Posted on 02/17/2012 4:17:50 PM PST by wagglebee
Spirited: The differences between those on one hand who have actually done the hard work of digging into, unpacking, and analyzing the underlying meaning, logic, and purpose of philosophies, ideologies, and evolutionary scientism (what passes for ‘science’ these days) and those on the other hand who have not must not be understated.
The former seek truth, whether pleasant or unpleasant, while the latter most generally seek self-gratification, self-glorification, power, and/or entry to “inner circles.”
The latter affix labels to themselves such as Ph.d, scientist, and Progressive and sport them for the same reason as they wear designer label clothing, jewelry, etc.
Being high on conceit and hot-air but very low on real knowledge, they must pretend to know what they really do not know.
Excuse me, but what gives you or anyone else the right to claim you know what I believe?
Just because you know that I am a scientist doesn't mean you know ANYTHING else about me. You don't know my faith. You don't know my political leanings. You have no right to label me as a Progressive, an atheist, or an adherent of any other belief system. Nor is it moral of you to label any other scientist that way.
I’m going to order some of Phillip Johnson’s books soon, just re-read “Darwin on Trial” which had one chapter or so on science and naturalism, being the default view. I’m sure you’ve read his books; I’ve only read DoT but these look good:
Among other things, your sarcasm meter. I was mimicking the structure of your earlier post to show by mocking example in another context, how the assertions therein were insufficient to support the conclusions.
The classic example of that form of argument can be summarized by the syllogism, "If that chair had an invisible cat in it, that chair would look empty. But the chair does in fact look empty; there is therefore an invisible cat in that chair."
("If punctuated equilibrium were true, we would find a dearth of apparent transitional forms in the fossil record. But there is in fact a paucity of observed transitional forms in the fossil record; the existence of punctuated equilibrium is therefore confirmed.")
And you are apparently frustrated to the point of ad hominem ("go and take a few introductory science classes"). I won't answer this either way, because I found that when someone is in the kind of mood to retort like that, anything said in response is used merely as grounds to further the attack.
People who are influential in science are actually discussed within the scientific literature. And that includes Obama and his policies--which you seem to think scientists are ignorant of, only because you know so little about the scientific community.
Apparently you misunderstood my comment, and from that jumped to the conclusion that I am ignorant about science.
The actual issue I was addressing, however, was not in that subculture of science consisting of the professors and governmental lab type researchers (and their students and post-docs) who reference one another's papers and prior results, and argue out interpretations in order to develop a consensus on the best model.
That is one form of influence, one of having developed a new area of inquiry, or begun or significantly impacted a model.
But there is an entirely different form of influence, one which is "upstream" of all of this, and it is invisible much as the water spots and dirt on a window are invisible: present all the time, but ignored as part of the sine qua non of much of modern science as we know and practice it.
People who are the MOST influential in science, and who are generally not discussed extensively (other than a perfunctory tip o' the hat at the end of the article), are those who FUND the research: the governmental, military, and other bureaucratic entities who provide the grant money.
'Tis much harder to publish without equipment, lab, or students; and for that you need cash.
See also "anthropogenic global warming" and the antics of the likes of Ben Santer or Michael Mann or James Hansen for more details.
Cheers!
See also "no true Scotsman" fallacy: and argument from authority -- (Heliobacter pylori).
And the fact that our language isn't peppered with the words "evolution" or "Darwin" is not an indication that the principles of evolution are not being used. They are.
Argumentum ad populi now. It could be, you know, that people use the buzzwords based on what they have come to mean in the popular press, which is far removed from the definitions of practitioners in the field; and that the populist usage is meant as a shortcut to real thought, merely to borrow the mantle of supposed intellect and wisdom (cf. "It's not rocket science" even while funding for the space shuttle is being cut, but private sector groups are preparing to fill the void. In that case, significant research is being done, but the esoteric quality is diminishing.)
It is difficult to even envision how life science research could advance without taking into consideration the many implications of the theory of evolution, because it forms such a fundamental basis of our science.
It'd be interesting to hear your examples, as I suspect they would go to the heart of one of the main bones of contention on crevo threads: that of supposed "merely natural selection" with the so-called "macroevolution".
The fracture plane in these discussions seems to be (at least on crevo threads here on FR) that pro-evo people engage in intellectual ad hominem dismissing pro-cre people as morons or worse, and unable to comprehend, let alone synthesize, the essential scientific components behind genetics, natural selection, and evolution; one of the examples used to bolster this is to make fun of the pro-creationists' request for examples of so-called "macro-evolution".
The irony in this, is that when the pro-evolutionists *are* pressed for examples of real uses of evolution within biology, the examples given are of natural selection within a population, and not of what would be called "macro-evolution".
I do not expect someone whose primary exposure to scientific research is at the level of clinical trials to be aware of the evolutionary considerations that guided the research before it entered the clinical trial state.
What "evolutionary considerations that guided the research"? Links or it didn't happen. /wondering if it will get more specific and reproducible than AGW or the 'utility' function in economics>
Cheers!
