ridicule is not good science

[mooeypoo]

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.

Why? What's the difference? Are you suggesting science can't account for this reason, so we should use something else? If so, I disagree.

 

[iNow]

I notice a central theme throughout this thread among those who argue against ridicule. Implicit in their comments is the requirement that all parties approach and engage in the discussion in good faith. For their ideal to stand the test of practical reality, all discussion participants must abide by a common set of guidelines and conversational rules, and that's simply not what happens.

 

As has already been elucidated by countless posters, sometimes ridicule is a last resort. A case study of exactly this has come up in posts I've just seen during the last five minutes on this site from yet another climate change denier. No amount of data and reasonable argument is going to change their mind. The data doesn't matter to them. Reality doesn't penetrate their ideology, so the evidence based responses offered are sometimes laced with ridicule to reinforce how ridiculous their position truly is. Ridicule often serves as a megaphone which amplifies points whose simple truth so often falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.

 

The same holds true with creationists. It's not like biology or evolution are somehow lacking in evidence or data. It's that these people do not approach the discussion in good faith, and despite not having a valid rational reason to do so, they dismiss that data.

 

We see the same thing with the Obama birthers who don't think the president was born in the US, despite the clear records that he was. We see the same thing with the 9/11 truthers who think that the towers came down due to some ridiculous conspiracy, instead of accepting the obvious fact that there were some hijacked planes which flew into them and caused them to crumble. We see the same thing with the anti-vax people who think that vaccines cause autism, and with homeopathic remedy supporters and folks who follow the woo of astrology and numerology despite its obvious stupidity.

 

Yes, sometimes people get ridiculed. Yes, sometimes it's done inappropriately. Yes, sometimes feelings are hurt. So the fuck what? Grow up. This is the real world, and when evidence fails to convince people of the reality around them, then pointing and laughing is an incredibly valid secondary or tertiary option.

 

This whole politically correct bullshit where people prize tone over content is frankly one of the sources of the problems we face in today's world. How about you get a grip, face the reality before you, and if you feel you're being ridiculed inappropriately then you stand up for yourself and explain your position in a way that shows the other person to be incorrect.

 

Either way, the utopia so many of you seem to cling to simply doesn't exist, and it requires discussion in good faith. Unfortunately, the people being ridiculed tend to be the ones approaching the discussion in bad faith. Not every child deserves a gold star. Deal with it.

Edited November 16, 2011 by iNow

[Appolinaria]

Why? What's the difference? Are you suggesting science can't account for this reason, so we should use something else? If so, I disagree.

 

 

I am saying that science might be able to prove ID one day.

[iNow]

I am saying that science might be able to prove ID one day.

Unlikely, given how any testable predictions it's made thus far have been shown false.

[baric]

"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.

 

The first thing is to think of an example of ridicule. That was the first to come to mind. However, Hoyle's labeling of "Big Bang" had the opposite effect intended because it gave a memorable name to the new theory.

 

My example about cold fusion is more concrete.

 

I am saying that science might be able to prove ID one day.

 

Except that there is no ID theory to prove. Seriously. It's little more than an untestable "God did it" statement that falls apart upon cursory examination.

[mooeypoo]

I am saying that science might be able to prove ID one day.

 

How's that any different than saying "we might prove unicorns with lipgloss exist" statement?

You'd require some form of evidence to my statement, I require the same for yours. Neither have any.

 

Both statements are rather empty, seeing as they don't quite describe actual phenomena, but rather desired end-results.

[baric]

By "ridiculous" assertions, I mean an those so detached from established science that there are only two plausible explanations for their existence:

 

1) There is a known, non-scientific agenda being pushed that requires ignoring clearly established observations. Examples include creationism/ID (religious agenda), global warming denial (economic/political agenda), crop circles, ancient astronauts and telepathy (huckster agenda).

 

or 2) There is pattern of willful ignorance by a particular presenter who rehashes the same, tired theories without acknowledging previous refutations.

 

 

In both cases, ridicule is warranted rather than repeating the same, meticulous refutation that has been made many times before. Unnecessarily wasting time on frauds like these diverts attention from more productive activities!

