ridicule is not good science

[Phi for All]

It is not a question of hypocrisy, it is a question of putting the other one in a situation where he gets mad.

It WAS a question of hypocrisy, as well as causing unnecessary anger. I think kitkat was definitely guilty of hypocrisy but I draw the line at calling him a hypocrite for it. He's failed to answer a question correctly before (I assume) but that doesn't make him an idiot. He's also been cruel before (I assume) but that doesn't make him a sadist. Calling out his actions allows him to correct them. Pinning a label on him personally doesn't help the argument, it's fallacious and weak and it's not going to help him understand where he went wrong. It's just going to make him lash out in kind.

 

I have seven years experience here at the forum and tens of thousands of posts to support me.

 

Some people like to ridicule people instead of ideas. They claim they can't help it, it's just the way they are. And it's ironic that they are labeling themselves in the process. I think if you feel the need to ridicule/attack a person for something they think, you're compromising your objectivity.

[John Cuthber]

That's because the quote is taken too far. A sabre-toothed tiger is a ridiculous example. However, a galaxy we have not observed is likely.

Sorry, but that answer doesn't cut it.

Who gets to decide what's ridiculous?

If you can make that decision then you already have enough information about the set-up to know whether it is likely or not and, if you can already make that decision, the "rule" about absence... isn't telling you anything.

The guy simply didn't get it right.

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but whether it's evidence of absence or not depends on other factors.

[iNow]

grow a pair. "cowboys" don't insult women like you did earlier.

Wait, huh? I did what, where exactly? Please quote me where you propose I did any such thing.

[baric]

I would like to add that I like very much when disagreeing politely with someone.

 

When two scientists disagree, the odds are great that one of them is going to walk away from the discussion slightly wiser.

 

Normally, politeness need not enter into the equation. If it does, it should scale with the absurdity of the assertion.

 

Examples:

 

Assertion #1: "consistencies in ancient Greek texts indicate that an historical Atlantis is a real possibility"

Reply #1: "I've never seen literary evidence to warrant that level of certainty. I'd like to hear your case for it"

 

 

Assertion #2: "an iron-age Atlantis existed during the Mycenaean period at Santorini, and their survivors may have triggered the rapid advances in classical Greece"

Reply #2: "wow, that's pretty far out there. Your timelines are way off and there is no archaeological evidence to support that. Perhaps you should study up more on this subject"

 

Assertion #3: "a historical Atlantis existed with futuristic technology and their descendants now visit us in spaceships"

Reply #3: "that is complete rubbish and you are a nut"

[timmothy]

So what is the conclusion ? Who is right and who is wrong ? Man has continually fluped up by not exploreing these wild notions of some now known genusis who presented their thoughts that turned to ideas that turned to experiments that turned to todays knowledge. It has to do with communication. If we could communicate our thoughts to others who in turn communicate ideas to others who in turn communicate and so on there would be no room from ridicule nor would history need to repeat.

 

Does this make sense ? I'm haveing a hard time communicating my idea who I got from someone elses silly thoughts!

 

You should never feel like your thoughts, ideas, experiments and all the trial and error that goes with getting it all together is a waste of time.

very interesting and thought entertaining forums.

 

love you all!!!

[michel123456]

Baric is improving. I disagree because a nut don't produce rubbish, it is an ecological product.

 

So what is the conclusion ? Who is right and who is wrong ?

I am.

 

very interesting and thought entertaining forums.

 

love you all!!!

 

Agree

Going to bed now.

Edited November 15, 2011 by michel123456

[swansont]

Not necessarily. It's quite possibly an objective statement of fact.

 

You can call a person's position hypocritical but just calling them a hypocrite is a personal attack. Branding someone with a general label is a personal attack. Being a hypocrite on a specific topic does not mean that all of their positions contain hypocrisy.

 

When two scientists disagree, the odds are great that one of them is going to walk away from the discussion slightly wiser.

 

Normally, politeness need not enter into the equation. If it does, it should scale with the absurdity of the assertion.

 

Generally speaking, with geeks it doesn't because geeks place a high importance on information and most scientists are geeks. They generally are happy to be corrected on matters of fact. Non-geeks view contradiction as being impolite.

[mississippichem]

If I got offended every time my boss used ridicule to correct my thinking...I would've been fired long ago.

 

Given, the ridicule is executed without personal attacks. A bit of ridicule at some of my less than ingenius ideas serves to show how ridiculous the implications of my hypothesis are. I appreciate this benign ridicule as it makes me a better scientist; wiser and more rigorous.

[swansont]

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.

 

That's about the size of it. Snark cannot be the immediate response, because that pretty much is a discussion-killer, but when you have exhausted all other options … Of course, that's about the time that we close the thread. But a person exhibiting such behavior — i.e. a crackpot — isn't engaging in science, so really this is not about dismissing science with ridicule. It's dismissing anti-science with ridicule.