“Just because you know that I am a scientist doesn’t mean you know ANYTHING else about me”
Spirited: Faux moral outrage will get you nowhere. And as for not knowing anything about your inner workings and about what you imagine is true how can any of us not know when you’ve been determinedly broadcasting both?
” Nor is it moral of you to label any other scientist that way.”
Spirited: The invented ‘morality’ of autonomous natural-man is not moral law but rather arrogance and selfishness passed off as morality.
I don’t. But apparently you do. Or, more probably, you anticipate no need for any information beyond what is to be gleamed from a science textbook.
#553, this thread:
“Their [scientists] inclusion in an encyclopedia of philosophy does not make them philosophers. Most of the names on that list were scientists who used the scientific method--observation, logical deduction, formulation of testable hypotheses, experimentation, etc. Perhaps some of them engaged in philosophical thought meandering as a hobby, I don't know.
Thought meandering?
You seemed unsure for what Aristotle is remembered but you were suspicious that it was for “philosophical nonsense.”
#549, this thread:
You disavow any knowledge of philosophers, or of their work, and deny that they have any effect on your thoughts, or on the thoughts of your colleagues. “The scientific method was not developed by philosophers, but by scientists. Science and philosophy are, as far as I can tell, diametric opposites. Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up.”
#520, this thread:
“I honestly do not expect the majority of scientists to be aware of the work of even major philosophers, even if those philosophers [referring to Popper, I assume] tried to phrase scientific methodology in the existentialist mumbo-jumbo language of philosophy. Philosophy (the discipline) is almost the antithesis of what science is all about: a very lot of thought exercises, which have no evidentiary basis whatsoever. I have no use for it.”
#506, this thread:
“We don’t delve into the existentialist nonsense that is typical of the subject philosophy.”
”Need I point out the history of Bad Things perpetrated by religious people?”
Changing the subject (trying to). Need I point out that the “Bad Things” perpetrated by religious people do not excuse the errors (“Bad Things”) of “science people” (re: the Tuskegee Experiment), and do not excuse what happens when “science people” dismiss philosophy as “existentialist nonsense”? It wasn’t Science that caused people to comprehend the horror of the Tuskegee Experiment. Pointing to other people’s dirty underwear doesn’t clean yours. You have declared that you have no use for anything but Science. I have presented examples illustrating this to be a foolish attitude.
“Science is a method used to measure and describe the physical world in as objective a manner as possible, no more and no less.”
“No more and no less.” In #508, this thread, I observed that you have declared science is so much more than “information gathering” (see #479 & #506, this thread), illustrating your point by describing an ever more sophisticated and elaborate method for gathering information. Admirable, laudatory even, but simply a more sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering.
Now your remarks seem to indicate an attempt to walk it back a little. I rejoice in the change of your view, and that it more closely approaches mine.
Which leads me to again raise the issue; whence comes the ethics of science? Are there any ethics in science? Should there be (re: Tuskegee study)? I thought I caught a glimpse where you denied that an ethics of science existed, just before your post was removed by the Mod. In that case may I bother you, once again, for a reply? Or, was I mistaken?
“I have a sense of morality”
I’ve never doubted for a moment that you do. From whence did it come?
Spirited: Faux moral outrage will get you nowhere. And as for not knowing anything about your inner workings and about what you imagine is true how can any of us not know when you’ve been determinedly broadcasting both?
Really? What exactly have I "broadcasted"? You've projected a lot of insulting and degrading characteristics onto me that are not, in fact, supported by anything I have said. I suspect that if I were to do a little digging, I would find the origins of those insulting caricatures of scientists at some anti-science website like Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis.
” Nor is it moral of you to label any other scientist that way.”
Spirited: The invented ‘morality’ of autonomous natural-man is not moral law but rather arrogance and selfishness passed off as morality.
Where have I ever said that science is a system of morality? Can YOU look at a phylogenetic tree and derive from it a code of morality? Well, guess what. I can't, either.
Stop assuming that just because you know I'm a scientist that you know anything else about me, because you don't. The ninth commandment specifically forbids bearing false witness, i.e., lying about people. You might want to keep that in mind before you go around stereotyping scientists with the lies you've read about them at some literal creationism website.
I don’t. But apparently you do. Or, more probably, you anticipate no need for any information beyond what is to be gleamed from a science textbook.
Apparently? Where is the evidence? I don't think you can find any example of my stating that science is a system of morality. Or of my stating that science textbooks (which I rarely read, by the way) are the only source of information. Unless I have specifically stated something, don't assume I think it.
Thought meandering?
You seemed unsure for what Aristotle is remembered but you were suspicious that it was for “philosophical nonsense.”
Yes, thought meandering. Philosophical thought is only loosely related to logic and not at all based in empirical observation. It begins with a supposition that is fully a product of imagination, and then makes deductions about that supposition that are more-or-less logical extensions of the supposition. I have no use for it, and when I feel a need for fiction, I have a collection of fantasy books that are far more entertaining. I believe that philosophy was, in fact, an attempt at understanding the physical world--but it wasn't up to the task, and left people unsatisfied. The scientific method was developed because of the need for better explanations.
