Can science benefit from anonymity?

[Strange]

... they were just not in support of how you see the world.

 

That would not be a problem if you could provide any evidence or reasoning in support of your opinions (which were presented as fact).

[Phi for All]

 

But would detaching reputation, self interest, and personal incentive from science help propel the evolution of scientific though?

 

At the professional levels, this is happening as much as humans need it to happen. If you're talking about science discussions here, the big problem, again, is that a certain level of science education is necessary to make assertions about it, and if that's not there, no amount of anonymity is going to help hide the fact. People who don't really have the knowledge to understand a scientific concept, but somehow know it's wrong, AND they have the perfect solution, those people stick out like pearls at a picnic.

 

And I don't know how to explain that it isn't about superior knowledge, or looking down one's nose at the amateur. That isn't it at all. Scientists can be extremely nit-picky, especially when it comes to terminology and definitions, but that's not what happens when an amateur comes in to tell us we're doing it all wrong. We don't want to defend our knowledge, we don't want to belittle the amateur, and we don't want to make ourselves feel superior. We want the amateur to go back to school and learn what he's talking about and then see if what he's asserting still makes sense.

 

Or... or, I guess the amateurs could ask questions instead of trying to correct the pros. That might work.

 

Btw, your knowledge can't hide in anonymity, but other factors can. The administrator for this site started out as a smarmy little know-it-all vanilla member that pissed off many people with his attitude. He was smart, though, anyone could see that, and he learned to build his critical thinking skills until he could back up his know-it-all behavior, all the while he was a student. I think he's old enough to drink now, I don't know how many degrees he has, but the little bastard was like eleven years old back then, holding his own with some of the smartest people I know.

 

Science is a meritocracy. If you want equal time, think about what equal time really means.

[evobulgarevo]

As noted, the right place for this discussion is elsewhere. But it is worth noting that whenever this comes up those who give negative votes (a lot of people never do) are definite that they do not do it for simple disagreements. Instead them give them for irrational arguments, failing to support an argument, relying on logical and rhetorical fallacies, being evasive, repeating an argument after it has been shown to be wrong, and so on.

 

These are all characteristics of your posting style, so it is not surprising that you have earned a large number of negative votes.

 

There are many people that I disagree with but would never give a negative vote to because they do a competent job of arguing their case and providing support for it.

 

The negative points are due to difference in opinion. And some people on here seem to be quite sensitive. In the thread "Does being Atheist make you closed minded", I shared my observations based on my interactions with atheists. As I've already mentioned, in my experience, the vast majority of atheists seem to be closed minded.

 

The negative votes are great because they illustrate my point. No matter how "smart" or "scientific" you think you are, you're still susceptible to the human ego. And my "reputation" on this forum is what it is because we have a different opinion.

 

You keep talking about me providing support for my "arguments", but as I've already mentioned I don't see them as arguments. I'm not on here putting up a scientific conclusion for review by an anonymous committee, I'm simply sharing my opinion based on my interactions.

 

And the fact that you feel the need to see proof in order to believe that there may be 20 people in the world who are closed minded atheists is closed minded in itself.

 

 

Maybe. But science is a human enterprise. If you remove it too much from human drives and desires then no one will bother with it. Personal rivalries have, occasionally, been an important part of the development of science.

 

Science is a 'human enterprise', which had it's beginnings in the belief of God. In its foundation it was about learning and getting a better understanding of God. That was the point and that's why people 'bothered with it'.

 

As you mentioned, the point now, seems to be the satisfaction of 'human drives and desires' otherwise 'no one will bother with it'. So if that is the only reason people 'bother with' science, then why bother at all? You can satisfy 'human drives and desires' at your local strip club.

[Phi for All]

 

The negative points are due to difference in opinion.

 

I think it's a big mistake to assign a single motive for the whole system. In my experience, opinion isn't why people give rep points. It's mostly about how well or poorly they've reasoned, and is highly affected by attitude. Friendly, funny, reasonable gets you green; insulting, whiny, irrational gets you red.

 

Remember too, if a scientist seems frustrated that you're going against the mainstream, it's not because you're rocking the boat. It's probably because you're not paddling. Or your paddle is full of holes. Or your paddle is too small. Or you forgot to bring a paddle.

