ridicule is not good science

[iNow]

In the case that you cite the assertion is an unsubstantiated opinion, intended to convey the impresssion that those who ridicule are likely ignorant and therefore unworthy of consideration. It is in in fact a subtle form of an ad hominem attack.

It was also nonsequitur, exactly like swansont said...The second statement is disconnected from the first. It's as if he'd said, "Because bananas are yellow, today is Tuesday."

[swansont]

I do not understand this.

 

 

 

 

Michel said ridicule is a weapon of the ignorant. Meaning, commonly it is ignorant people who use ridicule.

 

I don't understand how this statement is a fallacy.

 

It was the implication; that ridicule is a weapon used by the ignorant does not mean that all uses of ridicule are made by ignorant people. The latter is demonstrably false as explained by others in the thread, that being the case where ridicule is used only when facts and reason have had no effect. If you articulate facts and reason, you are not ignorant.

 

If that wasn't the implication, then I don't see the point of the statement.

[baric]

Thus "you are an idiot and therefore your statement is absurd" is an ad hominem argument, but "your statement is absurd and therefore you are an idiot" is an observation and an insult, but not an ad hominem argument.

 

...

 

Life is just too short to spend time dissecting in detail the rantings of the numerous nut cases found today on the internet -- and science forums attract more than their fare share.

 

...

 

The first step in doing research and developing radical new valid science is understanding what is already known, the basis of that knowledge and the limits of its applicability. That requires serious intense study. There is a reason why almost all research scientists have Ph.D. degrees.

 

...

 

Sincere newbies deserve consideration and tolerance. But kid gloves are not for wackos, cheaters or even just lazy students.

 

...

 

It is therefore expedient, and in fact necessary, to learn to discriminate between arguments and sources that are deserving of the expenditure of intellectual capital and tripe that should be dismissed out of hand, not even read fully.

 

I wish I could +1 your post separately for each of those excerpted comments.

[kitkat]

DrRocket had it right when he said, "those that ridicule are likely ignorant therefore unworthy of consideration" is what I was trying to say in an earlier post only he said it better. KItkat is not a "he" I am a "she" not that this should make any difference to the discussion. Even though I did not choose my words correctly, I was totally sincere in what I meant. The childish response I recieved only reinforced my beliefs.

 

I am not an English Major so I do not possess the intellectual dialogue that seems to a requirement on science forums. I am a individual that has a general interest in science, especially the history of evolution and microbiology. It is difficult sometimes to come here and be treated with any respect and it is not taken in consideration that most people that are not scientists are getting their information off the internet.

 

Perhaps instead of stating we don't have a clue of what we are talking about and we need to provide proof what we are saying with web links, a more effective approach would be to direct us to the correct website that provides honest information on the subject in question. Afterall, you are the experts on the subject matter and you would know where to direct us to the correct source.

 

This would eliminate the need to "ridicule" and you have provided the path for obtaining factual information. I tend to try to see both sides of the argument even when I am personally involved in it. I Nows reasoning for ridicule was to piss them off so they would react by doing more research. This is effective on a few occasions when he makes a statement on the subject that I did not take into consideration and it created further research. In this instance, I ignored the ridicule remark.

 

In this thread, I got the impression that he loved to put people down and he was not here to respond to people as a genuine person that loves to be a educator of knowledge. I am looking for serious minded people that hopefully considered themselves as a credible source for information. If I wanted to listen to snide remarks and told how stupid I am, then I would have gotten some counseling since this is viewed as participation in unhealthy behavior that reinforces a negative opinion of oneself.

 

Thinking that you are smarter then the masses is really a lonely position to take and it is not beneficial to the person who is ego based that believes that nor to the many people that feel threatened by it. It is your experience in a particular field that makes you a reliable source to obtain information, intelligence is irrelevant.

[Iggy]

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.^[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Like you say,

 

Wikipedia is full of errors and opinions...

If you follow the source wikipedia gives for that definition it actually nowhere says "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim" or anything like that. It gives these definitions which support what I said:

 

1. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason [American Heritage Dictionary]
   
2. A term used in debate to denote an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument. [West's Encyclopedia of American Law]
   
3. To the individual. Relating to the principles or preferences of a particular person, rather than to abstract truth. Often used to describe a personal attack on a person. [Latin Phrase]
   
4. appealing to a person's feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect [Obscure Words]
   
5. to the man; argument directed at man’s character, not his position [Random House Word Menu]
   

 

Calling someone a hypocrite is implicitly (by definition) comparing their assertions to their actions and addressing the latter in place of the former which is what "ad hominem" is all about. That is surely why tu quoque is ad hominem.

 

 

I know of no instances in which great ideas were lost to ridicule. Pythagoras may have received criticism when irrational numbers were discovered, but his ideas survived the death of the man. Einstein's was work, in the darkest days of the Reich was called "Jewish physics", but Einstein's ideas and reputation seem to have prevailed over those of his detractors. Valid ideas seem to always win out in the end.[my bold]

It would be hard to know about lost ideas.

 

It is something that the OP talks about delayed scientific recognition and we've moved on to lost ideas. In the same vein, the title says "ridicule is not good science" and I think the point was recently made that ridicule is useful in stand-up comedy.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Iggy

[Appolinaria]

A fallacy is a breach of formal logic. An assertion is not a logical argument and cannot be a logical fallacy. An assertion can be fallacious (i.e. tending to deceive or mislead) but not a fallacy.

 

In the case that you cite the assertion is an unsubstantiated opinion, intended to convey the impresssion that those who ridicule are likely ignorant and therefore unworthy of consideration. It is in in fact a subtle form of an ad hominem attack.

 

 

Student (interrupting a lecture in which an equation is being bderived) : "Professor, I don't understand."

 

silence

 

more silence

 

Student: "Professor, aren't you going to answer my question ?"

 

 

Professor: "That was not a question."

 

 

The professor in the incident was P.A.M. Dirac. Anyone care to characterize Dirac as ignorant or unworthy of consideration ?

 

 

 

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.^[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

i would not call dirac ignorant. this is because he refrained from making any assertion. there is nothing to interpret as ridicule.

[DrRocket]

i would not call dirac ignorant. this is because he refrained from making any assertion. there is nothing to interpret as ridicule.

 

Trust me, there is.

 

But the beauty of it lies in the subtlety of Dirac's ridicule, which may not be evident if you lack significant experience with mathematical proofs and derivations, and a dry sense of humor. Dirac inserted the knife very deftly -- the work of a master.

 

Somewhat more obvious but equally pointed and amusing was Wolfgang Pauli's " That's not right - that's not even wrong" .

 

The best ridicule is done so deftly that a dense subject fails to recognize it for what it is. This, of course, requires an intelligent and perceptive broader audience to appreciate it.

 

 

On a different note, this is one of the better pieces that I have seen regarding ad hominem arguments.

 

http://plover.net/~b.../adhominem.html

Edited November 18, 2011 by DrRocket

[Appolinaria]

Trust me, there is.

 

But the beauty of it lies in the subtlety of Dirac's ridicule, which may not be evident if you lack significant experience with mathematical proofs and derivations, and a dry sense of humor. Dirac inserted the knife very deftly -- the work of a master.

 

Somewhat more obvious but equally pointed and amusing was Wolfgang Pauli's " That's not right - that's not even wrong" .

 

The best ridicule is done so deftly that a dense subject fails to recognize it for what it is. This, of course, requires an intelligent and perceptive broader audience to appreciate it.

 

 

On a different note, this is one of the better pieces that I have seen regarding ad hominem arguments.

 

http://plover.net/~b.../adhominem.html

 

 

to me it seems that its very apparent "i dont understand" is not a question. that is completely logical and there is no way it is ridicule.

 

dirac may want to reconsider his task of instructing if he views those that dont understand as part of the less intelligent, dense group who misses his subtle ridicule. obviously, its not teaching them anything. he and his fellow more perceptive friends may be having a laugh, but its not accomplishing anything.

 

I don't think dirac was ridiculing anyone.

 

 

you can have me memorize all of the mathematical proofs and derivations in the world, or the name of a bird in all languages of the world, but when I'm finished, I may not understand the proofs, or know anything whatsoever about the bird.

 

this, I think many scientists realize. and you see it marked through the use of analogy, through the demeanor of a sociable, kind person. being able to transfer a concept to a subject is far more a mark of intelligence than being able to regurgitate facts to them.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Appolinaria

[hypervalent_iodine]

I am not an English Major so I do not possess the intellectual dialogue that seems to a requirement on science forums. I am a individual that has a general interest in science, especially the history of evolution and microbiology. It is difficult sometimes to come here and be treated with any respect and it is not taken in consideration that most people that are not scientists are getting their information off the internet.

 

 

I think a lot of that comes down to a simple misinterpretation of the presentation vs. the underpinning intentions of the language used by many scientists. Scientists are trained to communicate in a quite formal manner in order to eloquently and concisely convey their ideas to their peers. In my own experience, I have noticed that the propensity for someone who is scientifically trained to converse in this manner can be quite detrimental to their interactions with the 'average Joe'. Often, the black-and-white nature of scientific speech can be misconstrued as condescending and as an attempt to belittle a person's intelligence, which ultimately results in the actual point of whatever was being said to be largely misplaced. This is obviously not always the case - some people truly are just out to inflate their own ego at the expense of others - but it's an observation worth noting, nonetheless.

 

I implore those who do not think ridicule is an acceptable tool in science to read or at least skim Galileo's, 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems', specifically the translation containing a forward written by Einstein. In this forward, Einstein notes the following:

 

His unusual literacy gift enables him to address the educated men of his age in such a clear and impressive language as to overcome the anthropocentric and mythical thinking of his contemporaries and to lead the back to an objective and casual attitude towards the cosmos, an attitude which had become lost to humanity with the decline of the Greek culture.

 

This from a time where Galileo had been expressly forbidden to advocate Copernican theory for fear of, well, exactly what he got (the Inquisition did not appear to enjoy his humorous jabs). In a rather recalcitrant and daring move, Galileo chose to ignore the warnings set before him and instead used his 'unusual literacy gift' as a means to subtly ridicule and confront the stagnant opinions (note, not the people) of the time in order to relay his ideas to the educated masses. While incorrect by our current standards, his work is considered a paramount feature in the development of our present scientific understanding and could not possibly have been considered as such were it not for Galileo's appropriate use of tactic.

 

Arguably this example is somewhat exaggerated considering the position of modern science, wherein the powers of an individual is treated with much more skepticism and are instead replaced by the powers of the collective. That being said, I think the premise can be extrapolated to serve as quite a fine illustration of exactly how and when ridicule is a useful and indeed, a necessary tool to convey an idea, if only as a last resort.

Edited November 18, 2011 by hypervalent_iodine

[Phi for All]

From the thread Did Apollo really travel to the Moon?, Schrödinger's hat referenced a great piece of ridicule that perfectly exemplifies why ridicule can be an effective tool in pointing out inconsistencies in a firmly held idea (scroll to post #8).

 

And note that absolutely no people were personally attacked in the filming of this skit.

[imatfaal]

That's a risk we will just have to take!

 

I hadn't seen that sketch or Mr Hat's original post - but it sums up perfectly the necessity in the last instance of showing that an argument is empty - even if the only course remaining is ridicule

 

and can I just say that, in the year since I have been reading Scienceforums, this has been the most edifying thread. It has shown a self-awareness and acceptance of alternative views that is exceptional on the internet. The worst insult has been "hypocrite" and even that was debated to such an extent that any venom was well past its sell by date and innocuous. And some of the posts from Ap'nara, DocRock, Moeey and most recently Hyper-v I have been really good reading

Edited November 18, 2011 by imatfaal

[Appolinaria]

From the thread Did Apollo really travel to the Moon?, Schrödinger's hat referenced a great piece of ridicule that perfectly exemplifies why ridicule can be an effective tool in pointing out inconsistencies in a firmly held idea (scroll to post #8).

 

And note that absolutely no people were personally attacked in the filming of this skit.

 

OHEHMGEE, IT'S MARK AND JEZ!

 

<3333333

 

That's a risk we will just have to take!

 

I hadn't seen that sketch or Mr Hat's original post - but it sums up perfectly the necessity in the last instance of showing that an argument is empty - even if the only course remaining is ridicule

 

and can I just say that, in the year since I have been reading Scienceforums, this has been the most edifying thread. It has shown a self-awareness and acceptance of alternative views that is exceptional on the internet. The worst insult has been "hypocrite" and even that was debated to such an extent that any venom was well past its sell by date and innocuous. And some of the posts from Ap'nara, DocRock, Moeey and most recently Hyper-v I have been really good reading

 

Don't forget yourself, Imatfaal. Some great, also necessary, points were made by you.

 

Anyway, thank you Flattering, especially since I got about uno +1.

 

This thread was almost as entertaining as the forum mods & mental health ones. Almost.

 

[Mystery111]

Oofftt... so many negativities in this thread... I mean seriously is there any need?

[mooeypoo]

Oofftt... so many negativities in this thread... I mean seriously is there any need?

 

Are you ridiculing our positive effort?

[Appolinaria]

Oofftt... so many negativities in this thread... I mean seriously is there any need?

 

well, that is the argument. I'd say no, but some disagree.

 

[Mystery111]

well, that is the argument. I'd say no, but some disagree.

 

 

Yes, indeed sweetness!

 

Are you ridiculing our positive effort?

 

lol... I wouldn't dare

[mississippichem]

Is this thread really converging to a consensus!? Never thought I'd see the day when that happened on the internet . We seem to have a decent membership here. Yeah us!

[Appolinaria]

every one of you has such a unique character thats irreplacable.. you all add an equally valid je ne sais pas.. its beautiful. the comraderie displayed brings a tear to my eye, sends the depths of my black heart aflutter.

[swansont]

i would not call dirac ignorant. this is because he refrained from making any assertion. there is nothing to interpret as ridicule.

 

I'm guessing that if you were the student who was the target of the remark you would feel differently.

[Mystery111]

Oh dirac wasn't ignorant, but he certainly suffered from some issues. Most probably the medical term today would be, ''aspergers''.

 

Sorry, don't know why swansont said what he said, but all I can say is if I think it has anything to do with his condition, it probably has a direct link to his social incapabilities.

[mooeypoo]

I'm guessing that if you were the student who was the target of the remark you would feel differently.

 

 

Oh dirac wasn't ignorant, but he certainly suffered from some issues. Most probably the medical term today would be, ''aspergers''.

 

Sorry, don't know why swansont said what he said, but all I can say is if I think it has anything to do with his condition, it probably has a direct link to his social incapabilities.

 

See, this is what I meant when I said it's all about the goal.

 

This forum's goal is education. In education, the tools are different than other places that offer general debates between like-minded people. While in other forums ridicule can be a tool to make people laugh and high-five one another (and that's perfectly acceptable), in this forum ridicule works against the point, most of the time, of offering a neutral place to offer educational insight.

 

It's all about context.

 

When I tutored physics, I did not treat all students alike. If a freshman, or a student who's just starting, came to me with a basic question he got stuck with because of algebra issues, I would tend to be more lenient and patient, walking him through the problem. When the same student came back, if we got stuck on the *same* issue, I could see that either he didn't understand the method we went over last time, or didn't take an effort. Since my goal was to give students the tools to handle physics on their own, I gave students the benefit of the doubt -- we would go over things again, make sure they know how to do it next time, and I'd even give them a few problems to do while I walk around to tutor other students and return to make sure the student managed to deal with the problem.

 

When I studied with my fellow student majors, however, say, we crammed for an exam in a class we were all taking, the treatment to one another was different. We were no longer in "teaching" mode, we were in "practice" mode, and the attitude was completely different than what I'd use with students.

 

And, of course, there are always students who used to come back again and again with the same type of question and you could see they weren't interested in *learning*, they were just there to get their homework solved by the tutors. When that happened, we reverted to other tactics, sometimes things that we would *never* use with students who are starting out their education or simply got stuck.

 

 

When your goal is education, ridicule is rarely a good tool.

 

 

The bottom line I'd like to emphasize in terms of my own views, is that while we're all allowed to disagree on this subject of ridicule and when and where to use it, we should all take into account, also, that this forum has rules. The staff's job is to maintain order in light of the forum's goal, and the staff views that by not allowing ridicule or attacking posts. We can argue, but we have to adhere to the rules. We can try and change those rules (like this thread seemed to begin with) -- and it might eventually succeed in some cases. But as long as the rules are there, we should adhere by them.

