iNow Posted June 2 Posted June 2 This looks like another example of you putting the cart before the horse and having a preconceived view or conclusion THEN seeking out and cherry picking data which seems to support it (instead of looking at the entire landscape of data and letting the data inform / alter your views).
swansont Posted June 2 Posted June 2 47 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Doing much worse with scientists although this is old 2009 According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/#:~:text=According to the poll%2C just,universal spirit or higher power. The unbiased search continues and I am losing How is this bias?
TheVat Posted June 2 Posted June 2 It would seem, from all the cognitive science data collected over centuries, that cognitive biases are better explained by natural causes, neurological ones, than as the work of a deity or as some supernatural phenomenon. Metaphysical naturalism just requires fewer assumptions that are just tossed in ad hoc. It lowers bias by assuming less. But that doesn't mean science could not expand the scope of its understanding of the universe to phenomena that presently appear supernatural but are in fact just another sort of physical phenomena which we approached formerly with a religio-spiritual bias. Humans have made that epistemic leap from time to time throughout history - e.g. fairy lights that turned out to be bioluminescence when observed with less bias and therefore more freedom to test various hypotheses.
Luc Turpin Posted June 2 Author Posted June 2 1 hour ago, swansont said: How is this bias? On the contrary, not biased. I was ascertaining that my course of action was unbiased as I was pulling data in support and not in support of my assumption. So far, I am on the losing end with 2 of 3 in support of a mix of worldviews which is not conducive to the making of a homogenous view of science. Again, not quite what I expected 1 hour ago, iNow said: This looks like another example of you putting the cart before the horse and having a preconceived view or conclusion THEN seeking out and cherry picking data which seems to support it (instead of looking at the entire landscape of data and letting the data inform / alter your views). What do you mean? The data does not support my assumption of a homogenous worldview. I am on the losing end of it and you say that I am cherry picking data that does not meet my expectations? why would I do that? Your immediate expectation of me having preconceived views and then seeking out data, may very well be your own biases towards me that are at play. 49 minutes ago, TheVat said: It would seem, from all the cognitive science data collected over centuries, that cognitive biases are better explained by natural causes, neurological ones, than as the work of a deity or as some supernatural phenomenon. Metaphysical naturalism just requires fewer assumptions that are just tossed in ad hoc. It lowers bias by assuming less. But that doesn't mean science could not expand the scope of its understanding of the universe to phenomena that presently appear supernatural but are in fact just another sort of physical phenomena which we approached formerly with a religio-spiritual bias. Humans have made that epistemic leap from time to time throughout history - e.g. fairy lights that turned out to be bioluminescence when observed with less bias and therefore more freedom to test various hypotheses. 1- All of the data collected over the centuries has not contributed to the postulation of an accepted theory of mind. We still do not know how matter creates mind 2- If mind is all over nature or outside of brain, good luck trying to pull it into a materialistic worldview. At the very least, the predominant materialist hypothesis, that of an emergent property of nature, would be seriously in doubt. However, I agree that conjuring the supernatural, might not be needed if mind is all over nature, but materialism would be in trouble nonetheless. Think about it, a conscious field or force. That would upend a lot of things in science. And this is the hypothesis that a minority of neuroscientists are making. Now time to test and this can only happen if biases towards this hypothesis are lowered.
swansont Posted June 2 Posted June 2 2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: On the contrary, not biased. I was ascertaining that my course of action was unbiased as I was pulling data in support and not in support of my assumption. So far, I am on the losing end with 2 of 3 in support of a mix of worldviews which is not conducive to the making of a homogenous view of science. Again, not quite what I expected If it’s not bias, what result would show bias, and why? I’m failing to see how belief in a supreme being could be associated with bias.
