Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You haven't worked out my style is "deadpan" yet. Stick to your way, it works.
I’d never really change. I’m too old, and set in my ways, as you say.
I'm asking you to give some kind of indication of what you could even accept as evidence. Since the position Feyerabed is taking is that orthodox opinions on scientific method are wrong, you're unlikely to find
'creditable', 'mainstream', opinions to support Feyerabend, now are you?You asked me for evidence: what will you accept? I said there was broad agreement about what the scientific method entails (as in, what scientists and people who philosophise about science mean by the term). You asked me for evidence that this agreement was broad and I gave some. Obviously not everyone agrees that this broad summary is valid, or we wouldn’t be arguing. But consider the label that came to your mind when describing the sort of people who might engage in research to gain knowledge about the world in ways that significantly deviate from the method outlined: crackpots.
But all around the fringes of mainstream science are studies which claim to be scientific - we already have discussed chiropraction in this thread a lot. If chiropractors claim to be scientific, and have a slightly different take on the scientific method, then you can either:
1. Call them unscientific, because of that
2. Widen your definition of science.
Feyerabend opts for the latter. You opt for the former.Not quite, that’s simplistic. This is a case where I see some element of narrowness and an avoiding of nuance in your position – or at least an inability to judge my position as containing those. I don’t feel the need to make it a clear cut case every time: “such and such discipline wants to be considered scientific, what do we say folks: are they in or are they out?”
I’m not as against all these things as you may think. My girlfriend went to a chiropractor and a physiotherapist. (Apparently, the chiro told her that it’s a common misconception that the two practices are in opposition.) I obviously hoped it would work (it appears did, she’s better) and, come to think of it, must ask if she considered either treatment to be more effective. I agree with ChrisW here: “ ... from among the broad range of today's quackery only a modest proportion will emerge as tomorrow's orthodoxy. The corollary would be not so much that quackery per se must be tolerated, but that one should be careful in assessing non-orthodox practice, insofar as it does no harm, as there may well be some good stuff in there.”
Some ‘alternative’ medical practices seem to have something going for them – chiropraction and acupuncture seem to be examples. But it’s a long way from confirmed, especially for the discipline as a whole. It’s hard to say that all of chiropractic practice would be scientific, but possible that some aspects might be. But I’m okay with some indistinctness sometimes, and with waiting to see how things pan out. As I understand it there’s a “body intelligence” aspect to chiropraction, and a controversy within the discipline about whether that’s a load of nonsense they’d be better to drop outright because it’s not scientific. Practices that want to claim to be scientific try to convince us they are, or have become, like the orthodox scientific process and adhere to scientific method, rather than asking for a widening of the definition.I thought this would come up, the tedious reparsing of a cherry picked, out of context piece of something quoted from Wikipedia.
The only Feyerabend quotes of I’ve “cherry picked” from Wikipedia are from the article you linked to here on this thread, that you used to indicate his views on science.
Btw, the quote in question is not from Wikipedia, it’s from the Standford article on Feyerabend.I don't treat Christianity as true, for instance. So there is a lot to be gained by treating Christianity as an ideology, rather than just a truth, and the same goes for science. It means ideas like "the freedom of religion" could be analogously applied to science, and people could be free to choose the scientific ideology they believe in, without persecution, perhaps even without systematized disadvantage.,
Of course, I don’t want people persecuted for buying into astrology or Hinduism or what have you. I don’t want Creation Science taught in schools, though, and won’t pretend I think they are on equal footing, and that science isn’t more useful in finding truth than the latter. But you seem to be implying those are the two options: Truth, or Ideology. People don’t let the ‘ideology’ label stop them from seeing their ideology as true, so I don’t see what’s gained. (A fundamentalist Christian doesn’t need to see their religion as a method to conclude it is “Truth”.) It’s rhetoric, like your earlier offhand reference to science as a religion, the “science is (just) an ideology” line is really just an attempt knock it down a peg: ‘It’s just another viewpoint – like creationism.’
Christianity "works" too, man. That's a very weak justification.
