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: John Jones on 3 Apr 2010 23:45 Marc Alcob� Garc�a wrote: > 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. > > > Can't pick up any vital points of disagreement there.
From: John Jones on 3 Apr 2010 23:47 Daniel T. wrote: > omprem <omprem108(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 29, 9:30 am, "Daniel T." <danie...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> There are lots of kinds of scientists, but to the question "What >>> makes a good scientist?" my answer is "objectivity." >> But according to Atheism, all mental content and activity is just >> biochemical reaction and is subjective. There cannot be objectivity. > > Ridiculous. According to atheism, gods don't exist. That says nothing > about mental content or activity. No, you never answered his point.
From: John Jones on 3 Apr 2010 23:48 Yap wrote: > On Mar 29, 5:33 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> There are only two kinds of scientist. > Your own invention? >> 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. > Incomputable. >> 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. > Incomputable. > It is.. ineffable
From: Andy F on 4 Apr 2010 10:04 On 29/03/2010 17:30, omprem wrote: > On Mar 29, 9:30 am, "Daniel T."<danie...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> John Jones<jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> There are lots of kinds of scientists, but to the question "What makes a >> good scientist?" my answer is "objectivity." > > But according to Atheism, all mental content and activity is just > biochemical reaction and is subjective. There cannot be objectivity. > Takes for playing. Your turn is over. What makes you think biochemical reactions cat be objective?
From: Jack on 4 Apr 2010 10:31
On Apr 4, 10:04 am, Andy F <never.m...(a)tesco.net> wrote: > On 29/03/2010 17:30, omprem wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 9:30 am, "Daniel T."<danie...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> John Jones<jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >>> 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. > > >> There are lots of kinds of scientists, but to the question "What makes a > >> good scientist?" my answer is "objectivity." > > > But according to Atheism, all mental content and activity is just > > biochemical reaction and is subjective. There cannot be objectivity. > > Takes for playing. Your turn is over. > > What makes you think biochemical reactions cat be objective?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Whatever that question means. |