ridicule is not good science

[baric]

Replace God with unknown force.

 

Still an incoherent, undefined term.

 

If you admit that you don't know what "god" is (an "unknown force"), then how can you rationally posit it as an explanation for anything?

[iNow]

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.

It is a matter of opinion. Technically, we're both correct. It's a series of shades of gray, and you know it. It's arbitrary where you put the distinction of "this person is a liar" and "this person is not a liar." If they don't lie ever, they are not a liar. If they lie even once, then they have crossed the threshold, and what you label them as a result is a personal, subjective, and rather arbitrary choice.

 

Is a person a hypocrite if one of his statements was hypocritical?

They are no longer not a hypocrite. The rest is a personal opinion. As I've now clarified several times, it was my opinion that in this situation he was being a hypocrite, and using double standards. I stand by this opinion, and really don't care if you think I've used the label inappropriately.

 

 

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 that's your freedom to do so. Good for you. I sometimes use a different approach, and that's my freedom to do so, as well. I am who I am, moo. You are who you are. The problem here is that you're each trying to force me into some cookie cutter version of what you personally and subjectively feel is an ideal poster at SFN. You're ignoring who I am and are instead trying to force me to be someone else. I say, good luck with that. You're wasting your time.

 

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.

You assume this is somehow important to me. Why?

 

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.

You assume this is somehow important to me. Why?

 

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.

And you're welcome to your opinion. Why am I not welcome to mine?

[Phi for All]

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

Why do you, a person who understands the importance of language and its use, fail to see a distinction between attacking a person and attacking the ideas the person has, to the point where you consider one "a shorthand" for the other, basically conflating the two?

 

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.

But I've mentioned that the distinction is one between an acceptable argumentation tactic an a known and well-documented logical fallacy, an argument you've avoided multiple times now. This is not opinion. We're still in the Physics section, so I'll ask you directly. Do you agree that ad hominem, an argument attacking a person's character rather than the arguments they pose, is a logical fallacy and should be avoided?

[baric]

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.

 

I hate to burst your bubble, but scientists as a whole ARE far smarter than the average person. There is a huge academic threshold that has to be crossed and then they spend their entire lives in the pursuit of knowledge in their particular fields.

 

So yes, in their fields, they are much SMARTER than you or I. It's a fact. If they weren't, they could not cut it as scientists.

 

Just like soldiers are braver.

Models are prettier.

Professional athletes are more fit.

etc etc

[michel123456]

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?

You're correct, I take my words back. Between your 31000 posts here and there you have followed creationists presentations.

But then I understand less than ever your POV.

 

 

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.

Yes, we agree on that.

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.

 

Fine. We can disagree on this and continue our lives like that. No problem.

[Appolinaria]

Still an incoherent, undefined term.

 

If you admit that you don't know what "god" is (an "unknown force"), then how can you rationally posit it as an explanation for anything?

 

what was gravity before we rationalized it

[mooeypoo]

I hate to burst your bubble, but scientists as a whole ARE far smarter than the average person. There is a huge academic threshold that has to be crossed and then they spend their entire lives in the pursuit of knowledge in their particular fields.

How I wish this was true. It might be in general, but not all scientists are 'smarter' than the average person. Scientists might be more didactic, more analytic, more mathematical -- but I wouldn't say they're generally "smarter".

 

Succeeding in exams and analytical experimentation is not necessarily the only thing that makes a person smart. There are quite a lot of VERY smart people who aren't interested in scientific methodology or can do pure science.

 

Just like soldiers are braver.

Models are prettier.

Professional athletes are more fit.

etc etc

No, really, that's not how the world works. Soldiers are trained, they're not necessarily braver, especially when they're recruited rather than choose to join. Models aren't necessarily prettier either, they usually fit a specific mold the modelling company is looking for and dumped half a ton of makeup -- along with photoshopped images -- to make them more appealing. Professional athletes are more fit because they train a lot.

 

Scientists are knowledgeable in their field of science. Whether or not they're "smarter" than anyone else is irrelevant. They are considered (justly so, usually) as authorities.

 

In that aspect, scientists also need to "train a lot" to maintain their 'authority as a scientist' title, just like athletes. Even if you're born with the tendency to "get it" or to "work it", you need to study a lot and practice a lot and stay in mental shape, or you are obsolete and you stop being a scientist. There are quite a few of those throughout history that seemed to benefit psuedoscience more than science after their retirement.

 

When scientists act like jerks and obnoxious assholes, they make it very difficult for the public to trust their authority. Beyond it, they make it hard for potentially new scientists (children and young adults) to *want* to do science.

 

We can all condescend everyone as much as we want, but the bottom line is that rarely are people born science-ready. I was always curious about the universe, so in that aspect, I was "a skeptic" from a young age. Was I a scientist? Only in the loose term of the word, when I disassembled old radios and devised my own experiments. I didn't have the tools yet to really understand how to do the proper THINKING that science requires, and, quite often as a teen, reached conclusions taht today seem idiotic to me. I believed in the energetic powers of the body, I believed in auras and in remote viewing, I thought rocks with pretty names on them in magic shops have the power to make your heart beat faster, I thought a lot of weird things.

 

And I was ridiculed by some science-minded folk, mainly online, but also off; I knew that I'm not stupid, and I knew I wanted to understand what's going on, but instead of explaining to me *why* my methods lead to the wrong answer, people ridiculed -- so instead of considering they might have a point, I thought they're pompous asses that are afraid of change.

 

As a human being, there's no reason to ridicule anyone - if you believe 'non scientists' are less smart, then pure human courtesy would tell you not to ridicule them, just like pure courtesy would suggest not to ridicule a mentally disabled person, or a child.

Otherwise, it's about goals. What *are* your goals? If your goals is to laugh at others and keep thinking how smart you are, then ridicule works.

 

If your goal is to help people understand what science is about, then ridicule works against you.

 

We can argue which goal is more noble or more worth going-after, but I just want to point out that in this current forum we're in, the latter is the goal, which is why ridicule is unacceptable. There are other places out there that go by the former, and ridicule is abundant.

 

I personally dislike ridicule, it makes me feel cheap, as if I need to climb on other people's incapable minds to feel smart. But I do see how others enjoy it, and it's perfectly fine. There is a place for those places.

 

This just isn't one of them.

 

~mooey

[iNow]

Why do you, a person who understands the importance of language and its use, fail to see a distinction between attacking a person and attacking the ideas the person has, to the point where you consider one "a shorthand" for the other, basically conflating the two?

As previously alluded, I didn't see it as an attack. I saw it as a valid observation.

 

I recognize the difference between attacking the person and attacking the idea. That's so obvious as to be clear to mentally handicapped monkey high on meth. What I dispute is your contention that it was an attack at all. He was acting like a hypocrite, so I called him one. It was a valid observation, not an argument from ad hom. I never said, "Because you're a hypocrite, you're wrong." I called attention to the way he was using a double standard, and my observation remains valid... whether or not you'd have preferred I called him a hypocrite or said that his position was hypocritical. One was shorthand for the other, and the overall impact was the same.

 

You're not going to convince me otherwise. You can try, but I know where I stand on this and I'm firm in that position.

 

 

Do you agree that ad hominem, an argument attacking a person's character rather than the arguments they pose, is a logical fallacy and should be avoided?

Yep, that's why it sure is such a good thing that's not what I was doing.

 

 

 

 

 

As a human being, there's no reason to ridicule anyone

As I described several pages ago in this thread when another poster said essentially the same thing:

 

 

What you've said above is your personal preference' date=' 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. [/quote']

Edited November 16, 2011 by iNow

[mooeypoo]

You're not going to convince me otherwise. You can try, but I know where I stand on this and I'm firm in that position.

Interesting, iNow. You seem to ridicule people who say that exact same thing from other angles.

 

Should I be calling you a hypocrite, or just your argument?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might not notice it, but with your insistence to stick to your guns, you're not just making it hard for people to listen to what you're saying, but you're making it very difficult for people to even consider your points. We're human beings, not machines, we are affected by emotions even if the underlying text has a valid point -- anyone who ever took any sort of debate class or rhetoric knows this.

 

Most of anything else, I think that is the biggest shame; you're a very smart, very capable person, and you make very good points. It's just impossible to read through the points or consider them through the snark and ridicule. Would you consider any of my points at all if I started this argument ridiculing your double standard? Before you say yes, please think about this carefully. I wouldn't be too sure.

 

Ridicule is perceived as an attack, and that makes the person go on the defensive, where he (or she) are not as readily capable of actually CONSIDERING points.

If you're here to convince others of your own point, you seem to be using the wrong tactics.

 

~mooey

 

As I described several pages ago in this thread when another poster said essentially the same thing:

 

 

What you've said above is your personal preference' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

When I said 'no reason', I meant it in the general sense, like "there's no reason for you to cry" (there might be), "there's no reason to panic!" (there might be), etc.

 

But fine, alllrighty, I was caught generalizing. I apologize.

There are potentially some reasons to ridicule people at potentially specific occasions.

 

Your argument, though, seems to jump from "doesn't mean that none exist" (one extreme) to "using it all the time" (other extreme).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like another tactic used by the people you insist on ridiculing.

 

 

Rhetoric is fun.

 

~mooey

[iNow]

Should I be calling you a hypocrite, or just your argument?

You can call me anything you want, but if you did then you'd be the hypocrite, wouldn't you?

 

Ridicule is perceived as an attack, and that makes the person go on the defensive, where he (or she) are not as readily capable of actually CONSIDERING points.

And in much the same way, correction is often perceived as an attack, even when done gently and with all of the aforementioned sunshine and lollipops. I know you'd never suggest that we should not correct people, so why are you refusing to concede that this is all subjective, personal, arbitrary opinion on a spectrum with shades of gray?

 

When I said 'no reason', I meant it in the general sense, like "there's no reason for you to cry" (there might be), "there's no reason to panic!" (there might be), etc.

 

But fine, alllrighty, I was caught generalizing. I apologize.

This reminds me of how I called someone a hypocrite. Interesting.

[Appolinaria]

I still think ridicule is a bunch of fluff we need to cut out. Ridiculing an idea unfortunately often leads to that person being insulted or feeling ridiculed. We're brash, boisterous humans with an innate urge to cause trouble. Let's try to diminish anything that can stir up our natural instincts. Let the facts speak, instead. Cut out your personal comments. Sorry guys, but we're human, and we need to compensate for our inevitable emotional responses. Do you tell a child Sparky got violently struck by a car and his guts splattered everywhere? No, you adjust it for a child's ears.... we are constantly adjusting how we interact to make sure it's appropriate. First we are human, second we are observers of the world around us. This thread would have been a lot more concise and short, minus all of the side banter and backhanded insults that aren't technically ridicule. We would have about 3 examples of where ridicule has been shown to benefit science.

[mooeypoo]

You can call me anything you want, but if you did then you'd be the hypocrite, wouldn't you?

I'm not sure how that works..?

And in much the same way, correction is often perceived as an attack, even when done gently and with all of the aforementioned sunshine and lollipops. I know you'd never suggest that we should not correct people, so why are you refusing to concede that this is all subjective, personal, arbitrary opinion on a spectrum with shades of gray?

It's not about what you say, iNow, it's how you say it.

 

I have a choice: I can write a brilliant piece of post kicking you in the nuts, and get high-fives from people. Or I can write a post that explains why I disagree with you. You seem to want to choose the former. I choose the latter.

 

Which would be more effective depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to preach to the choire, the former's great. If it's to educate people and get them think, the latter is great.

 

Do you think I don't get frustrated? That I don't want to pwn people? That I don't have the snarkiness that can enable me to do that? I do, and I do and I do. But my goal is to discuss and debate. I want to *listen* to the other side so I understand it, even if I disagree with it, I want to educate people on how to think better about things, especially when I am not sure if I might be discussing issues with a teenager or a child that might actually have potential to go and get *better*.

 

I started out as what you'd call a full on crackpot when I was a teen -- but that was my way of asking questions I was interested in, even though the answers were bunk. The more I asked, the more I thought about it, adn the more I ended up researching things and figuring out what actually happens. It's not something that happens in an instant, it takes a while.

 

Jumping to assumption that the person in front of you is an idiot, or that they're doing this on purpose, or that they're malicious, or that they're adults, or that they will never change -- that's no different than the other side that jumps to their conclusions and generalizes *us*.

 

 

If a kid comes here and asks a question you and I think is stupid, there are two ways this can end:

 

* He will get an explanation and, even if he argues with it, will eventually think it through. Even if he won't change his mind, there's the *potential* that he might, and he might actually go learn something out of it.

 

* He gets ridiculed for his stupid idea and his stupid way of thinking about it, he will go into the defensive, stop considering where he might actually be wrong or right, and decide scientists are a bunch of pretentious assholes who are afraid of change, and will likely get more closed minded.

 

I would hope we want the first one to happen, and not the second.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This reminds me of how I called someone a hypocrite. Interesting.

 

Yup. Sometimes we need to explain ourselves. Works much better when we actually do that, rather than ridicule the person who misunderstood us, don't you think?

[iNow]

It's not about what you say, iNow, it's how you say it.

And this removes us from the realm of the subjective, personal, and arbitrary... how exactly?

 

Mountains out of molehills, people. Seriously.

[mooeypoo]

And this removes us from the realm of the subjective, personal, and arbitrary... how exactly?

 

Mountains out of molehills, people. Seriously.

 

I think I explained how in the rest of my post, but good on you for posting a 'jab' at me, eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look. I have no problems just agreeing to disagree on this. I know it's a matter of style and opinion, and I actually think your style *has* room to exist, though we might differ on where and when (which is fine).

 

You give me a feeling as if you're the one who disagrees on that too, though. I might be wrong, and if I am, please tell me. The impression I get, though, is that while I might consider your approach has room, just perhaps not everywhere, you seem to think your approach should be used everywhere. You give me the impression that instead of saying "this is my opinion vs yours" you're saying "this is my opinion and it's right".

 

This is what I'm having most troubles with in your posts lately.

 

This might be the wrong impression, but it's what I get from you. Maybe you can explain what you mean instead?

[Phi for All]

I still think ridicule is a bunch of fluff we need to cut out. Ridiculing an idea unfortunately often leads to that person being insulted or feeling ridiculed.

Ridicule is a tool. It helps to shape the way we learn. But like most tools, it needs to have safeguards to make sure it isn't used improperly or ineffectually. That's why I think the distinction between personal attacks ("You're a hypocrite") and attacking an idea ("What you said was hypocritical") is as important as making the back edge of a scalpel dull. Especially in science, it's important to only cut what needs cutting.

 

We're brash, boisterous humans with an innate urge to cause trouble. Let's try to diminish anything that can stir up our natural instincts. Let the facts speak, instead.

Sometimes the "facts" that are spoken deserve ridicule. I agree with others that it should be more of a last resort, but sometimes people are insistent to the point where ridicule is a viable, effective option.

 

Cut out your personal comments. Sorry guys, but we're human, and we need to compensate for our inevitable emotional responses. Do you tell a child Sparky got violently struck by a car and his guts splattered everywhere? No, you adjust it for a child's ears.... we are constantly adjusting how we interact to make sure it's appropriate.

Especially here, in a discussion forum where we can't read body language, facial expressions, etc., precise language and distinctions between what is effective and what is not is very important. We know that ad hominem is wrong and shouldn't be used. We know that making a "valid observation" that impugns the character of a person rather than his comments tends to raise unnecessary defenses, which are not effective to a discussion.

 

The dictionary definitions of "hypocrite" that I found gave examples where the hypocrisy was of an ongoing nature, e.g., a person who never votes but complains about government is a hypocrite. Making a random hypocritical comment does NOT make one a hypocrite. It just means that the comment was hypocritical. We should be capable of learning (training ourselves, I think mooeypoo observed) to make those distinctions work for us. Ridiculing an idea should be a viable tool of last resort, and we should train ourselves to know how to wield that scalpel effectively.

 

It can be argued that those who disdain using tools that help keep things clean, productive and efficient, with the least amount of unnecessary work for everyone else, are like guys who refuse to use the urinal and instead insist on pissing all over everything and calling it a valid way to relieve themselves.

[michel123456]

@Inow. (...) But not anyone has your intelligence.

I take that back too.

 

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

You have just proven that you won't make a step back on your argumentation just because that's the way you are and you will never change. That is exactly what you accuse people that you are ready to ridiculize.

Now you are the ridicule.

 

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

Of course I ment "your argument is ridicule" but you agreed previously that it doesn't matter, it's about the same.

Didn't you?

Edited November 16, 2011 by michel123456

[Appolinaria]

Ridicule is a tool. It helps to shape the way we learn. But like most tools, it needs to have safeguards to make sure it isn't used improperly or ineffectually. That's why I think the distinction between personal attacks ("You're a hypocrite") and attacking an idea ("What you said was hypocritical") is as important as making the back edge of a scalpel dull. Especially in science, it's important to only cut what needs cutting.

 

 

Sometimes the "facts" that are spoken deserve ridicule. I agree with others that it should be more of a last resort, but sometimes people are insistent to the point where ridicule is a viable, effective option.

 

 

Especially here, in a discussion forum where we can't read body language, facial expressions, etc., precise language and distinctions between what is effective and what is not is very important. We know that ad hominem is wrong and shouldn't be used. We know that making a "valid observation" that impugns the character of a person rather than his comments tends to raise unnecessary defenses, which are not effective to a discussion.

 

The dictionary definitions of "hypocrite" that I found gave examples where the hypocrisy was of an ongoing nature, e.g., a person who never votes but complains about government is a hypocrite. Making a random hypocritical comment does NOT make one a hypocrite. It just means that the comment was hypocritical. We should be capable of learning (training ourselves, I think mooeypoo observed) to make those distinctions work for us. Ridiculing an idea should be a viable tool of last resort, and we should train ourselves to know how to wield that scalpel effectively.

 

It can be argued that those who disdain using tools that help keep things clean, productive and efficient, with the least amount of unnecessary work for everyone else, are like guys who refuse to use the urinal and instead insist on pissing all over everything and calling it a valid way to relieve themselves.

 

But the amount of evidence that proves the tool of ridicule has proven beneficial is slim.

 

There are always going to be two sides to an argument, we have to adjust our rules in favor of one side based on how prevalent it is.

 

More often, IMO, ridicule takes away credibility and efficiency than it does lend to it.

[mooeypoo]

But the amount of evidence that proves the tool of ridicule has proven beneficial is slim.

 

There are always going to be two sides to an argument, we have to adjust our rules in favor of one side based on how prevalent it is.

 

More often, IMO, ridicule takes away credibility and efficiency than it does lend to it.

 

I disagree, actually. Ridicule CAN be very effective in some cases. Stand up comedians use it a lot and they drive points home very effectively. Jon Stewart's show is brilliant in that, for instance. There are mockumentaries and parodies that do great work of ridiculing and mocking things and delivering great points too. Shows from "The Simpsons" to "Family Guy" and "Southpark" have also been very successful.

 

There's just a time and a place for each of those. If you're out to make a point, ridicule might be a good tool sometimes. If you're out to participate in a discussion, ridicule seems to throw the participants into a self-protect mode where they just attack one another and not really listen. In those cases, it's probably not too effective.

 

~mooey

[Appolinaria]

Ridicule in theory might be a good thing. But will society abide by it? Use it appropriately? Probably not. The large majority most likely won't use it properly because not everyone has proper moral conduct. And rules are created to apply to the majority. Ridicule seems to inspire negativity. We are humans. We have to make sure Prometheus doesn't get fire, and that Pandora doesn't get her hands on that god damned box. Keep order.

[michel123456]

Where is Widdekind?

[mooeypoo]

Ridicule in theory might be a good thing. But will society abide by it? Use it appropriately? Probably not. The large majority most likely won't use it properly because not everyone has proper moral conduct. And rules are created to apply to the majority. Ridicule seems to inspire negativity. We are humans. We have to make sure Prometheus doesn't get fire, and that Pandora doesn't get her hands on that god damned box. Keep order.

 

The fact society won't adhere by ridicule doesn't mean ridicule doesn't have room in society. It might not be good enough to devise rules by, but it can be used in specific cases, as I wrote above.

 

Don't fall into the generalization fallacy yourself the fact we can't use it for particular cases or even the "biggest" cases, doesn't make it useless.

 

~mooey

[Appolinaria]

The fact society won't adhere by ridicule doesn't mean ridicule doesn't have room in society. It might not be good enough to devise rules by, but it can be used in specific cases, as I wrote above.

 

Don't fall into the generalization fallacy yourself the fact we can't use it for particular cases or even the "biggest" cases, doesn't make it useless.

 

~mooey

 

Unfortunately, when determining rules for society, generalization is necessary. Sure, some people can probably drive after having 6 drinks. Does this apply to the majority? No.

[mooeypoo]

Unfortunately, when determining rules for society, generalization is necessary. Sure, some people can probably drive after having 6 drinks. Does this apply to the majority? No.

 

Appolinaria, we're not discussing making rules for society here, we're discussing if ridicule is useful. When we get to public office and discuss which laws to propose, I'd accept your point.

 

~mooey

[imatfaal]

Unfortunately, when determining rules for society, generalization is necessary. Sure, some people can probably drive after having 6 drinks. Does this apply to the majority? No.

 

Additionally to Mooey's point - we provide different rules for different circumstances. We don't ban people from drinking, we ban them from drinking in certain circumstances. Almost every law both criminal and civil is contingent on the circumstances - whilst there are absolutes (rape, torture) even homicide can be both justified and excused under most systems and most laws and regulations depend on the situation.

[Appolinaria]

Appolinaria, we're not discussing making rules for society here, we're discussing if ridicule is useful. When we get to public office and discuss which laws to propose, I'd accept your point.

 

~mooey

 

you cannot tell me we are not discussing its effects on society and then give only examples such as tv shows and cold fusion, where the only benefit of ridicule is changing societys viewpoints.

 

 

if we are specifying the audience where ridicule is useful, who does your example of the jon stewart show apply to? not society?

 

if arguing its use on the forums, who is the specified audience? i dont see anything saying you have to be a scientist, or have blonde hair. there is nothing specifying the audience aside from a general interest in science which is not specific enough to rule anyone out. is the forum not a mini representation of society?

Edited November 16, 2011 by Appolinaria