Just about anything can be said to ‘work’ in some sense, but I didn’t make that statement in isolation. I referred to it as a working in relation to getting us reliable knowledge about the universe. You seriously think science doesn’t work, in the sense I was referring to, better than Christianity?
When you said:
If he doesn’t at least provide an alternative way of saying what science is, it is untenable to claim he wasn’t against science.It's even quoted conveniently just above the piece you are asking about. You are suggesting that unless he proposes a method, he is against science. That is plain wrong.
Nothing you quoted in that exchange shows what you claimed. Read it through again. I’m not suggesting that if he doesn’t propose another method he is against science. I am saying that if he doesn’t at least provide some other (not necessarily method-based) way of describing it he is against science.
Actually, I'm getting the feeling that by the end of this your opinion will resemble mine almost entirely, you just won't be able to admit it, out of pride. You said there's no hard and fast rules in Rule Number One of your supposed method.
I don’t know what “there’s no hard and fast rules in Rule Number One” means.
And it isn’t my method. It’s the generally agreed upon basic outline for the scientific method (not invariable steps – let alone ‘Rules’ as you like to call them for rhetorical purposes) accepted by the scientific community. From the Wiki link: “There are different ways of outlining the basic method used for scientific inquiry. ... [however] the cycle of formulating hypotheses, testing and analyzing the results, and formulating new hypotheses, will resemble the cycle described below.” It then goes on to list “Characterisations” as its step one. Another source simply says “ask a question”. I’m suggesting to you that you may have been a little too literal in seeing “looking at something” as Brent put it, as necessarily looking at an object with you eyes. Einstein took a thought experiment approach, as I understand it, to theorising about some aspects of physics – i.e. some aspects about the world – which was built upon previous accepted theories and led to his hypotheses and consequently some predictions.
You're avoiding the question.
See above, I had given an answer in good faith. If you didn’t accept it just say so, but the false bravado isn’t necessary.
Now to my questions. How did we come to accept Einstein’s theories, again? Would we have accepted them if they hadn’t been able to predict the phenomena they said they would? What will replace this? It is the scientific method that has seen his initial hypotheses become what we consider knowledge – truth, or the closest we can come to at this stage – about the way things work.Your stylistic comments are noted.
Those aren’t stylistic comments. Stylistic comments would be more like noting you use the word “dude” a lot later in an argument. Regards your longer response to this, yes, that was the parallel I was getting at (to On Ethics), but no, I do not think you lack all ethics.
your portrayal, which is of something that can be clearly understood from one Google search on the matter, and anything else anyone thinks is patently false by virtue of not agreeing with some dictionary definitions and encyclopedia entries on the subject. You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that the subject is incredibly controversial.
There are enough straw men there to bring on my hay fever early. I do not think the subject is uncontroversial, as I’ve indicated more than once. I do not have a favoured portrayal of science: you do. That google link was to show your portrayal might not be as typical as you suggest, not to prove any particular contrary view. I only even call science 'humble' here in a relative sense, contrasting it with what I consider more arrogant ideologies. In a general context I would not describe science as noisy and impudent, or as humble and sober. That’s too simplistic. The scientific endeavour is complicated. I think it fair to say, however, we can describe science at its base as a method, a methodological approach that characterises the way we seek to find reliable knowledge about the world, and that in fact it does deliver. (It is also, of course, a way of referring to the body of knowledge itself, or of what scientists do on a day to day basis.)
You've bought into the mythology so thoroughly, that basically, you can't get it.
Ah, so I’m not just disingenuous and prideful, but delusional as well. Good to get your input there.
-
Well, Wikipedia says so.
Well, that must be true then.
It was a facetious comment. I didn’t think an emoticon or exclamation mark would be necessary for you - I’ll adjust my posting style.
Seriously dude, 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’m not sure what you point is here. Are you saying you could just as easily find an equal number of crackpot sources to “counter” my examples? Why would anyone take your examples seriously given that you yourself just brushed them off as crackpots? Come to think of it, on what basis are you calling anyone a crackpot? Honestly, you can be so elitist, sometimes ;-)
You asked for evidence and I cited some, including a non-cherry picked list of examples from a Google search of 'scientific method' and a poster here who has studied science making much the same outline.
What could you even accept as evidence of such a claim? A hundred people saying that? A thousand?
No one who claims it is the most superior thought developed by man. But I suspect what he means is that it is impossible to examine those limits, not that people have not tried.
No one who claims science is of a different level to voodoo or magic in giving us knowledge about the world. Your second sentence is completely baseless.
In seeking to treat it as an ideology he is simply contrasting it with treating it as truth.
What happened to contrasting it with treating it as a method?A method that is treated as the source of truth. I don't quite get what you're asking.
People treat ideologies as true, too, so nothing is achieved by “contrasting” it with ideology. You seem to be saying there are only those two options: it’s an ideology, or a Truth. It’s a methodological approach that seeks to find out knowledge about the universe that we can rely on and make use of, and creates a body of knowledge that we generally call “true”. The scientific method is true in the sense that it works.
you can like something without thinking it is a method.
Obviously - where did I say otherwise?
Dude, there are no hard and fast rules anywhere in science.
Heh... if you restate the point I know you hold, it will be magically more convincing. Perhaps by voodoo? Feel free to use that in your arguments, by the way.
In Einstein's case, rule Number One was not only not essential, it was not possible.
How did we come to accept Einstein’s theories, again? Would we have accepted them if they hadn’t been able to predict the phenomena they said they would? What will replace this?
And in what way does your version of Einstein’s theorising contradict Brent’s claim: “I cannot see it being replaced with anything else, ever. Refined, adjusted, adapted - - yes. But, chucked out and replaced, no.” All you’ve suggested, with a generous reading of your argument, is a modification or refinement.
In short (LOL), I have a nuanced and open view of what science is. I don't claim to know the pan-methodology because every attempt to describe it that I've ever seen has serious flaws.
This seems to be your approach to many issues, from my experience here. If things have “serious” flaws you throw out the baby with the bathwater. You have an odd “things need to be clear” approach, for someone who claims to appreciate nuance.
So Where’s your evidence that that’s how it is commonly portrayed? [Sober, humble and methodical].
So far this thread abounds with claims of the type. Have a read through it.
Like when you described Einstein coming up with the theory that (consequently) predicted light would bend due to gravity? No, wait, that’s a contrary example. I’m sure there are some portrayals as you say, but the world abounds with portrayals of science as dramatic, noisy, bold, unfathomable, and frankly a bit crazy. This is the Google image result for the word “scientist”.
Your own interpretation of Einstein’s theories is (as you would have it) an example of science not being methodical. Yet it’s that approach that makes up much of the mythology of science today. This idea of geniuses doing these miraculous things no one else can even explain is not any better for science or humanity than the overly-restrictive, methodological approach you are concerned about. But it is certainly popular...And brilliant post overall.
Miracles just rate better, I guess.
-
yeah go on shed a tear and have a drink for this old timer as well
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-claude-levi-strauss4-2009nov04,0,890035.story
Hadn't seen that news. Thanks.
100 years eh?... Nice round number. I'll have a drink for the old timer. (Heck, any excuse...)
-
And yet you have made many such delineations with respect to particular instances. On what basis have you done this?
With respect to the particulars of the instance, I presume. What instances are you referring to?
Where is your evidence that this agreement is broad?
Well, Wikipedia says so. More to the point, that wiki summary sure looks an awful lot like the first one. And this one. And all of the one’s here that I had a chance read. And the description in the science encyclopedia on my bookshelf from 1985. And the brief one made by Brent.
is it true?
This goes to a point you’ve so far not addressed. I’ll let xkcd answer that one.
He is simply countering the idea that it is sober, humble and methodical, as it is commonly portrayed.
Where’s your evidence that that’s how it is commonly portrayed? These portrayals are common.
You presume that Feyerabend dislikes the noisy conspicuous impudence of science. You would be wrong. Like Popper, he saw that as a strength.
Fair enough on the characterisation he intended. Still, the full quote, in the context of other remarks, sure looks like he’s trying to knock science: “science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without ever having examined its advantages and its limits”. Check out that assumption: no one else who disagrees with his conclusion could possibly have examined science’s advantages and limits!
In seeking to treat it as an ideology he is simply contrasting it with treating it as truth.
What happened to contrasting it with treating it as a method?
It's not hard at all. You could be "for voodoo". I think Feyerabend felt that voodoo had its place.
But he wasn’t writing a critique of voodoo. He was criticising the orthodox view of science as a methodological approach. If he doesn’t at least provide an alternative way of saying what science is, it is untenable to claim he wasn’t against science.
There could be many replacements for that [Brent's summary of the scientific method]. Einstein did not observe the gravitational bending of light and then come up with an explanation for it. No one had observed any such thing at the time, and that very consequence of his theory was a count against it in the early days. But he stuck to his guns, because he was convinced by the mathematics. Having done so, subsequent experiments have shown that the gravitational bending of light does actually happen. This came many years later.
So he came up with a theory, and as a consequence of which he made some predictions about the way the universe works. While his maths seemed robust his theories were not simply taken on board by the scientific community uncritically. When the opportunity for testing some of his predictions came up, the observations confirmed his predictions. Subsequently, more tests have been able to be made on his predictions (slowing of time at relativistic speeds, for example) and have further confirmed his theories. Where’s the problem? Your own example belies the claim of science as arrogant, and nothing about it contradicts the scientific method. I have no problem with saying that sometimes, perhaps often, scientists use imagination and intuition. There are no hard and fast rules about how “Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena”, goes. But that you subject these to the other steps in the method is crucial.
The achievements of scientists don’t exclusively come down to methodology, but the methodology is essential. It’s a methodological approach – how else would you describe it? Oh, that’s right: you don’t know. -
In making such a claim you might learn something.
I often feel that I learn something when arguing with you Ben. Not necesarily the point you were hoping to get across, but something.
He just thinks that what they do isn't really quite as systematic as is popularly believed.
Wait, that’s it? He just wants to say that what scientists do isn’t really quite as systematic as many think? I don’t disagree with that and hence your request for a specific method that completely and unequivocally covers all things science, while clearly keeping all things pseudoscience at bay, is a straw man.
I never said defining or delineating science was unproblematic. Although I’m sure lots of endeavours are problematic when it comes to tight, all-encompassing definitions, such as history/historian, philosophy/philosopher. Heck, try and define ‘superhero’ in way that keeps all the right people in and out of the box (why is Batman a super hero, but not Zorro?). However, there is broad agreement as to what the scientific method entails.
To recap: what I disagreed with PF about (so far as has been expressed here and elsewhere that I have read) is his dismissal of scientists’ views on rain dances and astrology as racist or elitist; the view that science is extremely arrogant and closed-minded; his conclusion that there is no difference between the claims of science and those of astrology, voodoo, and mythology and such like.
As I said earlier, I haven’t read AM and have will judge the full argument he makes for being against method when I do. However, as best as I can tell so far, he seems to go a bit further than you suggest above.
He is not arguing against science. ... It is patently clear from his writing that he admires scientists a great deal.
That may be true of some of his writing, but not all, it doesn’t seem. For example:
science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit... It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, (AM, p. 295).
[From Wiki]Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology
The consensus of various Wikipedia and Standford Encyclopedia articles I’ve read seems to be that he wants to knock science off its supposed pedestal down to the level of magic. It’s hard to see how you’re not “against science” to a degree if you want to compare science to voodoo. Furthermore, it seems to me he is effectively arguing that science is nothing; if you take the method out of science, what’s left?
So, according to Stanford, are these things scientific?
No, it was a “necessary but not sufficient” definition. It makes for a good starting point, but is not the full answer. Like I said, I never claimed defining the scientific method was easy or uncontentious. But it seems to me that it is a methodological approach, and that needs to be recognised. It’s an ideology of sorts, but not the same as Zoroastrianism, communism, or voodoo.
He is arguing about what science is.
And what was his answer?
