|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 08/26/2004 : 10:12:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
quote:
If I conduct experiment {E} that falsifies theory {T}, neither the success or failure of {E}, nor the implications of that success or failure, have anything whatsoever to do with my intentions.
If I started to test a theory, say evolution, with the intention of proving it false and I prove it false. Is my conclusion valid or invalid? I would say that it is invalid ...
Stop embarrassing yourself. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
 |
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 10:58:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
quote:
Wouldn't your method be important here? You might have a bias going in but if you used a proper method of investigation and then were honest and submitted your results for review and were willing to accept what came of that would it still matter what your bias was going in?
Everyone has bias. Every scientist as well. Does this invalidate everything and all science? I don't think so.
@
Method is important but bias can stack the deck and change parameters to favour your result.
Proper method would have no bias. The scientist should divorce his opinion in the testing the theory.
True everyone has a bias. You cannot or should I say you should not be biased in the pursuit of truth. It just taints your conclusions.
[quote]
Everyone has bias. Every scientist as well. Does this invalidate everything and all science? I don't think so.
Perhaps not all, but some. Scientists just push the boundaries of our ignorance.
Cheers |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 13:16:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
If I started to test a theory, say evolution, with the intention of proving it false and I prove it false. Is my conclusion valid or invalid? I would say that it is invalid ...
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
Scientists just push the boundaries of our ignorance.
In your case they should have pushed harder |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 14:15:10 [Permalink]
|
CA
"stop embarassing yourself" and "In your case they should have pushed harder". (sigh) and so it begins the spiral to ad hominem attacks. Which results in nothing but who has the best Yo Mama joke. I've seen the posts on this site. People calling each other idiots, bigoted, morons. That doesn't really promote critical thinking. Pity the mission statement of this website didn't include pithy one-liners.
Any scientist worth his salt would agree that they push the borders of ignorance. In fact that was a quote by Richard Feynman more or less. Look him up. Better yet buy the book "Six Easy Pieces" That is where I remember reading it.
Everytime they discover something, they realize how little they know.
The point that you are missing is that you can't/or should not test a theory with a preconceived notion or agenda. It invariably taints the test and the results.
As a newbie to this site, @tomic has been enjoyable to discuss so far. Oh @tomic the buddy Jesus is great!! I got one at home.
Cheers |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 14:31:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
The point that you are missing is that you can't/or should not test a theory with a preconceived notion or agenda. It invariably taints the test and the results.
Naive, baseless rubish. Blathering this idealistic nonsense over and over again does not make it real, much less historically accurate. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 14:48:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
The point that you are missing is that you can't/or should not test a theory with a preconceived notion or agenda. It invariably taints the test and the results.
Naive, baseless rubish. Blathering this idealistic nonsense over and over again does not make it real, much less historically accurate.
CA, I feel you're being slightly inflexible. N-Rays are a historical reminder that even scientists can see only what they expect to see. Granted, the scientific process eventually revealed the bias, but Rubicon has a valid point concerning individuals. His only overstatement was the inclusion of the word "invariably." |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/26/2004 14:49:25 |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 14:58:18 [Permalink]
|
HH,
Am using the word incorrectly? Thank you for your correction and insight |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 15:36:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
HH,
Am using the word incorrectly? Thank you for your correction and insight
Well, invariably would mean "always." I would agree that there could be a tendancy to produce skewed results if one was heavy biased, but I wouldn't say it's inevitable. As CA has pointed out, there are certain protocols which go a long way to mitigate this. Also, proof is proof, regardless of the motivation behind the search for it, which I think is his main contention.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/26/2004 15:42:52 |
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 18:19:19 [Permalink]
|
Rubicon, don't let CA's harshness scare you off. Most of the people on this board are very polite.
I think I see where you're coming from. A good example would be the group of "scientists" that went off to Tunguska recently to prove that an alien ship crash landed there. Guess what! They found the so-called proof they were looking for. It's certainly suspect at the very least.
A much more scientific approach would have been to just go and see if they found any new evidence of what had happened.
Earlier, you corrected my use of Christians. I specified some Christians in the OP. I did not say all Christians, and I did not think I needed to tiptoe and specify each post in the same topic.  |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 18:21:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
The point that you are missing is that you can't/or should not test a theory with a preconceived notion or agenda. It invariably taints the test and the results.
Naive, baseless rubish. Blathering this idealistic nonsense over and over again does not make it real, much less historically accurate.
