Objectivity in Science - Subjectivity on SciForums

@ Yazata - Post #100

Grok'd!!

Your contributions are always extremely appreciated!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since knowlege of personal affairs doesn't intersect the set of all things admissible (other than some peculiar court case) that doesn't seem relevant. The offending "knowledge" is the pseudoscience that forges its authenticity to convince vulnerable followers. That's the stuff that raises complaints of admissibility.

I think it's the other way around. People observe reality, document it/extract information from it, and explain what is real and what is not. The reduction you speak of sounds like simulation, which is a useful kind of analysis, but it has limited applicability.

Our present science is as developed as every curious person (who contributed, usu. by publication) ever was. It's as good as it gets, working with best evidence. Somehow this is being minimized.

Does that matter? Your toothbrush will be where you left it (assuming no one else moved it). It's not going anywhere simply because there may be some kind of hidden facet of the brain yet to be discovered, or any of the other things you mentioned. It's a tangible thing, in a deterministic state, and the powers of observation are sufficient to rule out the possibility that it may get up a walk away.

Yes and no. Knowledge can be extended and refined, but it's nearly impossible to reverse it. Theories are falsifiable, but I can't think of any cases in which knowledge was overturned. I think there may be some issues with non-science folks over what is known (species evolve) vs what is theorized (species evolve by natural selection).

Yes and no. Pi ≈ 3.14 is an irrefutable truth. The same goes for all the things we used to call laws and axioms. Very rarely does a person claim to know a fact about the world that's subjectively derived, and even more rarely do folks adopt it as a truth simply on that person's word. What's typical is that a person (or, more often, a group) will assimilate facts, analyze them, and publish their findings (after any edits required through peer review), and then for the next couple of years any proposition they've asserted is subject to attack. As time goes on and other investigators begin to report corroborating observations, then the fact in question gets closer to entering into the curriculum. The key point to keep in mind is that wherever the world is repeatable (including observations made in the presence of statistical noise which can be filtered to extract the signal) we are able to put stakes in the ground with absolute certainty. "As sure as the sun will shine" the sun will shine. And when it stops, no one will be around to notice, so that doesn't even matter.

I'm not sure why you think that. The justification Newton gave, for asserting the Universal Law of Gravitation, was sufficient to establish that the Earth is bound to its orbit due to its mass and that of the Sun, and the distance between them. It wasn't exactly correct (as demonstrated by Einstein much later) but it was correct enough to be sure that you will not wake up some day floating above your bed. Thus, the existence of gravity is "necessarily true" both before and after all the facts were in. More importantly, Newton is "correct enough" to solve well over 99% of all practical problems with applying this "truth" to the real world (e. g. structural engineering). And presumably the theory will be updated with some news concerning gluons. But it won't allow for any case in which gravity will simply cease to hold your feet to the ground. Maybe this wasn't your point, but it seems to be. Some things in nature are fixed, definite and quantifiable, and millions of people are keeping track of them. Those are the kinds of things we generally call knowledge. That is, we say we "know" a thing to be true when it fits this kind of scenario (known, proven) and we say we "know" about proposition X, but we never say we know it to be true simply because its proponent put it forward. Anyone who does that it being very sloppy and won't survive in their field. This when you read the research, it always states "Dr Smith reports X and Dr Jones reports Y" etc. The research is generally concerned with comparing and contrasting past results with present ones. Very, very rarely do we get new laws from ongoing work. But when it happens then we have to adopt it as such. Otherwise we would be at odds with the natural world.

I guess, but that sounds a little sloppy. Most scientific assertions get scrubbed a lot better than that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i don't have any problem at all with what i said about science and knowledge.

yes, that was in regards to science putting evolution on a silver platter.
i don't have any problems in saying THAT either.

only because you have it in your mind i might be "anti science" or a "creationist".

you are as dense as a box of neutrons.
experience is not subjected to the method.
you witness a car crash.
question, how was that experience scientifically arrived at?
how was ANYTHING about that experience scientifically derived?

the same is true of instinct.
to take a common example:
how do you know someone loves you?
because you "feel" it, or just simply "know" it.
how is that feeling or knowing scientifically arrived at?

in YOUR mind.

sorry if it disturbs you.