Science is a 'human enterprise', which had it's beginnings in the belief of God. In its foundation it was about learning and getting a better understanding of God. That was the point and that's why people 'bothered with it'.

 

All the history I've read tells me science developed because God was a poor explanation. It's quite the spin to say the foundation of science was understanding God. The point of people bothering with science was how much more trustworthy science was than religion.

[Strange]

 

The negative points are due to difference in opinion.

 

You don't know that. The evidence (what people actually say) contradicts it. But, once again, you are stating your personal opinion as fact.

 

 

As I've already mentioned, in my experience, the vast majority of atheists seem to be closed minded.

 

The problem is, you presented your personal experience of a small number of people as a fact about all. Which is why you were asked for evidence to support these "facts".

 

 

The negative votes are great because they illustrate my point.

 

You wish. Unfortunately the evidence disagrees.

 

 

You keep talking about me providing support for my "arguments", but as I've already mentioned I don't see them as arguments.

 

Sorry, this might be a terminology problem. By "argument" I don't mean a disagreement or fight, I mean a proposition or point you are making. (This may come from a combination of [some] study of philosophy and one of my second languages.)

 

An argument (in this sense) requires support in the form of logic, math, evidence, etc. Otherwise it is just an unsupported assertion and, as such, can just be dismissed as having no value.

 

 

I'm simply sharing my opinion based on my interactions.

 

If you had said that to start with, I would either have ignored it or just said "that's not my experience". End of.

 

 

And the fact that you feel the need to see proof in order to believe that there may be 20 people in the world who are closed minded atheists is closed minded in itself.

 

You initially presented it as a universal truth. That is what I objected to.

 

 

As you mentioned, the point now, seems to be the satisfaction of 'human drives and desires' otherwise 'no one will bother with it'. So if that is the only reason people 'bother with' science, then why bother at all? You can satisfy 'human drives and desires' at your local strip club.

 

Different people are motivated by different things. I have no interest in going to a strip club, but I am always interested in learning. (Even from you )

[Phi for All]

Sorry, this might be a terminology problem. By "argument" I don't mean a disagreement or fight, I mean a proposition or point you are making.

 

Thanks for this. We've gotten this objection a bit lately ("I don't want to argue...."), and I keep meaning to mention it. I was going to frame it in a legal sense, like presenting a case, but I think proposition or point is much clearer. And as you said, a proposition or point is not a personal opinion either, it's something you state or assert as being true, with the tacit promise that you'll support your points with evidence.

[Arete]

And the fact that you feel the need to see proof in order to believe that there may be 20 people in the world who are closed minded atheists is closed minded in itself.

 

The problem is you made a number of sweeping generalizations about all atheists based on your anecdotal experience. When questioned, you doubled down on the fallacy with the spurious statement "Stereotypes are often accurate". You got a neg rep from me, not because I disagree that some atheists can be overbearing and prickly (because many can) it's because you've used an illogical argument to tar ALL atheists with the same brush, with nothing but anecdotes to back it up. If your argument had of been "Some of the more vocal proponents of atheism tend to be aggressive and condescending - here's some quotes..." you'd probably have met little disagreement. By making it about ALL atheists without any logical or evidential basis, you veered off the path of logical discourse into the wilderness of logically fallacious and baseless claims.

 

It's no different to someone coming into the forum and saying "People who believe in God are generally bigots who can't think for themselves" and then doubling down on it when challenged. I'd neg rep that hypothetical poster too.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Arete

[Strange]

History shows that some important technological advancements and scientific discoveries were ridiculed as 'insanity' when originally proposed.

 

Today we know better. And yet, we sill ridicule.

 

While I think this is exaggerated, there are clearly some cases where individuals have been reluctant to accept new ideas (Einsten and QM, Eddington and Chandrasekhar's work, etc).

 

However, there are probably just as many examples of the opposite: scientists propping up a theory long after it has been shown not to work (Hoyle and the steady state universe is a great example).

 

This comes back to it being a human activity, with all the failings that entails. But, in the long run, the process works and is arguably better because of that. For example, Hoyle's strenuous defence of the steady state model meant that he and others were constantly reviewing the data.

[imatfaal]

While I think this is exaggerated, there are clearly some cases where individuals have been reluctant to accept new ideas (Einsten and QM, Eddington and Chandrasekhar's work, etc).

 

However, there are probably just as many examples of the opposite: scientists propping up a theory long after it has been shown not to work (Hoyle and the steady state universe is a great example).

 

This comes back to it being a human activity, with all the failings that entails. But, in the long run, the process works and is arguably better because of that. For example, Hoyle's strenuous defence of the steady state model meant that he and others were constantly reviewing the data.

And Hoyle's doggedness in trying to prove what he believed was correct did lead to great insights in parallel areas (solar nucleosynthesis) . I do agree with your initial contention that the tales of scientific ridicule halting progress are - when taken in a post-enlightenment perspective - massively over-stated. It seems that many of these arguments are founded on the assumption that scientific community follows the lead of the those who persecuted the scientific community hundreds of years ago. Many other seem to think that the scientific method is a concrete, unchanging rulebook which can be encapsulated, wholly-defined, and critiqued without caveat by a few 20th century philosophers.

[studiot]

 

 

I guess an example would be Nikola Tesla's work. There are claims that he made some monumental discoveries, which were held back from the public for the personal gain of a select few.

 

 

Much research is kept secret for commercial (as with Tesla) or state security reasons (as with Turing).

 

The original post referred to discoveries that were public but opposed by powerful figures at the time and were later shown to be correct.

If they were not later shown to be correct we could not know them as failures of the scientific system of the time.

 

Just because it was kept secret does not mean it was opposed, discarded or ridiculed.

 

So Tesla is not a good example.

 

However I agree with the basic premise that there have been too many instances of opposition to genuine innovation.

 

Whilst it is easy to point to instances back a few hundred years into history, twentieth century examples might werll include

 

De Haviland

Whittle

Barnes Wallis

The inventor of the bazooka, whose name escapes me but was not as Wikipedia describes.

Wegener

Bayes (I include him here because the bayesian war was particularly intense in the twencen)

Porsche

 

Late Nineteenth century pioneers

 

Parsons

 

However I'm sorry I don't see that anonymity would lead to an improvement.

 

Anonymity has its place in for instance blind and double blind testing, the conduct of proper examinations and so forth.

Edited November 19, 2015 by studiot

[swansont]

Wegener is oft-cited in cases like these, but his idea was incomplete. His mechanism could not explain the drift and he messed with data (changing the shapes of the continents to make them fit better)

[studiot]

Wegener is oft-cited in cases like these, but his idea was incomplete. His mechanism could not explain the drift and he messed with data (changing the shapes of the continents to make them fit better)

 

So he was not completely 100% correct has anyone ever been in history?

 

And are you trying to discredit an entire list by gnawing at the edges of one entry?

Edited November 19, 2015 by studiot

[Phi for All]

 

And are you trying to discredit an entire list by gnawing at the edges of one entry?

 

I didn't get that feeling. More like saying one item doesn't belong on an otherwise good list? Which one of these things is not like the other?

[StringJunky]

My grandad knew Barnes Wallis. He used have a house at the gates of the RAF base where my grandad was stationed... Wallis was retired at the time.

[swansont]

 

So he was not completely 100% correct has anyone ever been in history?

 

And are you trying to discredit an entire list by gnawing at the edges of one entry?

 

It's not a matter of not being 100% correct. He didn't have the right frikkin' mechanism. His proposal for how it worked (rotation of the earth) couldn't account for the amount of drift needed, and his proposal for the amount of drift occurring was off by a factor of 100 from what was ultimately observed. Not having evidence that continents moved is important when your conjecture relies on it. That's not a small missing part. It also doesn't help that as he finished up the process of strengthening his argument he died, so he wasn't around to press it.

 

That he was personally ridiculed was wrong. But his conjecture was half-baked.

 

(Nice straw men, though.)

[Ophiolite]

 

The negative points are

 

due to difference in opinion. And some people on here seem to be quite sensitive. In the thread "Does being Atheist make you closed minded", I shared my observations based on my interactions with atheists. As I've already mentioned, in my experience, the vast majority of atheists seem to be closed minded.

