Aug 20 2008
Clarifying Some Misconceptions About Science
In the comments section of my latest Schiavo entry, “mhowie” wrote:
Though I agree there is a need to avoid ideological stances to influence decisions, it is important to INCLUDE them in decisions. We elect our politicians, form our lives and live our days based on our ideological views.
Also, it is frustrating to watch the debate of religious/ideological folks and the science folks. Both ends do need to be considered.
The ideological side has a right to state their views, as previously written, as we base so much of our lives on ideologies.
However, to question science is also important. The earth ain’t flat, you know. And if you don’t understand that statement, I really don’t want to hear from you.
Science, of course, needs to conduct itself regardless of ideological views, otherwise every test will be influenced one way or another.
There is a balance, and it must always be sought. If we attempt to say either side is unnecessary or impeachable, we are already lost.
I usually don’t like to pick on commenters and single them out, but as I Blog at Science Based Medicine on Wednesdays, rather than writing a long comment in response to mhowie I thought I would just make it my entry for today.
I think mhowie’s sentiments are largely correct, but in stating his case appears to have relied upon some false premises. He also gives the impression, by making certain points, that he thinks these points need to be made – in other words that they differ from my post.
His first point is that ideologies, while they should not interfere with scientific inquiry, should be listened to. I agree with this if you limit the scope of “ideology” to “values.” Of course we must respect the values of citizens, and politics is largely the art of compromising among large groups of people with differences in their values and priorities. But the word “ideology” can also refer to philosophies about the natural world – not just values. To the extent that ideologies seek to constrain or dictate our understanding of the physical world, they do not need to be listened to but opposed as counterproductive.
Mhowie writes, regarding science and religion, that “both ends do need to be considered,” which prompts the question – considered for what? I prefer Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria” approach. Science and religion do not overlap, so there is no specific question for which they both have to be considered. There are political and social decisions that should be informed by objective science but are ultimately decided based upon values. If this is what mhowie meant, then I agree – but this was the central theme of my blog post and did not need to be restated.
The statement that I felt needed the most clarification was this: “However, to question science is also important. The earth ain’t flat, you know. And if you don’t understand that statement, I really don’t want to hear from you.”
Of course it is important to question science. I agree with this, but can’t help but feel that by pointing it out mhowie is implying that it needed to be pointed out – that my post somehow gave a different impression.
Science is, by its very nature, a self-corrective process. Science is the process of questioning our models of reality. Saying that it is important to question science is therefore redundant.
Pointing out that the earth is not flat is a very common statement that I encounter frequently – often given to make the point that science has been wrong in the past, therefore we need to question it now. Again, this statement is unnecessary as science is the process of perpetually questioning. Such statements are sometimes used to imply that the conclusions of modern science are as unreliable today as they were in the past – and with this implication I would strongly disagree. As we refine our scientific models their reliability is increasing dramatically. They will never reach 100% – but that doesn’t mean they are not better now than they were in the past.
Also, I have to point out that the notion of a flat earth was never an accepted scientific conclusion. No Western scholars advocated for a flat earth. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere. The notion that previous scholars believed in a flat earth is a modern myth.
Mhowie ends with an appeal to balance. While in many situations balance is good, there is also such a thing as false balance, which is the seeking of balance on the false assumption of symmetry. In other words, while balance is good, not all propositions are of equal value and legitimacy. Some controversies or dichotomies are asymetrical.
Take, for example, the issue of the scientific theory of evolution and the pseudoscientific denial of evolution or promotion of ideas like intelligent design that do not meet minimal criteria for science. We should not seek to balance these views, as the former is a rock-solid scientific theory and the latter is hopeless ideological pseudoscience.
In general science is not about balance – it is about logic and evidence, it is about finding those ideas that are better than others.
I would agree, however, that politics is largely about balance – balancing various values, ethics, rights and privileges.
I hope this clarifies the points I was trying to make in my previous entry.
58 Responses to “Clarifying Some Misconceptions About Science”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think that the distinction between ideology and values that you draw helps to clarify the issue. For myself, I think of my values as how I would sort a list of concepts basted on their perceived value to me. I value the reproductive rights of women greater than the (possible) rights of the fetus to be brought to term, therefore I take a pro-reproductive rights position. If the position of those two concepts on the list, it would be internally logical to take a very different political position. However, I could come to the same conclusion from an ideological perspective also: The bible is the inerrant word of god, my preacher is a great scholar of the bible, my preachers says abortion is morally wrong. The conclusion might be similar but in the later case the argument is ideological because a literal reading of the Bible includes assertions about the natural world that are demonstrably untrue.
As we learn more about the physical world our values can be adapted to new information, but our ideologies can not—I could abandon then I suppose, but that is not the same as simply changing them. This is part of the reason why hearing religious people claim that non-believers are amoral is so grating. The fact that—within on faith—most believers share the same values is not because they found the one true ranking of values, it is because they choose to accept an ideology that prescribes a ranking of values. OK, this is getting into rant territory, so I’ll stop now. Anyway, nice post.
