"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Calculating the spectra and intensity of Helium, Lithium and Beryllium using only Rydberg-like formulas
Next: 'Plutonium' as a surname
From: Marvin the Martian on 16 Jul 2010 10:40 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:13:22 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote: > On Jul 11, 11:04 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Scientists like myself, the true independent thinkers, are relatively > rare. Most scientists, many of whom falsely represent themselves as > independent thinkers, are like you. They are incapable of independent > thought. They just regurgitate whatever is in the textbook. They are > more concerned with getting a paycheck than they are with advancing > scientific truth. > > For a real scientists consensus opinions are worthless. Exactly!! I've seen what you've observed many times. I have found that folks like Mr. Cahill have damaged egos and question their own intelligence, and they get ego support by pretending to be "pro- science" (whatever that is) and parroting the views, with the total lack of any understanding that parroting implies, of those they have irrationally chosen to follow mindlessly. A true authority never needs to say "because I said so"; a true authority is an authority because they can explain how they arrived at their conclusion using logic and repeatable experimental data. The problem with the AGW "scientist" is that their hypothesis failed to predict. Real scientist would reject the failed hypothesis, but not these fellows; against all reason they cling to their failed hypothesis to the point of outright fraud and lies as proven by the NASA moving of data collection points and the CRU e-mails to "hide the decline" and conspire to keep papers that debunk their lies out of print even as they bemoan the fact that they can't prove their irrational, non-scientific belief. Like the creationist, the AGW "scientist" starts with the conclusion and works backwards to concoct a supporting argument. They don't care what the truth is and they have an extreme bias that prevents them from doing any real science.
From: Bret Cahill on 16 Jul 2010 12:24 > < snip far left anti-American political rant > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough to lock the doors, etc. In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with the peer review process and established institutions and personalities and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely outside of their field. So appeal to authority is something ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes and > > institutions are called "wingers." > < snip far left anti-American political rant > Here's what was snipped by the winger dinger: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing it. Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. But under no circumstances can anyone suggest independent thinking is a mob of high school drops out sitting around listening to a high school drop out talk radio host tell the largest lowest common denominator mob audience what they already wanted to hear because he gets the most money pandering to the biggest mob of doggy poopy stoopid rightards. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Actually, here's an authority:http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/bridgman.htm > "Hence the scientist is the enemy of all authoritarianism. and therefore doesn't listen to Glenn Beck & Rush Limbaugh. > Furthermore, > he finds that he often makes mistakes himself and he must learn how to > guard against them. He cannot permit himself any preconception as to what > sort of results he will get, nor must he allow himself to be influenced > by wishful thinking or any personal bias. All these things together give > that "objectivity" to science which is often thought to be the essence of > the scientific method." Which ain't listening to Beck and Limbaugh. > So, someone like you who uses the appeal to authority fallacy The appeal the winger dinger cut snipped above was an appeal to common sense, not authority. > would have > to listen to Percy Bridgman, as he won the Nobel Prize in Physics. But > Percy Bridgman says that the real scientist is the enemy of > authoritarianism! He's telling you NOT to make appeals to authority. Authoritarianism = appeal to authority? > Ergo, appeals to authority fails. Time for you to go back to claiming 97% of scientists are wrong. Bret Cahill
From: Jim Austin on 16 Jul 2010 12:48 On Jul 11, 9:37 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't > have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify > for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent > murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. > > The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established > institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough > to lock the doors, etc. > > In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and > hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. > > Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with > the peer review process and established institutions and personalities > and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely > outside of their field. > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes > and institutions are called "wingers." > > Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new > relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a > lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing > it. > > Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists > and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe > what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. > > But under no circumstances can anyone suggest independent thinking is > a mob of high school drops out sitting around listening to a high > school drop out talk radio host tell the largest lowest common > denominator mob audience what they already wanted to hear because he > gets the most money pandering to the biggest mob of doggy poopy > stoopid rightards. I would be nice to believe that scientists did not succumb to the Lysenko syndrome. Named after Stalin's pet scientist, those affected believe that scientific conclusions can be evaluated by a political ideology, by what's politically correct. It would be nice if scientists didn't succumb to good cause corruption where they believe that a conclusion is just so righteous that it justifies corrupting data and suppressing dissent. It would definitely be nice if scientists couldn't be bought in areas where most of the paying jobs, all the government paying jobs, involving supporting a specific conclusion.
From: Bret Cahill on 16 Jul 2010 12:58 > > When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't > > have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify > > for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent > > murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. > > > The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established > > institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough > > to lock the doors, etc. > > > In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and > > hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. > > > Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with > > the peer review process and established institutions and personalities > > and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely > > outside of their field. > > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes > > and institutions are called "wingers." > > > Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new > > relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a > > lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing > > it. > > > Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists > > and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe > > what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. > > > But under no circumstances can anyone suggest independent thinking is > > a mob of high school drops out sitting around listening to a high > > school drop out talk radio host tell the largest lowest common > > denominator mob audience what they already wanted to hear because he > > gets the most money pandering to the biggest mob of doggy poopy > > stoopid rightards. > > I would be nice to believe that scientists did not succumb to the > Lysenko syndrome. Named after Stalin's pet scientist, those affected > believe that scientific conclusions can be evaluated by a political > ideology, by what's politically correct. Good point. The Russian gummint wants to sell fossil fuel so Russian scientists tend to be corrupted into be either ignoring the threat of AGW or even AGW deniers. AGW is accepted by a majority of scientists in every other nation on the planet, however. > It would be nice if scientists didn't succumb to good cause corruption > where they believe that a conclusion is just so righteous that it > justifies corrupting data and suppressing dissent. > It would definitely be nice if scientists couldn't be bought in areas > where most of the paying jobs, all the government paying jobs, > involving supporting a specific conclusion. It would be nice to believe that the 1% of scientists who are AGW deniers weren't mostly shills for Big Carbon and just singing for their supper. But we know that ain't the case. Bret Cahill
From: Marvin the Martian on 17 Jul 2010 11:26
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > > > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that shows that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state and want to suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have a low level of intelligence. < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in arguing why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) authorities.> First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science. Science is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept or reject the hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a continuous process. A well known example is classical mechanics; it was tested and proven to be a useful theory up until the beginning of the 20th century, when it began to fail. Then new theories, like QM and SR, were developed to predict where CM failed. AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s failed to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, that is called "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed on the stronger correlation between solar cycle and climate change and found the physical mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. His theory not only explains climate change for the last 4 billion years, but the hemispherical effects of climate change, the solar correlation, and the observed climate change on other planets that AGW fails to predict. The increase in CO2 is then explained by simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less CO2 and dissolves more carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, of warming. At this point, one applies Occam's Razor. Even so, there is an appeals process in the justice system; people are released every day due to appeals that review the method used to convict and the data. You ignore that and pretend the only way is a "prison break". Lastly, as I explained and YOU snipped, a Nobel prize winning authority says authority is the enemy of science. If you knew any logic at all, that proves logically that authority is a fallacy. < snip hate gibberish > |