 

The negative votes are great because they illustrate my point. No matter how "smart" or "scientific" you think you are, you're still susceptible to the human ego. And my "reputation" on this forum is what it is because we have a different opinion.

I have was strongly tempted to give you a negative rep for this part of the post. Why? Because it is clear evidence that, despite repeated, detailed explanations of what was wrong with your posts in that thread, you continue to refuse to accept those explanations. Please read this carefully.

 

1a. You made a clear, absolute assertion that atheists were close minded.

1b. You did not state this was your opinion.

1c. You did not state that this was based upon your personal interaction with a small number of atheists.

1d. You did state it as if it were a fact, not an opinion.

 

2a. Numerous members pointed out to you that you should not state opinions as if they were facts.

2b. Numerous members pointed out to you the dangers of stereotyping.

2c. Numerous members pointed out to you the unscientific nature of using personal, uncontrolled, anecdotal evidence.

 

3a. It took pages of posts before you clarified your position as being an poorly supported opinion based purely on anecdote.

3b. You continued to argue the value of stereotypes.

 

4a. In short, your behaviour was extremely unscientific and you seemingly refused to accept that was so.

4b. Now, in this thread, you continue that behaviour, claiming that you are simply presenting a different opinion from other members. You are not, you are presenting opinions. Other members (while opinions may be included) are presenting facts.

 

5. Refusal to accept this is likely - unfortunately - to generate further negative rep. We are trying to get your attention, to educate you. I think you said you had become interested in science. Well, several members are investing their time to help you acquire a better understanding of how science is conducted and how to think like a scientist. Please stop ignoring them.

[Ophiolite]

 

It's not a matter of not being 100% correct. He didn't have the right frikkin' mechanism. His proposal for how it worked (rotation of the earth) couldn't account for the amount of drift needed, and his proposal for the amount of drift occurring was off by a factor of 100 from what was ultimately observed. Not having evidence that continents moved is important when your conjecture relies on it. That's not a small missing part. It also doesn't help that as he finished up the process of strengthening his argument he died, so he wasn't around to press it.

 

That he was personally ridiculed was wrong. But his conjecture was half-baked.

 

(Nice straw men, though.)

Bollocks. His arguments were well reasoned, soundly evidenced and logically presented.

 

The alternative explanations for orogenesis ranged up to the bizarre. The explanations against some of the stratigraphic and palaeontological evidence he used were truly half baked - "land bridges" is a more prominent example of the ludicrous notions from his opponents. His ideas were well received by geologists in the Southern Hemisphere, since they accorded with observation. Arthur Holmes, one of the giants of 20th century geology, had pretty much accepted the notion of moving continents by the late 1920s though he did little to promote the idea.

 

The reason for rejection was based upon the absence of a mechanism (in my view a defective reason) and an inadequate measure of mantle viscosity. Holmes dealt with the former rather well, anticipating much of the work of Hess, Dietz, Wilson, etc.

[swansont]

Bollocks. His arguments were well reasoned, soundly evidenced and logically presented.

 

The alternative explanations for orogenesis ranged up to the bizarre. The explanations against some of the stratigraphic and palaeontological evidence he used were truly half baked - "land bridges" is a more prominent example of the ludicrous notions from his opponents. His ideas were well received by geologists in the Southern Hemisphere, since they accorded with observation. Arthur Holmes, one of the giants of 20th century geology, had pretty much accepted the notion of moving continents by the late 1920s though he did little to promote the idea.

 

The reason for rejection was based upon the absence of a mechanism (in my view a defective reason) and an inadequate measure of mantle viscosity. Holmes dealt with the former rather well, anticipating much of the work of Hess, Dietz, Wilson, etc.

 

So you agree with the main point I made, that he didn't have the right mechanism, but somehow that's bollocks.

[Ophiolite]

 

So you agree with the main point I made, that he didn't have the right mechanism, but somehow that's bollocks.

Here are the errors in your post:

1. Proposal of the wrong mechanism, contrary to your assertion, was of secondary importance. The important point was his identification of continental movement. His proposed mechanism was a minor part of his hypothesis.

