Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I assume that's more of your deadpan humour, asking me to take the floor!
This site or yours, you pick the turf.
It ain't my site, though, so I think if I ever decide to essay on the notion of science in any detail it'll be elsewhere. Like Brent, and I suspect you, I'm weary of the debate now, although earlier on I was enjoying it. I think science can reasonably be broadly described as a methodological approach, and that that's more useful than some other characterisations, such as 'an ideology', or 'a set of facts'. I think it is a very difficult (maybe impossible) undertaking to fully codify scientific method in a precise way. But it also seems to me that such codification is not necessary to disagree with some of Feyerabend's conclusions.
-
Yet if you post it on a NZ based site it’s the owner who gets prosecuted (and the offending person gets away with it?)
I think the offending person can also be prosecuted.
-
I hear BNZ is phasing in card with a chip, hopefully that might reduce fraud. We seem to be late bringing in the chip cards here though.
Yep. I'm pretty sure all banks will have to switch to chip cards, as the card schemes (VISA, MasterCard... not sure about Amex) are insisting on it.
-
It's evident that they will be treated differently. The bus driver will go to work the next day. He won't be all over the papers and high up in the TV news.
I think that difference, though, is the price of celebrity. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Unless a performer, for example, only wants to court a small group of friends as his audience, there’s always some aspect of using the media, surely?
I also agree with Scott’s point: “Being named and shamed can be every bit as devastating for a non-celebrity. The naming of a person convicted or accused of an offence has the potential to destroy that person's career and personal relationships.”Wow. Harsh. So if you happen to work in a branch of the arts that might occasionally be reported on you've "lived by the sword"?
That might be a good point. Hard to say, as I really don’t know who this person is. If your description, “work[s] in a branch of the arts that might occasionally be reported on”, applies to this case, then how much of a celebrity is he? Would he perhaps have received less attention if he had been treated at sentencing like anyone else? The suppression order does seem to have been counterproductive.
People who work in the arts do actually work to become known for their work.
Sure, but I think if you get yourself in that position it’s incumbent on you to take care of your reputation - by not committing criminal acts, for a start.
But it's clear now that you don't have to be "that much of a celeb" to be front page news if you fuck up.
Again, in this case, is it not the suppression that has largely caused the attention? If he was simply ordered to pay reparations and discharged without conviction I wonder if anyone would be talking about him now. It would have been a comparatively trivial affair.More so than the Sivivatu case, as you said.
And you know what, Rik? If those people have even half decent lawyers they get discharges and suppression on precisely that basis for this kind of offence.
Really, that’s the usual outcome? I’d argue that that is wrong as well then. What do you think of the Law Commission recommendations? Do you think many of those cases, and the one we’re discussing here, would meet the higher “exceptional” standard?
-
paid reparations
Has he? I’d heard that he still hadn’t paid.
If a leading moral campaigner is convicted of a reasonably serious offence then that's something that the public have a right to know about. The same is also true of those who seek public office
But not a celebrity? Why not? Why should they be treated differently to someone who did the same thing who was, say, a bus driver?
On the other hand, the son or daughter of a celebrity or politician or even of a morals campaigner are just who they are and can't help being who they are.
But we’re talking about someone described as a celebrity or entertainer in their own right.
Ultimately, the complaints about special treatment for celebrities is somewhat tautologous - media interest in them derives from their status and absent that status there would be no interest and, in turn, no reason or justificaiton for suppressing their name.
It seems to me that it is your (and Russell’s) argument is the one with logical problems. I agree with “live by the sword, die by the sword”. If one is a celebrity largely because of media attention, then you cannot hide behind that point as a reason not to have your name made public in the same way as anyone else would have given the same crime. If one is not that much of a celeb, then what is the basis of the suppression request?
-
Trouble is, as they point out, how could he justify any rules or standards without them being constrained by some rationality?
He doesn't try. If you don't think such things are rational, why bother?
So why say he isn’t a relativist, and didn’t think "anything goes" so far as truth is concerned?
If you sink then you're not swimming any more.
So you agree with: “... it does not follow that anything goes and you can move around in the water any way you please and meaningfully call it swimming.”
Actually, I don't prefer any such thing. I think that both the labels are imprecise, hence my position that it could be either one or both. Not that it is either one. I don't really care for such a definition debate, it doesn't elucidate anything, it's just a rhetorical position, a battle over the meaning of words in the English language. It tells us nothing about science as a concept, only as a word. I think at best that both words might help us to understand science in an extremely vague way
For the purposes of this discussion, you have preferred ‘ideology’ over ‘method’, and you have said that science was an ideology, and even once called it a religion. But this is funny, it seems your prediction has happened in reverse; you have come to agree with me. I was saying earlier that it was rhetoric to refer to science as religion or as an ideology, and that in as much as the latter is true, it’s vague and trite. My own use of ‘a method’ was only a general characterisation (I only suggested it when you asked me what else we could call science apart from ‘an ideology’.)
