"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: 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 >
From: M Purcell on 17 Jul 2010 12:12 On Jul 17, 8:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > 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. I agree with your views of science and appeal to authority and I hate to just post an agreement. What other planets are you refering to? CO2 does absorb heat and we are releasing tremendous amounts of it into the atmoshpere which correlates with the current increasing average global temperatures. The decreasing solubility of CO2 seems to be reinforcing.
From: hersheyh on 17 Jul 2010 12:22
On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > 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. What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to the idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of uptake and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the sink for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced CO2, but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic CO2 produced during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to go somewhere. Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is it? > > 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 > |