Well put. I’m still unclear as to what Mhowie was trying to point out in his comment about balance, even after reading your response, but c’est la vie. I’m just not sure what he was trying to say in the first place or how it related to the post you made. Maybe that’s a failing on my part.
Materialism is an ideology, a philosophy. It has been dominating science in recent decades, but that was not always true. Evidence that seems to contradict materialism (the words “materialism,” or “naturalism,” by the way, are never really defined by materialists) is considered implausible and either discounted or minimized.
I would define the current incarnations of materialism and naturalism as the belief that nature is not intelligent, and that intelligence only exists as a product of physical brains. That is why the Intelligent Design theory of evolution is considered pseudoscience by contemporary materialists. Some variants of the Intelligent Design theory say that nature is composed of information, and is therefore intelligent, and other variants are theistic. Either way, evolution is seen as an intelligent process, which is impossible according to materialist philosophy.
So contemporary science, as defined by Dr. N, is most definitely ideological.
It’s true that non-materialist, or alternative, science, tends to overlap with religion, in that religion can be the study of non-physical intelligence. Some alternative scientists who believe the universe is composed of information, and is therefore intelligent, tend to have some kind of spiritual belief system.
I think this mixing or overlapping of science and religion is what people like Dr. N, and most others at this blog, find so appalling. I can understand and sympathize with their desire to separate the two realms, but since both are part of nature it can be difficult or impossible.
Steve,
you left half of the job undone.
Are you going to allow pec to continue to troll and insult you here?
She won’t learn a thing, if you let her.
As has been said many times before:
Science tells us the ‘is’ about the world. (Objective)
Values tells us the ‘should’ about the world. (Subjective)
Often people mistake one for the other.
People’s values should be informed by science as much as possible, so that they make sense. As opposed to being based on the supposed word of a deity in a book that has demonstrable flaws and contradictions, both internally, and with current scientific knowledge.
Just because a value is originally derived from religion, it does not mean it’s false but you should be able to make a secular argument for that value if you expect anyone with different religious beliefs to accept that value.
When discussing values/morals with people, and the issue of secular or religious values come up, I describe substitute ‘secular’ with ‘universal’. All of a sudden, ‘secular’ becomes a lot more palatable to religious people. Secular/universal values are just values that everyone can (but not should) agree to, without subscribing to a religious ideology.
pec, it seems that your major objection to “materialism” has been the lack of a useful or workable definition of what “material” actually is.
Isn’t that problem many orders of magnitude more difficult if you substitute “intelligence”?
Can you come up with a definition of what you actually mean when you say the universe is “intelligent”, without attributing properties to the universe through that definition that have not been observed or are not observable?
I’ve been a critic of the word ideology for years and have given it lots of thought. Steve, you’re very much on the right track to think of it in terms of value, but I’m not quite sure if I buy separating it from values as much as the meld between ideas and values. Ideologies are simply ideas one takes extremely personally or values high enough to ignore criticism.
The (I think of it as post-modern) definition of ideology as a set of ideas or philosophy is virtually meaningless and doesn’t pertain to modern usage at all. Does the suggest that someone is an ideological republican mean that they simply have a set of beliefs on the republican ideals or that they hold very personally the same perspective as the reublican party?
Similarly, does it really make much sense to call any set of ideas (say, an approach to cooking a meal) an ideology? Just because you’re a cook doesn’t mean that you can be justly called an ideological cook.. although I bet such an extreme label likely applies to some people.
Finally, there is also the sense that people “take things personally” that is sort of my ideological lemon test. When someone critizes your idea and your first reaction is that you’re being attacked personally, then you might be holding such ideas to an ideological degree.
Science naturally runs head-on into ideological conflicts since it is the scientific method that has proved to be the very best method for validating our ideas – even the ones we hold personal.
The troll has been offered definitions for materialism many, many times. It simply rejects them. It has to, or abandon it’s anti-science jihad.
Jonny_eh: “Just because a value is originally derived from religion, it does not mean it’s false but you should be able to make a secular argument for that value if you expect anyone with different religious beliefs to accept that value.”
To tag on to Jonny’s post, and in response to Ethan’s example of one of his values: pro-reproduction rights, I would add that a value that mirrors those of some religious ideology isn’t necessarily arrived at in the same way. I realize I’m probably taking Ethan out of context when I cite his equaling the anti-repro rights stance to religious dogma, but one of my values is to ‘know a song well before I start singing it’ to quote Dylan (and age myself). I am an atheist and have been literally since birth, but I am unsure about the pro-abortion/pro-life question. This uncertainty is based on my uncertianty as to when life begins: conception, viable fetus (what, 24 wks? 26 wks?), or actual birth. Given my value of human life, I tend towards erring on the side of caution, that is, towards the ‘pro-life’ side of the argument, at least until I obtain personal clarity on the ‘when life begins’ question. But this most decidedly has zero to do with any religious consideration on my part.
