Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Your mileage may vary, but that's [the passing of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill] the real media scandal today IMO. (And FWIW, I'm seriously tempted to cast my next party vote for the Greens or Maori Party.)
I agree, and I'm also considering voting for the Greens next election (if parliament doesn't decide elections, too, are an unnecessary liberty).
-
The hoary old chestnut of where to draw the line between free speech and hate speech.
I'm not sure David's case comes down to the line between "free speech and hate speech", but interesting article nonetheless, DeepRed. Ursula Cheer was, of course, right.
-
If racism or elitism play any part at all then that undermines quite a lot of the claims of rationality.
No, because we're talking about the reaction of scientists, not science per se. They're human too, and can be swayed by irrational factors, as with anyone. For example, did racism play a role in westerners' dismissal of some other cultures' practices? Yeah, sure. Inasmuch as some westerners were scientists, it may have played some role in their attitude. This could explain some of “the condescending attitudes of many [some] scientists towards alternative traditions” that PF was apparently so indignant about. But there are good scientific reasons to be underwhelemed by astrology and rain dances (or, perhaps more accurately, a lack of reasons to be impressed by them). So the fact that the scientific community considers astrology to be psuedoscience or superstition is not due to racism or elitism.
I'm not so sure it's difficult to prove scientific theories wrong.
But we weren't talking about scientific theories; we were referring to rain dances and astrology as examples of 'alternative traditions' (as the article puts it). And it is difficult for science to conclusively prove such phenomena untrue.
It is their own business what scientists take seriously, but how seriously should their claims that things are bunk be taken, if they have not actually proved that?
It is, as you say, up to each scientist what he or she will consider bunk. But science per se does not say this or that traditional practice or belief is bunk. For example, science doesn't tell us ghosts do not exist; it says that there is no evidence for ghosts that is scientifically compelling. What evidence there may be is largely sporadic and anecdotal and not amenable to scientific methodology. It is up to the individual to decide if they believe in ghosts anyway (perhaps due to a personal experience they feel can't be explained any other way), or dismiss ghosts as superstition, or take some undecided stance. People are entitled to their view, but if someone tries to have public policy changed in some way on the basis of their belief in ghosts (or, say, creationism) then that's another matter.
So for me the question still remains: how much more do you want scientists to do to demostrate that astrology, or ghosts, or intelligent design, or rain dances or leprechauns are not worthy of a lot more of their resources? How many folk tales, myths, religions and traditional practices should scientists take seriously because they haven’t been absolutely, conclusively disproven?
We already had a scientific evangelist on this thread earlier, telling me not to bother doing any alternative research of my own into my skin problem, because science had already proven that nothing else was going to help.
That person's position sounds a bit unreasonable to me. Where was that, btw? - this thread's pretty long now and I don't recall the exchange.
I don't see how we can consider it anything other than an ideology. What else would you call it? A simple truth? Can you even describe what it is?
A method.
Is it humble? I don't think so for a second. It makes claims into the farthest reaches of human knowledge, the highest, the furthermost, the most ancient, the smallest, the most powerful, the fundamental structure of all matter, all molecules, all lifeforms, the makeup of the mind, the possibilities of calculation, etc etc.
It makes claims to be able to provide some knowledge about such things, yes. It doesn't say it has provided final answers; it doesn't assume that it can provide final answers. That's not arrogant.
[Feyerband]'s talking about publicly funded science, for starters, so he's not suggesting that private research be suppressed by order of the people. He's also making the point that some 'conclusions' of science delve into the deeply political and/or highly immoral. Science already self-governs that with various ethics institutions, but I don't think he's a fan of oversight of an institution by the institution and feels such oversight should rest with the people. For instance, a conclusion that every person should be inoculated against some rare disease is something that every person should have some say in.
Don't people already have a say in publicly funded science, in the same way they have a say in any publicly funded endevour in a democracy? Everyone does have a say in whether every person should be inoculated against such and such.
Einstein's mathematics violates Newton's first principle by being far less elegant.
Not necessarily. He said only to admit no more causes than were “sufficient to explain their appearances”. Newton's theories didn't explain all appearances, as you said. To put it a bit simplistically: Einstein's theories seemed to explain some things better. Tests were done. Einstein's theories were ultimately shown to be better. (Newton's theories were, of course, better than what had come before.)
Has anyone around here read 'Why Evolution is True' then?
Sigh. No, but will add it to aforementioned increasingly long list of books to read...
-
I agree; fifty posts per page seems just a tad excessive; 25?
Compromise: 27 and a half it is, then.
-
I agree with 3410. 50 seems too much, but 20 maybe too few. 30, maybe?
-
I thought you'd disagree.
