I keep having to remind myself that science is self-correcting …

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 20, 2009

Ethics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have often been wearied by legends in their own lunchroom huffing that science differs from other endeavours because it is “self-correcting.”

To which I reply: Aw come off it, fellas. Any system that does not go extinct is self-correcting – after it collapses on its hind end. This is true of governments, businesses, churches, and not-for-profit organizations. I’ve seen enough of life to know.

Here’s a classic: At The Scientist’s NewsBlog, Bob Grant reveals (May 7, 2009) that

Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted.

Elsevier is conducting an “internal review” of its publishing practices after allegations came to light that the company produced a pharmaceutical company-funded publication in the early 2000s without disclosing that the “journal” was corporate sponsored

[ … ]

The allegations involve the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, a publication paid for by pharmaceutical company Merck that amounted to a compendium of reprinted scientific articles and one-source reviews, most of which presented data favorable to Merck’s products. The Scientist obtained two 2003 issues of the journal — which bore the imprint of Elsevier’s Excerpta Medica — neither of which carried a statement obviating Merck’s sponsorship of the publication.

The linked related stories and comments are most illuminating, and bear out my critique of “peer review” here. Let’s just say that peer review started out as a good idea, but …

(Note: There is no paywall, but you may need to register to view the story, .)

Also, today at Colliding Universes

Neutrinos: Sudbury Neutrino Observatory does the sun’s bookkeeping

Origin of life: The live cat vs. the dead cat

Cosmology: Wow. It takes guts to wage war with Stephen Hawking … he appeared in Star Trek

Universe: Arguments against flatness (plus exposing sloppy science writing)

Origin of life: Latest scenario gives RNA world a boost

Colliding Universes is my blog on competing theories about our universe.

Comments

---serendipidy: "That makes sense, since the disruption came from you, not me." No, it didn't. I came from Diffaxial. Please reread the thread and refrain from misstating easily refuted facts. ---"If Diffaxial’s behavior constitutes a violation of the policy, then so does Upright Biped’s." Actually, your current behavior constitutes a greater violation than either of those two instances because you have disrupted one thread in the name of old business from another thread. One of UD's policies is to stay on topic, so if you want to bewail a moderation event, please go back to the place where it happened and settle your grievances there. ----Your comments about objective morality are interesting, because they reveal the same absolutism that plagues your thinking on the subject of “self-evident truths”. Just as you fail to see how it is possible for a rational person to regard “self-evident truths” as enormously likely, though not absolutely certain, you also fail to see that moral beliefs can be held firmly yet provisionally." A rational person understands that only unchanging self-evident truths can correct the provisional findings of science. If the correcting mechanism is correctable, then it cannot correct. Rational people understand that as well. You, on the other hand, think "self evident" truths can be "enormously likely." That statement is irrational on the face of it. It is the equivalent of saying that that which is obvious is, at the same time, only probable. That, by the way, is a good example of what happens when you deny the self-evident truth that a thing cannot be true and false at the same time. If a truth can be only probably true, then obviously it cannot be self-evidently true. You should take my advice. Postmodernism is not good medicine for the mind. If this is the kind of nonsense that Upright Biped has been enduring, then his mild insults constitute an exercise in self control that should be duly recorded in the annals of endurance. Also, you need to know that Diffaxial doesn't think self-evident truths are possible under any circumstances, so you probably ought to get on the same page with him if you are going to defend the substance of his remarks.StephenB_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus writes:
Onlookers, Isn’t it just slightly amusing to see those who would dismiss the principles of right reason now appealing to them?
Onlookers (bwahaha), Isn't it extremely amusing to see kairosfocus, who has enshrined logic among his sacred "principles of right reason", fighting tooth and nail against the implications of said logic when it demonstrates that he is in error? And by the way, KF, I don't dismiss logic. I just hold it provisionally, like everything else. Amazing that after all this time you still don't get it. You wrote:
II: Once causally sufficient conditions are met, it WILL happen.
That contradicts your earlier statement:
…causally sufficient conditions which once met under the relevant circumstances will trigger and/or sustain a fire. [emphasis mine]
Though I am confident that you will never admit your error, I am glad to see that you have at least corrected it.serendipity_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, there are many amusing things about the discussion. But those who have critiqued the "principles of right reason" are objecting to the reification of StephenB's imagination. They are not, pace your comment, appealing to those same "principles."David Kellogg_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

