Prev: both valid constructive and contradiction proof methods of Infinitude of Primes (Euclid) #638 Correcting Math
Next: First Responders to Good Technical OPs on BP's cap&trade nostrum
From: Immortalist on 5 Jul 2010 22:11
Attitudes to science range all the way from uncritical admiration at
one extreme, through distrust, resentment, and envy, to denigration
and outright hostility at the other.

Scientific inquiry is continuous with the most ordinary of everyday
empirical inquiry. There is no mode of inference, no "scientific
method," exclusive to the sciences and guaranteed to produce true,
probably true, more nearly true, or more empirically adequate,
results. As Percy Bridgman put it, "the scientific method, as far as
it is a method, is nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's
mind, no holds barred." And, as far as it is a method, it is what
historians or detectives or investigative journalists or the rest of
us do when we really want to find something out: make an informed
conjecture about the possible explanation of a puzzling phenomenon,
check how it stands up to the best evidence we can get, and then use
our judgment whether to accept it, more or less tentatively, or
modify, refine, or replace it.

Science has managed to discover a great deal about the world and how
it works, but it is a thoroughly human enterprise, messy, fallible,
and fumbling; and rather than using a uniquely rational method
unavailable to other inquirers, it is continuous with the most
ordinary of empirical inquiry, "nothing more than a refinement of our
everyday thinking," as Einstein once put it. There is no distinctive,
timeless "scientific nethod," only the modes of inference and
procedures common to all serious inquiry, and the multifarious "helps"
the sciences have gradually devised to refine our natural human
cognitive capacities: to amplify the senses, stretch the imagination,
extend reasoning power, and sustain respect for evidence.

The core standards of good evidence and well-conducted inquiry are not
internal to the sciences, but common to empirical inquiry of every
kind. In judging where science has succeeded and where it has failed,
in what areas and at what times it has done better and in what worse,
we are appealing to the standards by which we judge the solidity of
empirical beliefs, or the rigor and thoroughness of empirical inquiry,
generally. Often, to be sure, only a specialist can judge the weight
of evidence or the thoroughness of precautions against experimental
error, etc.; for such judgments require a broad and detailed knowledge
of background theory, and a familiarity with technical vocabulary, not
easily available to the lay person. Nevertheless, respect for
evidence, care in weighing it, and persistence in seeking it out, so
far from being exclusively scientific desiderata, arc the standards by
which we judge all inquirers, detectives, historians, investigative
journalists, etc., as well as scientists. In short, the sciences are
not logically privileged.

Defending Science-Within Reason: Between
Scientism and Cynicism - Susan Haack
http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Science-Within-Reason-Scientism-Cynicism/dp/1591021170
From: bigfletch8 on 5 Jul 2010 22:56
On Jul 6, 10:11 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Attitudes to science range all the way from uncritical admiration at
> one extreme, through distrust, resentment, and envy, to denigration
> and outright hostility at the other.
>
> Scientific inquiry is continuous with the most ordinary of everyday
> empirical inquiry. There is no mode of inference, no "scientific
> method," exclusive to the sciences and guaranteed to produce true,
> probably true, more nearly true, or more empirically adequate,
> results. As Percy Bridgman put it, "the scientific method, as far as
> it is a method, is nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's
> mind, no holds barred."

And there lies the 'rub'.

Scientific research using 'the mind'. An entity of which, there is no
scientific understanding .

As I often say of beliefs, they need two or more to form.

Empirical evidence also needs two or more repeatable results to become
accepted.

Spiritual insight (knowing) does not, and is why there is a natural
resistance in the world of emipricism AND beliefs. One being science,
one religions.

