House of Eratosthenes

Liberals are always given to landing on the side of what they insist is science, whether the topic is Darwin’s Theory of Evolution versus Intelligent Design or man’s ability to control the weather. That’s because they believe that scientists are, like themselves, much smarter than other people.

But the fact is that science, to put it as kindly as possible, is an imperfect science. Scientists are, after all, people. They are therefore as prone to being affected by greed, blind ambition and even ignorance, as any of us.
:
Some would say that at least scientists eventually get around to correcting their mistakes. But until they do, they defend their beliefs by belittling doubters, generally labeling them as flat-earthers. These days, you see many climatologists defending “climate change” as settled science, while the rest of us are supposed to ignore the fact that consensus is not the same thing as proof, especially when those with the courage and integrity to raise doubts are punished by being denied federal grants and tenure.

Matthew 7:20, By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them. What’s the thought process? You use the scientific method on that which purports to call itself “science.” Look at the structure of the argument. If it’s just a bunch of citation-mongering followed by condescending and dismissive chortling at any opposition, well then, the thing to ask is whether or not that is how science works.

How does the method select information to be evaluated? When it filters out information, is it a true filtering process, separating the relevant from the other? Or is it merely deflecting? The difference is the mode of pursuit. If you’re filtering out chaff in order to look for wheat, there must be some wheat, or at the very least a desire to reach it. Is there curiosity. If what you’re seeing works purely by discarding whatever doesn’t fit, by covering its ears and yelling “I can’t hear you la la la,” then whatever it concludes is not the result of accumulation of information; rather, the elimination of it. That is not science.

Save the last paragraph for response to the inevitable “despite falling um… numbers, and clear and present futility, Common Core Education Theory MUST be kept on life support-because racism, sexism, ageism, and welfare(hyphen) rights” defense.
- CaptDMO | 12/09/2013 @ 08:35
Science itself might be self-correcting in the long run, but individual scientists believe in their mistakes to the grave. No scientist is self-correcting. Einstein is the great example. He never recanted his dismissal of quantum mechanics (partially his discovered via the photon).

Also, the amount of outright fraud is disturbing. It is especially prevalent in the biologically related sciences like medicine and ecology and climatology. Moreover, the fraud is concentrated among academic and governmental scientists not corporate scientists. This is because corporate science is heavily scrutinized by outsiders whereas academic and government scientists are left to their own devices. The best example is Robert Gallo, the infamous plagiarist. Faucey is still defending him, but the Noble Prize committee knew better and excluded him.

Faucey’s behavior is typical too. Deans, chairs and directors routinely cover up wrong doing by subordinates for the greater good of the institution. I saw three cases of fraud during my 37 year academic career. My dean tried to cover up all three and succeeded twice. The one time he failed was because the senior faculty in the department revolted and forced the issue. The whistle blower in one case was hounded and abused for years but had tenure and outlasted the dean. This was the only time I saw the value of tenure.

It might be noted that there is no fraud in mathematics and virtually none in physics and chemistry. One might argue that all of social science research is fraudulent.
- Bob Sykes | 12/10/2013 @ 06:39
Cui bono?

It is to be expected that politics will enter anytime the powerful are to be affected in some way by the conclusions of some “science.” It isn’t even defined objectively, at least easily, which side may be trying to influence the science for its ill-gotten gains. Global warming is a great example of this: We see powerful government agencies, national as well as international, pushing the science so they can levy new taxes against the businesses. But could it not be said that this is a matter of perspective? Those who are pushing climate change, or sympathize with the political movement they dare not call a political movement, insist it is the businesses who are trying to exert the undue influence, and the “benefit” to those businesses must be the lack of deserved injury that comes from the authorities doing nothing. I’m sure, to them, it feels that way.

But, yeah…questions in other disciplines, like “what is 100 mod 7?” don’t enter into this kind of problem.
- mkfreeberg | 12/10/2013 @ 07:07
Bob Sykes: The best example is Robert Gallo, the infamous plagiarist.

Not directly relevant to the topic, but Gallo was cleared by the NIH. Phylogenetic analysis showed that the virus Gallo supposedly misappropriated was inadvertently provided in a contaminated sample provided by Montagnier’s lab.
- Zachriel | 12/10/2013 @ 09:47
I like this statement: ” just a bunch of citation-mongering followed by condescending and dismissive chortling at any opposition”. It pretty much sums up my experience when dealing with self-proclaimed “progressives”

I’m not sure I fully agree with the earlier comment regarding Einstein as an example of a scientist refusing to recant his errors. I believe that Einstein’s main problem with quantum mechanics was primarily with the proposal that probability was an inherent property of subatomic particles (as was the belief held by Niels Bohr and other members of the Copenhagen school of thought), not with QM as a whole. Einstein (and Schroedinger and Clifford) believed more in the wave properties of space/matter. I think this was the source of Einstein’s statement “God does not play dice”
- IcelandSpar | 12/14/2013 @ 07:55
IcelandSpar: Einstein’s main problem with quantum mechanics was primarily with the proposal that probability was an inherent property of subatomic particles (as was the belief held by Niels Bohr and other members of the Copenhagen school of thought), not with QM as a whole.

As probabilistic uncertainty is fundamental to quantum mechanics, it’s reasonable to say that Einstein had a problem with quantum mechanics. Tests of Bell’s Inequality have largely undermined Einstein’s position. However, Einstein did ask some very pertinent questions that led to those results, such as the EPR thought-experiment.
- Zachriel | 12/14/2013 @ 14:49
mkfreeberg: Look at the structure of the argument. If it’s just a bunch of citation-mongering followed by condescending and dismissive chortling at any opposition, well then, the thing to ask is whether or not that is how science works.

Appeals to authority can be persuasive, but is not “how science works”. Evidence always trumps appeals to authority.

Burt Prelutsky: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution versus Intelligent Design …

You’ve got to be kidding. Intelligent Design?!
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 09:18
Oh my, would ya look at that. ^ Some dismissive chortling.
- mkfreeberg | 12/15/2013 @ 09:40
mkfreeberg: Oh my, would ya look at that.

Seriously? Intelligent Design? My Goodness!
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 10:04
Dismissive chortling is science. See Muntz et al, “Haw Haw!” Journal of Like Totally Science You Guys, April 2002.
- Severian | 12/15/2013 @ 14:06
Severian: Dismissive chortling is science.

Um, no. We just wanted to make sure that he was really defending Intelligent Design as science.
- Zachriel | 12/15/2013 @ 14:11
Yeah, I believe that. Don’t you believe that? I certainly do.
- mkfreeberg | 12/15/2013 @ 14:18
mkfreeberg: Yeah, I believe that.

“He” referred to mkfreeberg. We already know Burt Prelutsky is highly confused about science. Are you defending Intelligent Design as science?
- Zachriel | 12/16/2013 @ 06:00
Are y’all defending dismissive chortling as part of the scientific method?
- mkfreeberg | 12/16/2013 @ 18:03
mkfreeberg: Are y’all defending dismissive chortling as part of the scientific method?

We directly responded to that above. Are you defending Intelligent Design as science?
- Zachriel | 12/16/2013 @ 18:32
But, notably, y’all never answered the question.
- mkfreeberg | 12/17/2013 @ 07:12
mkfreeberg: But, notably, y’all never answered the question.

We did.

Severian: Dismissive chortling is science.

Zachriel: Um, no.
- Zachriel | 12/17/2013 @ 11:59
Really. Because it looks like y’all are doing exactly that. “You’ve got to be kidding. Intelligent Design?!”

Intelligent design is studied all the time in science, particularly in psychology. When people design things, they must behave. It is scientifically meritorious to study their behaviors, this can bring benefits.