I: an event will not happen unless all of its causally necessary conditions are met.kairosfocus_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: Isn't it just slightly amusing to see those who would dismiss the principles of right reason now appealing to them? On the point just raised, I have pointed out that the terms fuel, oxidiser and even heat are contextually specified for a given fire, being general descriptions: there are many fuels, and many relevant oxidisers and heat sources for those fuels. For a specific potential fuel to feed a fire, its particular burning chain reactions must be sustained. Hence, the relevance of remarks on specific circumstances. But, when we study fuels and their behaviour across the classes A, B, C, K we see that there is a commonality: each of fuel, oxidiser and hear are necessary, and they are jointly sufficient to form a fire. That a discussion is at a general level does not make it logically incorrect; as one may see from the general utility of the fire triangle. But, more basically the issue is the logic of cause: I: An event X will not happen us all of its causally necessary conditions are met. II: Once causally sufficient conditions are met, it WILL happen. And that is basic. (Even, were my remarks on fire triangles logically wrong, and they are not: fires are a certain class of chain reactions triggered and sutained by fuel, heat and oxidisers.) And, it is the logic of cause that has been objected to all along; by those who seem to imagine that that which begins needs have no cause, and/or that necessary causal factors are not causal factors. Revealing. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, Your lengthy disquisition on the topics of Tsiolkovsky and the alkali metals is irrelevant. The error you made is a simple matter of logic. You wrote:
…causally sufficient conditions which once met under the relevant circumstances will trigger and/or sustain a fire. [emphasis mine]
If additional "relevant circumstances" are required, then your "causally sufficient conditions" are insufficient.serendipity_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Stephen, I'm not appealing to anyone's personal sense of justice here. The moderation policy is available for our perusal. If Diffaxial's behavior constitutes a violation of the policy, then so does Upright Biped's. Diffaxial was placed in moderation; Upright Biped was not. I conclude from this and other examples that the moderation policy is not being applied consistently.
Just to show you what a sport I am, though, I will not scold you for disrputing the theme of this thread.
That makes sense, since the disruption came from you, not me. I made a short comment directing you to the other thread to learn why Clive had placed Diffaxial in moderation. It was you who insisted on bringing the discussion back here. For the record, I don't think you should be placed in moderation for the disruption. Your comments about objective morality are interesting, because they reveal the same absolutism that plagues your thinking on the subject of "self-evident truths". Just as you fail to see how it is possible for a rational person to regard "self-evident truths" as enormously likely, though not absolutely certain, you also fail to see that moral beliefs can be held firmly yet provisionally.serendipity_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

----serendipidy: "I personally think that the insults on both sides are rather mild and that neither commenter should be placed in moderation; but it stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point to assert that Diffaxial deserves moderation if Upright Biped does not." I don't understand your use of the term, "deserve." You and your colleagues hold that there is no such thing as objective truth or a universal standard of justice. So, Clive was just appealing to his personal morality and you are simply appealing to your personal moraltiy. As we learned from your side, moral truth, even metaphysical truth, is subjective; it is different for every person. You must provide me with some EVIDENCE to show that all men DESERVE to be treated with equal respect. Surely, you would not want to say such a standard constitutes a "self-evident truth." So please stop criticizing Clive for exercising his idea of justice simply because it conflicts with your idea of justice. You are beginning to sound like one of those closed-minded absolutists who think God granted men natural rights. Such dichotomous thinking is unbecoming of you. Just to show you what a sport I am, though, I will not scold you for disrputing the theme of this thread. After all, it is only my standard of justice the prompts me to say that we should stay on topic. You obviously have a different standard of justice, so I will not presume to say that your's is wrong. On the other hand, if Clive puts you on moderation for avoiding the current topic while brooding over something that happened on another thread, that may be a manifestation of his standard of justice, which you as a moral relativist are bound to grant him.StephenB_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