An analogy I once heard was to imagine I’d found a small paper bag in an alley within which something obviously alive was moving. Do I stomp on it and kill it for a likely rat? What if it’s a kitten or a puppy? Shouldn’t I at least look in the bag first? This not knowing is the equivalent of me not being certain on the question of when life begins.
I mean no offense to anyone here or mentioned in my post, but because of my odd position on this I get lumped in with evangelistas and religious rightists a lot, which as you can imagine I find really troubling. It’s possible to share a position with religious nuts, but for entirely different reasons.
Intelligence is our term for the degree that an organism is able to quickly and successfully do calculations relative to the problems it expects or is expected to encounter in its particular environment.
Unless the natural world or universe actually has expectations and a calculating apparatus to deal with them, what pec refers to as intelligence is simply the data that intelligence systems find ways to manipulate for largely predictive or protective purposes.
So pec did a marvelous job of cutting and pasting in that last post, but the intelligence applied to that data was wanting.
I meant to add that yet another value of mine is the rule of law, and that despite my uncertainties, I honor Roe v Wade and current reproductive rights and would do nothing to overturn or undermine them. If my uncertainty is ever overcome and I decided on the ‘pro-life’ side of the equation, it would never occur to me to force my value on such an intimate issue onto others.
It’s too bad Obama didn’t have DevilsAdvocate’s rational take on the abortion issue when he gave such an inept explanation of his position during that recent Saddleback forum inquisition.
Oh, the “is vs ought” (and objective/subjective) perspective is very much a false dichotomy and an extremely common misinterpretation of Hume. Hume himself crosses the Is/Ought bridge himself when he brings up the distinction when he mentions the use of the passions, or desires.
The opposite of objective is not subjective. Subjective statements (such as: I love coffee) can be objectively proven to be true or false. Without you, your values do not exist. Without value, should statements do not make sense. Moral perspectives change whenever values do. And values change whenever beliefs about the world and universe do.
Being a proud secularist myself, I see where you’re going with the “universal” approach, but universality in no way validates morals in much the same way that slavery was wrong even in the 1700′s. Sorry, but argumentum ad populi is just as fallacious when I agree with your end conclusion or disagree. Religious people should still appreciate secularism as it protects their rights, but it certainly does not make secular arguments superior by default. Religious-biased arguments are only weaker than secular arguments in that they usually include unsubstantiated claims both in terms of reality as well as morality.
As I just closed my previous comment on ideology, the scientific method serves to validate ideas and claims. The most common reason for the Schivo controversy is because science has long invalidated dualism, but the mainstream public, with the help/pressure of religious and mass media groups, work hard to persist such demonstrably false beliefs. And false beliefs can become dangerous when it becomes built up in the forms of intrusive moral doctrines and eventually, absurd public policy such as in this congressional fiasco.
“Either way, evolution is seen as an intelligent process, which is impossible according to materialist philosophy.”
No. You are equivocating between ‘intelligence’ and ‘non-material’. Intelligent processes are studied all the time by mainstream scientists. That’s what archeology and forensics is all about. What you’re talking about is disembodied rarefied intelligence (as opposed to ordinary intelligence). Since that notion is untestable and must be accepted uncritically as is, it’s scientific utility is exactly zero.
@ DevilsAdvocate on 20 Aug 2008 at 3:32 pm
I probably should have picked a different topic to make my point, reproductive rights are difficult to discuss with the appropriate dispassionate skepticism. Just to clarify my point before going further, I just wanted to point out the utility of the differentiating ‘values’ from ‘ideology’. I wasn’t trying to make a link between the pro-life position and religious ideology. In fact, I was saying that one could come to a valid pro-life position without subscribing to religious doctrine or employing some other metaphysical device (so to speak). Your position seems to be an example of this.
I agree that it is very difficult to know when life starts, which is in part due to the multifaceted meaning of life as it is used in this context—I assume that we are not just talking about the strict biological determination of living versus non-living. But ‘life’ can be broken down into smaller, more narrow concepts such as autonomy, suffering, cognition, legal status, etc… If we can rank such elements according to their perceived personal value (subjectively that is), than we can talk about the issue in some kind of rational way. For example, I say that my greatest concern is the suffering of the fetus, then the question is not whether or not abortion is moral, but rather the much more answerable question of before what time is the fetus (I apologize if I am using this term loosely) unable to suffer. This is certainly still a difficult question, but now we are into a world were we can begin to speak more objectively about developmental biology, the nature of pain, the capacity for suffering. And, if in 10 years, scientists accumulate sufficient data to suggest that a fetus can ‘suffer’ at an earlier time than previously suggested, then we can freely change our opinions.
It’s not that you have a different opinion from me, but rather that we can rationally discuss our positions and are willing to recalculate our values and opinions based on new scientific evidence. However, if in some crazy alternative universe (where hamburgers eat people) where you beveled that abortion is wrong because the zygote is ensouled at the moment of conception, then we could not have any meaningful discussion/debate because your argument is ideological, that is it depends on a non-physical quantity on which no evidence can come to bear. In that universe our opinions are mutually invalid to one another because we are not playing the same game.