[iNow]

You can call a person's position hypocritical but just calling them a hypocrite is a personal attack. Branding someone with a general label is a personal attack. Being a hypocrite on a specific topic does not mean that all of their positions contain hypocrisy.

Fair enough. He was being hypocritical in that situation, and so I used a shorthand by calling him a hypocrite. If someone is being an asshole in a given situation (and, trust me, I have a lot of experience with this), then calling them an asshole doesn't ipso facto mean they are always an asshole in every circumstance in perpetuity. I didn't think this was necessary to qualify, thought this would have been implicitly clear given the context, and not in need of further clarification... and tend to still.

[swansont]

Seems a bit too late for that, frankly. This thread has been a futile exercise in political correctness from a bunch of well-intentioned but overly sensitive whiners from the start. Grow a spine, cowboy up, get over it, and move on. You are quite mature enough to defend your ideas if they are not worthy of derision, and you should stop crying to mommy because your feelings got an aow-ee by some big bad meanie poo poo head.

 

Was that monologue lifted from MacBeth or Hamlet? Definitely taken from Shakespeare, despite the modern recasting. (You are instead of Thou art, etc. Grow thee a spine, blackguard; gird thy loins … )

[iNow]

Nope. Not Shakespeare. That came from my colon, friend.

[Iggy]

"

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

- Sir Martin Rees

"

Is it just me who wonders how Sir Martin slept well with that rabid sabre-toothed tiger in his bedroom?

 

Or, possibly, he was talking nonsense that he hadn't thought through.

Martin sleeping well is evidence that he didn't sleep with a rabid sabertooth cat. It is "evidence of absence", not "absence of evidence". Iit's modus tollens, a valid argument:

 

if you sleep with a rabid sabertooth cat you will die

Martin slept

Martin did not die

therefore, Martin didn't sleep with a rabid sabertooth cat

 

Unless someone can actually cite where Copernicus expressed this opinion "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. "

Reading some of Copernicus -- like,

 

In the middle of all sits the Sun, enthroned. In this most beautiful temple, could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe. Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles' Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as on a royal throne ruling his children, the planets which circle round him.

 

You might be able to spot the influence of Neoplatonism. If you can't I don't mind.

 

As far as I'm aware, there's no record of how Copernicus came to consider how the data would fit a heliocentric system.

and even if there were a record, it could be forged or it could be a lie, but that doesn't matter.

 

All that matters is that there was an untestable pseudo-scientific idea that later became testable (through the work of Copernicus and others). This means you can't reject pseudo-science as "meaningless". It can be rejected for other reasons, but not that one.

 

Chinese astrology may have been pseudo-science, but the astrologers ended up being able to predict solar eclipses. If pseudo-science were necessarily meaningless then that couldn't happen.

 

"They may, in the course of discussion, become fruitful and important for science"

They might, and so might dreams (Kekule's for example), but that doesn't mean we should seek to gain knowledge by eating lots of cheese before bedtime.

I don't understand where you're coming from. You agree that aspects of pseudo-science can become fruitful and important for science. My point was that an idea being pseudo-science doesn't necessarily make it nonsense or wrong. If you agree then why not take that as a simple correction?

 

I'm not implying that crackpot pseudo-science ideas should be indulged. If they aren't testable then they aren't science and they can be rejected for that reason.

 

"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."

Which is why science didn't do that. That's a straw-man argument against science or a red herring.

I don't think you've read his books. There was a movement in the philosophy of science early in the last century to do exactly what you said -- to reject pseudo-science because it is inherently meaningless. That idea was very common among scientists and philosophers. That is what Popper successfully refuted when he formalized a new scientific method (falsifiability). The new method doesn't have to say that pseudo-science is meaningless. It separates science from pseudo-science with a different criteria.

[Appolinaria]

f this shit, were all running around in circles like woodland creatures on crack.

 

just stop arguing and fetch me some grapes, minions.

[iNow]

grow a pair. "cowboys" don't insult women like you did earlier.

Still waiting on a response here, Appolinaria. Please quote precisely where it is you think I did any such thing.

[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.

 

 

You said I shouldn't get mad because I want everything to be sunshine and lollipops all of the time. I took it as you alluding to the fact that I'm childish. I find this insulting.

 

If it wasn't to be taken personally, cool.

 

I'm still waiting on a response as to a specific example of where ridicule has been shown to advance science.

[baric]

You said I shouldn't get mad because I want everything to be sunshine and lollipops all of the time. I took it as you alluding to the fact that I'm childish. I find this insulting.

 

If it wasn't to be taken personally, cool.

 

I'm still waiting on a response as to a specific example of where ridicule has been shown to advance science.

 

Fred Hoyle's rejection of a competing theory that he dismissed as the "Big Bang" theory.

 

Also, the rapid rejection and ridicule of "cold fusion" in the late 80s undoubtedly redirected a lot of research time back away from it and onto more worthy subjects.