PPPS: I should add: moderation is not exclusion or censorship -- it is loss of the privilege of immediate posting, typically on grounds of misconduct that breaks down trust. It seems that moderated posts generally do appear, just delayed. [That damps down the intensity of an exchange and so may foster a better tone, though it cuts off the excitement of immediacy. But, if excitement has got out of hand into uncivil conduct, that is entirely in order.]kairosfocus_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
02:44 AM
2
02
44
AM
PDT}

PPS: Mg burning in solid dry ice [CO2]; demo ~ 1/2 way downpage.kairosfocus_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT}

PS: video of Na and K in water.kairosfocus_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: It is clear that this thread has at length been pulled off track repeatedly. So, let us not forget what seem to be the key lessons of this thread:
I: The notion that science stands on an epistemological pedestal because it is "self-correcting" is ill founded -- all institutions that survive any length must be open to correction, whether from within or from without. II: Similarly, the first principles of right reason are not provisional, on pain of self-referential incoherence and absurdity. III: All major worldviews or schools of thought on a subject will have core, defining commitments that cannot be changed without the school or view losing its essential character. IV: So, to have core "dogmas" or "postulates" or "doctrines" or "first principles" or "theses" etc, is not a bad thing in and of itself. The challenge is to be open to correction on the principles of right reason -- which are self-evident on pain of absurdity -- while not being selectively hyper-skeptical.
Now, I have but little to say on the latest tangential issue, on why or why not someone may be in moderation. However, I do note that the objectors (who seem to tend to be radical relativists) here reveal that hey expect that a standard of fairness (and so consistency) is binding on behaviour. This of course shows that -- yet again -- the principles of right reason are essential to reasoning; and, that we find ourselves universally morally obligated. One hopes that such commenters will follow up the implications of these points. Finally, someone has suggested that since the cluster of Necessary and Sufficient causal factors for a fire hold under particular and variable circumstances, they cannot be sufficient; so the terms about circumstances are "weasel words." A few remarks:
1 --> You will first notice that "fuel," and "oxidiser," and even "heat" are general terms, which must be co-tuned in the circumstances of a particular fire. [Here, we see the importance of abstractions in scientific thought . . . scientific laws, let us note are precisely generally applicable abstractions that must be specified in particular circumstances. E.g. A rocket consuming 90% of its initial mass to reach orbit is different from an arrow shot out of a bow, but both are governed pretty well enough by the principle that force is the rate of change of momentum: F = dP/dt. In the case of the rocket, we must reckon with the loss of mass, leading to a log law, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's rocket eqn: delta-v = v-exhaust * ln {m-full/m-empty]. In the case of the arrow, we see the more familiar F = ma. And yet, in each case, the same underlying Newton's second law obtains.] 2 --> For contrasting instances, a burning match, a pool of kerosene floating on the sea and burning and a magnesium wheel that is so furiously incandescent that as it sinks it rips H2O molecules apart and can burn on [some of] the released oxygen [some of the O2 will recombine with the released H2 too . . . ] are three very divergent circumstances. 3 --> And yet, in each of these, we may discern a co-tuned set: fuel, heat, and oxidiser. Under each circumstance, that co-tuned set is present as a common factor. 4 --> Furthermore, each of these causal factors is necessary, and once the three are present, they are jointly sufficient for a fire.
So, it is hardly "weasel words," to point out that generic factors must be adapted to particular circumstances; here of class A [general], B [flammable fluid] and D [metal] fires. Of course, class C fires are those sustained in part by an electric current, e.g. a short circuit (which adds certain dangers). GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

Stephen, Judging from your comment, it appears that you would benefit from reading the actual moderation policy here at UD. As for the double standard, read these two comments and explain how you could possibly fail to conclude that a double standard is being applied:
265 Clive Hayden 06/01/2009 12:53 am Diffaxial, ——”No one is going to observe anything corresponding to those definitional cow pies.” ——”I’m still waiting, your hard blowing notwithstanding.” This is why I put you in moderation.
And:
266 serendipity 06/01/2009 2:40 am Clive, By what standard do Diffaxial’s comments merit the imposition of moderation if the following insults by Upright Biped (all of which come from a single comment) do not?
So if you are, perhaps, a slow learner or have difficulty with modest conceptualizations… given your pompous certainty… I apologize for not being more empathetic to any special needs you might have… I simply assumed that you were just another materialist bigot… I am more than willing to slow down for you.
I personally think that the insults on both sides are rather mild and that neither commenter should be placed in moderation; but it stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point to assert that Diffaxial deserves moderation if Upright Biped does not.serendipity_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT}

