tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2939460998340446624..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: What's Wrong with Michael Ruse's View of Accommodationism?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35945439670327237862012-07-09T20:54:10.752-04:002012-07-09T20:54:10.752-04:00Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, anything but acknowl...Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, anything but acknowledging and addressing the main points. I don't need to do my worst. You do quite well yourself at insulting your own intellect. You were too easy to define and then play with. Still thanks for the exercise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27888642025854712912012-07-09T20:18:58.135-04:002012-07-09T20:18:58.135-04:00I think you've reached the stage where you'...I think you've reached the stage where you're just saying any old thing to try to waste my time. You claimed to be done four days ago. I think it might have been the truest thing you've said here yet.<br /><br />You can throw all the insults in your vocabulary at me, go on, do your worst.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24945984212703967682012-07-09T14:50:01.135-04:002012-07-09T14:50:01.135-04:00And I'm saying no. I guess there's no more...And I'm saying no. I guess there's no more need to waste the electrons on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9308355640952888072012-07-09T09:30:11.821-04:002012-07-09T09:30:11.821-04:00I should have said "dependent on self-reporte...I should have said "dependent on self-reported or researcher <i> interpreted </i> observation". Of course, just about all research is dependent on researcher observation, though some of that is less open to ambiguous interpretation than other.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4266181926666613382012-07-09T09:04:40.486-04:002012-07-09T09:04:40.486-04:00What comments have I not "issued" TTC? o...What comments have I not "issued" TTC? our conversation was about your misunderstanding of a sentence (while the other one was about your lack of imagination about testing some claim scientifically). If you can't keep up with that I can't but assume that your intelligence is compromised (or you are willfully dishonest). If you mean to say that I did not go for your red-herrings, issued to avoid confronting your obvious misinterpretation of that sentence, well, I was not, and I am still not, interested in going for those. I do not care defending scientism, I do not care about defending logical positivism either. If I can't get you to understand one single sentence, how on Earth would I be able to get you to first understand whether and how I agree or disagree with what others said? With those philosophies? As for being a creationist, why are you pretending? If you call me an atheist, talk about scientism, materialism, and all those sorts of "-isms" favourites of creationists, then you are a creationist. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck ...<br /><br />So, I would be very grateful if you explained to me how exactly explaining a sentence to you is "aping the empty form of logical positivism"? Are you serious to imply that logical positivism is about explaining basic grammar to some imbecile like yourself? If so, then you would be right for the wrong reason. Since it is an exercise of futility to explain basic grammar to an imbecile like yourself, then the philosophy would be indeed empty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88992461665429417392012-07-09T08:52:10.290-04:002012-07-09T08:52:10.290-04:00xkcd
Shortly after the Fukushima nukes started me...xkcd<br /><br />Shortly after the Fukushima nukes started melting down, I got into a huge row on Eschaton blog with a self-appointed sci-defender who used one of xkcd's cartoons, trying to prove that nuclear energy was innocuous. Chris Tucker was the name he used online. I pointed out that the cartoon carried a disclaimer that said it shouldn't be mistaken as an authoritative source. It was a sadly cruel irony that Tucker was diagnosed with thyroid cancer shortly after that, he died a few weeks ago. <br /><br />Science works when it works, when it doesn't it doesn't. The self-appointed defenders of science are such true believers that when anyone is critical of the frauds, errors, ideological pollution and pretenses made in the name of science they freak out like William Donohue does when someone mentions the sins of the clerics. <br /><br />It's a CARTOON! For crying out loud. It's kind of a stupid one, at that.