 

 

This does not mean we should ridicule someone who is innocently presenting a flawed case. However, if they are really uninformed there is no shame in plainly letting them know that they need to learn a bit more before, for example, attempting to disprove relativity.

[Appolinaria]

How's that any different than saying "we might prove unicorns with lipgloss exist" statement?

You'd require some form of evidence to my statement, I require the same for yours. Neither have any.

 

Both statements are rather empty, seeing as they don't quite describe actual phenomena, but rather desired end-results.

 

Both are possibly valid. No natural laws specifically say they can't happen.

 

If there arguably is a creator, he has created the product of our universe, which makes us go looking for him. A unicorn with lipgloss has left no evidence that makes us go looking for it. If you try to tell me the aurora borealis is a product of unicorns, I will tell you otherwise, because I have proof. If you try to tell me our universe is a product of God, I cannot tell you otherwise, until I have proof.

[mooeypoo]

Both are possibly valid. No natural laws specifically say they can't happen.

But there are infinite amount of equally valid propositions. The question is one of practicality; if they're equally valid (and equally invalid, seeing as neither has any form of proof to them either) -- are you really suggesting we consider them "research worthy" ?

 

 

If so, we need to consider the infinite amount of the other statements that too.

 

 

If there arguably is a creator, he has created the product of our universe, which makes us go looking for him. A unicorn with lipgloss has left no evidence that makes us go looking for it. If you try to tell me the aurora borealis is a product of unicorns, I will tell you otherwise, because I have proof. If you try to tell me our universe is a product of God, I cannot tell you otherwise, until I have proof.

 

The difference with the aurora borealis, is that you're giving me a falsifiable situation. You falsify it. That's science.

Unfalsifiable claims are inherently unscientific.

 

~mooey

[Phi for All]

Yes, sometimes people get ridiculed. Yes, sometimes it's done inappropriately. Yes, sometimes feelings are hurt. So the fuck what? Grow up. This is the real world, and when evidence fails to convince people of the reality around them, then pointing and laughing is an incredibly valid secondary or tertiary option.

So ridicule the idea all you want if it deserves it. But don't do it inappropriately, don't attack the individual. Grow up, don't be hypocritical. This is a science forum that doesn't cherry-pick from the fallacy lists. You yourself have pointed out many fallacies others have used against you. They're all weak arguments, especially ad hominem. That's why it's 1a in our rules.

 

This whole politically correct bullshit where people prize tone over content is frankly one of the sources of the problems we face in today's world. How about you get a grip, face the reality before you, and if you feel you're being ridiculed inappropriately then you stand up for yourself and explain your position in a way that shows the other person to be incorrect.

It's real simple. Attack the idea, not the person. It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has nothing to do with growing up. It has nothing to do with tone over content. It has nothing to do with your grip.

 

It has to do with fallacious logic. It's real simple. Deal with it.

 

I am saying that science might be able to prove ID one day.

Definitely not. Intelligent Design is a specific movement, not just "Hey, maybe there's a deity behind all this!" It's creationism trying to distance itself from religion in an attempt to be taught alongside science in public schools, violating the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. There's nothing to "prove" there. Just like creationism is different from "Hey, maybe God created everything and we evolved!" Creationism is a strict set of beliefs that have been refuted many times over by mountains of evidence and observation.

 

Intelligent Design is flawed and deceitful. They claim to follow scientific methods but most of it is appeals to incredulity and outright lies. Please tell me you'll study the distinction.

[iNow]

So, here we are yet again with a subjective request for sunshine and lollipops and rainbows... Everything needs to be motherhood and apple pie, and the line of demarcation is based on what mood you happen to be in today when you read it. Got it.

 

 

Intelligent Design is flawed and deceitful. They claim to follow scientific methods but most of it is appeals to incredulity and outright lies.

There's no need to ridicule them, Phi.

Edited November 16, 2011 by iNow

[Appolinaria]

So ridicule the idea all you want if it deserves it. But don't do it inappropriately, don't attack the individual. Grow up, don't be hypocritical. This is a science forum that doesn't cherry-pick from the fallacy lists. You yourself have pointed out many fallacies others have used against you. They're all weak arguments, especially ad hominem. That's why it's 1a in our rules.