-
MMP is a great system for increasing diversity and making sure everyones vote counts. But it sucks when it comes to elections, because it has reduced them to Cadbury's vs. Whittakers.
Are you in favour of a change to the system at all, Tom?
-
I don't know how his weapon exploded, but neither was it explained. Judging from the crassness of the comments in the article, ignoring the poor co-ordination which had one of their own in the line of fire. I'm taking an educated guess that he f&%ked up.
Hah. I wouldn't call that guess educated.
-
Apparently I’ve made a great many claims about what science is already, and yet you want me to make another, bold one!
Seriously, though, I don’t see that I have made a great many claims; I’ve taken the standard approach to what science is. I rather like this summation from Stanford Encyclopedia: “a minimal (necessary but not sufficient) criterion of science, [is] a systematic search for knowledge whose validity does not depend on the particular individual but is open for anyone to check or rediscover”. It is crucial that scientific theories are open and can be subject to repeatable tests. If a system doesn’t meet at least those criteria, it ain’t science. I’m not making any radical claims about science or its methodology. I’m pointing out the flaws in Feyerabend’s criticism of science (as they have been explained here or in that Wiki article), such as his view “...that there is no justification for valuing scientific claims over claims by other ideologies like religions.” Feyerabend seems to place too little stock in what Chris mentioned earlier: that the influence science has “derives from the evidence of its power to explain and accurately predict the physical and biological world...”.[Feyerabend] suggests that it is actually the openness of science, rather than close-minded allegiance to a dogma, that gives it the most lasting strength.
What he hasn't done, from what I've read so far, is explain why we should see science as "closed minded".
Science is a methodology that can be applied to our search for knowledge about the world. It may not be perfect, in the sense that it may not be able to tell us everything about the world, and it is not immune from errors (as scientists are humans, and therefore fallible), but it is extremely useful. As a trite observation, it is an ideology of sorts, but it is of a different order to things like communism, capitalism, monarchism, Christianity, or voodoo. Feyerabend seems to want to treat science the same as those kinds of ideologies. He wants to protect society from the ideology of science. As you alluded to earlier, this is subject to the relativist paradox: we would only be substituting his ‘no method’ ideology. I think that the effect of his approach would be the opposite of what he intends. In as much as science is “on a pedestal”, it is because it has earned it.
I’ve read a little more of Feyerabend’s views, (although I haven’t read Against Method yet), and it does seem my suspicion that I wasn’t going to agree with much of what he said was fair. He’s a social constructionist, and so to answer your earlier question, I’d say ‘Yes’, he is a post modernist. He’s also seems to be a supporter of a kind of cultural relativism related to an incommensurability theory, which I’m against. (I’m more aligned with the critics of incommensurability, such as Selya Benhabib, touched on in this book review.)
-
Agreed.
Did NZPA's Maggie Tait canvas any other media "experts" besides Claire Robinson to either provide 'balance' or at least present her opinion as being representative? Or was this a case of reprinting a press release, or selecting your "expert" to lend authority to an already determined angle?
I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were no media experts willing to say the ad wasn't inappropriate. It's not a like it's a close call: it is obviously like a political advert. Eric Kearly from TVNZ said he disagreed it looked like a party political broadcast, but that's got to be disingenuous. The only saving grace, and the point that might protect TVNZ if there was a complaint, is the last few seconds that explain that TVNZ7 will be bringing us a month of programmes on the economy. Prior to that, it looks just like an excerpt from a party political broadcast. Even Paul Henry thought so, and he isn't exactly known for bias in favour of Labour. It's not the result of political interference, but it was a poor judgment on TVNZ's part.
-
I've not seen the whole ad, but does anyone who has think that it advocates support for a candidate or for a political party?
Okay, now I've watched the promo in question, I'd say: yes.
I think Duncan Garner got it about right this time, when he gave his assessment on Campbell Live. It seems to me that you could play that ad, without the last few seconds anyway, during an election campaign and nobody would have trouble seeing it as a promotion of the National Party by its deputy.
I don't think it will change National's fortunes or gain them votes, but I do think it is an error in judgement by TVNZ, and probably a technical breech of the broadcasting act.