Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Perhaps she has actually read the whole 66 pages and decided not to back up her conspiracy Theory with actual facts because
Murphy will tell all clones to execute Order 66?
-
Oh dear. I really shouldn't have followed up on this one. I ended up at Whailoils site. I need to shower and get changed now. Yuck.
LOL, I deliberately save my shower for after the news, for that reason.
-
The word is "Highness" Kate. You need a sub.
-
Could it be a story? Murphy has made it so, publishing in the Herald. Kate laments that there is no hyperlink to her blog, but using "Cactus Kate" in a Google search finds her immediately, so she's got some traffic her way from anyone who finds anything remarkable in the idea that newspapers send internal emails around discussing potential changes in policy.
It's interesting to an outsider to see that writers in MSM are constrained in this way. Not particularly surprising though. It does, after all, come out in the writing, which tends to be short on the f and c words and slander, unlike the internet.
-
He starts with the correct observation “All methodologies have their limitations”, and jumps to the false conclusion [therefore] “anything goes”.
To be honest, I think this claim of his is more in the nature of a 'bold claim' rather than something he felt followed from the logic of the limits of methodologies. It's a theory about science, which could be proved wrong. Being a very sweeping statement, it would be very easy to prove wrong, by the simple elaboration of the actual method. So...go for it. Prove it wrong by elaborating a method that does, indeed, perfectly characterize all of science. It will have to pass tests that tally with the past, then it could stand as a prediction of the future of science.
It does parallel relativism, but I don't think it's certain he is a relativist. In fact, I think Sokal and Bricmont are showing philosophical naivete in suggesting as much. He never said "anything goes" so far as truth is concerned. Only method. Scientific method, to be specific.
They give the analogy of swimming: there are many ways to swim, all with the same basic aim (to stay afloat) and all with similarities and differences, and all with limitations. But it does not follow that anything goes and you can move around in the water any way you please and meaningfully call it swimming.
And what a poor analogy it is. If you can move around in the water, without support, without drowning, then that is swimming. At least in my book. However you can manage it. It doesn't matter if you throw every rule you ever learned right out the window, if you can do that, then you are swimming. What a perfect way to make Feyerabend's point for him.
Where we seem to differ is that I think it reasonable to consider science (broadly) in methodological terms; that calling it a method, while not the full story, is a more satisfactory short answer than calling it an ideology. Both are glib, but the latter is more so.
I don't think either one is glib. They're both ideas worthy of consideration, and they could both be true. Science could be both a method and an ideology. The method is rather vague, but the choice to follow that vague methodology, to believe in the results of it, forms the ideology. I'm not sure why you're so bitter on the word, to be honest.
Re: Creationism. Yes, I think it should be taught of in schools, along with a number of other myths/theories, preferably from a wide range of cultures. I don't think a lot of time should be spent on it, nor do I know whether it should be taught in science classes. Science classes seem to be mostly geared towards gaining fluency in the orthodoxy of science, rather than learning its history. This is probably practical - there's only so much time, and the teachers are mostly trained in science, rather than history. Personally, I never found science classes to be places of discussion or debate - the focus was in learning a massive body of fact, as though it is fact, without any real consideration of alternatives, period. This is probably quite practical training for cranking out lots of engineers by the age of 20.
Actually, this goes for almost every subject taught at school. Mathematics was about the only subject in which attempts were made to prove points, probably because in maths things can actually be proved. Everything else boiled down to "because some authority says so". Perhaps I'm a dreamer to think that a better beginning to intellectual life could be found for our children. I think it would bring the point home that creation myths are arbitrary a whole lot better if kids got to see just how many of them there are, and how silly the ones we aren't brought up with sound, and how the justification for all of them is "because ancient people said so". Even more ancient than their teachers :-). It's when you try to sweep these things under the carpet that they actually get noticed. It could help with cultural tolerance amongst religious kids too.
I don't think the more sophisticated philosophical arguments for the existence of God should be taught generally, though - that should be elective, if taught at all. That's not science or history, it's philosophy and as we both know, a real time sink.