It might have prevented the healthcare.gov debacle. We could have listed the prerequisites and personality characteristics associated with intelligent design, and noted that none of them were involved in that; disaster might have been prevented.
- mkfreeberg | 12/18/2013 @ 06:23
mkfreeberg: Because it looks like y’all are doing exactly that.

We were being dismissive. We were not doing science. Dismissive chortling is not science.

mkfreeberg: Intelligent design is studied all the time in science, particularly in psychology.

Intelligent Design is a cultural movement that rejects evolutionary theory.
- Zachriel | 12/18/2013 @ 06:54
The difference is the mode of pursuit. If you’re filtering out chaff in order to look for wheat, there must be some wheat, or at the very least a desire to reach it. Is there curiosity. If what you’re seeing works purely by discarding whatever doesn’t fit, by covering its ears and yelling “I can’t hear you la la la,” then whatever it concludes is not the result of accumulation of information; rather, the elimination of it. That is not science.

According to that, Intelligent Design itself is working more scientifically than those who seek to exclude it from scientific discussion.

The Intelligent Design discussions I have seen, work by way of deductive reasoning. This is easily challenged, and in the case of ID very often is, by critics who seek to challenge the possibilities that were gathered and the elimination of those that were eliminated. Some of their points are good, others may not be, and the debate continues from that point; but by that point, the discussion has certainly become scientific.

Some scientists disagree with it ≠ It is not science. My goodness, what if those two things actually were the same. How much “science” would we lose from this new obligation to cast scientific things out of science.

There’s a very good discussion of y’all’s question over here.
- mkfreeberg | 12/18/2013 @ 07:01
mkfreeberg: According to that, Intelligent Design itself is working more scientifically than those who seek to exclude it from scientific discussion.

Intelligent Design is ignored because it has no scientific utility, and makes unsubstantiated claims.

mkfreeberg: The Intelligent Design discussions I have seen, work by way of deductive reasoning.

The scientific method is hypothetico-deductive.
- Zachriel | 12/18/2013 @ 17:27
The scientific method is hypothetico-deductive.

Are y’all demonstrating exactly how this works? Which part of y’all’s statement has this? Is it the “got to be kidding,” the question-mark, the bang, or a combination of all three?
- mkfreeberg | 12/18/2013 @ 18:32
mkfreeberg: Which part of y’all’s statement has this?

“You’ve got to be kidding” is an exclamation, not a scientific statement.
“The scientific method is hypothetico-deductive.” is definitional, not scientific.
- Zachriel | 12/18/2013 @ 19:08
Alright, then it’s established. If anybody’s behaving non-scientifically here, it is not the proponents of Intelligent Design, it’s y’all. Or, one-or-several persons within y’all.

Intelligent Design, as I understand it, is built around challenges taking the form of: Here is a thing, be it a species, some non-organic formation, or an attribute of a species. It is not plausible that this could have been formed by way of survival-of-the-fittest, or by random chance, therefore we should consider the possibility of an intelligent force at work. That is deductive reasoning, and therefore scientific, is it not?

Is history scientific? As in: Here are some reasons Henry Tudor might have murdered the Princes in the tower; here are some reasons Richard III might have been guilty of this; so let us have a rational discussion about it. Such a discussion would, or could, then be “scientific,” could it not?

And if a Ricardian steps forward to say “Let’s bounce all these Tudor sympathizers out of the discussion, because we’re scientific and they’re not” — that would be non-scientific. Right?
- mkfreeberg | 12/18/2013 @ 19:29
mkfreeberg: That is deductive reasoning, and therefore scientific, is it not?

Science is hypothetico-deductive.
- Zachriel | 12/19/2013 @ 06:13
Science is hypothetico-deductive.

Cutting and pasting is fun. Whee!!
- Severian | 12/19/2013 @ 07:39
Severian: Cutting and pasting is fun.

We repeated the comment, because mkfreeberg apparently missed it the first time.
- Zachriel | 12/19/2013 @ 07:42

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

What Liberals Call “Science”Monday, December 9th, 2013

What Liberals Call “Science”
Monday, December 9th, 2013