Luc Turpin Posted June 3 Author Posted June 3 29 minutes ago, swansont said: If it’s not bias, what result would show bias, and why? I’m failing to see how belief in a supreme being could be associated with bias. Data sets were provided to support or not my assumption of a homogenous view in science, which is what you asked me to provide evidence for. I did and my assumption does not hold up to the scrutiny of evidence. this has nothing to do with biases; I was just responding to your request that I was making up assumptions and not backing them with evidence. Again, evidence does not back up my assumption. as for biases, if I have the time this week, I will do a review of literature on pubmed and query “bias in science” and see what I can pull together. Both sides; articles saying that there is and articles that say that there is not; then we can have a discussion on the subject with data in hand. And, my last posts with you had nothing to do with biases or deity. Just homogeneity of views in science
dimreepr Posted June 3 Posted June 3 20 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Looking for perfection where there is none to be found. No, accepting that you might be wrong, in spite of your biased certainty... I understand how much fun it is to have a good argument: Frankly this one was over on page 1, think of another question and we can have some more fun... 🙏
Luc Turpin Posted June 3 Author Posted June 3 50 minutes ago, dimreepr said: No, accepting that you might be wrong, in spite of your biased certainty... I understand how much fun it is to have a good argument: Frankly this one was over on page 1, think of another question and we can have some more fun... 🙏 Need to keep my promise to swansont though; next post of mine might be helpful in restructuring the debate 17 hours ago, swansont said: I look forward to your demonstration of this. What if there are competing views, but one wins because of demonstrated flaws in the competitors, or that the adopted view just works better? As promised Some references are in line with my contention, but one in particular, a meta-analysis appears to indicate that bias effects are minimal and contained in certain domains. The article that I could not copy-paste was especially enlightening. Maybe my limited review of literature can be helpful in our discussion. A search was conducted of Google, Google Scholar and PubMed. 1- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917255/#:~:text=In%20research%2C%20bias%20occurs%20when,and%20publication%20(Figure%201). Bias can occur in the planning, data collection, analysis, and publication phases of research. Understanding research bias allows readers to critically and independently review the scientific literature and avoid treatments which are suboptimal or potentially harmful. A thorough understanding of bias and how it affects study results is essential for the practice of evidence-based medicine. 2- https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18326/1/may-bias-in-science.pdf Moral, social, political, and other “nonepistemic” values can lead to bias in science, from prioritizing certain topics over others to the rationalization of questionable research practices. Such values might seem particularly common or powerful in the social sciences, given their subject matter. However, I argue first that the well-documented phenomenon of motivated reasoning provides a useful framework for understanding when values guide scientific inquiry (in pernicious or productive ways). Second, this analysis reveals a parity thesis: values influence the social and natural sciences about equally, particularly because both are so prominently affected by desires for social credit and status, including recognition and career advancement. Ultimately, bias in natural and social science is both natural and social— that is, a part of human nature and considerably motivated by a concern for social status (and its maintenance). Whether the pervasive influence of values is inimical to the sciences is a separate question. We have seen how many of the putative biases that affect science can be explained and illuminated in terms of motivated reasoning, which yields a general understanding of how a researcher’s goals and values can influence scientific practice (whether positively or negatively). ……………. In particular, one’s reasoning is more often motivated by a desire to gain social credit (e.g. recognition among peers) than a desire to promote a moral or political ideology. Although there may be discernible differences in the quality of research across scientific domains, all are influenced by researchers’ values, as manifested in their motivations. We began with the notion that bias in science is a problem, and a particularly pressing one given concerns about replicability and questionable research practices. However, I have not attempted to adjudicate whether the influence of any values in natural or social science is ultimately pernicious. My goal has only been to make the case that we ought to treat like cases alike. When value influences are detrimental, we should regard them as disconcerting in both areas of science; when values are innocuous or even beneficial, we ought to treat them as such in both domains. Whether scientific domains are companions in innocence or in guilt, we should recognize that motivated reasoning influences a wide range of research, which makes vivid how inherent values are to the whole enterprise of science. 3- https://communities.springernature.com/posts/ethics-of-hype-and-bias-in-science Scientists are only human. As such, they can fall prey to biases in their professional endeavors. Biased scientists are an inevitability, however the view of science as an objective enterprise assumes that these biases can be overcome by the scrutiny of a peer review process. Biased scientists need not necessarily give rise to biased research. The concept of self-correcting science should ensure this. This notion is associated with the idea of replication, where results that fail to replicate will not be propagated in the scientific literature. Another important step in this process are meta-analyses, in which an assembly of studies examining the same question, with varying degrees of individual error, are statistically analyzed in order to find a ‘true effect’. However, both these processes are dependent on the publication process. For this reason, publication bias is one of the biggest threats to the integrity of scientific knowledge. Another common type of bias resulting from the social dimension of science comes in the form of the scientific dogma. An essential part of being a scientist is acknowledging that knowledge is not absolute. Especially today, when methodology and scientific instruments evolve at a prompt pace, improving the resolution of the data obtained, there is always the possibility that some piece of knowledge needs to be reevaluated. In fact, this is one of the bases for self-correcting science. Still, many fields become attached to current theories and new ideas are not given a fair chance to compete, as established scientists and proponents of currently accepted theories influence funding, tenure decisions and pre-publication peer review. In this case, not only are scientists failing to uphold the principles of organized skepticism and disinterestedness, but they also fail to respect their fellow colleagues, many times on the basis of self-interest or for the sake of defeating a rival’s argument. 