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40634450586690336702012-07-09T08:39:47.147-04:002012-07-09T08:39:47.147-04:00I'm talking about the entire review system, fr...I'm talking about the entire review system, from pre-publication through the use of published research by other researchers and students who depend on that review being thorough, effective and reliable. That is, clearly, not what it's advertised to be. Call me naive but I was quite shocked at what I read the alleged reviewers in the Hauser scandal considered to be adequate review, the amount of trust based solely on professional position it included. It's anything but the myth of the young upstarts with better data challenging the grey beards. <br /><br />What percentage of unretracted studies in any given year would you want to guess contains either intentional fraud or serious unintentional error? Would you want to guess at the importance of any studies that did? One problem is that no one knows, though I'd bet that the farther you get into dealing with behaviors and thought processes, self-reported or dependent on researcher observation, the number of those would be far higher than for genuinely physical aspects of science. <br /><br />Retracted studies play a big role in the public skepticism of science, something that is used by the oil, gas and coal industry to distort public perception and the politics of environmental protection. So it is about as serious a problem as could be. The stupid Darwin wars pale in importance to that.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36712398097575901952012-07-09T07:48:11.652-04:002012-07-09T07:48:11.652-04:00Once again - you are confusing pre-publication pee...Once again - you are confusing pre-publication peer review (Retraction Watch's specialty) with the process that, after publication, determines what data is reproducible and interpreted in an reasonable fashion. It is the second step that actually matters, and it can take time. But in the words of xkcd, http://xkcd.com/54/. <br /><br />There is a reason the text books are far behind the primary literature. <br /><br /><i>well, you see, it's ONLY the ones that are exposed that can be brought up</i> ... and by supposing a tip of the iceberg scenario you are just begging the question. There is no evidence that this is a massive problem, and many labs are able to replicate the studies of others. And when they do not, the old ideas are simply ignored. Self correction in action...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47188880598366029452012-07-08T23:11:16.019-04:002012-07-08T23:11:16.019-04:00Negative Entropy, as you are the one who was unawa...Negative Entropy, as you are the one who was unaware of the range of the literature criticizing scientism and of logical positivism, even as you aped the empty form of it, not to mention that you reflexively and illogically resort to calling me a creationist, leaving me to suspect you don't know what one of those is, either, I'm less than unworried about your opinion of my intelligence. Until you issued those comments, I'd assumed you were merely dishonest instead of quite ignorant.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39244580952456926832012-07-08T22:40:41.281-04:002012-07-08T22:40:41.281-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33899526264851303622012-07-08T22:38:44.529-04:002012-07-08T22:38:44.529-04:00TTC,
You are so incredibly stupid. See what you a...TTC,<br /><br />You are so incredibly stupid. See what you are saying at all? What am I dodging if all I have done is trying to help you understand a sentence? Do you really mean to say that scientism is the philosophy of explaining reading comprehension to imbeciles such as yourself? How is it dishonest to explain the meaning of a sentence to you? Are you seriously saying that you have been trying hard not to allow inserting my ideology, proper reading comprehension, into science? What good could improper reading comprehension do to science?<br /><br />What difference does it make how you were raised? With your display of unsurmountable stupidity and incompetence at understanding simple points, it's no wonder that you are a creationist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14115696134228046552012-07-08T19:55:29.704-04:002012-07-08T19:55:29.704-04:00I'm really failing to see your point.
Well, ...<i> I'm really failing to see your point. </i><br /><br />Well, knock me over with a cement truck.<br /><br /><i> Every example you bring up shows that the system does self correct, even in the event serious fraud and misdirection. </i><br /><br />As I suggested, go look at Retraction Watch and its excellent archive. The standards of so-called review are 1. obviously less than effective, 2. obviously uneven in quality, 3. not being rushed into reforms that would require actual review. <br /><br />The system is broken, it has allowed multiple frauds to enter into science and for those to become embedded. As the examples I gave prove. <br /><br />"Every example you bring up...," well, you see, it's ONLY the ones that are exposed that can be brought up. Which brings us back to your last sentence. I was quite clear that the reason I brought this up was to show that there is nothing in science that can substitute for an entirely unscientific sense of morality, to not lie, to be honest about your observations, measurements, analysis. Without those review never catches up with the frauds, not to mention the non-fraudulent errors.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35567954295102708422012-07-08T14:46:16.143-04:002012-07-08T14:46:16.143-04:001) No one said "in your lifetime".