----serendipity: "Clive gives his rationale here. In the next comment in that thread, I offer evidence that Clive is applying a double standard. A discussion of moderation policy ensues." From what I have gathered, there are several dimensions to the moderation policy with regard to personal comments. First, moderators seem to pay attention to the extent of the rudeness. Second, they note the number of times it happens in a short space. Third, they monitor the overall leval of contempt and disrespect that underlies comments that may not qualify as a direct insult. Fourth, they discourage mindless objections that have been refuted thousands of times and have been well-covered in the FAQ section. Fifth, they often give bloggers a chance to police themselves prior to the intervention. You say that you provided evidence on the very next post that Clive operates by a double standard, and yet Upright Biped provided counter evidence @290 on that very same thread that seems overwhelm your examples, including instances of several comments that violate the FAQ policy, as in ["please don't ask this misguided, insulting question again."] In any case, my comments to Diffaxial were meant to encourage him not to quit. They were not meant to question Clive's moderation policy.StephenB_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

StephenB writes:
I don’t know why you were moderated. Perhaps it was due to an interchange on another thread. Who knows?
Clive gives his rationale here. In the next comment in that thread, I offer evidence that Clive is applying a double standard. A discussion of moderation policy ensues.serendipity_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "You will be relieved to learn that I have been placed in moderation, and therefore will no longer disturb your theological equilibrium or prompt KF’s sadness with my comments here, as participation from moderation isn’t feasible." Moderation doesn't necessarily last very long. Hang in there. I will not comment on your comments until you get back. I don't know why you were moderated. Perhaps it was due to an interchange on another thread. Who knows? ----"Best wishes. It was challenging and entertaining to engage you." Thanks for being so gracious. The dialogue may soon be reactivated. Stay tuned. Meanwhile, I wish the best for you as well. P.S.: Are human behaviors effects? I would say, yes, by holding that they are the effects of biological, environmental, psychodynamic, and volitional causes. The last part, of course, refers to agency, and, in that sense, agents are, themselves causes, although the free will option which defines their capacity to act, while significant, is also limited due to several other factors including the other three causes just mentioned. The biological need to eat, for example, causes the agent to search for food. On the other hand, the volitional component, composed of an intellect, which can recognize the dangers of overeating, and a will, which can choose to ratify or not ratify the intellect's verdict, can shape the agent's behavior in the direction of temperance or intemperance. Now I am sure that you do not want to retire from UD until you get a chance to scrutinize the above, so be patient with the process until you get your release. Also, I would be open to critique from those on my side of the aisle. I always try to make my points in as few words as possible, so there is always the danger that I will leave something out that someone thinks ought to be there.StephenB_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus writes:
...causally sufficient conditions which once met under the relevant circumstances will trigger and/or sustain a fire. [emphasis mine]
KF, The conditions are not causally sufficient if additional "relevant circumstances" are required. This should be obvious to anyone who understands the meaning of the word "sufficient". Nakashima was right to flag your "weasel words".serendipity_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Folks: This thread's primary focus, from the original post, was that insofar as it is self-correcting, science is unexeptional. As with any institution that long endures and has a power structure, correction from within is the result of a struggle, often leading to schisms and embarrassment of the elites. (NB: In my homeland, one of the two main parties is notorious for splinter parties forming and then merging back with it -- indeed the present PM of Jamaica had to go out, get in leadership of another small party and then be brought back in under pressure from financial backers of the major party, before he could rise to the top. Similarly, I grew up in the long shadow of the consequences of the delusional state of the Franco-British leadership across the 1930's. And, as a Protestant, I am well aware that apart from the mess of the divided papacy of the late medieval period that so utterly discredited the church, and the power struggles and excesses of the church's leadership as princes involved in Italy's power struggles and petty wars, Martin Luther probably would be an obscure footnote at most: the monk who posted 95 debate points on a church door when Tetzel came to raise money for the pope . .. .] So, pardon my cynicism on power struggles in institutions in the teeth of the blatant need for reformation. When they are sufficiently embarrassed, change will happen when survival as an institution is at stake. Evolutionary