This is part of the problem that I have with NOMA—well other than the fact that I think it is just wrong—that NOMA is lovely if everyone agrees to all of its premises, but they don’t. The pay off matrix is asymmetric: religion gains a great deal from defecting from NOMA (certainly a god that can actually move mountains is much more powerful than a god that rules however completely some ethereal domain) while science gains very little from a similar defection (the power of science is not advanced because the Earth is billions, not thousands of years old).
Religion is part of NATURE, pec? Did you really mean that?
The universe has become intelligent, though. Intelligence in the sense that it has, from the earliest chemical building blocks, spawned life at least on this planet and almost certainly elsewhere. That matter which transiently becmes life has certainly enabled a level of intelligence here (and possibly incomprehensibly higher levels elsewhere)
The universe has actually become aware of itself.
“Religion is part of NATURE, pec? Did you really mean that?”
Non-physical intelligence is part of nature, or is nature. I think, as do many alternative scientists, that matter and energy are made of relationships, or information. I think that information and intelligence are hard to define, but that both result from relationships. The philosophy of materialism is a holdover from a time when atoms were considered the ultimate components of matter.
I agree with alternative scientists that 20th and 21st century physics have increasingly demonstrated the strangeness and unexpected complexity of nature. The concept of higher order dimensions is important in new physics.
There is a lot going on in alternative science, new physics, new biology, consciousness research, etc. But the inevitable connections with spirituality, or non-physical intelligence, make it hard for mainstream science to accept.
Alternative science? new physics? I think I’m going to vomit…..
What’s an “alternative” scientist?
“There is a lot going on in alternative science, new physics, new biology, consciousness research, etc. But the inevitable connections with spirituality, or non-physical intelligence, make it hard for mainstream science to accept.”
No. The lack of evidence is what makes it hard to accept. The lack of a coherent theory from which to draw testable hypotheses makes it hard to accept. New age gobbledegook is not an alternative to science. Unless learning about nature is not your goal.
Yes Dave. It’s either science………. or it’s not.
“The lack of evidence is what makes it hard to accept. The lack of a coherent theory from which to draw testable hypotheses makes it hard to accept.”
The lack of evidence is an illusion created by the “skeptic” organizations. And the theories are very coherent, unless you don’t know anything about them.
There is gold and there is fool’s gold. There is science and alternative science aka pseudoscience or superstition. What’s so difficult to understand?
We’re rubber, and pec’s glue. “Wrong” is something pec only understands when it’s someone else. Pec can’t be wrong. Pec is only right. Pec feeds on our anger. Pec grows in power every time we try to tell pec why pec is wrong. Pec is mysterious. Pec is impenetrable.
We must leave pec alone. I know it’s hard, but we must.
I can’t believe I said that backwards. Pec is rubber, and we’re glue.
The tell-tale in the troll’s schtick is found in this:
“There is a lot going on in alternative science, new physics, new biology, consciousness research, etc. But the inevitable connections with spirituality, or non-physical intelligence, make it hard for mainstream science to accept.”
Note the word “inevitable”. And here too we have the salient definitions for alternative science and new physics: Alternative scientists employing new physics know what their research will find before they find it. It is connected to spirituality and this finding is considered inevitable. In other words, shoot arrow, draw bull’s eye around it.
~*~
Ethan, we are on the same page. I had noted that I was taking your post out of context, that your example was for illustration of another point. I try very hard not to follow the crowd on the abortion issue, which seems to be: pick a side now and fight for it, advocate for it. I have no problem stating “I just don’t know and won’t decide either way until I am satisfied with the science on it.” Much of the problem is that I am a layman in most things medical and physiological and those areas where I do hold expertise simply aren’t involved (which is a primary reason I frequent this excellent blog, headed by the estimable Dr. Novella, but also frequented by a goodly number of very knowledgeable people. A further bonus is that a few of them express a certain curmudgeonly charm. I am the proud wearer of the title Local Curmudgeon in my social and work environs).
mhowie’s “flat earth comment brings to mind a quote by Isaac Asimov –
“[W]hen people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”
@ DevilsAdvocate
Indeed. I agree that skepticism must be directed as much at our own beliefs as those of others to be proper skeptics. And, as Steven pointed out, this is the foundation of science: gathering of evidence, analysis, and refinement (or correction if you prefer that term).
Skepticism gives me less pessimism for the future in that people of different stripes can communicate under the same banner, on evidence and theory. Dr. Novella (or Steven as I said before, not sure if honorifics are appropriate for blogging) does a fantastic job of this while maintaining a jocular disposition.
And on the topic of curmudgeonly charm, if magicians can publish in Nature, then certainly scientists can produce a proper and entertaining television show with mass appeal on science and skepticism.
Once again pec, you demonstrate the ability to indescribably confuse two very distinct and separate entities. At the very top you state about religion and science, ”both are part of nature”, the very definition of religion and science immediately refutes this.