 

 

It's real simple. Attack the idea, not the person. It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has nothing to do with growing up. It has nothing to do with tone over content. It has nothing to do with your grip.

 

It has to do with fallacious logic. It's real simple. Deal with it.

 

 

Definitely not. Intelligent Design is a specific movement, not just "Hey, maybe there's a deity behind all this!" It's creationism trying to distance itself from religion so it might be taught alongside science in public schools. There's nothing to "prove" there. Just like creationism is different from "Hey, maybe God created everything and we evolved!" Creationism is a strict set of beliefs that have been refuted many times over by mountains of evidence and observation.

 

Intelligent Design is flawed and deceitful. They claim to follow scientific methods but most of it is appeals to incredulity and outright lies. Please tell me you'll study the distinction.

 

 

 

Oh shit. I was unaware of this. I took intelligent design as the vague self-explanatory concept I thought it was.

 

Woops, tehe.

[Phi for All]

So, here we are yet again with a subjective request for sunshine and lollipops and rainbows... Everything needs to be motherhood and apple pie, and the line of demarcation is based on what mood you happen to be in today when you read it. Got it.

Can you really not see the difference between attacking the idea and attacking the person? You seemed to get it when swansont explained it to you.

 

Do you really think it's just "a shorthand" to call someone a hypocrite instead of calling their argument hypocritical?

 

Oh shit. I was unaware of this. I took intelligent design as the vague self-explanatory concept I thought it was.

 

Woops, tehe.

You had me worried there.

[baric]

If you try to tell me our universe is a product of God, I cannot tell you otherwise, until I have proof.

 

Until you can provide a coherent definition of the word "God", then you can say the same thing by positing that the universe is the product of blarg.

 

(Blarg is another incoherent, undefinable word I just made up.)

 

No one can really define what "god" means, so using that word renders a statement ultimately meaningless.

[Appolinaria]

Until you can provide a coherent definition of the word "God", then you can say the same thing by positing that the universe is the product of blarg.

 

(Blarg is another incoherent, undefinable word I just made up.)

 

No one can really define what "god" means, so using that word renders a statement ultimately meaningless.

 

Replace God with unknown force.

 

This still works.

 

 

Right now nothing exists outside the universe.

 

An unknown force responsible for it must work outside of it.

 

Can you really not see the difference between attacking the idea and attacking the person? You seemed to get it when swansont explained it to you.

 

Do you really think it's just "a shorthand" to call someone a hypocrite instead of calling their argument hypocritical?

 

 

You had me worried there.

 

Oh, look what I did now. 0:]

Edited November 16, 2011 by Appolinaria

[iNow]

Do you really think it's just "a shorthand" to call someone a hypocrite instead of calling their argument hypocritical?

Yes, I do. If I'd felt otherwise, I'd have used a different approach.

 

In addition, and to assist you in finding clarity here, I also see the distinction to be so trivial as to be wholly without utility and unquestionably moot. It's like you're here now giving me a hard time because I described a quantity as a six instead of describing it as half a dozen. I really can't believe this line of conversation has continued as long as it has. I clarified my position. It's okay if you disagree, but my position is unchanged.

 

What is a hypocrite? It's a person who is being hypocritical. Does this person need to be a hypocrite in all situations and in all settings and at all times in order for the hypocrite label to accurately apply within the confines of a given discussion? No.

[michel123456]

I notice a central theme throughout this thread among those who argue against ridicule. Implicit in their comments is the requirement that all parties approach and engage in the discussion in good faith. For their ideal to stand the test of practical reality, all discussion participants must abide by a common set of guidelines and conversational rules, and that's simply not what happens.

 

As has already been elucidated by countless posters, sometimes ridicule is a last resort. A case study of exactly this has come up in posts I've just seen during the last five minutes on this site from yet another climate change denier. No amount of data and reasonable argument is going to change their mind. The data doesn't matter to them. Reality doesn't penetrate their ideology, so the evidence based responses offered are sometimes laced with ridicule to reinforce how ridiculous their position truly is. Ridicule often serves as a megaphone which amplifies points whose simple truth so often falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.