materialist science is not quite there yet, but the crisis is getting closer and closer.) As to he huffing and puffing by FDiff, i simply note this: if all you wanted to do was to make a stipulation that you were not endorsing Truth or Error as world of forms categories, you could have done so in a paragraph. (As in the end, you did.) What requires explaining is why you spent most of a comment on an irrelevant issue that just so happens to be laced with an ad hominem, whole failing to ever address the main point at stake on the merits: the evident undeniability of the proposition "error exists," and the implications of the resulting status as a self-evidently true statement. The answer to such is plainly rhetorical impact: red herrings, draggfed across the track of the truth, and led out to ad hominem soaked strawmen, ignited to cloud, confuse, choke and poison the air. And, as your further harping on the irrelevancy while failing to speak on the merits shows, that is resorted to because there is no effective rebutting answer on the merits. So, folks, let us see the balance on the merits [and let us ignore DK's Anti-Evo partyline sniping; if he and his ilk had an answer on the merits, we would long since have seen it]: 1 --> Error -- here, "statements that fail of being accurately descriptive of reality" -- plainly exists. [Let's call teh claim, E for short.] 2 --> But, that is not just a universal common-sense consensus [duly enforced by our first grade school exercises . . . ], it is undeniably true. 3 --> For, it turns out that the attempt to deny E has to imply that an error has been instantiated, i.e. Saying "NOT-E" NECESSARILY ends up confirming E as so. 4 --> So, E is warranted as not just consensus opinion, but as directly undeniably true on pain of absurdity. 5 --> Consequently, knowable truth exists, in the strong sense: warranted, true belief; on pain of immediate absurdity on the attempted denial of E. (This is not a "proof" of E, it is saying that we have warrant to accept E, on pain of at once falling into absurdity.) 6 --> Thus also, truth -- in the "common sense" sense of statements that accurately describe the relevant reality [as opposed to fibs and as opposed to getting your sums wrong under Ms Smith back in 1st grade, tut tut, etc . . . ] -- exists. 7 --> Moreover, we see the warrant for the rejection of the idea that {A and NOT-A} in the same sense and at the same time can be true. Nor, can trotting out Q-theory a la "blind 'em with science" get away from the resulting confusion from accepting such contradictions into our reasoning. 8 --> Indeed, he very progress of science that led to accepting the theory [which is a mathematical theory not a verbal one, i.e. the interpretations and commentary are secondary . . . there are many debates on the "right" interpretation] depends on the chain of reasoning: Classical theory X predicts observations O1, O2, etc. Q-th predicts Oi, Oii etc, which are in recognisable logical and physical contradiction. (Q th predicts correctly as we measure from say the line and band spectra of atoms and molecules, or the stability of atoms [there is no steady radiation away of the orbital energy of electrons . . . ] etc. So, on inference to best, empirically anchored explanation, we accept the mathematical theory of Q- mech, and then we will try to figure out its meanings later on.) 9 --> That is, Q mech is BASED on the law of non-contradiction as a principle of right reason, and on the principle that error exists and where possible should be corrected. 10 --> Similarly, we can see from the fire example that once there is a feasible pathway to the chain reaction wee call burning, and it is set up, a fire occurs reliably. The conditions turn out to be that we must have a co-tuned set of [a] fuel [substance capable of the chain reaction under the circumstances], [b] oxidiser [under the circumstances of certain hot metals, this includes WATER], [c] heat [which provides the energy to trigger and sustain the chain of burning]. 11 --> So, we see the existence of causally necessary conditions which have to be met for the event called fire to occur, and causally sufficient conditions which once met under the relevant circumstances will trigger and/or sustain a fire. (And to note the specificity and co-tuned nature of the circumstances is not "weasel words," Nakashima-San. For, as noted, certain metals will use WATER as an oxidiser, H2O being notoriously a fire dousing agent under more commonly met circumstances.) ______________ Enough has been said for us to see that the principles of right reason are key to the self correctign nature of human institutions, science included. That these principles are beign so stoutly opposed in our day speaks volumes on where our civilisation -- including one of its chief institutions, science -- is headed.
"Rocks to leeward, sire!" "We haven't a stitch of sails that will hold and take us a point or two off the line of drift, sire . . . " "The anchors astern have started or broke their cables, sire . . . " "The sea anchor has busted and cannot slow the drift, sire . . . " "She won't answer to the helm, sire . . . " "The life boats sent out to row us off the line of drift have stove-in or capsized and foundered in the waves, sire . . . " "The rats are jumping ship, sire . . . "
GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 1, 2009
June
06
Jun
1
01
2009
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