4- https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1618569114 Numerous biases are believed to affect the scientific literature, but their actual prevalence across disciplines is unknown. To gain a comprehensive picture of the potential imprint of bias in science, we probed for the most commonly postulated bias-related patterns and risk factors, in a large random sample of meta-analyses taken from all disciplines. The magnitude of these biases varied widely across fields and was overall relatively small. However, we consistently observed a significant risk of small, early, and highly cited studies to overestimate effects and of studies not published in peer-reviewed journals to underestimate them. We also found at least partial confirmation of previous evidence suggesting that US studies and early studies might report more extreme effects, although these effects were smaller and more heterogeneously distributed across meta-analyses and disciplines. Authors publishing at high rates and receiving many citations were, overall, not at greater risk of bias. However, effect sizes were likely to be overestimated by early-career researchers, those working in small or long-distance collaborations, and those responsible for scientific misconduct, supporting hypotheses that connect bias to situational factors, lack of mutual control, and individual integrity. Some of these patterns and risk factors might have modestly increased in intensity over time, particularly in the social sciences. Our findings suggest that, besides one being routinely cautious that published small, highly-cited, and earlier studies may yield inflated results, the feasibility and costs of interventions to attenuate biases in the literature might need to be discussed on a discipline-specific and topic-specific basis 5- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33871836/ Clinical epidemiological research entails assessing the burden and etiology of disease, the diagnosis and prognosis of disease, the efficacy of preventive measures or treatments, the analysis of the risks and benefits of diagnostic and therapeutic maneuvers, and the evaluation of health care services. In all areas, the main focus is to describe the relationship between exposure and outcome and to determine one of the following: prevalence, incidence, cause, prognosis, or effect of treatment. The accuracy of these conclusions is determined by the validity of the study. Validity is determined by addressing potential biases and possible confounders that may be responsible for the observed association. Therefore, it is important to understand the types of bias that exist and also to be able to assess their impact on the magnitude and direction of the observed effect. The following chapter reviews the epidemiological concepts of selection bias, information bias, intervention bias, and confounding and discusses ways in which these sources of bias can be minimized. 6- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32511249/ Both the natural and the social sciences are currently facing a deep "reproducibility crisis". Two important factors in this crisis have been the selective reporting of results and methodological problems. In this article, we examine a fusion of these two factors. More specifically, we demonstrate that the uncritical import of Boolean optimization algorithms from electrical engineering into some areas of the social sciences in the late 1980s has induced algorithmic bias on a considerable scale over the last quarter century. Potentially affected are all studies that have used a method nowadays known as Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Drawing on replication material for 215 peer-reviewed QCA articles from across 109 high-profile management, political science and sociology journals, we estimate the extent this problem has assumed in empirical work. Our results suggest that one in three studies is affected, one in ten severely so. More generally, our article cautions scientists against letting methods and algorithms travel too easily across disparate disciplines without sufficient prior evaluation of their suitability for the context in hand. 7- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30990003/ The human mind is liable to make biased interpretations. The biomedical paradigm supposes that an objective truth can be reached with rigorous scientific methods. Human risk of bias is defined in this paper as threats to validity of study results that cannot be controlled even by rigorous scientific methods. 8- https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yZmNCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=bias+in+science&ots=CS_hO0TlW1&sig=PrHZdhGxIeoLt002mVdMm2f5C6E&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bias%20in%20science&f=false Cannot cut and paste, but a very good read. 9- https://elifesciences.org/articles/44929 Scientists seek to eliminate all forms of bias from their research. However, all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research. Here, we argue that since these 'philosophical biases' cannot be avoided, they need to be debated critically by scientists and philosophers of science. 10- https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/abs/10.1148/radiol.2383041109 Bias is a form of systematic error that can affect scientific investigations and distort the measurement process. A biased study loses validity in relation to the degree of the bias. While some study designs are more prone to bias, its presence is universal. It is difficult or even impossible to completely eliminate bias. In the process of attempting to do so, new bias may be introduced or a study may be rendered less generalizable. Therefore, the goals are to minimize bias and for both investigators and readers to comprehend its residual effects, limiting misinterpretation and misuse of data. Numerous forms of bias have been described, and the terminology can be confusing, overlapping, and specific to a medical specialty. Much of the terminology is drawn from the epidemiology literature and may not be common parlance for radiologists. In this review, various types of bias are discussed, with emphasis on the radiology literature, and common study designs in which bias occurs are presented.
Luc Turpin Posted June 3 Author Posted June 3 Upon more careful reading of the references that I provided, I am more inclined to believe that the scientific process has checks and balances to weed out many of the unwarranted effects of biases. However, I maintain my position that there aisle bias in science based on the following 1- that « many fields become attached to current theories and new ideas are not given a fair chance to compete, as established scientists and proponents of currently accepted theories influence funding, tenure decisions and pre-publication peer review. ». 2- « all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research » 3- that « The human mind is liable to make biased interpretations. The paradigm supposes that an objective truth can be reached with rigorous scientific methods. Human risk of bias is defined as threats to validity of study results that cannot be controlled even by rigorous scientific methods. »
swansont Posted June 3 Posted June 3 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Upon more careful reading of the references that I provided, I am more inclined to believe that the scientific process has checks and balances to weed out many of the unwarranted effects of biases. However, I maintain my position that there aisle bias in science based on the following 1- that « many fields become attached to current theories and new ideas are not given a fair chance to compete, as established scientists and proponents of currently accepted theories influence funding, tenure decisions and pre-publication peer review. ». <sigh> Your evidence? Is there any way to document and/or quantify this? I suspect that if you reviewed the appropriate literature you would see new ideas popping up, all over the place. What you won’t see is this happening on a large scale, but if current paradigms are correct, that’s exactly what you’d expect. But at a lower level, you would, in areas that were not accessible in years past. When I started grad school, laser cooling and trapping was a pretty new subfield of atomic physics, made possible by advances in laser technology. As more was learned it blossomed into a huge area of research, and branched out as people thought of new applications. So I reject the notion because I spent my career experiencing it. If current paradigms are not correct, you’d expect more and more examples where the science fails. If your premise is correct, nobody would be stepping up to come up with models to explain what’s going on. Finding examples of this should be easy - there should be a whole bunch of unexplained phenomena, with nobody studying those issues. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: 2- « all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research » Things that science is based on are assumed to be true, since you’re not going to reinvent the wheel every time you start a new project. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: 3- that « The human mind is liable to make biased interpretations. The paradigm supposes that an objective truth can be reached with rigorous scientific methods. Human risk of bias is defined as threats to validity of study results that cannot be controlled even by rigorous scientific methods. » Science isn’t seeking any objective truth. We seek models to predict how nature behaves. There’s a bunch of stuff in physics that we know aren’t real (i.e. we make them up) — they are useful tools for such predictions.
Luc Turpin Posted June 3 Author Posted June 3 40 minutes ago, swansont said: <sigh> Your evidence? Is there any way to document and/or quantify this? I suspect that if you reviewed the appropriate literature you would see new ideas popping up, all over the place. What you won’t see is this happening on a large scale, but if current paradigms are correct, that’s exactly what you’d expect. But at a lower level, you would, in areas that were not accessible in years past. When I started grad school, laser cooling and trapping was a pretty new subfield of atomic physics, made possible by advances in laser technology. As more was learned it blossomed into a huge area of research, and branched out as people thought of new applications. So I reject the notion because I spent my career experiencing it. If current paradigms are not correct, you’d expect more and more examples where the science fails. If your premise is correct, nobody would be stepping up to come up with models to explain what’s going on. Finding examples of this should be easy - there should be a whole bunch of unexplained phenomena, with nobody studying those issues. Things that science is based on are assumed to be true, since you’re not going to reinvent the wheel every time you start a new project. Science isn’t seeking any objective truth. We seek models to predict how nature behaves. There’s a bunch of stuff in physics that we know aren’t real (i.e. we make them up) — they are useful tools for such predictions. 1- <sigh> thought that I was moving towards firmer ground. 2- My evidence is not quantifiable, but at the very least, I am not the only one upholding these views 3, 4- I often see new ideas popping up in the literature, but when I look at the same literature a few years afterward, I rarely see any follow-up on them nor integration or movement of models. Best example for me in my reading through the years is Evolution Theory where it started as "evolution, one random mutation at a time" to an almost avalanche of processes for evolution being uncovered (from vertical to horizontal gene transfer; a big deal), but the theory, at least for me, seems generally unchanged, lying on top of the same foundation as before. I say that based on acquired evidence of the last few decades, this same foundation should have shifted, and it did not, at least not as much as it should have. 4, 5-Much less resistance to innovation of the same kind, much more resistance to innovation of a different kind. My first two points of contention indicated above would not slow down the quantity, quality of studies nor the speed of change, or immense success of science as long as these innovations were not putting into question models. If I have an idea based on different basic science assumptions it might not be given a fair chance, hence less possible paradigm shifts. Not saying that models cannot be challenged, but that you have to wake up really early to do so. 6- Causality, determinism and reductionism are ways of skinning a cat, but other ways exist as well that might bring a different-new perspective to things. 7- I think that the point is that the process is close-ended not open-ended
swansont Posted June 3 Posted June 3 49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 1- <sigh> thought that I was moving towards firmer ground. You should be very aware that you haven’t cited any evidence. 49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 2- My evidence is not quantifiable, but at the very least, I am not the only one upholding these views Five people or twenty believing in bigfoot doesn’t make it real. 49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 3, 4- I often see new ideas popping up in the literature, but when I look at the same literature a few years afterward, I rarely see any follow-up on them nor integration or movement of models. Best example for me in my reading through the years is Evolution Theory where it started as "evolution, one random mutation at a time" to an almost avalanche of processes for evolution being uncovered (from vertical to horizontal gene transfer; a big deal), but the theory, at least for me, seems generally unchanged, lying on top of the same foundation as before. I say that based on acquired evidence of the last few decades, this same foundation should have shifted, and it did not, at least not as much as it should have. What acquired evidence? You’re long on claims but short on support. 49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 4, 5-Much less resistance to innovation of the same kind, much more resistance to innovation of a different kind. My first two points of contention indicated above would not slow down the quantity, quality of studies nor the speed of change, or immense success of science as long as these innovations were not putting into question models. If I have an idea based on different basic science assumptions it might not be given a fair chance, hence less possible paradigm shifts. Not saying that models cannot be challenged, but that you have to wake up really early to do so. That only matters if the idea is correct. The first step one should take is to try and falsify an idea, and if it’s wrong, it doesn’t merit further scrutiny. You’re saying what you think will happen, but you don’t know this. What I’m asking is for examples where it did happen. 49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 6- Causality, determinism and reductionism are ways of skinning a cat, but other ways exist as well that might bring a different-new perspective to things. You would have to show that e.g. causality is false. I also think you overestimate how much philosophy scientists consider when doing research. 49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 7- I think that the point is that the process is close-ended not open-ended What does this mean?
Luc Turpin Posted June 3 Author Posted June 3 34 minutes ago, swansont said: Five people or twenty believing in bigfoot doesn’t make it real. What acquired evidence? You’re long on claims but short on support. That only matters if the idea is correct. The first step one should take is to try and falsify an idea, and if it’s wrong, it doesn’t merit further scrutiny. You’re saying what you think will happen, but you don’t know this. What I’m asking is for examples where it did happen. You would have to show that e.g. causality is false. I also think you overestimate how much philosophy scientists consider when doing research. What does this mean? 1- Good one; plead no contest 2-Holotropic mind with years of observations and experimentation; Where is mind-searching for mind in nature-how does mind work through brain with 35 references; The Secret Language of Cells backed by numerous studies; An evidence-based critical review of the mind-brain identity; are all examples of things that have merit, but are going nowhere is science. Other numerous studies that are out of the ordinary and that I have posted in past threads (met mostly with silence. My example of the Theory of evolution is as credible as your example of laser cooling and trapping, with different outcomes. 3- And if it has gone successfully through the falsification process and still does not get studied? Like the examples given above. 4- Have you seen any major paradigm shift lately in comparison to before? Is it because science is getting closer to the wholly grail or things have changed in science where new ideas are harder to come by. Before, It took one or two names on a paper, now it takes more, even hundreds (hadron collider papers). Where does creativity come from, a group or a few brilliant individuals with a dirrerent mind set. 5- Causality is true; I am not the one advancing this position, one of my references is. Have you seen many papers proposing holism as their basis for their studies? 6- Close-ended as refractory to ideas that run counter to the more agreed upon worldview. I will be off-line tomorrow. At 4- should have said "new paradigm ideas", because new ideas existing inside existing paragdims, there are plently.
iNow Posted June 4 Posted June 4 5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Upon more careful reading of the references that I provided, I am more inclined to believe that the scientific process has checks and balances to weed out many of the unwarranted effects of biases. However, I maintain my position that there aisle bias in science Lol
Luc Turpin Posted June 4 Author Posted June 4 13 minutes ago, iNow said: Lol I am saying that my positiion has shifted. I believed before that it was the process that was also at fault. Now I say that the three points indicated in the post are the ones that I share with those mentioned in my references,not the process. I am moving on my position! Have you ever moved on something that I have said? Maybe you should read your own caption for inspiration.
iNow Posted June 4 Posted June 4 18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Have you ever moved on something that I have said? To be frank, no, but I encourage you to keep trying.
CharonY Posted June 4 Posted June 4 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: are all examples of things that have merit, but are going nowhere is science. Other numerous studies that are out of the ordinary and that I have posted in past threads (met mostly with silence. My example of the Theory of evolution is as credible as your example of laser cooling and trapping, with different outcomes. You have it backwards. In science, if things have merit, they go somewhere (eventually). If they are going nowhere for a long period of time it fundamentally means that either a) folks worked on it and found nothing and abandoned that line of thought or b) the evidence that it might be something is so weak, that folks ultimately see no merit in spending time and effort studying something that goes nowhere. Ideas are cheap, but actually working on it is where a random thought becomes science. Conversely, if something doesn't move much, it means that the foundation has been rock solid. Also, if you think there has been no rethinking in evolution, you really have not even scratched the surface of literature. However, the high level basics still hold true, because that it is how things happen. So for example Darwin was not wrong, he just had a lot of gaps and some have been closed during modern synthesis and folks are ever pushing evolutionary questions that have not been solved yet. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: And if it has gone successfully through the falsification process and still does not get studied? Like the examples given above. Your examples are individual articles, not a review on field. You have been mostly talking about observations, not research directions. As mentioned above, it has to lead to something specific to be investigated. I can write a paper and postulate that mitochondria are the source of souls and if I get the right articles and/or reviewers I might even get published. It does not mean that it leads itself to a research program, especially if it does not make it clear how to study it. Again, postulating things or throwing out idea is cheap. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Have you seen any major paradigm shift lately in comparison to before? There are expected to be fewer the more we figure out. If there are constant paradigm shifts, it would suggest we know too little to develop paradigms in the first place. But even so, smaller shifts happen all the time, but they apply to areas in a field and rarely to whole fields. On big shift for example is the issue of low reproducibility in certain types of research (e.g. psych) and how to address this issue. Edit: I think an underlying issue in this discussion is that your view how science should work is at odds with the methodology. In order to get as close to reality as we can, we whittle down ideas and prune away things that do not match data. In other words, the whole scientific process is to reduce all possible hypotheses to the most likely ones. If we go and throw away everything every time has a minute idea, there simply would be no progress.
swansont Posted June 4 Posted June 4 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 2-Holotropic mind with years of observations and experimentation; Where is mind-searching for mind in nature-how does mind work through brain with 35 references; The Secret Language of Cells backed by numerous studies; An evidence-based critical review of the mind-brain identity; are all examples of things that have merit, but are going nowhere is science. Other numerous studies that are out of the ordinary and that I have posted in past threads (met mostly with silence. My example of the Theory of evolution is as credible as your example of laser cooling and trapping, with different outcomes. 3- And if it has gone successfully through the falsification process and still does not get studied? Like the examples given above. I’m not familiar with these examples requiring the theory of evolution be discarded or modified. Quote 4- Have you seen any major paradigm shift lately in comparison to before? Is it because science is getting closer to the wholly grail or things have changed in science where new ideas are harder to come by. Before, It took one or two names on a paper, now it takes more, even hundreds (hadron collider papers). Where does creativity come from, a group or a few brilliant individuals with a dirrerent mind set. Why wouldn’t they be harder to come by? We’ve gathered the low-hanging fruit. The rest is harder to collect. Quote 5- Causality is true; I am not the one advancing this position, one of my references is. Have you seen many papers proposing holism as their basis for their studies? When I say “reference” I mean a scientific paper, with title and page number, preferably with a link to it. Not a passing mention of a video or blog post. So, which reference is advancing this position? Quote 6- Close-ended as refractory to ideas that run counter to the more agreed upon worldview. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the idea runs counter to mainstream science, one must ask if there is the necessary evidence to support it. Only then can you consider that the idea has been ignored. “I saw bigfoot” can be dismissed if you don’t have the evidence we see for other new species that routinely get described in biology. So give us an example that has such support that has been treated this way.. 1
Mordred Posted June 4 Posted June 4 (edited) As someone who develops physics theories I employ known physics in 35 years I have never found any need not to employ known physics. If I cannot employ known physics to develop a theory that tells me there is something wrong with my theory. Do you consider that a form of bias ? (Keep in mind I am a firm believer that any theory I develop I put every effort I can to disprove my own theory) lol in point of detail I am extremely good at proving my own theories invalid or inaccurate. Edited June 4 by Mordred
dimreepr Posted June 4 Posted June 4 13 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: I am saying that my positiion has shifted. I believed before that it was the process that was also at fault. Now I say that the three points indicated in the post are the ones that I share with those mentioned in my references,not the process. I am moving on my position! Have you ever moved on something that I have said? Maybe you should read your own caption for inspiration. Oh FFS, think harder; your position has only shifted, in the goals you set to defend your pointless argument. Think of a better question, in payment for a better argument. For instance, why can't I make myself better understood?
Luc Turpin Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 General <Science cannot refuse to investigate the metaphysical on the grounds that it is not its business to do so and then declare the world to be materialistic and mechanistic. Neither can it impose this worldview until it has definitively resolved the issues of the living and consciousness. Doing so is premature and biased towards other possible worldview candidates.> -me On 6/3/2024 at 9:49 PM, CharonY said: You have it backwards. In science, if things have merit, they go somewhere (eventually). If they are going nowhere for a long period of time it fundamentally means that either a) folks worked on it and found nothing and abandoned that line of thought or b) the evidence that it might be something is so weak, that folks ultimately see no merit in spending time and effort studying something that goes nowhere. Ideas are cheap, but actually working on it is where a random thought becomes science. Conversely, if something doesn't move much, it means that the foundation has been rock solid. Also, if you think there has been no rethinking in evolution, you really have not even scratched the surface of literature. However, the high level basics still hold true, because that it is how things happen. So for example Darwin was not wrong, he just had a lot of gaps and some have been closed during modern synthesis and folks are ever pushing evolutionary questions that have not been solved yet. Items a) and b) are correct statements. Add c) <a promising avenue of exploration with interesting preliminary evidence, but does not respect the current paradigm, so it went nowhere.> and I agree with this part of your statement Adding horizontal gene transfer to an exclusively vertical one should have shaken the grounds to the core of the selfishness part of evolution theory and it has barely made a dent. The core foundation of the theory of evolution had no place whatsoever for epigenetic and its requirement of environmental factors having to be taken into account in the theory. I have witnessed so many <surprises> over the years that I am <surprised> that the theory is still intact. On 6/3/2024 at 9:49 PM, CharonY said: Your examples are individual articles, not a review on field. You have been mostly talking about observations, not research directions. As mentioned above, it has to lead to something specific to be investigated. I can write a paper and postulate that mitochondria are the source of souls and if I get the right articles and/or reviewers I might even get published. It does not mean that it leads itself to a research program, especially if it does not make it clear how to study it. Again, postulating things or throwing out idea is cheap. I was not talking about the recent examples that I posted. Yes, observations, not research directions , I admit. The articles that I produced in other posts were not far fetched as the mitochondria example, just not in line with predominant paradigm. On 6/3/2024 at 9:49 PM, CharonY said: There are expected to be fewer the more we figure out. If there are constant paradigm shifts, it would suggest we know too little to develop paradigms in the first place. But even so, smaller shifts happen all the time, but they apply to areas in a field and rarely to whole fields. On big shift for example is the issue of low reproducibility in certain types of research (e.g. psych) and how to address this issue. See my text under <General>. I predict significant paradigm shifts when issues related to the living and consciousness are satisfactorily resolved. On 6/3/2024 at 9:49 PM, CharonY said: Edit: I think an underlying issue in this discussion is that your view how science should work is at odds with the methodology. In order to get as close to reality as we can, we whittle down ideas and prune away things that do not match data. In other words, the whole scientific process is to reduce all possible hypotheses to the most likely ones. If we go and throw away everything every time has a minute idea, there simply would be no progress. I have not called for a revolution in science, but an evolution encompassing parts of reality that have been ignored so far. On 6/3/2024 at 10:40 PM, swansont said: I’m not familiar with these examples requiring the theory of evolution be discarded or modified. Unrelated to evolution theory, but to those outside the current paradigm trying to be inside. On 6/3/2024 at 10:40 PM, swansont said: Why wouldn’t they be harder to come by? We’ve gathered the low-hanging fruit. The rest is harder to collect. Again, I predict significant paradigm shifts when issues related to the living and consciousness are satisfactorily resolved. On 6/3/2024 at 10:40 PM, swansont said: When I say “reference” I mean a scientific paper, with title and page number, preferably with a link to it. Not a passing mention of a video or blog post. I posted numerous summaries of articles with citations and references to the actual article in numerous posts of mine with no feedback. And you did not respond to my question. On 6/3/2024 at 10:40 PM, swansont said: So, which reference is advancing this position? I am asking you a question about