ridicule is not good science

[swansont]

Not that I believe in ID,but Appolinaria is correct. We have historically called whatever is beyond our comprehension, either religion or magic. Only after having understood a phenomenon, do we then classify it as science.

Religion may, at some point, or may not be physically measured or observed.

 

"Historically" is mainly before the advent/adoption of the scientific method. As it pertains to my previous comment, religion is used to advance and ideology despite the scientific method.

 

The point I am trying to make has absolutely nothing to do with religion. The inability of observation does not mean something doesn't exist.

 

But there is a burden of proof under the process of science. We do not assume a creator exists merely because one has no yet been falsified. That's a fallacy.

[John Cuthber]

OK, lets clarify something here.

 

The validity of religion and the validity of "intelligent design" are not the same thing

One is debatable (but not in this part of the forum).

The other is just plain deceitful.

Further, religion does not claim to be science, but ID does.

 

I was talking about ridiculing pseudo-science in all it's forms.

I note that I'm being accused of bringing religion into the thread.

Actually as far as I can tell, no major religion thinks much of ID, but a lot of politicians do.

 

Feel free to complain that I brought politics into the house of physics, but I didn't bring God into it.

 

I still think that ridiculing pseudo-science is a valid way of teaching people that it is nonsense.

 

So rather than telling me that "But there is nothing that proves a creator doesn't exist. Tainting a possible explanation with a biased opinion is illogical." which may be true, but is irrelevant since nobody had said there was (or was not) a Creator you might like to join me back at the topic and answer this.

 

 

Perhaps someone would like to tell me what they could have made a practical steam engine from 2000 years ago?

Without much better metallurgy that was available at the time, the idea was ridiculous.

Edited November 14, 2011 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

I'm not sure I understand the logic here. There's nothing that proves pink unicorns with lipgloss don't exist either. If you don't have some sort of initial suspicion you can base your arguments on *why* start searching for them, it seems kinda silly to, no?

 

The scientific method is meant to untaint explanations by making them not based on opinion, but rather on fact. It doesn't matter if you believe the chupakabra exists or not, or if there is life on mars, or if aliens can be silicon-based. Your opinions are your own. If you want to pursue any question scientifically, you must base it on some form of evidence to form a hypothesis and plan how to pursue proper explanation for the phenomenon.

 

~mooey

 

Right. You could e.g. formulate a model of the chupakabra's behavior and demonstrate its existence absent an actual observation of the beast itself.

[Appolinaria]

I'm not sure I understand the logic here. There's nothing that proves pink unicorns with lipgloss don't exist either. If you don't have some sort of initial suspicion you can base your arguments on *why* start searching for them, it seems kinda silly to, no?

 

The scientific method is meant to untaint explanations by making them not based on opinion, but rather on fact. It doesn't matter if you believe the chupakabra exists or not, or if there is life on mars, or if aliens can be silicon-based. Your opinions are your own. If you want to pursue any question scientifically, you must base it on some form of evidence to form a hypothesis and plan how to pursue proper explanation for the phenomenon.

 

~mooey

 

Yes, I totally understand your point, Mooey. But what I'm trying to say is that pink unicorns (like gold spheres larger than 1 mile) don't exist here, most likely never will, but that is not guaranteed by any law we have. There is a crucial difference between an accidental generalization, and a law... the latter denotes scientific reasoning in my opinion. Rationality is subject to opinion based on one's environment, science is not.

[Iggy]

I still think that ridiculing pseudo-science is a valid way of teaching people that it is nonsense.

 

Pseudo science is not necessarily nonsense. Nor is it necessarily wrong. Popper (the father of the scientific method) made both points while addressing the OP in one quote:

 

..we must not try to draw the line [between science and pseudo-science] too sharply. This becomes clear if we remember that most of our scientific theories originate in myths. The Copernican system, for example, was inspired by a Neo-Platonic worship of the light of the Sun who had to occupy the ‘centre’ because of his nobility. This indicates how myths may develop testable components. They may, in the course of discussion, become fruitful and important for science. In my Logic of Scientific Discovery I gave several examples of myths which have become most important for science, among them atomism and the corpuscular theory of light. It would hardly contribute to clarity if we were to say that these theories are nonsensical gibberish in one stage of their development, and then suddenly become good sense in another.