Edited November 16, 2011 by baric

[mississippichem]

I'm still waiting on a response as to a specific example of where ridicule has been shown to advance science.

 

What about the cold fusion hoax? Pons and Fleischman were ridiculed for their nonsense research and for going public with findings before peer review.

 

Had they not been publicly ridiculed by the mainstream physics community, many non-scientist citizens could've been confused by quack physics.

 

Their results were not reproducible and their intellectual ethics were questionable. Their conduct deserved ridicule and it served to the advancement of science.

[Appolinaria]

Fred Hoyle's rejection of a competing theory that he dismissed as the "Big Bang" theory.

 

 

 

"The steady state model is now largely discredited, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe."

 

 

And what can you even argue his rejection did? The theory was proposed by Lemaitre. I don't understand your argument, perhaps because I'm not well informed on this. Please explain.

[iNow]

You said I shouldn't get mad because I want everything to be sunshine and lollipops all of the time. I took it as you alluding to the fact that I'm childish. I find this insulting.

And you extrapolated my comment about you to mean that I was insulting women, because you are a woman? Wow. That's umm... yeah... wow. Fascinating how the mind works in some people.

 

Thanks for clarifying, but I was not insulting women with anything I said, despite your claims to the contrary. I was suggesting that people are being childish in regard to this topic, including you. I stand firmly by this claim, thank you for offering additional evidence in support of my point, and wish to remind you that just because you're female does not mean I am insulting women when you take offense to something I say. Grow a spine FFS, and stop whining already.

[Appolinaria]

What about the cold fusion hoax? Pons and Fleischman were ridiculed for their nonsense research and for going public with findings before peer review.

 

Had they not been publicly ridiculed by the mainstream physics community, many non-scientist citizens could've been confused by quack physics.

 

Their results were not reproducible and their intellectual ethics were questionable. Their conduct deserved ridicule and it served to the advancement of science.

 

I accept this. Good job.

[mooeypoo]

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.

 

Of course not, that's why science in itself never says never. Well.. rarely says never. The idea isn't "disprove" but rather "prove". At some point, however, the word 'almost' in "almost impossible" makes the venture irrelevant.

 

There may well be pink unicorns with lipgloss. There's no real law that prevents them from being.

Is this something that will take hours off your sleep at nights, or will cause you to go on wild chases, or waste time and money to find those emasculated unicorns? I hope not. Under most definitions that would be a waste of time.

 

We should keep our minds open, but not as open as to let our brains fall out. I believe most things are "99.999% probably" rather than "surely". This is *great* for philosophy discussions, but it's not really helpful for actual science. You need *something* from that 0.0001% -- anything -- to really have a reason to follow up on this option.

 

~mooey

[Appolinaria]

Of course not, that's why science in itself never says never. Well.. rarely says never. The idea isn't "disprove" but rather "prove". At some point, however, the word 'almost' in "almost impossible" makes the venture irrelevant.

 

There may well be pink unicorns with lipgloss. There's no real law that prevents them from being.

Is this something that will take hours off your sleep at nights, or will cause you to go on wild chases, or waste time and money to find those emasculated unicorns? I hope not. Under most definitions that would be a waste of time.

 

We should keep our minds open, but not as open as to let our brains fall out. I believe most things are "99.999% probably" rather than "surely". This is *great* for philosophy discussions, but it's not really helpful for actual science. You need *something* from that 0.0001% -- anything -- to really have a reason to follow up on this option.

 

~mooey

 

I'm not saying you should go on wild chases and not sleep at night chasing a unicorn.

 

I am saying you should go on wild chases trying to explain the reasoning behind our seemingly spontaneous existence.

 

ID cannot be ruled out merely by the fact that a designer is not observed.... right now. It might seem irrational, you might ridicule with the Spaghetti Monster, but nothing in science says it cannot exist. So absolutely NO reason to ridicule. Especially because you have no scientific evidence proving the contrary.

 

[A Tripolation]

ID cannot be ruled out merely by the fact that a designer is not observed.... right now.

 

No. But it can't be ruled out because of the appalling "science" that its proponents implement.

[Appolinaria]

And you extrapolated my comment about you to mean that I was insulting women, because you are a woman? Wow. That's umm... yeah... wow. Fascinating how the mind works in some people.

 

Thanks for clarifying, but I was not insulting women with anything I said, despite your claims to the contrary. I was suggesting that people are being childish in regard to this topic, including you. I stand firmly by this claim, thank you for offering additional evidence in support of my point, and wish to remind you that just because you're female does not mean I am insulting women when you take offense to something I say. Grow a spine FFS, and stop whining already.

 

I don't understand what you're missing here. I said cowboys don't insult women. You insulted me, and I am a woman.

 

Moving on,

 

Mississippichem has provided a valid argument without ridiculing me. Can you do the same?