Science relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; religion however, is a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. The key word is SUPERNATURAL. But i am sure you knew all that as an ”alternative science”.
All i see in your argument is, a lack of evidence against is actually evidence for. Perhaps i might be able to clear it up for you, if the lack of evidence for ”alternative science” (whatever that is) is an illusion, then it’s easy provide evidence to the illusion!
Potter1000, you are so damn right, i read your comment and agreed, decided not to comment but it just got to me. I failed!
The difficulty that folks like pec have is their refusal to recognize that there is a distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. The former is science and, in fact, there is no other way to do science. The latter is philosophy (atheism) and, like most philosophical ideas may or may not be valid. Thus, one can be a philosophical naturalist and practice science or one can be a philosophical theist and practice science (e.g. Ken Miller).
In other words, there is no such thing as methodological theism as proposed by the creationists because it is a science stopper. As an example, I am attaching a link to a Youtube video of a portion of a presentation by Neil Tyson showing an example of the notion that the goddidit explanation is a science stopper.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=+%22ken+miller%22&__q=&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&dur=&so=0&num=100#
I want to expand on and perhaps disagree with the point that Ethan made about coming to a scientific or a religious conclusion and what the differences are. A religious conclusion isn’t necessarily “wrong”, but it is arrived at via a non-algorithmic process.
Science uses an algorithmic process; assemble facts, apply logic to them, arrive at conclusion. Each part of an algorithmic process is subject to analysis and verification in ways that non-algorithmic processes are not. The different components can be isolated and analyzed independently.
Religion (or essentially all non-scientific processes) uses non-algorithmic processes to reach conclusions. This is not surprising; most of human cognition and calculation is done with neural networks that don’t use algorithms (in the sense of Turing equivalent).
A difference between algorithmic and non-algorithmic calculation is that algorithms are (in general) not reversible, and so the time it takes to do a calculation and its inverse via an algorithm are usually not the same (as for example multiplication and division, or squaring and square root).
Savant abilities that have been analyzed (such as savant calendar) are non-algorithmic. The way this was determined was by looking at patterns of errors (the pattern was not systematic) and time of inverse calculations (it was the same). With the right algorithm, a calculation can be absolutely correct. Addition is an algorithm that when applied correctly always produces the same and the correct result, with no exceptions. Non-algorithmic calculations are simply not that reliable.
I think the problem with non-scientists is that they simply don’t appreciate how much more reliable an algorithmic process is compared to a non-algorithmic process. It is like the difference between analog computation and digital computation, between a slide-rule and a calculator. But if you don’t know the algorithm, you can’t do the algorithmic calculation. That then invokes Arthur C. Clarke’s statement about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic. If you don’t know what the algorithm is, answers arrived at by it seem “like magic”.
If you tried to do multiplication or division using Roman numerals, it is extremely difficult; there is no known algorithm that can be used to do multiplication or division using Roman numerals except via translating the numbers into a different representation, such as Arabic or digital representation. There was a science fiction story where a person transported back in time to ancient Rome did exactly that and was thought to be performing magic.
This is how the Creationists treat science, as a sort of magic which they are trying to perform by going through the motions.
Alternative scientists use the same scientific method as “naturalist” scientists. And alternative scientists are naturalists in that everything they study is part of nature.
Intelligent Design does NOT generally say “god did it.,” although some believers in Intelligent Design might say that. But the scientific Intelligent Design approach looks for signs that intelligence is inherent in nature and not restricted to physical brains. I see this approach as related to complexity theory, where evolution towards greater complexity is considered natural (as opposed to neo-Darwinism where evolution towards greater complexity is considered highly improbable).
Alternative scientists who study “paranormal” phenomena follow the scientific method and do controlled experiments, just like other experimental scientists. In fact their experiments tend to meet higher standards of control because they expect harsh criticism from angry “skeptics.”
LOL
Which brings up the question of why “skeptics” are so angry. The alternative scientists don’t seem to fight back when attacked and accused by “skeptics” and they seem to be much less political. I don’t know why.
I never get angry just because of intellectual disagreements. I know there is a lot of evidence for some alternative science ideas, because I have followed it all my life. I never say I know everything or that I’m right about everything. But there are some things I do know and I am not afraid to state them.
I have only been angry at one person at these “skeptic” blogs, and it had nothing to do with intellectual differences. That person’s comments never have any intellectual or scientific content. I expressed extreme anger at that person because of the outright sadism of her attacks — “poking” me like a ‘specimen” and harping on my mother’s tragic illness (which I regrettably had mentioned months ago). This person called me an “old lady” even though I’m 50 and she is 40. Well it won’t be long before she can call herself and old lady also.
Anyway, aside from that kind of idiocy, I do not generally get angry because someone has a scientific opinion that is different from mine. Yet some “skeptics” get intensely angry and emotionally upset. I have seen the same kind of reaction from fundamentalist Christians. These are people who need to maintain a deep faith in authorities. If you question what they learned from parents, teachers, ministers, college professors, etc., they react with extreme fear and rage.