CA, I feel you're being slightly inflexible. N-Rays are a historical reminder that even scientists can see only what they expect to see.
Of course. So what? I will gladly discuss the history of science in general or paradigm shifts in specific if and when it becomes relevant. To suggest that advocates with preconceived ideas will "invariably" do bad science is ahistoric and laughable. To suggest that the probative value of a test is a function of intent is a prima facia absurdity. The Dudley Doowright school of methodological naturalism is a joke. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 18:49:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
So what? I will gladly discuss the history of science in general or paradigm shifts in specific if and when it becomes relevant. To suggest that advocates with preconceived ideas will "invariably" do bad science is ahistoric and laughable. To suggest that the probative value of a test is a function of intent is a prima facia absurdity. The Dudley Doowright school of methodological naturalism is a joke.
Yeah, I'm pretty new to this board, but from what I've gathered CA, you seem very literal when it comes to dissecting other people's arguments. (Not that that's bad, of course.  ) I kinda had a feeling it was the "invariably" that was setting you off on Ruby, but I don't think he really meant it the way you took it.
I sensed his point was more along the lines of what SciFi was saying with the UFO hunters.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/26/2004 19:06:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 20:19:49 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert wrote:quote:
I kinda had a feeling it was the "invariably" that was setting you off on Ruby, but I don't think he really meant it the way you took it.
Actually, even if you replace "invariably" with "mostly," it's still wrong. The scientist who performs a test without caring one whit about whether the results are positive or negative will be a rare bird, indeed. Scientists are people, and as such have hopes and dreams, even about whether or not their ideas (which are what drive experimentation) are correct. Many even get really freakin' excited about their work.
The problem with Blondot was not that he was really excited about these new N-rays he'd discovered, but that he let his emotions overrule the need for properly-controlled experimentation. Luckily, someone else more level-headed was in the right place at the right time to do something about the situation before it escalated further than it had.
And that's the whole point behind peer-review. If every scientist went into every experiment having foreseen all the possible problems, and without a shred of bias towards one result or another, I daresay that peer-review would be superfluous. But it's not, because scientists are human beings.
And as far as the Tunguska UFO hunters go, those folks are a very far cry from the average scientist. To base an "invariably," or even a "mostly" or "often," upon the likes of them is highly unreasonable. Like Christians, they sallied forth with faith that they would find what they wanted. The "Law of Fives" helps out immensely in such cases, as does ignoring any and all contrary evidence. Crackpots are not good bases for generalization of any amount. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 20:45:17 [Permalink]
|
SciFi
CA's just demonstrating his style of debate. He was easy to goad. The retort to the scientist comment was the clincher.
HH perceived what I was getting at and was able to correct a misuse of a word. Much thanks.
My perception of the Christian statement was that is was generalized statement. Did not know you well enough to note it was in regards to the board. I would have made the same comment if it was regarding Gays, Pagans, Atheists, et al.
CA
(imagine a pirate voice) There's a lot a fancy words in your last statment. Let say I am dis-inclined accede to your assertation...with respect.
Oh it's Doright not Doowright. Unless your were making the statement that Dudley was a professional fecal producer. If that was your aim, good on ya mate.
Cheers |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 21:32:01 [Permalink]
|
In all actuality, I did not mention scientists at the beginning. If you look back, the original premise was about an individual.
At a point @tomic introduced the scientist to the conversation. My only mention about scientists was that he should divorce his opinion before engaging in the test. I do believe that is the proper method in being objective. Then the comment on how they push the boundaries of ignorance. (just to see who was thinking). But the repeated premise never mentioned scientists.
So we have a prejudgement that it was scientist that I was talking about. That bias was factored that into the premise.
H.H got it right
Would it be fair to say my point has some validity.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 21:44:27 [Permalink]
|
Actually, it was Scifi Chick who introduced the word "science" to this thread, and you reinforced the idea by saying,quote:
The ancient philosophers did use scientific methods. They originated it or were at least a part of the process. Science was not invented in the 20th century. It just got more tools.
Theories have to be questioned and put to the test. So that they are proven or disproven. Then they become a fact or fiction.
So, your attempt to back away from the idea that you were talking about scientists just doesn't wash, Rubicon95. Those who properly use the methods of science to test theories are practicing scientists, whether you call them scientists or not.
Although... you cannot "prove" a theory, and theories never "become" facts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