2) ...1) No one said "in your lifetime". <br /><br />2) Every example you bring up shows that the system does self correct, even in the event serious fraud and misdirection.<br /><br />I'm really failing to see your point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1841871819988801422012-07-07T15:54:58.723-04:002012-07-07T15:54:58.723-04:00The frauds went on for a number of years, over man...The frauds went on for a number of years, over many publications. The "peer review" failed over and over again. In the reporting of the Hauser scandal it was mentioned that the professional position he gained very likely left him increasingly immune to review. <br /><br />And, as mentioned, there is no way to know how many others got away with what unless they are caught. You might want to see how many years it took for Kevin Macdonald's blatant antisemitism as "science" to catch up with him as that was in plain view, the very substance of his "science" and as people outside of science criticized it. It took WWII and the Holocaust for eugenics to be kicked out of science and it continued, in fact, in North America up into the 1970s and possibly into the 80s. <br /><br />If science can't do better than that it had better stop misrepresenting itself as the quintessence of reliable knowledge.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50237596685584848442012-07-07T15:44:26.812-04:002012-07-07T15:44:26.812-04:00that you creationist lunatics
You guys always f...<i> that you creationist lunatics </i> <br /><br />You guys always fall back on that dodge whenever you can't answer an honest critique of your faith. Scientism starts out by being self-negating, it continues in the dishonesty that originated it and it concludes in this kinds of stuff. I've explicitly condemned the attempt to insert religion into science as well as your ideology, above. What is so massively apparent is that what has you and your pals in a swivet is my rejection of your ideology being inserted into science in exactly the way you claim I want to insert a religious faith I don't happen to have. I was never brought up to believe the creation myth in Genesis was literally true, though I was brought up to believe that evolution was true. As it is. <br /><br />Why don't you get off your hobby horse and try to stand on your own feet. Clay, though those are.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84251883811149518972012-07-07T14:51:17.853-04:002012-07-07T14:51:17.853-04:00Your reply is speaking only of the pre-publication...Your reply is speaking only of the pre-publication peer review process. This has nothing to do with data replication as a means to catch dishonesty. <br /><br />And, are you serious?<br /><i> They weren't caught before they were caught, ... </i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17352383438543130012012-07-07T08:29:02.010-04:002012-07-07T08:29:02.010-04:00They weren't caught before they were caught, t...They weren't caught before they were caught, they successfully published in reviewed journals and were cited by grad students and other researchers, not to mention became "popular in the media". <br /><br />The problem is that the "review" regime that allowed both of those and many other frauds I didn't cite, not to mention papers containing serious, non-fraudulent, defects (see Retraction Watch blog for other examples) was in effect and still is. Given that they have not prevented long standing fraud which became embedded in further publication, that's a rather serious problem for the assertion that scientific review is a guarantee of the quality of science. Given the proud claim that review is one of the things that makes science the only valid source of knowledge, that's a pretty serious flaw in the faith of scientism. Since at least one of Hausers' "reviewers" pretty much admitted he'd taken him at his word about the validity of his observation which was one of the major problems in his fraud, and that other "reviewers" have said they didn't check at that level, that's a massive invitation for a repetition of this kind of scandal.<br /><br />Russell's teapot was that experienced logician slyly practicing the false alternative fallacy in support of his ideology of materialism- perhaps relying on his reputation as a logician to allow him to get away with it. It is now inserted into arguments, willie-nillie, whenever materialist ideologues are at a loss for a valid argument, though seldom as badly as you have here. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I argued.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26793772276904905202012-07-07T07:33:41.382-04:002012-07-07T07:33:41.382-04:00TTC,
Not a surprise that you did not read the exp...TTC,<br /><br />Not a surprise that you did not read the explanation. I know where H and M were taking that idea, and it was not where you say they were. Both semantics and context are important. But I know further explanation will be ignored. In that paragraph, H and M were giving background to make an argument that you creationist lunatics love.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69686280814631683762012-07-07T07:31:57.442-04:002012-07-07T07:31:57.442-04:00Hi Michael,
I was not aware that ciao meant "...Hi Michael,<br /><br />I was not aware that ciao meant "se ya never."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26170927280770031762012-07-07T07:31:20.706-04:002012-07-07T07:31:20.706-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83782498561318134602012-07-07T02:02:22.176-04:002012-07-07T02:02:22.176-04:00In your examples, Hauser and Stapel were both caug...In your examples, Hauser and Stapel were both caught. This really does not refute my point. <br /><br />You have decided honesty is more important. This is just a belief, and the claim that "there must be more that are unknown" is basically a Russell's teapot. You have convinced yourself that they are out there, and it is up to everyone else to find them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67739352707333239262012-07-06T13:32:37.574-04:002012-07-06T13:32:37.574-04:00N.E. you might not know the name of the tune but y...N.E. you might not know the name of the tune but you can sure do the dance. <br /><br />You forget where Hawking and Mlodinow were taking that little idea, to the creation of universes that had no known existence with "physical laws" quite unlike those whose only verification comes from the act of holding them up to the physical universe to see how closely they match. <br /><br />You can pretend to analyze the phonemes and it still won't change the meaning of it.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64555959750556949882012-07-06T12:34:00.617-04:002012-07-06T12:34:00.617-04:00Negative Entropy:
Ciao
If you're going to c...Negative Entropy:<br /> <i>Ciao</i><br /><br />If you're going to continue to write several-hundred-word responses to Thought Criminal, stop acting as if you are ending your interaction.Michael Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65571496718006261742012-07-06T12:00:41.953-04:002012-07-06T12:00:41.953-04:00Hey TTC,
If I'm not aware of something I gene...Hey TTC,<br /><br /><i>If I'm not aware of something I generally figure that's my failing.</i><br /><br />I recognize that me not being aware of scientism and of logical positivism is my failing. I said I did not know about the former but from creationism, since their description did not fit me, I did not care to go check. Logical positivism, I just heard it from you. I don't know if I should check it. You did not describe it, thus I do not know if it fits me or not, whether deformed or correctly interpreted. But agreed that it is my failing not to know.<br /><br />That sentence:<br /><i>It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle</i><br /><br />I notice that this sentence might be too advanced. Part of the difficulty for uneducated people is that the sentence is written in passive voice. Let's rephrase it in the active voice:<br /><br /><i>Apparently, logic and physical principles do not demand the numbers and form of the apparent laws of nature.</i><br /><br />Let's also rephrase yours (<i>arguing against the necessity of physics dealing with physical law and even logic</i> in the original) and compare:<br /><br /><i>Physics does not need to deal with physical law and even logic.</i><br /><br />Hum. Hard to make it look like Hawking''s. But let me try again:<br /><i>physical law and even logic are not necessary for physics</i><br /><br />OK, so now let's check a tad further. If they meant physical law at the beginning, they would be saying that physical laws do not demand something from natural law. But these guys are physicists. Thus, they would know that physical laws are natural laws. Thus the mistake must be yours and they did not mean "law" when they wrote "principle." Amended your interpretations would be (and compare to what they say):<br /><br /><i>physical principles and even logic are not necessary for physics.</i><br /><br />It does not make sense either for phycists to say that physical principles are not necessary for physics. Thus, when they say "apparent laws of nature." That's what they mean. Also, they are not the object, but their "numbers and form." Thus, with this amend, your interpretation would now be.<br /><br /><i>physical principles and even logic are not necessary for the numbers and form of natural laws.</i><br /><br />This is already far from what you said. Still, it does not make any sense. Thus, "do not demand" cannot mean "are not necessary for." So what could "do not demand" mean? My first interpretation was "do not lead to," which is very different to "are not necessary for." What would happen if I changed what you said this way:<br /><br /><i>physical principles and even logic do not lead to the numbers and form of natural laws.</i><br /><br />That makes sense and can't be farther from your original interpretation. Now, you might complain that I arbitrarily changed the meaning of "do not demand," but I checked against the context, and within that context, it make perfect sense, while your original interpretation does not. Ignoring the context you might insist that if physical principles and logic do not lead to the numbers and form of natural law then they are not necessary for physics. Well, that I go by negative entropy is not demanded by logic and physical principles (logic and physical principles do not lead to my name) does not mean that naming schemes can be there without logic and physical principles. It just means I could be named anything as far as logic and physical principles are concerned. So, that the numbers and form of natural laws are not demanded by logic and physical principles, does not mean that natural laws can exist and be studied without them.<br /><br />Conclusion: there certainly was a way for you to twist the original sentence to mean something it did not mean.<br /><br />Ciao.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42087864683283396052012-07-05T23:16:46.631-04:002012-07-05T23:16:46.631-04:00Ciao
I've heard it before.
scientism, I h...<i> Ciao </i> <br /><br />I've heard it before.<br /><br /><i> scientism, I have only heard about it from creationists </i><br /><br />If I'm not aware of something I generally figure that's my failing. Feyerabend is a famous critic of scientism who was hardly religious, there have been others. Quite a bit of the religious critique of scientism is quite sound, the rejecting of sound arguments due to its provenance is anti-intellectual. <br /><br /><i> logical positivism, never heard of it before. </i> <br /><br />I'd figured the ghost of the quite intellectually dead ideology of logical positivism that pervades the chatter of new atheists on the blogs was at least second hand. I had, it would appear too charitably, figured its name at least was known. <br /><br />I'm not going to apologize for having looked into the ideological program of Western atheism and seen its deficiencies. Just about all of it is available in the cheap paperbacks I read Ayer et al in. Really cheap, second hand. A lot of it is as close as an intelligent google search. <br /><br />I don't see any ways you can twist, <i> "It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle," </i> so they don't mean what I said it does. It might count as the most shocking statement by a physicist I've ever read. Even counting the incredible, massively historically unaware quote of Steve Weinberg - who could have failed to not be aware of the nuclear weapons programs that rests entirely on the work of physicists, a very large number of them, on all sides, announced atheists - that's a favorite of atheists.The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.com