any holism papers that you have ever encountered; meaning that there is none and that is a problem; and an example of biases. On 6/3/2024 at 10:40 PM, swansont said: So give us an example that has such support that has been treated this way.. Again, Holotropic mind with years of observations and experimentation; On 6/4/2024 at 9:32 AM, Mordred said: As someone who develops physics theories I employ known physics in 35 years I have never found any need not to employ known physics. If I cannot employ known physics to develop a theory that tells me there is something wrong with my theory. Do you consider that a form of bias ? (Keep in mind I am a firm believer that any theory I develop I put every effort I can to disprove my own theory) lol in point of detail I am extremely good at proving my own theories invalid or inaccurate. Is this a trick question? Yes, I consider this a form of bias. Why would you not be able to employ known physics? On 6/4/2024 at 10:30 AM, dimreepr said: Oh FFS, think harder; your position has only shifted, in the goals you set to defend your pointless argument. Think of a better question, in payment for a better argument. For instance, why can't I make myself better understood? Now, now Dim, no swearing😊 Thinking as hard a I can (maybe I am just dim-witted) and with the amount of time at my disposal for posting. Trying hard to be as clear as possible, but admit that I am having communication problems.
Mordred Posted June 5 Posted June 5 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Is this a trick question? Yes, I consider this a form of bias. Why would you not be able to employ known physics? So let me understand this correctly you have some physics idea but when you attempt to apply known physics find that you cannot do so which technically should invalidate the idea but you also consider that a form of bias as opposed to proper methodology. Do I have that correct ? Edited June 5 by Mordred
swansont Posted June 5 Posted June 5 39 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: <Science cannot refuse to investigate the metaphysical on the grounds that it is not its business to do so and then declare the world to be materialistic and mechanistic. Neither can it impose this worldview until it has definitively resolved the issues of the living and consciousness. Doing so is premature and biased towards other possible worldview candidates.> -me Science doesn’t declare the world to be materialistic and mechanistic. Science declares that these are limitations of what it can study. It does not impose this worldview - you are free to reject it. But the findings of science shown to be true will continue to be true regardless. Science has been a great success in explaining how nature behaves, and that’s why it gets the benefit of doubt when one encounters some new phenomenon. If you want some other approach to be considered, you have to show it’s going to be worth the effort. But without a track record, it just not a practical use of anyone’s time. We’re biased toward what works. What’s wrong with that?
Luc Turpin Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 10 minutes ago, Mordred said: So let me understand this correctly you have some physics idea but when you attempt to apply known physics find that you cannot do so which technically should invalidate the idea but you also consider that a form of bias as opposed to proper methodology. Do I have that correct ? Now I think that I understand better. There is no bias in choosing to follow the process, but some scientists use the process and methodology with an intention of their own. The matter is this: if you put your values and beliefs in the process, it becomes less objective and therefore biased toward the interpretation that you want to obtain. Physics and chemistry are less prone to this I suppose.
TheVat Posted June 5 Posted June 5 On 6/3/2024 at 5:37 PM, Luc Turpin said: 2-Holotropic mind with years of observations and experimentation What I'm finding when I google holotropic mind is a guy named Grof who has some sort of New Age mysticism and connects the holotropic to the Hindu conception of Atman-Brahman. While this may be of interest to spiritual seekers, I am not clear how this would change the scientific view of the neurological correlates of consciousness. There doesn't seem to be a scientifc theory there that is supported by evidence of a nonphysical field of consciousness outside of brains. The default position that consciousness is a brain process is not from bias, but from the mountains of evidence (Himalayan sized mountains) of the supervenience of mental properties (like the sensation of pain) on physical properties (like the firing of certain groups of receptors and connected neurons). A feeling supervenes on neural activity, and neural activity entails feeling. Kill the neurons, it all goes away, no feeling, no consciousness, nothing. A dualist view, contrary to this paradigm, has only odd anomalies and ambiguous anecdotes. As others point out, this doesn't offer much to a scientific inquiry. As Swanson asked, 6 minutes ago, swansont said: We’re biased toward what works. What’s wrong with that?
Recommended Posts