2. He had abundant evidence that the continents had moved. That was why he developed the hypothesis.

3. Therefore it is not a missing part. The evidence for their movement was central to his hypothesis.

4. His conjecture was not half baked, but - as I pointed out - his arguments were well reasoned, soundly evidenced and logically presented.

 

Thus your post was, in essence, bollocks. I can only assume you have not studied or even read his work, or you would not be defending such an egregious error.

[swansont]

Here are the errors in your post:

1. Proposal of the wrong mechanism, contrary to your assertion, was of secondary importance. The important point was his identification of continental movement. His proposed mechanism was a minor part of his hypothesis.

2. He had abundant evidence that the continents had moved. That was why he developed the hypothesis.

3. Therefore it is not a missing part. The evidence for their movement was central to his hypothesis.

4. His conjecture was not half baked, but - as I pointed out - his arguments were well reasoned, soundly evidenced and logically presented.

 

Thus your post was, in essence, bollocks. I can only assume you have not studied or even read his work, or you would not be defending such an egregious error.

 

You're missing the point, though. I was discussing, as per the topic, why his idea was rejected. Not having the mechanism was a significant part of the critique of his work. Or is that bollocks, too — nobody cared that the mechanism couldn't actually explain the motion?

[studiot]

 

Not having the mechanism was a significant part of the critique of his work.

 

You are just playing devil's advocate.

 

Here is a famous (scientific) quote that covers your quibble completely.

 

"Gentleman shall I refuse my dinner because I do not understand the process of digestion?"

 

As I understand the sequence of events

 

Precise measurements of the position of London and New York on the globe were measured in the late 19th century by celestial observations, First the Telegraph and later radio signals provided precise time differences.

 

It was observed that the two continents were separating by a figure a few centimetres per annum.

This was very puzzling and disturbing to explain at the time.

Around 1910 Wegner came up with his theory of continental drift, and today we have a better one.

 

Is that not the usual pattern of scientific discovery?

Edited November 24, 2015 by studiot

[puppypower]

One contemporary example where science sets up a roadblock to common sense is connected to the observation that proteins, in cell, fold into unique folds without statistical variation; probability=1.0, yet cells and life continue to be modeled with statistics and treated as random.

 

Before biology had tools that could see the unique packing of proteins, it was assumed there would be statistical variations in packing due to thermal vibrations. They assumed we live in a random universe. But when this was proven wrong; no statistical variation, and there was no statistical explanation for this state of the art observation, biology did not evolve and seek a logical model.

 

One explanation is statistics is a useful tool for making predictions. It appears that reality is being tailored to the needs of an old tool, and not the tools tailored to needs of the new reality.

Edited November 24, 2015 by puppypower

[swansont]

 

You are just playing devil's advocate.

 

Here is a famous (scientific) quote that covers your quibble completely.

 

"Gentleman shall I refuse my dinner because I do not understand the process of digestion?"

 

As I understand the sequence of events

 

Precise measurements of the position of London and New York on the globe were measured in the late 19th century by celestial observations, First the Telegraph and later radio signals provided precise time differences.

 

It was observed that the two continents were separating by a figure a few centimetres per annum.

This was very puzzling and disturbing to explain at the time.

Around 1910 Wegner came up with his theory of continental drift, and today we have a better one.

 

Is that not the usual pattern of scientific discovery?

 

 

Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction explained a lot of things quite well, since the results are identical to what relativity predicts. But there was no mechanism, which makes it ad-hoc. It was rightly rejected by the physics community.

 

Wegener, form what I read, predicted a few meters per year of motion. If the observations of a few cm per year were in place (I wasn't aware that that level of precision was available at that time, perhaps you could provide a link; I could only find references to more recent interferometric measurements made much later) the one would be right to reject his proposal as being two orders of magnitude off. But his mechanism couldn't account for the motion.

 

My original statement was that his proposal was incomplete. Nobody has disagreed with the fact that he lacked the proper mechanism, and yet there is disagreement with what I said. I can't really reconcile these two things.

 

Is that the usual pattern of discovery? I don't know there is a usual pattern of discovery, much like there is no single scientific method. There are multiple pathways of discovery.