 

The same holds true with creationists. It's not like biology or evolution are somehow lacking in evidence or data. It's that these people do not approach the discussion in good faith, and despite not having a valid rational reason to do so, they dismiss that data.

 

We see the same thing with the Obama birthers who don't think the president was born in the US, despite the clear records that he was. We see the same thing with the 9/11 truthers who think that the towers came down due to some ridiculous conspiracy, instead of accepting the obvious fact that there were some hijacked planes which flew into them and caused them to crumble. We see the same thing with the anti-vax people who think that vaccines cause autism, and with homeopathic remedy supporters and folks who follow the woo of astrology and numerology despite its obvious stupidity.

 

Yes, sometimes people get ridiculed. Yes, sometimes it's done inappropriately. Yes, sometimes feelings are hurt. So the fuck what? Grow up. This is the real world, and when evidence fails to convince people of the reality around them, then pointing and laughing is an incredibly valid secondary or tertiary option.

 

This whole politically correct bullshit where people prize tone over content is frankly one of the sources of the problems we face in today's world. How about you get a grip, face the reality before you, and if you feel you're being ridiculed inappropriately then you stand up for yourself and explain your position in a way that shows the other person to be incorrect.

 

Either way, the utopia so many of you seem to cling to simply doesn't exist, and it requires discussion in good faith. Unfortunately, the people being ridiculed tend to be the ones approaching the discussion in bad faith. Not every child deserves a gold star. Deal with it.

 

No, its the other way round. Obviously you have never followed a presentation from creationists. If you take some time enduring this, you will understand that derision and ridicule is their most effective weapon. They don't use science, they use arguments based on "common sense" like Paley's watch saying "yoho scientists wake up, look around you we are more complicated than a watch so it proves that blahblahblah!" and that's it. Not that I agree with them but you must learn to know your ennemy.

You must know that science has nothing to do with "common sense" and that in many case science is exactly the contrary of "common sense". Look at Newton's laws of motion as a simple example.

I mean, as i stated before, the use of ridicule is a weapon of the ignorant. When you use it you stop acting like a scientist.

[kitkat]

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!!!

 

This is so true!

 

No, its the other way round. Obviously you have never followed a presentation from creationists. If you take some time enduring this, you will understand that derision and ridicule is their most effective weapon. They don't use science, they use arguments based on "common sense" like Paley's watch saying "yoho scientists wake up, look around you we are more complicated than a watch so it proves that blahblahblah!" and that's it. Not that I agree with them but you must learn to know your ennemy.

You must know that science has nothing to do with "common sense" and that in many case science is exactly the contrary of "common sense". Look at Newton's laws of motion as a simple example.

I mean, as i stated before, the use of ridicule is a weapon of the ignorant. When you use it you stop acting like a scientist.

 

 

Again, good post!

 

That's quite obviously a personal attack. You can tell how weak an argument it is by the fact that it assumes knowledge you can't possibly possess. Further, it's a generalization from a single perspective, an opinion stated as fact that makes it weaker still.

 

I am sorry and you are right it was a personal attack due to your previous comment that you feel you have a right to ridicule people who happen to think outside of the box.

[mississippichem]

Thinking outside the box is unscientific. We are only allowed to generalize our thoughts to a bigger box. It's creativity in a straight-jacket as a great scientist once put it.

[Arete]

I mean, as i stated before, the use of ridicule is a weapon of the ignorant. When you use it you stop acting like a scientist.

 

I'm not sure.

 

Fairly often, in my experience, pointing out how a hypothesis or experimental design is ridiculous is an effective scientific tool is pointiong out flaws. We recently had a grant reviewer suggest common garden experiments be conducted in giant tortoises. We politely pointed out that if Darwin himself had of set up the suggested experiment, it would still be running and thus probably didn't fit in with the grant's 3 year time frame (i.e. the suggestion is clearly ridiculous). In this sense, ridicule can be a valid tool for scientists.

 

The use of the celestial teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot is a long standing example of how a clearly ridiculous idea effectively conveys the concept of scientific burden of proof.

 

Obviously ridiculing a group or person directly is unlikely to be constructive in any circumstance.

[michel123456]

I'm not sure.