----"What explains the Tourettic use of “right reason” in your own posts, the knee-jerk citation of those “great” philosophers Lewis and Chesterton by you and Clive, and the collage of idiosyncrasies that is the writing of kairosfocus?" Well, let's put it this way. When a postmodernist persistently denies that 2 + 2 = 4 in the name of sophsitication or modern science, the refutation will require frequent usage of the words "plus" and "equal."StephenB_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

"When one cannot resist the impulse to comment, even when one has nothing to say, verbal eruptions such as the above are the inevitable result." I see. What explains the Tourettic use of "right reason" in your own posts, the knee-jerk citation of those "great" philosophers Lewis and Chesterton by you and Clive, and the collage of idiosyncrasies that is the writing of kairosfocus?David Kellogg_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

StephenB: You will be relieved to learn that I have been placed in moderation, and therefore will no longer disturb your theological equilibrium or prompt KF's sadness with my comments here, as participation from moderation isn't feasible. Best wishes. It was challenging and entertaining to engage you. P.S.: Are human behaviors effects?Diffaxial_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

---I asked: If the principles of right reason can be revised or negotiated, then there is no unchanging standard by which anything else can be corrected, measured, or even understood. If the principle of causation can be abandoned for any reason, then by what standard do you retain it for other reasons? If we can dispense with it once, why not many times or as often as we please? You have not addressed this issue. ----Diffaxial writes: *”like all tools, one may become skillful in their application, knowledgeable regarding what tools are appropriate to what purposes, and perspicacious vis their effectiveness in a given application. They may, although not necessarily, assist us in learning about the world if utilized effectively. There is no mystery in that.” That is a question-begging answer. By what standard or principle do you decide what is "appropriate?" By what standard do you judge how "skillfully" the principle is being applied. If you have no standard for deciding when causation applies or when it does not, or when that decision has been "skillfully applied," then on what basis do you make those judgments.StephenB_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

----David Kellogg writes: I agree with StephenB [434]. I think. ----"Nakashim,, I am sorry if I caused any confusion. As a radical relativist, I think there’s more than one way of being rational, and I think there are many accounts, but I do not — repeat, not — think that means “equal time” should be given to all sides. So I think (for example) ID advocates and creationists are “rational” in an important sense but do not think their views are a legitimate part of science education. Relativists such as myself must make that case, though, without appealing to (nonexistent) “universals.” When one cannot resist the impulse to comment, even when one has nothing to say, verbal eruptions such as the above are the inevitable result.StephenB_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

My stars! I agree with StephenB [434]. I think. Nakashim,, I am sorry if I caused any confusion. As a radical relativist, I think there's more than one way of being rational, and I think there are many accounts, but I do not -- repeat, not -- think that means "equal time" should be given to all sides. So I think (for example) ID advocates and creationists are "rational" in an important sense but do not think their views are a legitimate part of science education. Relativists such as myself must make that case, though, without appealing to (nonexistent) "universals."David Kellogg_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
If the principle of causation can be abandoned for any reason, then by what standard do you retain it for other reasons?
Mad Skillz*. Next topic: Are human behaviors "effects?" *"like all tools, one may become skillful in their application, knowledgeable regarding what tools are appropriate to what purposes, and perspicacious vis their effectiveness in a given application. They may, although not necessarily, assist us in learning about the world if utilized effectively. There is no mystery in that."Diffaxial_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "Stephen, KF and others have frequently attempted to force discussions down particular garden paths by posing questions with stark choices attached - “yes or no,” “true or false” - and demanding one or the other response." If the principles of right reason can be revised or negotiated, then there is no unchanging standard by which anything else can be corrected, measured, or even understood. If the principle of causation can be abandoned for any reason, then by what standard do you retain it for other reasons? If we can dispense with it once, why not many times or as often as we please? You have not addressed this issue. One cannot rely on "evidence" or science's findings to revise reason's principles, because it is reason principles that informs science and interprets evidence. You keep getting this backwards. The principles of right reason inform science; science does not inform the principles of right reason. It is through the unchanging principles of right reason that we can correct the provisional findings of science. You cannot correct a provisional science with provisional principles of right reason. If the corrective mechanism is negotiable or revisable, then nothing can be corrected. This should be obvious.StephenB_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

