MR complains about being moderated

[Yazata]

How ironic! I'd suggest the evidence for the existence of The Scientific Method is as exiguous as that for ghosts, UFOs, leprechauns, and generous Scotsmen, perhaps even more so.

I'll quote you Nobel Prize-winning scientists saying the very same thing if you want, not that it ever makes any difference.

I expressed that particular heresy ten years ago and many times since...

Is there a method?

Yes. I'm actually inclined to say go ahead and adopt the "one scientific method" approach if that enables you to more effectively debunk all the bullshit. As a foundation of ground rules for support, it exists, and is automatically, unconsciously adhered to on most occasions...even in every day...

www.sciforums.com

 

[DaveC426913]

I expressed that particular heresy ten years ago and many times since...

Is there a method?

Yes. I'm actually inclined to say go ahead and adopt the "one scientific method" approach if that enables you to more effectively debunk all the bullshit. As a foundation of ground rules for support, it exists, and is automatically, unconsciously adhered to on most occasions...even in every day...

www.sciforums.com

It's not heresy on a private site. It has a mission statement. You not exposing anything, you're simply opposing the stated mission.

Here at least, TSM is the tool we have, and what is, in the wider community, considered the proper tool of analysis for a science discussion.

It may well be flawed, and you may have some ideas about other ways to examine nature, but I think that only results in bringing our current process of analysis to a full stop. And that's counter-productive.

It would be like walking into an auto factory, and attempting to convince everyone that cars are defunct in favour of public transit.

It may well be true, but it is the inappropriate time, place and audience to be addressing it to. That's a discussion that should happen elsewhere, say, the VP conference room. Meanwhile, we still need cars today - and 'public transit' discussion in an auto factory accomplishes nothing but stopping everyone from working while your overhaul gets hashed out.

It's not going to be resolved in the UAPs thread.


I would suggest that it is more appropriate in its own thread, where the premises and tenets can be laid down in post #1. That would make the topic much more constructive and productive and ... topical.

 

[DaveC426913]

[DUPE]

 

[axocanth]

Might I suggest that from now on all talk of The Scientific Method be moved to the Fringe section of the site where aficionados of TSM can hammer it out with Santa Claus defenders. Who knows, perhaps there's even common ground, e.g. Santa's elves construct his toys in accordance with The Scientific Method.

Neither, however, merits the attention of serious, thinking people.

 

[axocanth]

Thanks for supporting me, MR.

I don't recall EVER telling a lie on this board. I try not to tell lies anywhere. . . . etc

There's a disturbing lesson for us all here: how easily people -- even fairly intelligent people -- can be manipulated on a massive scale. And you thought the "woo" folks had delusional issues?

I invite readers to watch just about any Youtube presentation by the three High Priests of science "education": Professor Dave, Forrest Valkai, and Aron Ra, each of them with hundreds of thousands, or even millions of subscribers. I challenge you to identify even one presentation where their adversary is simply wrong. The adversary is never just wrong. The adversary is invariably dishonest: a liar, a cheat and a charlatan. Oh, and don't forget stupid and ignorant too.

Then look at the comments section: unconstrained savagery against any perceived enemy of science. The puppet-on-a-string Red Guard foot soldiers lap up every single word of it.

And where do you think the Youtube high priests get these insidious ideas from? Where else! From the very top, of course, from the Ministry of Scientistic Propaganda itself (i.e. Dawkins, Krauss, et al). The MSP is a bit more coy about it, that's all -- but the implicit message could not be more clear.

Then read through these forums again. The perceived enemies of The Scientific Method (har har) -- e.g. Magical Realist and Yazata -- are never just wrong to the Red Guards of scientism. Indeed, it's practically the very definition of Red Guard mentality: an opponent cannot be just wrong; he must be stupid, ignorant and wicked too.

Read through this very thread again! (Try posts #7 and #8 for starters)


Compare:

I think that people see themselves as being on some kind of moral crusade to wipe out whatever they believe is bullshit (they call it "woo"). If you persist in disagreeing, then you are not only mistaken in their eyes, you are morally bad in some way, committing some kind of crime against reason and against reality itself, as they believe them to be. You become a troll in their eyes and deserve any insults you get, perceived as expressions of righteousness.

and

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”​

- Richard Dawkins, Minister of Scientistic Propaganda

 

[Pinball1970]

Might I suggest that from now on all talk of The Scientific Method be moved to the Fringe section

Why on earth would we do that?