 

Fairly often, in my experience, pointing out how a hypothesis or experimental design is ridiculous is an effective scientific tool is pointiong out flaws. We recently had a grant reviewer suggest common garden experiments be conducted in giant tortoises. We politely pointed out that if Darwin himself had of set up the suggested experiment, it would still be running and thus probably didn't fit in with the grant's 3 year time frame (i.e. the suggestion is clearly ridiculous). In this sense, ridicule can be a valid tool for scientists.

 

The use of the celestial teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot is a long standing example of how a clearly ridiculous idea effectively conveys the concept of scientific burden of proof.

 

Obviously ridiculing a group or person directly is unlikely to be constructive in any circumstance.

I learned about the teapot, thanks. But it is referenced in the Wiki article together with the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as religion-parodying forms. Not science.

From wiki

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot, cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.

(...)

Russell's argument

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published (...)

Analysis

Peter Atkins said that the point of Russell's teapot is that no one can prove a negative, and therefore Occam's razor suggests that the more simple theory (in which there is no supreme being) should trump the more complex theory (with a supreme being). He notes that this argument is not good enough to convince the religious, because religious evidence is experienced through personal revelation or received wisdom which cannot be objectively verified and are not accepted forms of scientific evidence.

 

So that's about religion.

[iNow]

Obviously you have never followed a presentation from creationists.

And this is obvious, how exactly? You seriously think that in my nearly 11,000 posts here and nearly 20,000 posts on other science sites that this is the case?

 

 

I mean, as i stated before, the use of ridicule is a weapon of the ignorant. When you use it you stop acting like a scientist.

As already noted above, no. That's a bald assertion easily refuted. Science is about education and learning about the universe in a manner grounded in reality. It's fine that you do not feel ridicule and parody have a role to play here, but you must recall that is a personal opinion and hardly some objective statement of fact.

[mooeypoo]

What is a hypocrite? It's a person who is being hypocritical. Does this person need to be a hypocrite in all situations and in all settings and at all times in order for the hypocrite label to accurately apply within the confines of a given discussion? No.

 

Actually, not quite.

 

Is a person who lied once a liar? Usually not. We usually say someone is a liar if he shows this to be a consistent behavior.

 

Is a person a hypocrite if one of his statements was hypocritical? It's so easy not to notice these things, especially when the person making the argument is not as savvy in the 'art' of debates or making an argument.

 

I prefer giving the person the benefit of the doubt, so that *other* readers around the internet who come and watch our debate can see the arguments and be convinced by what i'm saying, and not consider me an utter jerk and move away in annoyance. And we have a lot of 'random readers', according to our traffic, way after the argument is done and gone.

 

We went over this in the past, so I know where you stand on this, I just don't think you are aware how much this particular ridiculing attitude can shoot you in the foot. While your own "camp" will give you high-fives and snicker on how well you just pwned the person, everyone else will stop listening to you, in general, even when you make good points.

 

There are enough people out there who think that scientists and science-minded people are obtuse jerks who don't listen and consider themselves smarter than everyone else. We don't need to get out of our way to convince them that they're right.

 

 

~mooey

[Phi for All]

I am sorry and you are right it was a personal attack due to your previous comment that you feel you have a right to ridicule people who happen to think outside of the box.

I made no comment about feeling I have a right to ridicule people. In fact, if you go back over the thread, I support the use of ridicule only for ridiculous ideas, and disdain the use of ad hominem fallacies.

 

I also accused Ophiolite in post #53 of possibly not trusting in a peer's ability to see what should be obvious. I now retract that accusation, since it is patently clear to me that, after repeated declarations of my stance, it continues to be misunderstood by said peers.

 

It seems perfectly obvious to me that attacking a person generates a clear impediment to the learning process that isn't as likely to happen when one simply attacks the ideas they put forward. Apparently I am in the minority on this.

 

As for "thinking outside the box", it's a concept that incorrectly implies a consistently superior result. In the majority of situations, "the box" is the best supported place to look for answers.

[Arete]

So that's about religion.

 

While the wikipedia article outlining the concept explains its implications in a religious context, the concept in itself is an unequivocally scientific notion regarding the burden of scientific proof.

 

Thus it's an example of ridicule being useful to science.