New knowledge vs paradigm shifts (split from Mind-brain)

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Pop-science in not Michio Kaku, nor Star treck, but science studies that are made available for public viewing.

That’s not what pop-science is. At least that’s not what most people mean by it. You can get science studies on places like arxiv, but it’s not written for the general public. They are preprints of articles that end up in journals. Definitely not meant for the general public. pop-sci typically removes most of the math, and with it, a lot of the rigor and ability to actually do science with the information

 

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

This is not the interpretation of others. If I am reading the second sentence correctly, I am not implying anything; surely not that current subatomic models are getting it wrong.

If models aren’t getting it wrong, why do we need new ones?

[Luc Turpin]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not what pop-science is. At least that’s not what most people mean by it. You can get science studies on places like arxiv, but it’s not written for the general public. They are preprints of articles that end up in journals. Definitely not meant for the general public. pop-sci typically removes most of the math, and with it, a lot of the rigor and ability to actually do science with the information

 

If models aren’t getting it wrong, why do we need new ones?

1- Then this is not my defintion of pop-science. 

2- Because the new one fit better with the evidence; it extends our knowledge. brain producing mind or brain as a transducer is very similar with only subtle data making the difference. 

Brain as a transducer is not being taken seriously because of bias and different worldview.

Note: not saying that brain is a transducer, but the pathway to it being recognized is not the same as any other theory fiting the worldview

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Pop-science journalism is an extension of science and promulgating basically the conclusions of science. I persist in saying that there is a prevailing negative undertone in science. As if we are still hung up on what religion entailed for society as a whole in the past. As if the counter revolution never stopped. The mere mention of religion or god gets everyone riled up.

If anything it's the other way round, if for pop-science we say philosophy; science just wants to get on with it, without all those peskie journos asking personal question's, it only gets heated when god is used as an excuse to not try and understand (edit, gods, something else Dawkins was confused by 🙄); if you make an honest mistake the scientists are quite tolerant and happy to explain why.

You, my friend is treading a fine line, as did I when I joined this forum and sometimes continue to do so, the difference between now and then is, I learned to listen to these fine people, before I argued with them.

I'd hate to see you banned. 

Edited April 23 by dimreepr

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

it only gets heated when god is used as an excuse to not try and understand 

Good point!

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 (edit, gods, something else Dawkins was confused by 🙄); 

Did not get what Dawkins din't get

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You, my friend is treading a fine line, as did I when I joined this forum and sometimes continue to do so, the difference between now and then is, I learned to listen to these fine people, before I argued with them.

I'd hate to see you banned. 

I think that I got close to the line with my statement about "you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong". I think that CharronY and Phi for All did not like that one. But, my weak excuse is that I was getting exasperated at the null effect that I was having on the conversation. The fault is mine. 

I listen to these fine people, because they know more than I, but the point is: how can I present a different perspective without toppling the apple cart? I thought that this was also part of science.

I'd hate to be banned and hope that they will tolerate my excentric ways.

Thanks for the guidance my friend.

[CharonY]

48 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I listen to these fine people, because they know more than I, but the point is: how can I present a different perspective without toppling the apple cart? I thought that this was also part of science.

The first thing to do is present clearly what the apple cart is. I.e. provide a clear understanding of the current understanding what is the current mainstream understanding of a topic and not the pop sci or a misunderstood version of it. From there you can point out specific issues. Not just handwavy opinions, but data that suggest serious issues with the prevailing model (and again, this requires a good understanding of the current model). From there you could present publications of alternate views and highlight how those are an improvement over the prevailing one (e.g. better predictions, fewer conflicts with available data and so on). The problem is that this generally requires a fairly detailed knowledge of the current scientific state of knowledge. Reading a few articles here and there won't provide that.

Remember, models were built iteratively by hundreds, if not thousands of specialists on the given topics, and toppling that requires hard work and expertise, which is unlikely obtained within a few years without formal training in the basics.

Just having a different perspective with not explanatory power is not scientific or even useful. I could propose an unlimited number of ways to categorize species, but we keep using a handful (sometimes conflicting) ones which, even if flawed, have been useful in specific contexts. You have so far not made a case how your viewpoint adds anything to the discussion, nor are the critiques specific enough that would indicate a need in a paradigm shift.

While you have cited some folks, much of the arguments you derive from them appear to be your interpretation and/or extrapolations which do not really relate with the actual scientific discourse. 

Paradigm changes are big things and the effort of tons of work. And there are always folks who think that they can provide that without putting in the work. I suggest not being one of them.

 

[Luc Turpin]

43 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The first thing to do is present clearly what the apple cart is. I.e. provide a clear understanding of the current understanding what is the current mainstream understanding of a topic and not the pop sci or a misunderstood version of it. From there you can point out specific issues. Not just handwavy opinions, but data that suggest serious issues with the prevailing model (and again, this requires a good understanding of the current model). From there you could present publications of alternate views and highlight how those are an improvement over the prevailing one (e.g. better predictions, fewer conflicts with available data and so on). The problem is that this generally requires a fairly detailed knowledge of the current scientific state of knowledge. Reading a few articles here and there won't provide that.

Remember, models were built iteratively by hundreds, if not thousands of specialists on the given topics, and toppling that requires hard work and expertise, which is unlikely obtained within a few years without formal training in the basics.

Just having a different perspective with not explanatory power is not scientific or even useful. I could propose an unlimited number of ways to categorize species, but we keep using a handful (sometimes conflicting) ones which, even if flawed, have been useful in specific contexts. You have so far not made a case how your viewpoint adds anything to the discussion, nor are the critiques specific enough that would indicate a need in a paradigm shift.

While you have cited some folks, much of the arguments you derive from them appear to be your interpretation and/or extrapolations which do not really relate with the actual scientific discourse. 

Paradigm changes are big things and the effort of tons of work. And there are always folks who think that they can provide that without putting in the work. I suggest not being one of them.

 

Then this disqualifies me from participation in this forum.

[CharonY]

It doesn't. There are many topics you can explore, discuss and/or ask about. It is just unlikely that you will find support for supposedly paradigm-changing insights without providing equivalent evidence, if that is your sole motivation.

Science is in its core a learning process. Most scientists approach questions with a learning mindset. Starting with an "I got all the answers" mindset just runs contrary to how science works and yes, for that purpose this is likely the wrong forum.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Then this disqualifies me from participation in this forum.

Plenty of people without expertise participate here. The ones doing it successfully generally ask questions to fill in the gaps in their knowledge rather than pontificate in areas where their knowledge is deficient, and defer to those who know more.

 

 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Did not get what Dawkins din't get

I'll start a new topic, you can can ask me there.