I did not answer that specific question, sure. I thought it rather obvious that my answer would be No, I don't think it should be taught as 'equally valid' to, say, modern cosmology,
That’s all well and good, but then you are left with systematized disadvantage. Another question you didn’t answer was “You seriously think science doesn’t work, in the sense I was referring to, better than Christianity?” That is, in getting us reliable knowledge about the way the world works. I guess your answer there is obvious too: Yes, it does.
And I'm not sure why you can't even acknowledge it. My point is that proving ...
You’ve moved the goal posts: you originally asked for evidence, not proof. The only comeback you’ve made on this is: “...how far do you think I have to look to find people making claims about being scientists and what their methods are? Every hair brained crackpot who does some experiments can, and frequently does make such a claim.” I’ll leave anyone still following this discussion to decide for themselves if they find your hair brained crackpots convincing.
It seems to me that the philosophical background of a belief set matters to you. Do you dispute this? Do you think you are unique? Or even uncommon, for that matter?
No, no, and yes. In the context of this discussion, as I said, I think for the most part your average person is mostly impressed by science because they see science and technology working in their daily lives, and not generally because they’ve read Popper, or Sokal and Bricmont for that matter.
Sure, but Brent was following up on your linked definitions, which pretty much tallied with his one-sentence definition of science.
Brent made his comments first, so he wasn’t following up my linked definitions at all.
Brent wrote:I did not intend my sentence to be a definition of Science. But your attempted counter-example of Einstein was just using a narrow definition of "looking at something". If this was broadened to include "thinking about something" then it is no longer a counter-example.
Thanks for confirming that. I took your meaning to be exactly as you say. Ben seems to think I’m “slithering” by saying that he was being too literal with your brief summary, but even at a most generous reading of his counter-example using Einstein, he’s not contradicted your original point, as you allowed for modifications or refinements. This led to ridiculous hyperbole on Ben’s part, which I found disappointing. Claims that my modifications and refinements were endless – that sort of thing. In fact there was at best one refinement, the one you alluded to about the wording of ‘looking at something’. Ben’s Einstein example soon became pedantry, as far as I could see.
-
He never said "anything goes" so far as truth is concerned. Only method. Scientific method, to be specific.
Which is exactly what Bricmont and Sokal were addressing. They noted he did claim later that he was taken too literally in the ‘anything goes’ claim, arguing that he wasn’t against proceeding without rules and standards, just that all rules have their limits and there is no comprehensive rationality. Trouble is, as they point out, how could he justify any rules or standards without them being constrained by some rationality? If not, you arrive at the most extreme relativism.
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.
But you can’t move around any way you please and stay afloat. All methods of swimming have their limitations, but it isn’t true that all bodily movements are equally valid in terms of the aim of staying afloat – some will just lead to sinking. All methods of swimming have their limits, but it clearly does not follow that ‘anything goes’.
Science could be both a method and an ideology.
That’s my position. You just seem to be agreeing with my previous characterisation of our positions: I prefer ‘a method’ or similar labels to characterise science, you prefer ‘an ideology’.
Creationism
You dodged the question: should it be taught as an equally valid way of explaining how we came to be here? If not, it will be at a systematised disadvantage.
Btw, I’m not against teaching philosophy in schools. In fact it might be worth considering. More here.
That wasn't what I was saying was circular, obviously. I was saying that your attempts to define science in that way are circular.
They weren’t my attempts to define science, they were my answer to your request for evidence that the agreement was broad. You’ve offered no counter evidence. To be honest, I would have thought it a fairly unremarkable claim, and I’m not sure why you’re so stuck on this point.
For people who are convinced by such things.
It lends an air of legitimacy for... those it lends such as air to? Now there’s some circular reasoning. I rather doubt there are a lot of people out there particularly concerned with philosophising over what the scientific method is. In as much as they trust science, it is because they see science and technology working in their daily lives.
Not at all. My argument is that you don't know what the method is, with any precision.
Weird, because I’m pretty sure when you brought up that example, it was in response to Brent, not me. Anyway, I can’t be bothered teasing out your attempts at this straw man line again.
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,
Yeah, but as I said earlier, we do live in a democracy. People can have input into scientific funding and policy in much the same way they do for other state activities. I don’t see any need to significantly increase the amount of direct say people have in science policy and funding. But you seem more in favour of direct democracy in general.
-
Paston would be my pick for man of the match, but Killen was close (heh).
I feel sorry for Bahrain, but boy we did earn that win - better team on the day as the cliche goes.