----Nakashima: "Have no fear! We have determined experimentally that LNC does not work at the quantum level, but at the macroscopic level your parrot either is or is not dead. (Or pining for the fjords…)" Neither the law of non-contradiction nor the law of causation can be proven. They are the basis by which everything else is proven. To deny them is to forfeit the rational tools by which science is conducted.StephenB_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

----Nakashima to David Kellogg: "Perhaps this should be pursued on the “Two Sides To Every Story?” thread." You are right, of course. It is obvious that there are two sides [or hundreds of sides] to every story. Indeed, the more ways we can approach a problem, the better. It should be equally obvious that this is not the same thing as saying a thing can be true and false at the same time.StephenB_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Mr Kairosfocus, Similarly, can you identify a case where a, b and c are present under appropriate conditions and we do not have a fire? You have completely covered yourself from the possibility of being wrong by adding the weasel words "under appropriate conditions" to your sentence. If I responded that the three conditions are not sufficient under low pressure. or on Monday mornings, you would simply respond that those are not appropriate conditions. Similarly, if we started discussing very small fires, where we had to take QM into account, the strict causality of your example would fail.Nakashima_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

KF @ 418:
Diff’s largely distractive outburst at 402 above would be funny, if it were not so sadly revealing of the peril a rising tide of relativist irrationality, toxic rhetoric and outright contempt-laced incivility pose for our civilisation.
LOL! Are you for real?
Diff has raised a strawman; one laced with thinly veiled ad hominems.
Does anyone else think I was in any way seriously, in some veiled fashion, suggesting that KF beats his wife? The point of "KF has stopped beating his wife" harkens back to this exchange with StephenB: Diffaxial:
“What you did is demand a yes or no answer. That, in effect, asserts that only two possible descriptions are relevant in this domain: “An effect can’t exist without a cause is a statement about the real world,” or “An effect can’t exist without a cause is not a statement about the real world.” That is an attempt to control the discussion to which I don’t assent, because there are additional alternatives beyond your rigid polarities that I believe better describe this state of affairs. My answer reports one of those alternatives, one that speaks to the inaptness of your polarity:
StephenB:
Yes, I did demand a yes or no answer because a yes or no answer is appropriate.
Stephen, KF and others have frequently attempted to force discussions down particular garden paths by posing questions with stark choices attached - "yes or no," "true or false" - and demanding one or the other response. Oftentimes an alternative response that addresses and deflates the premises of the question is required - as KF illustrates in his response. Having just been presented yet another such garden path (typically the entry to a "Socratic trap"), I preemptively reproduced the "wife beating" chestnut to call to mind an instance in which the rejection of the "true false" dichotomy is obviously justified, as a prelude to my own response to KF/Royce, which similarly steps around a "true-false" dichotomy. (That a rejoinder is obviously justified - the very point of my selection of that example - ought to have made it clear that no serious suggestion was being made.) KF:
The answer to such complex question fallacies is obvious; and, I must immediately add: such an abusive question is utterly not parallel to the issue that “error exists” is self-evidently true, and that this claim is no mere verbal trick in support of allegedly dubious metaphysics.
With respect to which fallacy is illustrated, KF argues that "wife beating" is the fallacy of the complex question. Actually, the device is that of the "loaded question." A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The "wife" example is "loaded" with the presupposition that one has at some time beaten one's wife (and that one has a wife). Royce's question is more subtle, but is loaded with the presupposition that "Error" is an object that can be said to exist apart from "statements in error." That is an unjustified reification, the ultimate purpose of which is to also reify "Truth." Hence the devices are indeed parallel - although they needn't have been to be to illustrate my point vis rejecting forced dichotomies.Diffaxial_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 17 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply