ridicule is not good science

[kitkat]

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

 

 

These are great quotes!

[imatfaal]

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.

 

/ great quotes snipped

 

Just as long as you don't end up cast into the outer darkness like him.

I think the argument has become so convoluted that we are at a danger of arguing at cross purposes or even worse everyone agreeing!

 

I cannot see how I could disagree with many of those quotations - but I also do not see how they reflect either way on the use of ridicule (in a constrained and non ad hom manner). I think we all agree that an attack on the person especially through ridicule is unacceptable - it is an ad hom fallacy and only serves to show that those who use it are failing to mount a proper argument. I would also agree with you that ridiculing an idea as an initial response is fruitless and counter-productive and would go as far as saying that ridicule whilst any debate is forthcoming is also an incorrect response. However, there comes a point when reason is being rebuffed and there is a dogged refusal to accept that the argument is invalid, or that the premises are false that rhetorical devices become a useful tool. If one can show that a hypothesis provides justification for ridiculous results as well as for sensible results - or that ridiculous premises are equally suited to the hypothesis then one has gone a fair way in showing that there is a major flaw.

 

This being the internet there is, perhaps, too much barbed wit involved in the process sometimes and not enough empathy. But firstly we cannot ban ridicule and mockery - it is a part of human nature to be clannish and re-enforce perceived differences, to over-emphasise the importance of shibboleths, and to defend one's point of view beyond what is reasonable. And bearing in mind that last phrase I will end it here.

[Phi for All]

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.

If they've demonstrated their ridiculousness to such a point, when you attack them yourself you are either redundant, self-serving or you don't trust in your peer's ability to see what should be obvious.

 

 

 

Personally, I think this argument is all about the times when a good idea failed to receive attention versus the times when bad ideas get criticized. Do the math and remember that ridiculing an idea often causes the originator to be more rigorous in the future. Consider the ratio again and you'll see that ridicule is more likely to produce better ideas than allowing bad ideas to go uncontested.

[kitkat]

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.

 

You are the wrong person to have or be any kind of authoritive figure on this forum. A closed mind mentality that remembers everything that he or she has learned by memorization or regurgitating the same opinions that describe life's processes by scientists who believed it many years ago but refuse to allow themselves to take another look at all of the current evidence and form their own opinion of it, is not a helpful individual on these forums.

[iNow]

Please ensure this thread does not degrade.

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.

 

or you don't trust in your peer's ability to see what should be obvious.

And?

 

You are the wrong person to have or be any kind of authoritive figure on this forum. A closed mind mentality that remembers everything that he or she has learned by memorization or regurgitating the same opinions that describe life's processes by scientists who believed it many years ago but refuse to allow themselves to take another look at all of the current evidence and form their own opinion of it

Lol. Seems you're quite content to dish it out, but can't take it when delivered in kind. Hypocrite.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Let me say a little louder and blunter this time. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you feel a post breaks a rule in any thread.

[Phi for All]

You are the wrong person to have or be any kind of authoritive figure on this forum. A closed mind mentality that remembers everything that he or she has learned by memorization or regurgitating the same opinions that describe life's processes by scientists who believed it many years ago but refuse to allow themselves to take another look at all of the current evidence and form their own opinion of it, is not a helpful individual on these forums.

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.

[Appolinaria]

You know how many cowboys I've seen crying for mommy over lollipop, sunshine filled girls?

 

 

Anyway, stop attacking people iNow, you're gonna lose all credibility of your argument!

[Phi for All]

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.

I agree with this part.

 

And?

Oh, I think it's clear you have no peers, iNow.

 

Lol. Seems you're quite content to dish it out, but can't take it when delivered in kind. Hypocrite.

This is where I disagree. Again, I think calling a person a hypocrite is a clear personal attack. I'll try to find some relevant studies, but I'm quite sure that the defensiveness this kind of argument creates isn't as conducive to constructive thinking as it would be if you called kitkat's argument hypocritical. Ridiculing his argument allows him to amend it, whereas the personal attack is aimed too broadly to be effective for anything but your own satisfaction.

[Appolinaria]

Just as long as you don't end up cast into the outer darkness like him.

I think the argument has become so convoluted that we are at a danger of arguing at cross purposes or even worse everyone agreeing!

 

I cannot see how I could disagree with many of those quotations - but I also do not see how they reflect either way on the use of ridicule (in a constrained and non ad hom manner). I think we all agree that an attack on the person especially through ridicule is unacceptable - it is an ad hom fallacy and only serves to show that those who use it are failing to mount a proper argument. I would also agree with you that ridiculing an idea as an initial response is fruitless and counter-productive and would go as far as saying that ridicule whilst any debate is forthcoming is also an incorrect response. However, there comes a point when reason is being rebuffed and there is a dogged refusal to accept that the argument is invalid, or that the premises are false that rhetorical devices become a useful tool. If one can show that a hypothesis provides justification for ridiculous results as well as for sensible results - or that ridiculous premises are equally suited to the hypothesis then one has gone a fair way in showing that there is a major flaw.

 

This being the internet there is, perhaps, too much barbed wit involved in the process sometimes and not enough empathy. But firstly we cannot ban ridicule and mockery - it is a part of human nature to be clannish and re-enforce perceived differences, to over-emphasise the importance of shibboleths, and to defend one's point of view beyond what is reasonable. And bearing in mind that last phrase I will end it here.

 

Oh, come on, imatfaal. You're kidding me, right?

Edited November 15, 2011 by Appolinaria

[baric]

The problem is that "ridicule" is a subjective term.

 

If someone proposes "theory A", someone else may point out that theory leads to logical conclusions that are clearly absurd. The first person may consider that "ridicule", but the second may consider it an illustrative refutation.

 

For example, Albert Einstein used the term "spooky action at a distance" to ridicule the QM notion of non-locality.

 

My opinion is that, as long as people are not PERSONALLY ridiculed, then it is all legitimate discussion.

[imatfaal]

Oh, come on, imatfaal. You're kidding me, right?

Nope - most of the quote are about keeping an open mind, not being blinkered by dogma, letting our imagination run, and aspects of the method. The only ones that really address the issue are mark twain's and charles dickens. I seems that you are positing the existence of great radical and maverick thinkers as proof that ridicule can never be a good thing; and I do not agree with this contention. I agree that some great scientists have been ridiculed; Darwin pre-eminently in my mind, but that ridicule was in order to avoid engaging with the facts rather than as a discursive technique to show that the argument was incorrect. Can ridicule be disruptive of debate and a force for ignorance? - yes certainly. Can ridicule be a technique to highlight flaws in an argument? again yes.

 

as a check I have just re-read the first 5 - and whilst I think they are all worthy quotes that make good points (and i am glad to have found some of them which I will keep for other posts) , I do not understand how they show or add weight to the argument that ridicule is not a valid response to certain ideas

[iNow]

I think calling a person a hypocrite is a clear personal attack.

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

 

 

I'll try to find some relevant studies, but I'm quite sure that the defensiveness this kind of argument creates isn't as conducive to constructive thinking as it would be if you called kitkat's argument hypocritical. Ridiculing his argument allows him to amend it, whereas the personal attack is aimed too broadly to be effective for anything but your own satisfaction.

So?

[michel123456]

Another one for Appolinaria.

 

"Can you laugh of the misfortune of the other? It depends.

If the misfortune is funny, yes you can." -Philippe Geluck.

 

------------------

@Inow.

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

My rule number one: never do to anyone what you don't want to happen to you. I broke rule #1 in precedent post: I am too sarcastic as it seems. Sorry.

[Appolinaria]

Nope - most of the quote are about keeping an open mind, not being blinkered by dogma, letting our imagination run, and aspects of the method. The only ones that really address the issue are mark twain's and charles dickens. I seems that you are positing the existence of great radical and maverick thinkers as proof that ridicule can never be a good thing; and I do not agree with this contention. I agree that some great scientists have been ridiculed; Darwin pre-eminently in my mind, but that ridicule was in order to avoid engaging with the facts rather than as a discursive technique to show that the argument was incorrect. Can ridicule be disruptive of debate and a force for ignorance? - yes certainly. Can ridicule be a technique to highlight flaws in an argument? again yes.

 

as a check I have just re-read the first 5 - and whilst I think they are all worthy quotes that make good points (and i am glad to have found some of them which I will keep for other posts) , I do not understand how they show or add weight to the argument that ridicule is not a valid response to certain ideas

 

Ridicule is not valid because the foundation you base ridicule on can be swept from under your feet in an instant... All of these quotes express not to adhere too strongly to any belief. Ridicule is not possible if you don't adhere too strongly to any belief.

[iNow]

"Can you laugh of the misfortune of the other? It depends.

If the misfortune is funny, yes you can." -Philippe Geluck.

 

It takes a big man to cry. It takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man.

~ Jack Handey

[michel123456]

Woaw this thread was going too fast for me.

It is the first time IIRC that 2 teams arose from a discussion. Usually it is all against one. Memorable.

[iNow]

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

I disagree. It was hypocrisy, or a double standard at the very least. If you are bashing others for being rude or ridiculing others, then you don't get to do it yourself and expect to be taken seriously.

[Appolinaria]

Yeah, it's actually kind of confusing.

 

 

 

[iNow]

You know how many cowboys I've seen crying for mommy over lollipop, sunshine filled girls?

No, how many? Do you have references?

[michel123456]

I would like to add that I like very much when disagreeing politely with someone. Orgasm. And there is nothing more boring than agreeing constantly. For that, thank you Inow, although you don't like being polite since it seems lowering your machismo.

[Appolinaria]

No, how many? Do you have references?

 

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

[michel123456]

No, how many? Do you have references?

I googled crying cow boy and got 16.800.000 answers.

[John Cuthber]

"

"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?

I mean, I realise there's no evidence that it was there but, since absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence...

 

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

(and, in the words of the great philosopher Britney Spears "Oops! I did it again". I used ridicule to make a point).

 

"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"

That's an unevinced assertion and to rely on it is, at best, an example of this

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

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. "

Copernicus looked at the numbers and found a system that fitted them. It's possible that he started by looking at the sun because it was big and flashy so it was obvious.

It's also possible that he started by seeing how the maths would work for a system centred on the moon, of Venus. But neither of those would work so well.

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

 

"This indicates how myths may develop testable components. "

To be precise it indicates that one, and only one, might.

 

 

"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.

There is a lot of difference between speculating wildly- which is sometimes a perfectly valid part of science- and pretending that those speculations are 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."

Those were not myths in the usual sense of the word. They were speculations and, at the time, they were not amenable to verification or falsification. However, science has moved on. We now know that atoms exist (and the jury is still out on 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."

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

[Appolinaria]

"

"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?

I mean, I realise there's no evidence that it was there but, since absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence...

 

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

(and, in the words of the great philosopher Britney Spears "Oops! I did it again". I used ridicule to make a point).

 

 

 

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.