A precise one? No. I don’t need a precise theory to be able to criticise others’ positions.
I think it's built in to your criticism for it not to be precise. A precise theory could be refuted, but a vague one can be used for any purpose you like. Again, the refutation to Against Method is to come up with a method. It really is that easy.
You’re confused. It isn’t circular to point to scientists' summaries to demonstrate broad agreement among scientists. Referring back to the same evidence I already cited is not casting the net wider.
That wasn't what I was saying was circular, obviously. I was saying that your attempts to define science in that way are circular. Of course there is broad agreement amongst scientists, if your definition of scientists is 'people who follow this method'.
For whom? The layman doesn’t learn of ‘a bedrock of philosophical truth’ and use this to judge the validity of science. In fact that contradicts your claim that they judge science in non-methodological ways.
For people who are convinced by such things. Philosophical backing is important to a lot of people. They like to think that clever people have thought hard about the foundation of something they are going to place a lot of faith in. That doesn't contradict anything I said - people often have multiple sources for their beliefs. They might be even more impressed by important people in their lives holding (and espousing) the beliefs.
Your argument seems to be that because Einstein was ‘right first time’, there was no method.
Not at all. My argument is that you don't know what the method is, with any precision. In elaborating it (or should I say "linking to a number of other peoples elaborations, none of which were identical") you haven't given any clear way of designating what activities are scientific and which are not.
Now I'm well aware that you can fully continue to just hold the line that there is a method and refuse to be precise about what it is. But if so I'm sticking to my claim that your position is not as far from Feyerabend's as you might think. He was not arguing that no methods are ever used. He was not arguing that no method is ever useful. What he was arguing against was the idea that there is one method by which you can reliably distinguish science from non-science.
I don’t care about how popular a belief is either, but that raises questions about the usefulness of increasing democracy in science.
It's a very sticky question, and not just for science, but for democracy generally. The fact that truth is often unpopular. But I think democracy is still the best system, people should be party to big decisions that affect them, decisions that involve massive amounts of money, for instance. As long as science receives government funding, ultimately there is a right to choose how that money is spent that transcends the desires of scientists. There is also a right to make judgments about scientific practices that are immoral.
-
Is there a political equivalent of DP?
Surely DP is the porn equivalent of politics.
-
I find this interesting. For some reason, elite opinion in this country is in denial of the existance or legitimacy of popular Pakeha nationalism and uncomfortable even with the idea of a distinct Kiwi identity. It is as if they think being proud of your country is immediately followed by an invasion of Poland.
Not so sure that's 'elite opinion'. Some people have that opinion, sure.
These fifth, sixth and seventh generation Pakeha New Zealanders have been exposed to Maori culture, are not afraid of it and no longer view Maori through their parents lens of settler white guilt. They are much less inclined to be little Englanders and if they look anywhere they look to Australia for ideas, a country which has an agressively nationalistic agenda.
I tend to agree that there is a fair bit of looking to Australia, but I'm not so sure that it's their indigenous race relations that we admire. It's more likely to be their higher level of 'development', at least in the cities. There are models in Australia of what NZ cities could move towards that are a lot more realistic than looking to Europe for inspiration.
Also, the Australian attitude to life is sometimes seen as admirable. They have no shame, which makes for some quite interesting strengths (and weaknesses). To me it seems far more contextually appropriate than to look to England for attitudinal inspiration. Europeans generally seem to be bowed down by the weight of too much history a lot of the time. I tend to think that there's a line to be drawn between remembering history and wallowing in it.
-
Matthew, I thought it was a little bizarre too, when I read Granny this morning. But I'm not especially bugged - the truth will out. It may come as a surprise to the public, but that will just add to the fun. Amazing how fast an unassailable fortress of popularity can collapse.
-
If the Mikare Rauta/John Halliwell canoe (they decided to name each other in their own languages) had a sail, then it would lend new meaning to the old phrase "Buffeted by contrary winds".
-
Maui's act of punching his own nose to provide the bait reminds me of Harawira. He is likely to land the entirety of NZ with it.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 829 830 831 832 833 … 1066 Older→ First