 

link

Edited November 14, 2011 by Iggy

[Appolinaria]

Good post, Iggy.

[michel123456]

Perhaps someone would like to tell me what they could have made a practical steam engine from 2000 years ago?

Without much better metallurgy that was available at the time, the idea was ridiculous.

 

You are underestimating ancient technology.

This mechanism is dated 150-100 BC.

 

 

 

You may compare it to a 16th century astrolabe and realize how much we lost in the meanwhile.

 

 

I stopped a long time ago considering humanity's past as an unavoidable logical set of events.

[Appolinaria]

Or what about the Baghdad Battery... How do you suppose ancient people powered their flashlights, Mr. Cuthber?

[swansont]

Or what about the Baghdad Battery... How do you suppose ancient people powered their frikkin' lasers, Mr. Cuthber?

 

FTFY

[Appolinaria]

FTFY

 

Oh, ya, typo, thx.

 

 

Edited November 15, 2011 by Appolinaria

[imatfaal]

Pseudo science is not necessarily nonsense. Nor is it necessarily wrong. Popper (the father of the scientific method) made both points while addressing the OP in one quote:

 

[offtopic pedantry]

Popper was a documenter, philosopher and historian of the scientific method - but the progenitor, no chance. It did not require an LSE philosophy don to explain to scientists the benefits of falsifiability over crude naive-inducitivism. Secondly the scientific method is much more than just falsifiability...

The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

[/offtopic pedantry]

 

 

Personally, I believe that ridicule can be a useful tool to get people to re-engage critical faculties - and I like John Cuthber's example (even if misplaced) of the spaghetti monster. The use of ridiculous examples such as unicorns with lip gloss should cause a re-assessment of what we can prove, and what we are assuming - and it is vital for good science that our axioms are as lean and mean as possible. But ridicule used to excess or in place of scientific reasoning is very detrimental to a discussion - it's a last resort when it seems that there is a terminal lack of engagement with the difference between proof and assertion.

[Ophiolite]

imatfaal mentions the use of ridicule as a last resort. I agree with that wholeheartedly. When an individual has revealed through their actions and inactions that they not only cannot grasp current theory, but will not attempt to grasp it, then they deserve no respect. If they insist against all the evidence that they are open minded and undogmatic then ridicule should be heaped upon them without a hint of mercy. Such charlatans are an affront to the better aspects of humanity. Reflecting on some of those who richly deserve to be ridiculed I often regret being a left wing, tree hugging, bleeding heart liberal and therefore opposed to the death penalty.

[Appolinaria]

Ridicule is a waste of time and deduces absolutely nothing about our universe.

 

 

Reacting to any person with malice or death because of a crackpot idea, especially one who hasn't shown the same hostility towards you.. is interesting, to say the least. But there is no need for me to ridicule someone with a different opinion than myself.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Appolinaria

[iNow]

Ridicule is a waste of time and deduces absolutely nothing about our universe.

This is trivially easy to show false. If absolutely nothing else, ridicule deduces that there are people willing to ridicule others and that others have engaged in some behavior which has caused that response in another. Come on, if you're gonna get all apoplectic because people aren't always kind and interacting with words loaded with sunshine and lollipops then at least try harder to show why they shouldn't.

 

 

Reacting to any person with malice or death because of a crackpot idea, especially one who hasn't shown the same hostility towards you.. is interesting, to say the least.

You're right. Ophiolite was far too kind. He seems to be getting soft in his old age. Clearly his comment could have been much more over the top and viscous. I'm frankly a bit disappointed by this kinder gentler self he's put forth here.

 

 

But there is no need for me to ridicule someone with a different opinion than myself.

And you're welcome to your opinion, but I'm also welcome to mine, and I think your opinion on this subject is childish. What you've said above is your personal preference, but hardly some immutable fact. I think there are many needs for ridicule, and some of those have already been quite clearly articulated here in this thread. It's fine if you choose to dismiss those needs and reasons, but that does not accurately lead to the conclusion that none exist.