BOfL










And, as far as it is a method, it is what
> historians or detectives or investigative journalists or the rest of
> us do when we really want to find something out: make an informed
> conjecture about the possible explanation of a puzzling phenomenon,
> check how it stands up to the best evidence we can get, and then use
> our judgment whether to accept it, more or less tentatively, or
> modify, refine, or replace it.
>
> Science has managed to discover a great deal about the world and how
> it works, but it is a thoroughly human enterprise, messy, fallible,
> and fumbling; and rather than using a uniquely rational method
> unavailable to other inquirers, it is continuous with the most
> ordinary of empirical inquiry, "nothing more than a refinement of our
> everyday thinking," as Einstein once put it. There is no distinctive,
> timeless "scientific nethod," only the modes of inference and
> procedures common to all serious inquiry, and the multifarious "helps"
> the sciences have gradually devised to refine our natural human
> cognitive capacities: to amplify the senses, stretch the imagination,
> extend reasoning power, and sustain respect for evidence.
>
> The core standards of good evidence and well-conducted inquiry are not
> internal to the sciences, but common to empirical inquiry of every
> kind. In judging where science has succeeded and where it has failed,
> in what areas and at what times it has done better and in what worse,
> we are appealing to the standards by which we judge the solidity of
> empirical beliefs, or the rigor and thoroughness of empirical inquiry,
> generally. Often, to be sure, only a specialist can judge the weight
> of evidence or the thoroughness of precautions against experimental
> error, etc.; for such judgments require a broad and detailed knowledge
> of background theory, and a familiarity with technical vocabulary, not
> easily available to the lay person. Nevertheless, respect for
> evidence, care in weighing it, and persistence in seeking it out, so
> far from being exclusively scientific desiderata, arc the standards by
> which we judge all inquirers, detectives, historians, investigative
> journalists, etc., as well as scientists. In short, the sciences are
> not logically privileged.
>
> Defending Science-Within Reason: Between
> Scientism and Cynicism - Susan Haackhttp://www.amazon.com/Defending-Science-Within-Reason-Scientism-Cynic...

From: Immortalist on 6 Jul 2010 00:19
On Jul 5, 7:56 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 6, 10:11 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Attitudes to science range all the way from uncritical admiration at
> > one extreme, through distrust, resentment, and envy, to denigration
> > and outright hostility at the other.
>
> > Scientific inquiry is continuous with the most ordinary of everyday
> > empirical inquiry. There is no mode of inference, no "scientific
> > method," exclusive to the sciences and guaranteed to produce true,
> > probably true, more nearly true, or more empirically adequate,
> > results. As Percy Bridgman put it, "the scientific method, as far as
> > it is a method, is nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's
> > mind, no holds barred."
>
> And there lies the 'rub'.
>
> Scientific research using 'the mind'. An entity of which, there is no
> scientific understanding .
>
> As I often say of beliefs, they need two or more to form.
>
> Empirical evidence also needs two or more repeatable results to become
> accepted.
>
> Spiritual insight (knowing) does not, and is why there is a natural
> resistance in the world of emipricism AND beliefs. One being science,
> one religions.
>

Not really, the basic reasoning we use to support any arguments is
similar, whether it is a defense of religion, evolution or gravity.
All religious and scientific ideas are based upon testimony of past
events and other indirect evidence and also about theories based upon
such historical stories. All science and religion is theoretical, it
cannot be determined true or false whether there are gods or laws of
gravity, all just theories.

> BOfL
>
> And, as far as it is a method, it is what
>
> > historians or detectives or investigative journalists or the rest of
> > us do when we really want to find something out: make an informed
> > conjecture about the possible explanation of a puzzling phenomenon,
> > check how it stands up to the best evidence we can get, and then use
> > our judgment whether to accept it, more or less tentatively, or
> > modify, refine, or replace it.
>
> > Science has managed to discover a great deal about the world and how
> > it works, but it is a thoroughly human enterprise, messy, fallible,
> > and fumbling; and rather than using a uniquely rational method
> > unavailable to other inquirers, it is continuous with the most
> > ordinary of empirical inquiry, "nothing more than a refinement of our
> > everyday thinking," as Einstein once put it. There is no distinctive,
> > timeless "scientific nethod," only the modes of inference and
> > procedures common to all serious inquiry, and the multifarious "helps"
> > the sciences have gradually devised to refine our natural human
> > cognitive capacities: to amplify the senses, stretch the imagination,
> > extend reasoning power, and sustain respect for evidence.
>
> > The core standards of good evidence and well-conducted inquiry are not
> > internal to the sciences, but common to empirical inquiry of every
> > kind. In judging where science has succeeded and where it has failed,
> > in what areas and at what times it has done better and in what worse,
> > we are appealing to the standards by which we judge the solidity of
> > empirical beliefs, or the rigor and thoroughness of empirical inquiry,
> > generally. Often, to be sure, only a specialist can judge the weight
> > of evidence or the thoroughness of precautions against experimental
> > error, etc.; for such judgments require a broad and detailed knowledge
> > of background theory, and a familiarity with technical vocabulary, not
> > easily available to the lay person. Nevertheless, respect for
> > evidence, care in weighing it, and persistence in seeking it out, so
> > far from being exclusively scientific desiderata, arc the standards by
> > which we judge all inquirers, detectives, historians, investigative
> > journalists, etc., as well as scientists. In short, the sciences are
> > not logically privileged.
>
> > Defending Science-Within Reason: Between
> > Scientism and Cynicism - Susan Haackhttp://www.amazon.com/Defending-Science-Within-Reason-Scientism-Cynic...