-
There’s a small passage on Feyerabend in Sokal and Bricmont’s Fashionable Nonsense. Their conclusion on AM seems to match closely with my (provisional) ones. They address his “anything goes” conclusion and point to it as an example of reasoning common to relativists. He starts with the correct observation “All methodologies have their limitations”, and jumps to the false conclusion [therefore] “anything goes”. 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.
You admit to not having read Feyerabend, who is the actual subject of most of this debate.
The subject was the parts of Feyerabend’s views summarised in that Wiki article of you linked to, and other characterisations of his views espoused here. I said at the outset I don’t necessarily disagree with everything he wrote and would have to read more on Feyerabend to come to any more solid conclusions on his views. I raised some specific points of contention, most of which you have since dropped. I was not, despite your attempt to portray it otherwise, trying to offer a definitive method, but for the most part pointing out where I think he went too far with some of his conclusions. I never claimed that it was easy to define science or delineate what the scientific method was in a perfectly satisfactory way, but I didn’t agree with some of Feyerabend’s conclusions, and you’ve given little reason to reconsider. 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.
Persecution takes many forms. ... it can be something you suggested above, the refusal to teach alternative ideas to children.
You refer here to the teaching of creationism, I presume? I certainly don’t think creationism should be taught in science classes. Do you think creationism should be taught in schools, alongside evolution and other conventional science? Taught as an equally valid way of explaining how we came to be here?
I don’t think anyone should be persecuted for their views per se. But what you called ‘systematized disadvantage’ is unavoidable, unless you accept the teaching of intelligent design, creationism, and for that matter other mythology as equally valid in explaining the world. I don’t agree with that kind of epistemic relativism.ideology
I don’t think ideology is a dirty word, but I do tend to think it gets used in a rhetorical way in these sorts of debates, to emphasise science needs to be seen as “a viewpoint.” Just about anything can be called a viewpoint - that’s banal. So the idea is to at least imply, or even say explicitly, it is just a viewpoint, no more or less valid than intelligent design or whatever you want to elevate.
I don't think you have a theory of science at all.
A precise one? No. I don’t need a precise theory to be able to criticise others’ positions. You have a nebulous theory yourself, yet you criticise other positions.
Your opinion on it seems to be 'whatever the majority of scientists think it is', which is of course a circular definition. All of your attempts to show that there is a method fall back on finding some source of authority on the matter. The more you do so, the wider you cast your net of definitions,
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.
An elaboration of the methods of every single scientific theory that you consider scientific?
It’s fair to say I consider all scientific theories to be scientific. Tautology’s what breathless hyperbole gets you, I guess.
[Philosophy of science] serves to lend to science an air of legitimacy, as though it rests on a bedrock of philosophical truth.
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.
You asked how the world became convinced of the truth of Einstein's theory, and suggested it was because of the scientific method. I can see a plethora of other possibilities. It could be because he discovered something.
That’s weak. Why does the scientific community, and now largely I believe the world community, accept this as as factual, rather than ‘just a hypothesis’? I suggested that the methodology was essential. You suggest it wasn’t, even though you pointed to predictions and tests in your own summary. I’m sure physicists were impressed by his maths, but they still wanted the tests. As for results, that’s what he should be judged on - not sure what your point is there. Your mistake is in seeing the scientific approach as a discrete entity. However defined, it is a community and ongoing methodology. No one suggests Einstein went through every step of the method as he got up in the morning. His theorising was one part of the process, but he was subject to more than just a pat on the back for some good maths. At least some of his theories remain the subject of scientific methodology today, and it’s possible his theories could be refined or adjusted. Your whole Einstein example is on shaky ground. Your argument seems to be that because Einstein was ‘right first time’, there was no method. He was an example of a magician conjuring up knowledge about the world in an instant. That’s naive.
Perhaps you felt you were making a methodological claim when you said I tend to chuck the baby out with the bathwater.
On Ethics you took a codified sceptical position, and here there seems to be a parallel, although with more caveats on your part this time.
I've never claimed my view on science was typical. Indeed not many of my views on anything are 'typical'. I don't find beliefs being typical, normal, average, common, widely accepted, broadly supported, popular, as being particularly good reasons to agree with them. I never have. This has always made me deeply uncool, but I really don't care.
I suspect (with the possible exception of your position on the teaching of creationism in schools) your views are the more popular around forums like this than mine. I don’t care about how popular a belief is either, but that raises questions about the usefulness of increasing democracy in science. Anyway, I wasn’t referring to your own view of science; I was referring to your contention that science was generally portrayed in a certain way.
If light was not observed to bend around the sun after multiple attempts to observe this, Einstein's relativity theory would have suffered a big setback.
The hell you say! : )
-
and if Carter's suspended it will be a bit of a joke.
We're really going to need him against Italy.
But yeah, that tackle wasn't that bad, certainly not malicious or even reckless, just a bit careless at most.