It makes claims into the farthest reaches of human knowledge, the highest, the furthermost, the most ancient, the smallest, the most powerful, the fundamental structure of all matter, all molecules, all lifeforms, the makeup of the mind, the possibilities of calculation, etc etc. Religion certainly claims all that and more, depending on the religion. Many have learned to make far less claims, to the point where they are almost reasonable, at times. But I'm not saying this to say religion is better. I'm saying it to show that science shares features with religion that often slip under the radar, so complete is its domination over our thinking these days.
As for its “colossal power”, what is it that any US politician needs to say they believe in if they are to have a realistic chance of being elected in most states, and certainly for president? Do they have to make clear they have great faith in science? Nope... it’s God and the Bible.
Which one receives more funding, though? Religious studies, or science? But again, I'm no advocate of religion. It is also awesomely powerful, well in excess of what I personally think it should be. This is an argument against such power, not about who should have it. "Science or Religion" is a false binary.
This is why you have some sympathy with Feyerabend’s desire to increase the influence of the lay person over the direction of science?
I'd say it's more accurate that Feyerabend wanted orthodox science to have less influence over the direction of lay people. If lay people must pay for science then they should get more influence, sure. They should be able to decide, for instance, whether money would be better spent researching new ways to blow the planet up, or on a cure for various diseases.
He apparently thinks: “... science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people.”
You agree with this?I can see what he's getting at. He's talking about publicly funded science, for starters, so he's not suggesting that private research be suppressed by order of the people. He's also making the point that some 'conclusions' of science delve into the deeply political and/or highly immoral. Science already self-governs that with various ethics institutions, but I don't think he's a fan of oversight of an institution by the institution and feels such oversight should rest with the people. For instance, a conclusion that every person should be inoculated against some rare disease is something that every person should have some say in.
-
I think you're old enough to make up your own words now, though. If the language doesn't give you a tool, forge one.
-
talk about honeys?
talk about spunks?
talk about crushes?
talk about flames?
talk about hotties?
talk about babes? (I hear of men referred to that way but yes it does seem odd)
talk about dreamboats?...all depends just how much you want to convey in 'talk about boys'. Hetero girls 'talking about boys' can be talking about the ones they like, or what they hate, the connotation matters a lot.
-
Thanks Sofie, check your inbox or junk filter.
-
Ste(ph|v)en (Judd|Crawford) & Gio: I'm glad you appreciated. Gio, I feel pretty sure after reading your thesis that you might appreciate Against Method . My question about whether it is postmodern was mostly directed at you. It opened my eyes, whatever label one puts on it.
Islander
All best with getting rid of the cursed thing.
Thanks. I think the sea water idea isn't as crazy as it might sound - although part of that might also be because one tends to be mostly naked when they swim, in the sun, and UV can help with eczema a lot. Possibly also the mental effects of swimming plays a part, it is highly refreshing, cooling and invigorating. Cheers for the reminder, mental note, must get me to the beach more.
One good outcome of my eczema - my son also suffers from it, but I've had it so long my doctor considers me an expert, and gave me a huge tub of low strength steroids at very low cost, under the understanding that I would use every other trick I knew in preference to it. I have only used a tiny fraction of it - following the advice that I found so hard to follow as a child myself, I moisturize him every day, and it has come under excellent control, and his skin is really quite beautiful. But this could just be luck (or bad luck in my own case).
Sofie
Hey Ben, have you tried (ok, ok, I like plants,right?) Aloe Vera gel.
Not as yet - despite arguing against Peter Ashby here, I've been following his advice all my life and trusting only orthodox medical advice. But I'm ready to branch out now, since the current treatment I have does have the awful potential side-effect of cancer. But it is also very effective, and has freed me from total steroid dependence.
I have tried to grow Aloe, but it just won't take. What conditions do you grow yours under? I like gardening too.
-
and where will the dog fit?
A dog can either fit in the carrier, or run along beside.
Now if we just flatten a few hills
Get an electric if you're not cycle-fit. They're not really that expensive.
Those people don't have hamlets on.
Perhaps they have insurance? One of the downsides of state funded insurance is that the state gets to tell us to wear a stupid looking hat all the time.
-
Cycling should be a normal mode of transport, not a cultish fashion parade at high speed.
Personally, I wear jeans, t-shirt and sneakers when I cycle, but I'm aware that does place limits on how hard I can go. The way I see it, when I'm on a bike it's like I'm walking, whereas the hardcore are like joggers.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 837 838 839 840 841 … 1066 Older→ First