I am basically anti-authoritarian, and I know that can set people off if they are devote believers of any kind, atheist or theist.
I meant “devout,” not “devote.”
“If you tried to do multiplication or division using Roman numerals, it is extremely difficult; there is no known algorithm that can be used to do multiplication or division using Roman numerals except via translating the numbers into a different representation, such as Arabic or digital representation.”
Very good analogy. You need the proper tools to do the job or you’ll get frustrated and angry and rail against those that have the proper tools.
“Alternative scientists use the same scientific method as “naturalist” scientists. And alternative scientists are naturalists in that everything they study is part of nature.”
If they are the same, then they are not alternative. You can’t have it both ways.
“Intelligent Design does NOT generally say “god did it.,” although some believers in Intelligent Design might say that.”
No ‘might’ about it. And if it’s not God, then it’s an entity with the exact same skill set.
“But the scientific Intelligent Design approach looks for signs that intelligence is inherent in nature and not restricted to physical brains.”
There is no positive ID program. They do not look FOR design…they look where they believe evolution is insufficient, and then they claim that only design can fill that spot. It’s an entirely negative and vacuous notion which contributes absolutely nothing to our knowledge of nature. A sign of this is the fact that not a single ID advocate actually does any research on ID. The closest they get is to research evolution and claim it falls short in some aspect, therefore, design. But even these kinds of studies are exceedingly rare.
“I see this approach as related to complexity theory, where evolution towards greater complexity is considered natural (as opposed to neo-Darwinism where evolution towards greater complexity is considered highly improbable).”
On the contrary, complexity and derived Rube Goldberg-esque contraptions are a hallmark of evolution. Designed objects tend to be simple, not complex. Consider a ball bearing verses a pebble. The simpler one is designed.
“Alternative scientists who study “paranormal” phenomena follow the scientific method and do controlled experiments, just like other experimental scientists. In fact their experiments tend to meet higher standards of control because they expect harsh criticism from angry “skeptics.””
They do after skeptics prod them enough. Problem is, the more strict the experimental design to avoid deception and bias, the more shy the effects turn out to be.
And I’m not angry, I just disagree.
” the more strict the experimental design to avoid deception and bias, the more shy the effects turn out to be.”
That does not explain the many strictly designed experiments that have positive effects. You can’t explain it, you just pretend all the positive experiments are fakes or mistakes. Most “skeptics” are not even familiar with what parapsychologists have actually accomplished.
“complexity and derived Rube Goldberg-esque contraptions are a hallmark of evolution. Designed objects tend to be simple, not complex. Consider a ball bearing verses a pebble. The simpler one is designed.”
Sorry but that is a very philosophically naive statement. Nothing is defined or thought out.
“Anyway, aside from that kind of idiocy, I do not generally get angry because someone has a scientific opinion that is different from mine. Yet some “skeptics” get intensely angry and emotionally upset. I have seen the same kind of reaction from fundamentalist Christians. These are people who need to maintain a deep faith in authorities. If you question what they learned from parents, teachers, ministers, college professors, etc., they react with extreme fear and rage.”
pec- I think people are more frustrated than angry when responding to your good self and generally it’s because you seem to consistently ignore responses pointing out the problems in your reasoning. Not to mention that often your complaints have been addressed in detail in the articles you are commenting on.
You are also very quick to make accusations, as your most recent post demonstrates, and yet apparently don’t like it when people make disparaging comments back. Those kind of double standards tend to make people less than generous when responding to your posts.
It’s also fair to say that you display a lack of understanding of many of the topics you express authortive opinions on which further encourages exasperation in those people who reply to you. Your recent discussion of ID and evolution is one such example of this.
“apparently don’t like it when people make disparaging comments back.’
I don’t care if people make disparaging comments as long as they aren’t sadistic venomous personal attacks.
You think my arguments are unscientific and illogical because you are coming from a different perspective, which makes communication difficult.
Most things are simply not known and arguing about them usually goes nowhere. But there are some things we can discuss logically and scientifically because we do have some information about them. An example of that was the energy experiment I cited — only one of many others by the way. No one here or at sciencebasedmedicine had rational arguments for dismissing that evidence. The reflexive response from “skeptics” is always that it’s all fakes or mistakes.
I had the disadvantage of only having access to the abstract, but it was perfectly obvious that there was an effect in the predicted direction. Dr. N tried to fool us, or himself, into thinking there had been no overall effect at all. I “accused” him of deception, or error, and no one was able to defend his reasoning. That’s when anger started erupting — when followers of an authoritarian belief system have their beliefs seriously threatened they explode. I have seen this with atheist “skeptics” as well as with religious fundamentalists. This kind of person is terrified of having their certainty shaken.
I am used to not knowing so I don’t have to always feel I’m right.