 

[axocanth]

Why on earth would we do that?

Because there is very good reason for thinking that there is no such thing.

At the very least, summoning my most charitable mood (lol), perhaps a defense for its reality can be mounted, just as a defense of alien abductions or Bigfoot can be mounted, but it most certainly does not deserve to be defended with the unholy zeal and absolute dogmatic certainty with which its defenders typically do so. See, for example, the very interesting thread that Yazata links at the top of this page.

Notice in that thread that the usual insults and hostilities (crank, liar, idiot, etc.) begin immediately from people who clearly haven't the first clue what they're talking about (including a site moderator). Yazata, as always, by contrast, argues calmly, civilly, intelligently, and knowledgably against opponents who are as hysterical as they are ill informed. We could spend a year dissecting the absurdities and appallingly bad arguments marshalled in defense of TSM in that thread.



I've said this before, Pinball, and I'll say it again with no disrespect intended to anyone, including yourself.

Do you think it is possible for a religious person to mount an intelligent and balanced defense of, say, Biblical historicity (Noah's Ark, the exodus, etc.) with no knowledge whatsoever of "extra-Biblical sources", e.g. professional historians, archaeologists, geologists, scholars of ancient languages, etc. ? Do you think this homo unius libri (man of one book) should be taken seriously at all? Indeed, would the entire spectacle not be somewhat pathetic?

Can you begin to imagine the frustration of these professional historians, geologists and archeologists trying to argue rationally -- and with evidence -- against this man of one book?

Well, there is a whole field of flourishing "extra-scientific" disciplines such as the history, philosophy, and sociology of science which devotes itself entirely to the study of science, what scientists do, its methods, etc., as opposed to doing science itself -- mixing chemicals together or whatever. In the thread above, it is excruciatingly obvious that the hysterical defenders of TSM are completely ignorant of these disciplines, perhaps even unaware of their very existence.

Do you think these "people of one genre" are in a strong position to be arguing for the reality of The Scientific Method? Can you imagine the frustration of their opponents such as Yazaka, obviously well read in these extra-scientific disciplines, trying to argue rationally against them? Why, it's like trying to argue rationally against a religious nutcase! It's exactly like that.



Oh, and by way, in these aforementioned extra-scientific disciplines, that there is no such thing as The Scientific Method is not news. It's not even remotely newsworthy. You can even hear well informed scientists say it themselves. Needless to say, it makes not one iota of difference to the faithful.

 

[Pinball1970]

the hysterical defenders of TSM are completely ignorant of these disciplines, perhaps even unaware of their very existence.

My knowledge is pretty thin regarding those subjects, my education began in 1978 (first lab and chemistry lesson) through School college then Uni then job to now, its all all I have ever done professionally.

history, philosophy, and sociology of science which devotes itself entirely to the study of science, what scientists do,

Some Bible history, bits and pieces and I have read on the mathematics side of philosophy, Cantor, Russell, Turing, Godel but not in depth. .

 

[Pinball1970]

Because there is very good reason for thinking that there is no such thing.

So what am I doing when I am testing materials and I am asking questions and being asked questions?

 

[axocanth]

Sounds to me like you're testing materials, asking questions, and being asked questions.

 

[axocanth]

My knowledge is pretty thin regarding those subjects, my education began in 1978 (first lab and chemistry lesson) through School college then Uni then job to now, its all all I have ever done professionally.


Some Bible history, bits and pieces and I have read on the mathematics side of philosophy, Cantor, Russell, Turing, Godel but not in depth. .

Ok, so some questions:

Q1: Do you think a religious person who is completely ignorant of archeology, geology, Biblical scholarship, etc. is in a strong position to be arguing about the factual claims contained in the Bible (e.g. the exodus, Noachian flood)?

Q2: If he said "I've been going to church for twenty years. No one is more qualified to speak on religion than the religious themselves" do you think this automatically grants him authority to speak on general religious matters (e.g. 13th century Buddhism in India)?"

Q3: Do you think a scientist who is completely ignorant of the scholarly research into the history, philosophy, and sociology of science, etc. is in a strong position to be arguing about The Scientific Method?

Q4: If he said "I've been a biologist for twenty years. No one is more qualified to speak on science than scientists themselves" do you think this automatically grants him authority to speak on general scientific matters (e.g. 18th century theories of scientific method)?"

 

[Pinball1970]

Q1: Do you think a religious person who is completely ignorant of archeology, geology, Biblical scholarship, etc. is in a strong position to be arguing about the factual claims contained in the Bible (e.g. the exodus, Noachian flood)?

No.

Q2: If he said "I've been going to church for twenty years. No one is more qualified to speak on religion than the religious themselves" do you think this automatically grants him authority to speak on general religious matters (e.g. 13th century Buddhism in India)?"

Not if he has not done any study.

Q3: Do you think a scientist who is completely ignorant of the scholarly research into the history, philosophy, and sociology of science, etc. is in a strong position to be arguing about The Scientific Method?

You mean like me? I am not able to talk about philosophy but I am to devise experiments and come up with applications that work using the scientific method

Q4: If he said "I've been a biologist for twenty years. No one is more qualified to speak on science than scientists themselves" do you think this automatically grants him authority to speak on general scientific matters (e.g. 18th century theories of scientific method)?"

Depends what you mean by general. All through Covid we (scientists techs and Engineers) were discussing the latest research figures and vaccines.
Since all of were used to handling data we could keep up with a lot of what was going on even though non of us are virologists. By the end of the pandemic we were reading fortnightly technical briefings quite happily from UKHSA. It is the sort of thing we have been encountering all of our careers even though it is not our field.

 

[Yazata]

Why on earth would we do that?

Well, it's a valuable subject of discussion and rather off-topic in 'site feedback'.

I'd suggest that it go to 'philosophy' or 'general science' up on top.

 

[C C]

I've commented on this before, but why does the ''On the Fringe'' category exist if it's to follow the same posting ''rules'' as the hard science sections? One could safely assume that with one of the subforums labeled ''UFO's, Ghosts and Monsters,'' the discussion points aren't going to revolve around the scientific method. So, why does it even exist, if only discussions around the scientific method are considered to have merit? [...]

As it stands, it's kind of like a camouflaged trapping pit. There seems to be no "signpost up ahead" alerting that the fringe section is [belatedly] for critical evaluation of those things -- akin to Mick West's Metabunk, rather than a soapbox.

There's the argument that one should be able to infer such from the very nature of a fringe section existing on a "science forum" -- that the standards would be global. But in the politically chaotic 21st-century, such is not necessarily an automatic expectation for those of us hailing from where the diversity of cultural relativism and decolonization of knowledge are celebrated agenda.

Another aspect perhaps not often brought up much is how -- similar to religion -- the fringe section can be a venue for examining and comparing paranormal and eccentric-science belief systems as objects of study themselves, in an anthropological manner. (Temporarily setting aside concerns about demonstrating or highlighting whatever _X_ as myth or partaking in pseudoscience status.)
_

 

[Pinball1970]

Well, it's a valuable subject of discussion and rather off-topic in 'site feedback'.

I'd suggest that it go to 'philosophy' or 'general science' up on top.

James R can split off if he thinks it is appropriate.

 

[wegs]

(I will try to be judicious without rehashing everything. But at the same time, it would be irresponsible to hand-wave my assertions without defense.)

In a nutshell: just because it's on the fringe doesn't mean truth goes out the window, and it doesn't mean one can just make stuff up. That's just straight-up misinformation, and has no place anywhere.

(I'm sorry, it has to be laid bare once again) A stand-out misinformation - one of scores of misinformation attempts - is the assertion that
- the alleged windows on a UAP were asserted here to be "lit"
- this was called out that "lit" was made up - it appears nowhere in the report
- the asserter did not acknowledge that it was their "belief" - but rather doubled down on saying they were "lit"
- note that the asserter knows they have been called out as making up an important detail, so in restating, it they are now trying to convince you something that is not true.
- it was only admitted as a fabrication much later after tripling down, and when threatened with disciplinary action.
- and note that the windows are not "fact" either, even though the asserted claimed such.


TL;DR: You, and every other reader, were being manipulated into thinking there were in "fact" windows, and that they "were lit".


Is that really OK with you? If so, why stop there? Why don't we just post videos and claim there "are" little green men visible in the windows? If anyone can post what they want and then make any false claims they want as if they are fact, then what is the purpose of this forum? Is it anything more than a cesspit of misinformation?


I'm not trying to quash Fringe topics or hold them to an unreasonably high standard, but surely you must acknowledge that straight up fabrication of details is extremely destructive to the forum, current readers and future readers. How would you remedy this?

I need to give it more thought, and your opinions aren’t lost on me. I guess there is no “remedy,” that will make everyone happy. But I get where you’re coming from. It makes sense to want discussions on a science forum to be rooted in facts.