From: Immortalist on 6 Jul 2010 00:22
On Jul 5, 8:22 pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 19:11:53 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Attitudes to science range all the way from uncritical admiration at
> >one extreme, through distrust, resentment, and envy, to denigration
> >and outright hostility at the other.
>
> >Scientific inquiry is continuous with the most ordinary of everyday
> >empirical inquiry. There is no mode of inference, no "scientific
> >method," exclusive to the sciences and guaranteed to produce true,
> >probably true, more nearly true, or more empirically adequate,
> >results. As Percy Bridgman put it, "the scientific method, as far as
> >it is a method, is nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's
> >mind, no holds barred." And, as far as it is a method, it is what
> >historians or detectives or investigative journalists or the rest of
> >us do when we really want to find something out: make an informed
> >conjecture about the possible explanation of a puzzling phenomenon,
> >check how it stands up to the best evidence we can get, and then use
> >our judgment whether to accept it, more or less tentatively, or
> >modify, refine, or replace it.
>
> >Science has managed to discover a great deal about the world and how
> >it works, but it is a thoroughly human enterprise, messy, fallible,
> >and fumbling; and rather than using a uniquely rational method
> >unavailable to other inquirers, it is continuous with the most
> >ordinary of empirical inquiry, "nothing more than a refinement of our
> >everyday thinking," as Einstein once put it. There is no distinctive,
> >timeless "scientific nethod," only the modes of inference and
> >procedures common to all serious inquiry, and the multifarious "helps"
> >the sciences have gradually devised to refine our natural human
> >cognitive capacities: to amplify the senses, stretch the imagination,
> >extend reasoning power, and sustain respect for evidence.
>
> >The core standards of good evidence and well-conducted inquiry are not
> >internal to the sciences, but common to empirical inquiry of every
> >kind. In judging where science has succeeded and where it has failed,
> >in what areas and at what times it has done better and in what worse,
> >we are appealing to the standards by which we judge the solidity of
> >empirical beliefs, or the rigor and thoroughness of empirical inquiry,
> >generally. Often, to be sure, only a specialist can judge the weight
> >of evidence or the thoroughness of precautions against experimental
> >error, etc.; for such judgments require a broad and detailed knowledge
> >of background theory, and a familiarity with technical vocabulary, not
> >easily available to the lay person. Nevertheless, respect for
> >evidence, care in weighing it, and persistence in seeking it out, so
> >far from being exclusively scientific desiderata, arc the standards by
> >which we judge all inquirers, detectives, historians, investigative
> >journalists, etc., as well as scientists. In short, the sciences are
> >not logically privileged.
>
> >Defending Science-Within Reason: Between
> >Scientism and Cynicism - Susan Haack
> >http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Science-Within-Reason-Scientism-Cynic...
>
> Where are the alien 'little green men' when you need them?
> 'We' need some new perspectives!
>
> Humans are so loaded up with their hubris boosting stories,
> that 'objectivity' is not available.
> First, last, and always 'we' are hunter-gatherers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherers

Evolutionary psychology is an approach to psychology, in which
knowledge and principles from evolutionary biology are put to use in
research on the structure of the human mind. It is not an area of
study, like vision, reasoning, or social behavior. It is a way of
thinking about psychology that can be applied to any topic within it.

In this view, the mind is a set of information-processing machines
that were designed by natural selection to solve adaptive problems
faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. This way of thinking about the
brain, mind, and behavior is changing how scientists approach old
topics, and opening up new ones.

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html
From: Rod Speed on 6 Jul 2010 00:34
Immortalist wrote:

> Attitudes to science range all the way from uncritical
> admiration at one extreme, through distrust, resentment,
> and envy, to denigration and outright hostility at the other.

You can say that about almost anything that matters.

> Scientific inquiry is continuous with the most ordinary of everyday empirical inquiry.