Edited November 15, 2011 by iNow

[michel123456]

@Inow. I know you from many funny, sarcatic and knowledgeable posts. But not anyone has your intelligence.

Most of the people who know absolutely nothing about nothing have only one weapon: ridicule.

So to me ridicule is a mark of ignorance, not of knowledge.

 

This is an excellent movie (won many awards). "Ridicule"

Edited November 15, 2011 by michel123456

[Appolinaria]

This is trivially easy to show false. If absolutely nothing else, ridicule deduces that there are people willing to ridicule others and that others have engaged in some behavior which has caused that response in another. Come on, if you're gonna get all apoplectic because people aren't always kind and interacting with words loaded with sunshine and lollipops then at least try harder to show why they shouldn't.

 

 

 

You're right. Ophiolite was far too kind. He seems to be getting soft in his old age. Clearly his comment could have been much more over the top and viscous. I'm frankly a bit disappointed by this kinder gentler self he's put forth here.

 

 

 

And you're welcome to your opinion, but I'm also welcome to mine, and I think your opinion on this subject is childish. What you've said above is your personal preference, but hardly some immutable fact. I think there are many needs for ridicule, and some of those have already been quite clearly articulated here in this thread. It's fine if you choose to dismiss those needs and reasons, but that does not accurately lead to the conclusion that none exist.

 

Please do not get all apoplectic because I do not feel the need to approach others who differ from me with hostility, malice, or death. Sorry, but maybe I do not have a superiority complex, elitist mentality, or genocidal tendency to feed. Perhaps ridicule is beneficial, but I see no evidence... just opinion. And my opinion is as good as yours. You have no reason to insult me attributing my standpoint with lollipops, sunshine, a childish demeanor, etc. I did not insult anyone. I don't necessarily think their opinion is not possible. I will provide incredibly trivial evidence on my standpoint that ridicule doesn't help conclude any scientific facts about our universe. I don't believe the scientific method contains a step saying "make sure you ridicule as much as possible, this is necessary". Plenty of scientists have used this method to develop science, without ridicule. Refute my evidence, with evidence that ridicule has been shown to advance science. I am willing to see your point of view if hard proof is given of where ridicule has been beneficial to establishing scientific facts about our universe.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Appolinaria

[imatfaal]

To further muddy the waters - we must make a differentiation between ridiculing the individual to discredit an argument (ad hominem fallacy and more importantly against the rules) and ridiculing an argument per se (a valid rhetorical and discursive method)

[michel123456]

To further muddy the waters - we must make a differentiation between ridiculing the individual to discredit an argument (ad hominem fallacy and more importantly against the rules) and ridiculing an argument per se (a valid rhetorical and discursive method)

 

The last was the method choosen by Galileo to ridiculize the Pope. He realized his tactical error too late, through the trial.

Of course the sentence transformed him into a heroe for history because he was right, but I doubt his goal was to be persecuted in order to sell his book.

IMHO it was an error.

[Phi for All]

Ridicule is a waste of time and deduces absolutely nothing about our universe.

 

 

Reacting to any person with malice or death because of a crackpot idea, especially one who hasn't shown the same hostility towards you.. is interesting, to say the least. But there is no need for me to ridicule someone with a different opinion than myself.

There's a big difference between ridiculing an idea and ridiculing the person who has it. The former can put a perspective to the idea that's usually lacking in someone who is ignoring the idea's weaknesses. The latter tends to make the person defensive, and takes the focus away from the idea itself. Ridiculing the person is a weak argument against the idea, it's fallacious and unworthy.

 

It's easy to conflate the two, and only slightly less easy to learn how not to.

[imatfaal]

/snipped

 

Refute my evidence, with evidence that ridicule has been shown to advance science. I am willing to see your point of view if hard proof is given of where ridicule has been beneficial to establishing scientific facts about our universe.