Not necessarily with everything, I must say. In fact, I’ll have to read more on Feyerabend to come to any more solid conclusions on his views. I’ll add Against Method to my increasingly long list of books I must read.
Re: Astrology and racism - I not sure if Feyerabend was saying Astrology particularly had been a victim of racism. He spoke of many 'alternative' beliefs, and I think he was making his 'racist' attack on different things, like the dismissal of rain dances.
I’ll certainly bow to your greater knowledge of Fayerabend’s writing and theories, but the article you linked to makes it pretty clear astrology, as well as rain dances, were examples of practices that he considered scientists dismissed because of racism or elitism or both. (I grant I’m taking a wiki article at face value, but hey, it was your link.) The part I strongly disagreed with is: “he thought that negative opinions about astrology and the effectivity of rain dances were not justified by scientific research, and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as elitist or racist.” There are plenty of good reasons scientists have to be fairly dismissive of astrology, say, so that it is a stretch to assume the predominant one is elitism or some other irrational prejudice. Now, that summary of his views may be flawed, and if so it may be that I don’t disagree quite so strongly, but as I said, I took the wiki article at its word. I’m withholding final judgement till I’ve read more.
As for his actual point behind, I don't think he is particularly defending these beliefs, or saying that they are true. It's more a case of saying that they haven't been proved wrong anywhere nearly as conclusively as cheerleaders of scientific orthodoxy might like us to believe, and there is still a chance of significant discoveries from them.
It’s difficult for science to conclusively prove something wrong, by its very nature. It’s a bit like proving God doesn’t exist, or conclusively proving leprechauns do not exist. How many folk tales, myths and traditional practices should scientists take seriously because they haven’t been absolutely, conclusively disproven?
For starters, that which is not mainstream science is a colossal amount of beliefs and practices. A complete and systematic review of all of them is seriously a pretty big ask. But it seems that many cheerleaders would like us to think that not only has such a review been done, but that it was also 100% conclusive.
Who are these cheerleaders? I’d disagree with them if they are saying we can be certain that every single practice and belief not currently considered part of mainstream science must be bunkum. But I don’t think most scientists think this way either.
...you usually see that the massive ascendancy of one orthodox idea to total control is extremely unhealthy in the long run for humanity, and it was for that reason that Feyerabend believed in the 'separation of science and state’.
Interesting ideas. I wouldn't say I agree with all of them, but I agree with many of the sub-points.This was may reaction even to just the summary. Like I said, I’d need to read more - the devils in the details, as they say.
I think orthodox science is extremely arrogant in a way that serves no good purpose except for the perpetuation of it's own colossal power.
See, I don’t, by and large. The Feyerabend point on that article went “[science is] obsessed with its own mythology, and as making claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity.”
If we must consider science an ideology and compare it to other ideologies (such as religion), I think science is a relatively humble enterprise. Religion makes a lot more claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity. As for its “colossal power”, what is it that any US politician needs to say they believe in if they are to have a realistic chance of being elected in most states, and certainly for president? Do they have to make clear they have great faith in science? Nope... it’s God and the Bible.I think scientific method is understood in only an extremely superficial way even by towering geniuses in the field of science - perhaps this is a psychological necessity, but it surely not an institutional necessitiy, nor should their ignorance form the basis of political decisions about the direction of humanity with respect to inquiry into the unknown.
This is why you have some sympathy with Feyerabend’s desire to increase the influence of the lay person over the direction of science? He apparently thinks: “... science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people.”
You agree with this? -
Brickley, watch the you tube clip from Stephen a couple posts above to see what Russell was referring to.
I'm torn between an iconic pie and "Safer Communities Together", and a stern cop head and shoulders with "Always Blow on the Pie."
The latter gets my vote.
-
Damn it! The post I want to edit, I can't edit anymore...
-
Assuming she didn't also see that morning's front page of New Zealand's largest newspaper, then you're right.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised either way. Deb said she didn't follow the news too much. On Breakfast, they protrayed it as if that glimpse from the previous day was all she'd seen/heard. They gave the impression [edit: they actually stated it quite clearly] she was repeating the reaction she had shown from the day before, when she watched a bit of telly. If Deb had said anything to anyone at the time (on the 6th) she could hardly change her tune the next morning.
-
Paul Feyerabend had some interesting views on science's place in society.
Interesting views, yes. But I couldn't disagree more with some of them. "He was especially indignant about the condescending attitudes of many scientists towards alternative traditions. For example, he thought that negative opinions about astrology and the effectivity of rain dances were not justified by scientific research, and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as elitist or racist" Seriously: rain danes? He'd probably have time for the psychics, too.