But maybe…topics like ghosts and UAP’s are a way for some members to express their curiosity or creativity. Honestly, I think these light-hearted topics have been keeping the forum engaged, to some degree. I’ve always viewed the threads that MR posts as a way for us to discuss folklore, or how to process fear. I think gently guiding conversations back to science while still exploring other interests in those threads, is possible.

There’s a reason why MR is fascinated by these “supernatural” claims. I think the discussions could take so many better turns than what they often take. It makes sense to emphasize scientific reasoning, but there has to be a way to engage in these discussions without ad homs and temporary bans. At the same time, a science forum shouldn’t have an entirely laissez-faire attitude towards the fringe section, either.

Anyway, just food for thought. I get why you’re annoyed, though. But, do you think what I’m getting at makes any sense?

 

[wegs]

As it stands, it's kind of like a camouflaged trapping pit. There seems to be no "signpost up ahead" alerting that the fringe section is [belatedly] for critical evaluation of those things -- akin to Mick West's Metabunk, rather than a soapbox.

There's the argument that one should be able to infer such from the very nature of a fringe section existing on a "science forum" -- that the standards would be global. But in the politically chaotic 21st-century, such is not necessarily an automatic expectation for those of us hailing from where the diversity of cultural relativism and decolonization of knowledge are celebrated agenda.

Another aspect perhaps not often brought up much is how -- similar to religion -- the fringe section can be a venue for examining and comparing paranormal and eccentric-science belief systems as objects of study themselves, in an anthropological manner. (Temporarily setting aside concerns about demonstrating or highlighting whatever _X_ as myth or partaking in pseudoscience status.)
_

Yessss! I read this after my post to Dave. Totally agree with your view. Perhaps the “fear” for want of a better word, is that taking a more passive stance on the fringe section will attract woo enthusiasts and others who will “pollute” the hard science sections with pseudo-science. I say we cross that bridge when we get to it.

 

[axocanth]

There’s a reason why MR is fascinated by these “supernatural” claims. I think the discussions could take so many better turns than what they often take. It makes sense to emphasize scientific reasoning, but there has to be a way to engage in these discussions without ad homs and temporary bans. At the same time, a science forum shouldn’t have an entirely laissez-faire attitude towards the fringe section, either.

How does that differ from everyday reasoning?

If it doesn't, and scientists use the same modes of reasoning (deductive, inductive, abductive, etc.) as everyone else -- indeed use the same modes of reasoning that were used long before anything we'd call science appeared on the scene -- what possible grounds are there for calling this scientific reasoning?

(Yazata makes the same point in the thread he linked above -- evidently to no avail.)

People can reason well and they can reason badly. I'm aware of no modes of reasoning, however, that are unique to science. Are you? Why not just say we expect members here to reason well?

I encounter people on this site -- scientists and non-scientists alike -- who do not reason well. No doubt other members do too.

 

[DaveC426913]

But, do you think what I’m getting at makes any sense?

Sure. Magical Realist is free to believe what he wants. And we are free to analyze these accounts.

What he would do well to do is stop blundering into analysis with things like "Can't be blimp. Blimp is ruled out." (Because apparently in his world, blimps can't go 50 miles per hour.) He is really really bad at any actual analysis. Belief is belief, and doesn't really need to be defended. But bad assertions get challenged.

So here is me, in a recent thread, leaving him to his beliefs:

So yeah, I will go with what the video evidence shows.

And that is certainly your prerogative. No one is denying you the right to believe that a jellyfish is really a 2-dimensional demonic, metallic, alien vehicle with weapons.

As it is everyone else's prerogative to dig a little deeper than "I'll go with "it-looks-demonic-girl". And that's what we're doing.

 

[axocanth]

Sure. Magical Realist is free to believe what he wants. And we are free to analyze these accounts.

What he would do well to do is stop blundering into analysis with things like "Can't be blimp. Blimp is ruled out." (Because apparently in his world, blimps can't go 50 miles per hour.) He is really really bad at any actual analysis. Belief is belief, and doesn't really need to be defended. But bad assertions get challenged.

So here is me, leaving him to his beliefs:

Perhaps another reader can ask Dave whether he stands by his assertion that 2 + 2 does not necessarily equal 4 (see posts 58 - 61). He does not respond to me.

I'd say Dave would do well to stop blundering himself and address challenges to his own patently absurd claims.