You disavow any knowledge of philosophers, or of their work, and deny that they have any effect on your thoughts, or on the thoughts of your colleagues.
“The scientific method was not developed by philosophers, but by scientists. Science and philosophy are, as far as I can tell, diametric opposites. Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up.”
That's assuming a lot. While philosophy was not a subject we studied in the graduate biochemistry program, I am not unaware of it. If I were so completely unaware of philosophy, I wouldn't be able to express such distaste for it. I've had the misfortune of actually having to take a class in philosophy during high school. It clashed with my highly logical, literal, and rational thought processes.
”Need I point out the history of Bad Things perpetrated by religious people?”
Changing the subject (trying to). Need I point out that the “Bad Things” perpetrated by religious people do not excuse the errors (“Bad Things”) of “science people” (re: the Tuskegee Experiment), and do not excuse what happens when “science people” dismiss philosophy as “existentialist nonsense”? It wasn’t Science that caused people to comprehend the horror of the Tuskegee Experiment. Pointing to other people’s dirty underwear doesn’t clean yours. You have declared that you have no use for anything but Science. I have presented examples illustrating this to be a foolish attitude.
No, I was not doing the equivalent of PeeWee Herman's "I know you are, but what am I?" I was trying to point out that, no matter what the nature of the human effort is, whether it is religion, science, concern about the environment, entertainment, capitalism, etc., there are always evil people who use it for their own selfish purposes, regardless of how many others are injured or even killed. The fact that an evil person uses a specific human endeavor for evil purposes does not make the endeavor itself evil. Most human endeavors are moral-neutral.
“Science is a method used to measure and describe the physical world in as objective a manner as possible, no more and no less.”
“No more and no less.” In #508, this thread, I observed that you have declared science is so much more than “information gathering” (see #479 & #506, this thread), illustrating your point by describing an ever more sophisticated and elaborate method for gathering information. Admirable, laudatory even, but simply a more sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering.
I think you are confusing two different concepts here. Science *is* a tool for describing the physical world. It cannot teach us about ethics, morality, how to improve society, etc. (Although the scientific method can be used to examine those questions...)
But acknowledging that the scientific method is an excellent tool for understanding the physical world around us, and that it is limited to that effort does NOT mean that it is nothing more than a "sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering". No amount of information means anything without analysis. We don't know the structure of an atom because people gathered reams of information. We have, instead, a theory of atomic structure developed because people looked at the information and deduced that only a certain kind of structure could account for the observations. That methodology of taking observations and deducing from them processes that we cannot directly observe, and then making testable predictions based on what we think the processes are, is the heart of science. If you spend your whole life gathering information, and you fill up a warehouse of terabyte size disks with the information you gathered, you are still not engaging in science, because that information by itself is meaningless.
Now your remarks seem to indicate an attempt to walk it back a little. I rejoice in the change of your view, and that it more closely approaches mine.
Not at all. I've expressed consistent views here. My challenge here is finding a way to express those views in such a manner that they are not misinterpreted. People tend to read things that I didn't actually say or imply.
“I have a sense of morality”
I’ve never doubted for a moment that you do. From whence did it come?
Where does morality come from? I have not studied the question. I suspect that it is shaped by a number of factors--societal, familial, religion, etc.--and that some aspects of morality are not shaped by one's environment, but are hardwired into the brain. As an extreme example, psychopaths have no sense of morality as it affects other people; if they live within the law, it is because adhering to the law benefits them. There is evidence to support the view that psychopaths are born, not made.
Was not my primary inquiry.
“Or of my stating that science textbooks (which I rarely read, by the way) are the only source of information.”
Oh darn! Wrong again. Uhhh . . . peer reviewed science journals? A script from My Fair Lady? A paper on the phylogenetic relationships of strains of the papillomavirus? The novels of AA Fair?
“That's assuming a lot. While philosophy was not a subject we studied in the graduate biochemistry program, I am not unaware of it.”
I thought you said the subject never came up (Post #549, “Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up..”) I guess you picked up a little on the side.
“I was not doing the equivalent of PeeWee Herman's "I know you are, but what am I?" I was trying to point out that, no matter what the nature of the human effort is, whether it is religion, science, concern about the environment, entertainment, capitalism, etc., there are always evil people who use it for their own selfish purposes . . . ”
Calling Captain Obvious.
“But acknowledging that the scientific method is an excellent tool for understanding the physical world around us, and that it is limited to that effort does NOT mean that it is nothing more than a "sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering".
I stand corrected . . . it’s a sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering and processing.
”God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.”
Existential nonsense? Or, thought meandering?
“Where does morality come from? I have not studied the question.”
Right . . . the subject never came up.
“I suspect that it is shaped by a number of factors--societal, familial, religion, etc.--and that some aspects of morality are not shaped by one's environment, but are hardwired into the brain.
Right . . . but the subject never came up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.