One of the strategies atheist “skeptics” use is to pretend that they don’t mind not knowing everything, and that they understand that science is an evolving process. Well yes, they admit they don’t know every detail about everything. But they will NOT ever admit that their basic philosophy could ever be proven wrong. The KNOW that genetic variations are randomly generated and without any kind of purpose. They will NEVER accept any doubt regarding that, for example, because it is one of the underpinnings of materialist faith.
And they will NEVER accept results of research into anything they consider paranormal. The quality of the experiment does not matter, since they consider the hypotheses highly implausible. In other words, the hypotheses don’t fit their materialist philosophy and therefore must be wrong.
Pec, I’m really tempted to go back and find a slew of ridiculous things you’ve said–mostly things in which you declare ABSOLUTE knowledge of things, which you claim not to do–but I realize I’d be wasting a lot of my time. Sometimes you seem to reasonably disagree, and other times you seem like a senseless wacko.
This is a waste of breath, or finger movement, but I’ll just say this (as has been said to you countless times before): atheism, or skepticism, is not a closed-minded belief system (I can’t speak for every atheist or skeptic individually, of course). You can say it a billion times with your eyes and ears closed, but it doesn’t make it true. I guarantee you can convince just about everybody who visits this site to your points of view if you make good enough arguments. I promise.
But you don’t believe me. You won’t. You’re rubber. Or a hazy cloud, perhaps.
pec
Your continued use of “scare quotes” and ALL CAPS suggests you are angrier and less disspassionate than you like to pretend.
And it’s not just ‘atheist “skeptics”‘ that reject ID. Some of the most eloquent speakers against it are theists. They recognize it for the vacuous nonsense it is.
Pec – Really, if you want to avoid being treated as a “specimen” – or fairground freakshow – find another blog!
” atheism, or skepticism, is not a closed-minded belief system”
It is a belief system that absolutely depends on the idea that nature is purposeless, and that non-physical intelligence cannot possibly exist. Any evidence for purpose in nature or non-physical intelligence threatens the foundation of the belief system, and cannot be accepted.
The quantity of this evidence — either personal or scientific — is enormous. But it is all discarded. The evidence varies in quality from poor to excellent, but it is discarded regardless of its quality or its source.
It’s discarded because the quality is invariably poor. I’ll grant you that the quantity is gigantic. But its easy to pile bull**** real high. Personal evidence in the form of anecdotes is of especially poor quality.
The quantity of money(evidence) collected by kids from the tooth fairy is enormous, but those damned older kids won’t accept she exists.
pec regards atheism and skepticism as necessarily the same, and then proclaims “It is a belief system that absolutely depends on the idea that nature is purposeless, and that non-physical intelligence cannot possibly exist.”
But where has this alleged credo of skepticism or atheism manifested itself? Only to my knowledge in a mind that needs desperately to believe that purposelessness cannot exist or that non-physical intelligence can’t possibly not exist.
Skeptics see purposeful entities in life forms, which have allowed us to conceive of a purpose in nature to begin with. Scientists among us look for signs of purposefully directed forces almost as a duty that comes with the calling. There’s more of a desperation to believe it must exist in other than our earthly existence than that it simply cannot.
As to “non-physical intelligence,” there’s such a contradiction in terms there that I for one don’t know exactly what I’m supposed to think can’t possibly exist, which must then mean there’s a possibility in that allusion that’s still open.
Thanks once again for telling me what my beliefs are pec. I never would’ve known.
Pec – anecdotal evidence (which is what i am assuming you mean by personal evidence) is good only for one thing, for a scientist to say, ”hmmm, maybe this deserves more investigation”. It is not however, rock solid proof for anything.
”The evidence varies in quality from poor to excellent, but it is discarded regardless of its quality or its source.”
Excellent quality evidence being discarded? Who exactly is throwing away excellent quality evidence?
P.s anecdotal evidence can in no way be excellent in quality
This is a silly argument.
Whoever it is making all these claims needs to support them with reason or evidence.
You can’t just say, “there’s a wealth of evidence, you just haven’t looked into it.” because the response will invariably be, “We have a wealth of evidence as well, YOU should look into it.”
“I have!”
“WELL SO HAVE I!”
So for the person making claims contrary to the majority’s opinion, provide evidence, then people can discuss something specific rather than making cutesy comments about your crazy ol’ lady talk.
“pec regards atheism and skepticism as necessarily the same”
Absolutely not! When I say “skepticism” in quotes I am referring to pseudo-skeptical fanatical political organizations, such as JREF.
I am a skeptic myself, but I am not an atheist. The two are in no way related.
“Excellent quality evidence being discarded? Who exactly is throwing away excellent quality evidence?”
Mainstream science journals don’t usually publish it, so you are unaware of the existence of mountains of high quality experimental evidence for mind acting independently of a physical body.
“So for the person making claims contrary to the majority’s opinion, provide evidence, then people can discuss something specific rather than making cutesy comments about your crazy ol’ lady talk.”
