"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: Immortalist on 13 Jul 2010 21:42 On Jul 13, 7:15 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Jul 12, 4:36 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 12, 7:35 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 1:15 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 11, 10:51 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > A real scientists, like myself, may, at time, suspend their disbelief > > > > > temporarily until they've had a chance to further investigate. But > > > > > you are wrong to suggest that any real scientists would choose to > > > > > believe something just because some other "expert" said it to be > > > > > true. Believing without evidence is the realm of science-based > > > > > whackos, like AGW advocates. It's not the realm of any intellectually > > > > > honest real scientist. > > > > > Increasing average global temperatures indicate accelerated warming > > > > Leave your imagination out of the discussion. > > > I see that you are disagreeing with M Purcell but you offer nothing to > > back up what you claim. It will do not good to just say something is > > true or false and then offer not a shred of evidence. Or is it that we > > are not privy to your prior conversations where you did offer evidence > > for why you thought that it is not true that increasing average global > > temperatures indicate accelerated warming? And does the Purcell just > > let you get away with such hollow claims? > > Only fruitcakes believe in global warming. There is no credible > evidence of global warming. It's adherents are just a bunch of > dimwitted nose pickers. > You continue you portray yourself as an ignorant person. You have not shown us any reasons to believe what you say, this whether I already believed what you say or not. You do yourself no service to just make hollow claims with no evidential support at all besides name-calling and ad hominems. Can you define Global Warming as your using the phrase and what would be necessary for it to happen and then show how this has not happened? > > > > > > and we obviously dump various chemicals into the atmosphere which > > > > along with increasing waste heat production does affect the weather.. > > > > But I suspect the political drive to reduce carbon emissions has more > > > > to do with air quality than climate change, global temperatures can be > > > > reduced by the addition of sulfates in the upper atmosphere. > > > > nonsense.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: Immortalist on 13 Jul 2010 21:47 On Jul 13, 2:51 am, Richard Dobson <richarddob...(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > 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.. > The dogmatist does none of those things instead he or she gives assumptions which are made uncritically, with no attempt at reflective justification, and which he or she feels is perfectly evident, something which, stands in no need of serious examination. But you the reactionary have jumped and humped someones leg without thinking since to snip out the definition is no justification for a straw man argument. > 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: Marvin the Martian on 16 Jul 2010 10:27 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:37:42 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: < snip far left anti-American political rant > > 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 > Actually, here's an authority: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/bridgman.htm "Hence the scientist is the enemy of all authoritarianism. 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." So, someone like you who uses the appeal to authority fallacy 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. Ergo, appeals to authority fails.
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 |