Nope, its quite different on the rigor.

> There is no mode of inference, no "scientific method," exclusive
> to the sciences and guaranteed to produce true, probably true,
> more nearly true, or more empirically adequate, results.

Thats just plain wrong with everything except the first guaranteed.

> As Percy Bridgman put it, "the scientific method, as far as
> it is a method, is nothing more than doing one's damnedest
> with one's mind, no holds barred."

Thats even sillier. Its quite different in the rigor with which that is
done and the requirement that the explanation must explain ALL
the evidence available if a claim is made that its the full explanation.

> And, as far as it is a method, it is what historians or detectives
> or investigative journalists or the rest of us do when we really
> want to find something out: make an informed conjecture
> about the possible explanation of a puzzling phenomenon,

The real difference is that with other than science, quite a bit
of the time we dont worry too much about the possibility that
it might be wrong, because we are more interested in quickly
solving the problem and with say diagnosis of a fault, we can
move on to other possibilitys when we prove that the one that
was initially most likely was not where the fault lies when we
replace that bit and find that the fault is still there etc.

And with fault finding, some of the time we just decide
that its not worth putting too much effort into the fault
finding with the more difficult faults, its makes more
sense to just replace the entire device with a new one etc.

> check how it stands up to the best evidence we can get,

With other than science, there is always a tradeoff between
what evidence is readily available and what isnt worth getting etc.

> and then use our judgment whether to accept it, more or less tentatively,

And we dont do that with rigorous science with issues that matter.

> or modify, refine, or replace it.

> Science has managed to discover a great deal about
> the world and how it works, but it is a thoroughly human
> enterprise, messy, fallible, and fumbling;

But works a hell of a lot better than trying to work out what
some damned religious tome produced by illiterate farts has
to say about a particular issue like homosexuality etc etc etc.

> and rather than using a uniquely rational method unavailable
> to other inquirers, it is continuous with the most ordinary of
> empirical inquiry, "nothing more than a refinement of our
> everyday thinking," as Einstein once put it.

He's just as wrong on that as with his rediculous
claim that god does not play dice with the universe.

The difference between science and everyday thinking
is that everyday 'thinking' is riddled with silly supersticions
and folk lore that has never been rigorously established
and may well have passed its useby date like the ridiculous
claim that we should not eat pork or fish without scales etc.

> There is no distinctive, timeless "scientific nethod,"

Wrong.

> only the modes of inference and procedures common to all serious inquiry,

Thats nothing like your previous claim.

> and the multifarious "helps" the sciences have gradually
> devised to refine our natural human cognitive capacities:
> to amplify the senses, stretch the imagination, extend
> reasoning power, and sustain respect for evidence.

The difference is the rigor with which the explanation is required
to explain ALL the available evidence with stuff that matters.

> The core standards of good evidence and well-conducted inquiry are not
> internal to the sciences, but common to empirical inquiry of every kind.

Thats just plain wrong with mindless supersticion and most religion.

> In judging where science has succeeded and where it has failed, in
> what areas and at what times it has done better and in what worse,
> we are appealing to the standards by which we judge the solidity of
> empirical beliefs, or the rigor and thoroughness of empirical inquiry,
> generally. Often, to be sure, only a specialist can judge the weight
> of evidence or the thoroughness of precautions against experimental
> error, etc.; for such judgments require a broad and detailed knowledge
> of background theory, and a familiarity with technical vocabulary, not
> easily available to the lay person.

So your original claim is just plain wrong.

> Nevertheless, respect for evidence, care in weighing it, and persistence
> in seeking it out, so far from being exclusively scientific desiderata, arc
> the standards by which we judge all inquirers,

Like hell they are with those who do it for entertainment particularly.

> detectives, historians, investigative journalists, etc.,

Thats just plain wrong with those with a barrow to push.

> as well as scientists. In short, the sciences are not logically privileged.

Nothing like your original mindlessly silly claim.

> Defending Science-Within Reason: Between
> Scientism and Cynicism - Susan Haack
> http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Science-Within-Reason-Scientism-Cynicism/dp/1591021170

Just another mindless steaming turd from the net truffle hound.



 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: both valid constructive and contradiction proof methods of Infinitude of Primes (Euclid) #638 Correcting Math
Next: First Responders to Good Technical OPs on BP's cap&trade nostrum