 

The question people have in mind when they read that (objectively speaking, of course) is this: since evolution has been under attack by religious people only since it offends their literal interpretation of myth, why in the world aren't you complaining that the deniers of evolution are putting their creationism on a silver platter? And what in the world is different about the science of evolutionary biology that makes it any more a target for criticism than the people who came up with the laws of electromagnetics, or the causes of cancer, or any other topic? What, other than creationism, makes evolution stand out at all, and if it's standing out, what, other than creationism, has caused that to occur?

I was pretty sure you were not until you posted some creationist material recently. Now I'm just confused. If you're not a creationist, why promote it? (By asking us to take as meritorious certain propaganda crafted by creationists.) And more to the point: why in the world aren't you attacking creationism? They're telling you science is wrong "because the Bible tells me so." Don't you find that to be one heckuva silver platter for anyone to rest their whole opinion of the world on?

Thanks. I'll take that as an accolade for showing the weight of material facts, all while demonstrating a glow (what the hell, every one else can be a narcissist)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's a huge piece of the scientific method.

In that case I see no connection. I just don't see your point.

It depends on the person. You may see a nightmare, I may see conservation of momentum. I guess it's fair to say I derive "what I see" from some training, but I'm not sure it matters. I really don't get your point.

 

keep evolution in the other thread.

don't be.
i've said it before and i'll say it again:
i don't give a rats ass about your god or your theory.

where have i promoted creationism?
where??????

the events in "the storehouse of knowledge" link actually happened aqueous, i know because i followed up on them.
maybe you should do the same.

why should i?
i don't have any kind of agenda here aqueous.

do you want my honest opinion?
i seriously doubt if many creationists actually believe there is a god.
people aren't stupid aqueous.

good question.
an intelligence without substance, i'm speechless.

only because you don't want to admit you gained knowledge that wasn't subjected to science OR the method.

 

the periodic table is a fine example of "knowledge gained by science".
the properties of the various elements is also a good example.

edit:
as a matter of fact, the entire field of chemistry is probably the best example of "science in action".

 

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=WHAT IS SCIENCE

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
What is science?

Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding1. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions. (There are, of course, more definitions of science.)
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html

1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.

Science is an intellectual activity carried on by humans that is designed to discover information about the natural world in which humans live and to discover the ways in which this information can be organized into meaningful patterns. A primary aim of science is to collect facts (data). An ultimate purpose of science is to discern the order that exists between and amongst the various facts.

Science involves more than the gaining of knowledge. It is the systematic and organized inquiry into the natural world and its phenomena. Science is about gaining a deeper and often useful understanding of the world.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


It appears we have more then one playing semantics and word games.
Science abounds in near all we do, most of the time without us knowing it.
When our descendants climbed down out of the trees, they experimented scientifically how it feels to walk upright.
They probably started experimenting with fire and cooking. [more science]
Children experiment everyday and try new things. That's also science.
Let me remind you again. The word science literally means knowledge, and that word has been extended in its meanings over the years to include accessing knowledge, learning, experimenting etc etc.

 

If one is half sensible, and applies logic, it is actually subject to a scientific methodology, just unintentionally used and unrecognised, but aligning with the scientific method.

I always have problems with subjectively wrong claims and statements.
Science is knowledge and means knowledge, and as logical intelligent human beings [most of us anyway] we use the scientific method, experience and learned behaviour techniques everyday.

 

And yet as has been shown in other threads, you completely ignore knowledge with regards to Evolution and Abiogenesis.
Not to mention the scientific method and peer review.

 

Waffling???
I'm in total agreement with your waffle then.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well said.

 

"Miraculous???"
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Miraculous

occurring through divine or supernatural intervention, or manifesting such power.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I don't see that as very scientific at all. Perhaps a subjective scientific hypothesis may say you were delusional?
But at least we now know that you could have an agenda.

That's the third time you have said that, and the third time you are wrong as has been shown.

 

And forgoing the "alien shape-shifting reptilian overlords"remarks, that is exactly how the scientific method and peer review work.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

spam much?

 

So do I.

It's my subjective opinion that some are really terrified as to where science is leading us, especially with regards to the redundant aspect of a divine deity.
I would Imagine the Catholic church, when backed into a corner, and forced to recognise the BB and Evolution, to maintain credibility, they did so with heavy hearts and some regret.

 

The evidence is mounting both in this thread and others that you do actually give a rats arse and you are promoting a deity of sorts.

See previous comment of mine.

As you and others appear to wallow in semantics, I have already shown in a post in this thread, that all knowledge is science, and has been in a manner of speaking since we started to walk upright.


100% agreement in posts 102 and 103

 

Actually what I'm asking you is why you think science-literate people hold evolution on a silver platter instead of recognizing the reality of the present culture war which pits religion against science for ostensibly unhinging fundamentalism from its moorings. That's not a question on evolution (no discussion of natural selection or gene flow needed) but one of attitudes. You might say my question is out of bounds for this thread since it doesn't inquire into "objectivity vs subjectivity" in regard to cosmology, but when you go look at the thread alluded to (in cosmology) it begins by asking us to validate the Big Bang in the light of creationism. So everyone here (in all three threads--four or five if you include the related spin-offs)--everyone here is actually talking about the same thing: science vs religion (or whatever you want to call your own personal world view: science vs science-skeptical/something-or-other). Everyone is always talking about science v. religion here. It's just that it's also done by beating around the bush. Without the fundies poisoning the well (and that's an objective statement) there wouldn't be all of this argument that "science is broken" "Darwinism is bad science" and "why should posters get to post their opinions in the cosmology thread". (Feel free to leave in the parts I've left out.)

Ignoring the intent to reverse and pin the charge on the prosecutor, that doesn't answer the mail. My actual comment was that your posts (at least recently) giving us creationist propaganda to treat sincerely, as if it's something less than propaganda in your mind, conflicts with the statements you made immediately above. The only statement that comports with a person who rejects creationism is one that rejects the creationist propaganda as the tripe that it is. You aren't doing that. You're just punting and holding onto the conflicting views. So you can tell me not to be confused, but since I'm always thinking objectively in these matters (OK tripe was an understatement, that one was riddled with subjectivity) then I'm going to follow the evidence trail wherever it leads. For some reason you don't seem to have been innoculated against creationism. That's all I've been able to conclude so far. But I can't piece together the parts that don't fit.

You offered a piece of creationist propaganda as evidence that "scientists opposed to Darwinism are being repressed". Also you equated scholarship with something Herc, Alpha, Prometheus, rpenner, JamesR, Origin, Trippy, russ_watters, billvon or exchem (to name some of the stellar posters) and like-minded folks might call "book larnin". What the--? :bugeye:

I don't waste my time with propaganda although I followed your other trail to the alleged falsification of dating Early Americans and it was immediatelty obvious to me that this was propaganda, although one of something closer to paranoid delusion. You might as well ask me to read National Enquirer (does it still exist) to get accurate biographies of celebrities. That's what I'm getting at. How in the world do you accept propganda on faith as credible authoritative reporting? If a person wants to report on an infraction of some kind, they file a lawsuit, or write a credible report in an authoritative publication. And they themselves have firsthand knowlegde a smoking gun. And (this is a biggy) they are actually well balanced mentally. Did you by any chance get very far with English in school? Somewhere around the 9th grade they teach you how to cull out the bullshit from the factual material. You could put me and 10 of the most outspoken pro-science posters here in 10 separate rooms and play back that story or the more recent ones you're interested in, and each and every one of us, about 30 seconds into it, will tell you the same thing: it's propaganda. All such materials have that (Ok now I really get to use the word emphatically) SUBJECTIVE bullshit (tripe) (foul stinky and downright lousy) aroma of propaganda. Maybe you have no idea what I mean. And of course that confuses me all the more. If you can't distinguish (here we go) OBJECTIVE reporting from propaganda, then we're at an impasse. At best I could try to engage you on that, but I'm not sure you're interested. I just can't believe you missed out on the unit on essay writing where this distinction comes up as a critical thinking skill. So something's rotten in Denmark, leo, (Hambone, also 9th grade) and I'm just curious what's behind all of that.

