What makes a good scientist?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: set theory intersection is a multiplication (due to semigroup)#544 Correcting Math
Next: TWO FOR ONE AT PIZZA HUT
From: Yap on 29 Mar 2010 23:31 On Mar 29, 11:24 pm, omprem <omprem...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 28, 9:23 pm, John Locke <johnlocke...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones > > > <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > >There are only two kinds of scientist. > > > Only one kind. Employing reason and logic, adhering to scientific > > procedures and not entertaining even the slightest notion of > > supernatural control and design. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ""All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, > > or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to > > terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." > > -- Thomas Paine > > Scientific procedures are limited, flawed and subject to skewing by > the presence and intent of the scientist. You aren't a scientist, yet you wish to define? > > If only Atheists knew enough about reason and logic and were able to > conquer their fears sufficiently to examine their own belief system. Not all atheists are scientists, but most are educated people, unlike you who need the protection of a sky pixie.
From: Mark Earnest on 30 Mar 2010 00:45 "Yap" <hhyapster(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b30fbeb9-e529-449f-9f69-75b70803420a(a)n20g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Mar 29, 5:58 am, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "John Jones" <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:hoolgj$3k9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > There are only two kinds of scientist. > > > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and > > leaps > > from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to onlookers, who > > are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action. > > > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is > > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are > > impressed > > by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of science. > > A scientist is an esteemed colleague that patronizes other scientists > in order to have the same returned to himself, with little regard > for reality. A reply from delusional plateform. **Oh right, take out the word scientist and insert the word atheist. Works just as well.
From: John Jones on 30 Mar 2010 08:30 Marc Alcob� Garc�a wrote: > And is totally out of question what begging the question is? And what > about anything being questionable? How can you be sure that it > certainly is? Ain't there any implicit correct procedure? YOu are using the words logic and reason to indicate scientific correct procedure. But what is correct about it?
From: Sanity's Little Helper on 30 Mar 2010 13:29 It is an ancient John Jones <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com>, and he posteth: > There are only two kinds of scientist. > > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action. > > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of > science. Thanks, Jonesy-bach, for such a vivid display of fervent ignorance. Soliciting (which nobody did anyway) your opinion about what a scientist is, is a bit like asking a pet hamster to pontificate on the subject of perpetual motion machines. Hwyl Fawr, aresehole. -- David Silverman aa #2208 Want to know what truth is? It's what wise people know how to look for, and the foolish only ever encounter by accident. Not authentic without this signature.
From: Marc Alcobé García on 31 Mar 2010 14:55
On 30 mar, 14:30, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Marc Alcob Garc a wrote: > > And is totally out of question what begging the question is? And what > > about anything being questionable? How can you be sure that it > > certainly is? Ain't there any implicit correct procedure? > > YOu are using the words logic and reason to indicate scientific correct > procedure. But what is correct about it? I have neither used nor mentioned those words. Anyway, I'll give an answer to your question. What is correct is accepting the rules of a certain game. If you do not accept them, then you are playing a different game. I does not mean that then you are behaving incorrectly in an absolute sense of the word, it only means that you are behaving incorrectly relative to the game being played. Certain games are more obvious than others. For example, accepting both you and I that "this is a chair". Logic and reasoning are a bit less obvious, but not very much, for example to say "There are only two kinds of scientist" meaningfully you must accept that there are certain individuals that fall under the class of "scientists" that can be classified in either of both classes (to be specified). This is what logic is about, i. e. about what happens when you accept these kind of rules. I have not tried to understand your metaphor but tried to address the question of scepticism. Wherever there are rules, there is always going to be someone eager to circumvent them (in a constructive way, to be expected), this is how science (but also any other human activity, like music, poetry or philosophy) evolves. Scepticism is about,or should be about trying to find unexplored, or not enough explored, ways. However understanding is based on agreement, otherwise one falls into solipsism, and rules enter the scene unavoidably. |