"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Benford's Law
Next: where we have a new understanding of what factorial means in 254! = 10^500 #648 Correcting Math
From: Buster Norris on 12 Jul 2010 21:19 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:24:35 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)peoplepc.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." >> >> Left wingers..................... > >Try not to spree but if you must spree, just shoot up yer trailer. What does that even mean????
From: AM on 12 Jul 2010 21:26 Buster Norris wrote: >> Try not to spree but if you must spree, just shoot up yer trailer. > > What does that even mean???? A shooting spree, and I agree. If the OP is going to do it, I too hope he shoots up is own trailer. Hurting others is NEVER an answer to life's problems ! -- AM
From: Buster Norris on 13 Jul 2010 01:01 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:26:26 -0400, AM <sctuser(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Buster Norris wrote: >>> Try not to spree but if you must spree, just shoot up yer trailer. >> >> What does that even mean???? > > > >A shooting spree, and I agree. If the OP is going to do it, I too hope >he shoots up is own trailer. Is Bret in danger of going on a shooting spree? Think I should warn the cops in his neighborhood? >Hurting others is NEVER an answer to life's problems ! Except war and self-defense. Now you have me concerned that Bret might snap............ The prudent thing to do would be to send his posts to his ISP and copy his local PD. I'll do that tomorrow.
From: Richard Dobson on 13 Jul 2010 05:51 On 13/07/2010 00:39, Immortalist wrote: ... > ...If a person says that he knows the answer to some question or > problem, and then tells us what he knows, his claim to know is > intended to end debate on the topic. Really? Usually it is intended to enable the debate to move on to a further stage. If we establish A and b as givens (perhaps, say, the Pythagoras theorem, which we are told from "reliable authority" is proven for all right triangles etc etc etc), we can move on to consider C, D.... If, every time we debate that theme, we have to prove A and B, as if for the first time, chances are we will never get to C, let alone D. Now proofs are interesting in themselves for many people, and often a new proof of something already proven a different way is greatly valued. Perhaps a shorter, simpler proof of Fermat's last theorem will be found some day, but given that it has now been proven to the satisfaction of all "peers" in the subject, other can now proceed to develop new theorems dependent on it, without having to exhaustively "prove" it all over again from first principles. All they have to do now is cite the relevant paper - a few words instead of a book. Of course if you have some cogno-political objection to the whole principle of peer review and authority, you are obliged to prove every statement you make from first principles, however banal or repetitive it may be. The usual short cut at least in sci.physics is to shout as loud as possible "I am a genius and all other so-called physicists are charlatans and frauds" and leave it at that. Enjoy the irony... Richard Dobson
From: Androcles on 13 Jul 2010 07:18
"Richard Dobson" <richarddobson(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:mGW_n.180869$vB5.118338(a)hurricane... | On 13/07/2010 00:39, Immortalist wrote: | .. | > ...If a person says that he knows the answer to some question or | > problem, and then tells us what he knows, his claim to know is | > intended to end debate on the topic. | | | Really? Usually it is intended to enable the debate to move on to a | further stage. If we establish A and b as givens (perhaps, say, the | Pythagoras theorem, which we are told from "reliable authority" is | proven for all right triangles etc etc etc), we can move on to consider | C, D.... If, every time we debate that theme, we have to prove A and B, | as if for the first time, chances are we will never get to C, let alone D. | | Now proofs are interesting in themselves for many people, and often a | new proof of something already proven a different way is greatly valued. | Perhaps a shorter, simpler proof of Fermat's last theorem will be found | some day, but given that it has now been proven to the satisfaction of | all "peers" in the subject, other can now proceed to develop new | theorems dependent on it, without having to exhaustively "prove" it all | over again from first principles. The whole point about Fermat's "last" theorem is that it wasn't proven by Fermat, even though he claimed the proof was trivial. The same principle applies to any appeal to authority. Whether it is global warming (or even more alarming, anthropogenic global warming) or Einstein's theory of relativity, or the universal big bonk that started a "finite" universe, no proof has been forthcoming. | All they have to do now is cite the | relevant paper - a few words instead of a book. For the proof of Fermat's last theorem, yes. For appeals to authority, no. | Of course if you have some cogno-political objection to the whole | principle of peer review and authority, you are obliged to prove every | statement you make from first principles, however banal or repetitive it | may be. All proof is based on unproven and often unstated axioms. They are so primitive that they have to be accepted without proof. For example, A meets B when B meets A. According to Einstein's relativity, this axiom isn't valid. No matter how many so-called "peers" argue over it, in the case of the twin paradox A meets B at dawn and B meets A at noon. This is because less time has elapsed for A than for B. | The usual short cut at least in sci.physics is to shout as loud | as possible "I am a genius and all other so-called physicists are | charlatans and frauds" and leave it at that. Enjoy the irony... | | Richard Dobson Proofs are interesting in themselves for many people, and often a first time proof of something already claimed a different way is greatly valued. Do as Andrew Wiles did with Fermat's last theorem and prove the charlatan Einstein's relativity from first principles, no appeal to authority allowed. You won't get out of the starting gate. Enjoy the irony, fraud. |