Even that answer has a pro-creationism twist. If the object is to engage reasonably educated people (like I'm sure you are, but you're holding back on what you learned, or you were educated in a foreign country steeped in subsistence farming, or the Deep South during Jim Crow, etc., etc) then the agenda is "sincere dialogue". In any sincere dialogue, the treatment of creationist propaganda as anything other than propaganda would be contrary to the goals of sincerity. You express a passion for truth (in your sort-of attacks on science and academia) but your extrinsic behavior (feeding us tripe) conflicts with that. That's why I keep asking you "what's up?" I'm waiting for you to play your cards, the ones that resolve the apparent conflict and paint you in the box you're actually in. In short, you can't NOT be creationist without attacking creationism. It's far too insane to allowed to run amok in the world corrupting the young and impressionable. That just shocks the conscience.

A lot of hardcore creationists say the same thing. The "Messianic Jews" criticize Christians and then launch into a diatribe that promotes Jesus (just under the name they assume he used [if he actually existed, which no one knows]). I use that as an example because that kind of (whoops, not subjectivity but let me emphasize it nonetheless) DUPLICITY is seeping into this conversation we're having. Again, you can't not dismiss creationism as tripe (putting it nicely) without harboring some kind of sympathies for parasites who feed on the sponge-people that soak up their dripping wet toxic discharge.

In America, all of the people who ever voted for Bush, all of the ones who suck up to FOX/Limbaugh and the televangelists, the mega-churches, the snake handlers and Koran burners--and of course the remnants of the Klan -- are incorrigibly mean and/or stupid. The smarter ones are mainly just mean, and the stupider ones are mainly both. Again I say: you can't not renounce creationism as (try this) superstitious nonsense without having some desire to let them run wild in the streets and tear the place up. And that's all they've been doing since the day you posted your first post.

I have no idea what you mean. You've said it several times before. It sounds like some kind of attack on neuroscience (the conscious mind is rooted in the brain stem and cortex yet manifests as a virtual agent or entity). It's just hard to guess what you mean when you wander off into the weeds of obscurity. (That means you're being very, very subjective. So much so that only you understand you.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

only because you don't want to admit you gained knowledge that wasn't subjected to science OR the method.[/QUOTE]

Ok try this. I play music. I studied all kinds of stuff related to that field. But all the stuff I call "musical knowledge" qualifies as science: the classification of genres (taxonomy), music history (pylogeny/ontology), all of the rules of harmony (acoustics, roughly), and of course technique (technology). The thing is, the qualiity that makes it sound good is a function of talent, not knowledge. This is why all the roots of music go back to places like barrel houses (and way before that the troubadors) (homeless guys with weird banjos and snake-charmer clarinets) who exemplify (and I say this objectively) a lack of knowledge. They would have been Anabaptists (a lot of them were) but they tended to be outcasts. Does this mean science is supreme? Of course it does. It rules. And I say that OBJECTIVELY. There could be no reasonably sane and just society without it. None of the arts would have existed-no literature, music, plays, sculpture, ballet, oil painting, figurines cut from chain saws, concerts with floating pigs and on and on--none of it without science. None of the stuff that keeps us in check and makes us human. My point is this: all of academia, to include all of the arts and humanities, is infused with technology of every kind, passed down from the natural philsophers, geometers and cosmologists of antiquity through the sciences of present day.

Does that mean a program in science assures you access to all the world's knowledge? Sure. Wherever available. You just have to go seek it out. That's all science "does". It seeks all the facts and all the inferences from all the facts which produce best evidence. Then we anchor our boats to best evidence and do our best to keep the rest of "you folks" from crashing into the rocks, and esp. from sinking our boats in the process. What's wrong with that? :bugeye:

(And feel free to mark in red where I was being egregiously subjective so the gods of posting decorum being invoked by whatever DMOE is burning are palliated.)

 

your subjective opinion, i guess.

i'm speechless, dumbfounded actually.

creationist scientists ARE being discriminated against aqueous.
i followed up on some of those cases, i know.

the dig is still in dispute, i have the pages on my HDD.

another subjective opinion?
listen, this isn't a "grill leopold" thread aqueous.
go away.

 

If discrimination means stopping them teaching their alternative rubbish in public schools, on an equal footing with science, then so be it.

I also share that opinion, but I find it more objective then subjective. Afterall I was the subject of a PM from you where you admitted to it, and probably thought you had some convert in your sights.
Not sure what made you think that though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!