 

We as staff never ban someone for ridiculing a single post, or occasionally losing their patience. We might post a moderation note to urge the discussion back to what we see as a beneficial education-oriented debate, which should just serve as a hint to the poster that thy took things too far. We're human beings, we make mistakes, and the purpose of moderation notes is to remind people to watch out of emotions getting ahead of them.

 

It's when things get way out of hand that we're forced to make a more permanent decision, for what we see as the good of the forum, based on teh declared mission statement of this forum and its goals. Different moderators at different forums with different goals might choose different courses of action. That's part of what makes online forums unique.

 

 

I think that's a fair way of going at it.

 

~mooey

[Appolinaria]

I'm guessing that if you were the student who was the target of the remark you would feel differently.

 

 

i would argue that assumption based on my opinion that "i do not understand" is not a question. if thats illogical, then his assertion could be deemed ridicule, but i disagree.

[Mystery111]

Not understanding when a question is posed, is a reflection on someone who may suffer from the Autistic Spectrum. As I said, this does not make him ignorant. It's a condition. Maybe not medically classed as a mental condition, but still a condition nontheless.

 

I should know, I have Semantic Pragmatic Disorder.

 

Well said mooey.

 

i would argue that assumption based on my opinion that "i do not understand" is not a question. if thats illogical, then his assertion could be deemed ridicule, but i disagree.

 

 

You're not in the wrong and neither was Dirac. It is simply a case where normal operative people can understand something quicker than another. Least to say, Dirac was probably quicker than most of his peers concerning other pivotal subjects.

 

Ridicule should be a no-no anyway. Why would a respectable scientist take time out their own hands to correct and then ridicule another member? If anything, you should correct and then move on, waste your time on more, valuable aspects. If not, what goal are you acheiving really?

 

One might say, ''well atleast we are putting in the ground a false scientific prophet!''

 

But again, what are you achieving? Your words will not hit a scientific community. The scientific community are already aware of who the phonies are, so who and what are you trying to prove with all the debates against a crank? Cranks are understood by cranks and by no less. Any attempt to fight one crank might as well lead you on a crusade to fight all cranks on the web. And why would one do this, other than waste time?

 

I find myself coming to this, even though really I have very little time, but still, I come here and I answer posts that are valuable enough to answer and sometimes these posts are lead by people with very little knowledge on physics. These posts don't make them automatically cranks, but a scientists which cannot retain the ability to discern a crank post from another isn't worthy of being called a scientist.

[Appolinaria]

Not understanding when a question is posed, is a reflection on someone who may suffer from the Autistic Spectrum. As I said, this does not make him ignorant. It's a condition. Maybe not medically classed as a mental condition, but still a condition nontheless.

 

I should know, I have Semantic Pragmatic Disorder.

 

Well said mooey.

 

 

 

 

You're not in the wrong and neither was Dirac. It is simply a case where normal operative people can understand something quicker than another. Least to say, Dirac was probably quicker than most of his peers concerning other pivotal subjects.

 

and you have helped me understand many things my friend.

[Mystery111]

and you have helped me understand many things my friend.

 

God bless you...

 

 

... I wrote more as well....

 

''Ridicule should be a no-no anyway. Why would a respectable scientist take time out their own hands to correct and then ridicule another member? If anything, you should correct and then move on, waste your time on more, valuable aspects. If not, what goal are you acheiving really?

 

One might say, ''well atleast we are putting in the ground a false scientific prophet!''

 

But again, what are you achieving? Your words will not hit a scientific community. The scientific community are already aware of who the phonies are, so who and what are you trying to prove with all the debates against a crank? Cranks are understood by cranks and by no less. Any attempt to fight one crank might as well lead you on a crusade to fight all cranks on the web. And why would one do this, other than waste time?

 

I find myself coming to this, even though really I have very little time, but still, I come here and I answer posts that are valuable enough to answer and sometimes these posts are lead by people with very little knowledge on physics. These posts don't make them automatically cranks, but a scientists which cannot retain the ability to discern a crank post from another isn't worthy of being called a scientist.''