That is exactly what I tried to do when I offered to provide an informal lit review of energy healing research. The “skeptics” didn’t want to wait and challenged me to find even one experiment. I posted a reference to a recent mainstream experiment using in vitro bone cells. I only had access to the abstract but it was perfectly obvious the predicted (but not expected by the skeptical researcher) result did occur. Dr. N recklessly dismissed the entire experiment and said there was no effect whatsoever. And he refused to post the data that supposedly showed that.
Regarding age-ist remarks — I would like to remind all of you age-ists that you will get to be my age, and much older, if you’re lucky. The longer we live, the older we get, it’s universal. So why use age as an insult? I don’t get it.
pec – I have extended your ban from the comments of SBM to NeuroLogica. As I warned at SBM, you should not attempt to subvert the ban. I feel you did that by simply migrating your behavior, and even the specific discussion, over to this blog. You consistently dominate the comments and hijack the discussion to your ceaseless talking points, without ever showing evidence of understanding points made against your positions.
The ban from the comments of both blogs will remain in effect for one month. Afterward I ask that you show more consideration to the community of these blogs – contribute to discussion without dominating it.
pec- first off I apologise for replying after you’ve been banned. I was writing a reply when Dr. N posted the reply above and was going to delete my reply but then reconsidered after realising you have made probably 10 times as many posts as most of the people responding to you. So getting a word in edge ways while your indisposed is I think fair enough.
The Gronowicz experiment that you are repeatedly referring to has been discussed by Dr. N and Dave Gorski and was discussed in an SGU 5X5 podcast. they identified several key points such as:
1. It’s one study by one research group.
2. The abstract is misleading because if you actually read the full paper it’s clear there were also negative results and they only focused on the positive results.
3. There were issues with the blinding procedures and potential contamination due to handling.
You haven’t even read the study beyond the abstract and yet you consistently ignore these very valid points raised by those who have actually read the study and whose careers and interests are strongly related to medical research. You also seemed angry that they were quoting from the actual study when you couldn’t read it. This is not their problem. If you want access to a journal pay for it or contact the author and ask for a copy.
You also consistently repeated that there were 2 studies that need to be addressed even after it was explained to you that the 2 studies were in fact simply the same studies results in slightly different articles published in 2 different journals.
The study you raised was discussed and you didn’t like the outcome so you have basically went off on a rant since then. It’s resulted in you getting banned which I suspect will add to your belief that you are the only open minded skeptic on the board and are constantly being censored but please try and consider the other options… you post incessantly on topics repeating the same claims over and over, ignore responses and interrupt topics with irrelevant comments. That’s probably the reason you’ve received a temporary ban.
We’re all guilty, Dr. N. We all deserve to be banned. Shame, shame on us all.
We simply could not ignore pec.
Well, I’m sure some of you have. Good for you.
I would like to move the discussion in the direction of algorithmic vs. non-algorithmic calculation as components of cognition.
There was recent reference to an article on individuals doing mathematical operations on groups of objects while not having linguistic concepts for numbers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080714111940.htm
I referred in an earlier comment to the role of algorithms in doing calculations with numbers, and how algorithms are generally not reversible, as in squaring and square root and how doing mathematical operations using Roman numerals is virtually impossible.
There is a somewhat older paper which discusses differences in representation of Arabic numerals by native Chinese speakers.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10775.full
Numbers are a class of objects that are quite simple to form a symbolic abstract representation of as in numerals, either Roman numerals or Arabic numerals. Depending on what symbolic coding is chosen, algorithmic manipulation of those symbols is easy (Arabic numerals) or virtually impossible (Roman numerals).
If I might suggest an idea, that perhaps scientists and skeptics use symbolic coding of other mental concepts such that algorithmic manipulation of those concepts is possible, whereas non-scientists use symbolic coding which makes algorithmic manipulation virtually impossible.
In the case of individuals of the Piraha tribe, without a symbolic representation of numerical quantities, they can’t do algorithmic manipulation on those numerical quantities, or (I imagine) even appreciate that algorithmic manipulation is even possible.
I think that is where the creationists and other non-scientists are coming from. They don’t have a symbolic representation of reality such that it can be manipulated with the algorithms that scientists use to compare a conceptualization of reality to reality. I think that is why they keep trying to harp on how to them it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in creationism. They don’t have the ability to understand anything via an algorithm. To compare two things takes an algorithm. If your ideas don’t fit into an algorithm, you can’t compare them to anything else.
science and religion certainly overlap … meaning, western science is clearly applied western religion, particularly the christian one. shared worldview.
gregory, no. Western science is the same as Eastern, Northern and Southern science. It is all the same. To the extent that religions have incorporated scientific principles in their religious beliefs that is fine for those religions. The only religion that I am aware of that has incorporated science into it is Buddhism. The Dali Lama has said that if science disproves a belief of Buddhism, then Buddhism must change. Unless a religion has incorporated a willingness to abandon religious beliefs based on scientific evidence, then it has not incorporated science into it. No Christian religion that I am aware of has done that.
Science has not incorporated religious beliefs into science. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying, or doesn’t know what science is, or both.