 

If you count defending science from attack as advancing science then I think this fits the bill in an amusing manner.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/jun/28/simon-jenkins-spoof-science

 

A read of any of Ben Goldacre's Bad Science columns, with tongue in cheek explanations of the reality of many pseudo-medical "cures" and stories of cats with mail-order phds, I think would amply demonstrate that sometime humour and ridicule play an important role in challenging the new orthodoxy that science and rationalism are over-rated. And for the record I, and many others, believe that Ben Goldacre does a huge amount of positive work in his chosen role of exposing pseudo-science and challenging charlatans to put up or shut up.

[Iggy]

Popper was a documenter, philosopher and historian of the scientific method - but the progenitor, no chance. It did not require an LSE philosophy don to explain to scientists the benefits of falsifiability over crude naive-inducitivism.

That shows us why ridicule is usually pointless and doesn't work. I have no idea right now if you even disagree with the points I made or the quote I gave. Ridiculing the author accomplished nothing.

[Ophiolite]

To be absolutely clear on two points:

 

Appollinaria would benefit from a lesson in black humour detection, or at the very least reading comprehension. I have not promoted the idea of killing of people who disagree with me, even though it would solve the world's population problem.

 

When an individual has demonstrated they will not defend their argument with logic, when they have failed to substantiate any aspect of their hypothesis, when they refuse to countenance contrary information, when they make the tiredold accusations of dogma and closed minds and how Galileo was persecuted, when they reveal almost complete ignorance of the theories they wish to overthrow, when they refuse to provide citations or references for their claims, when they do all this I will - rules or no rules - ridicule that person, for they richly deserve such ridicule. It is a last resort, but it is the right thing to do. Self indulgent ignorance should not be allowed to walk amongst us unremarked.

[michel123456]

Ophiolite, you are ridicule.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Please ensure this thread does not degrade.

[Appolinaria]

Imatfaal- I appreciate your response, and can see your viewpoint.

 

 

 

 

I might be pulling an Aristarchus here, but I feel it's appropriate.

 

These apply to all of us, equally.

 

 

 

 

 

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

- Sir Martin Rees

 

 

"Everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know

that we do not know all the laws yet. Therefore, things must be learned

only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected."

- Richard Feynman

 

 

"They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see

nothing but sea." - Francis Bacon

 

 

"The task is not to see what has never been seen before, but to think

what has never been thought before about what you see everyday."

- Erwin Schrodinger

 

 

"The man who cannot occasionally imagine events and conditions of

existence that are contrary to the causal principle as he knows it will

never enrich his science by the addition of a new idea." - Max Planck

 

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought

without accepting it." -Aristotle

 

 

"Desire for approval and recognition is a healthy motive, but the desire

to be acknowledged as better, stronger, or more intelligent than a

fellow being or fellow scholar easily leads to an excessively egoistic

psychological adjustment, which may become injurious for the individual

and for the community." - Albert Einstein

 

 

"The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid

down... forces everything else to add fresh support and confirmation;

and although more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the

contrary, yet it either does not observe them or it despises them, or

it gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and

injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first

conclusions." - Francis Bacon

 

 

"If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will

leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic

for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain

always uncertain... In order to make progress, one must leave the door

to the unknown ajar." - Richard Feynman

 

 

"When I examined myself and my methods of thought, I came to the

conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent

for absorbing positive knowledge." - A. Einstein

 

 

"If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that

settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him."

- Mark Twain

 

 

"Let the mind be enlarged... to the grandeur of the mysteries, and not

the mysteries contracted to the narrowness of the mind" - Francis Bacon

 

 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and

making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually

die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - M. Planck

 

 

"No matter how we may single out a complex from nature...its

theoretical treatment will never prove to be ultimately conclusive... I

believe that this process of deepening of theory has no limits."

- Albert Einstein, 1917

 

 

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful

servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has

forgotten the gift." - Albert Einstein

 

 

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

 

 

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound

source of spirituality." - Carl Sagan

 

 

"The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people

think." - Aristotle

 

 

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is

much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that

might be wrong." - Richard Feynman

 

 

"In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it."

- John A. Wheeler

 

"I love fools' experiments, I am always making them." - Darwin

 

 

"I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any

hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on

every subject), as soon as the facts are shown to be opposed to it."

- Charles Darwin

Edited November 15, 2011 by Appolinaria