tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
You touch the key point: Who has this understanding? At which critical mass of evidence is a theory decided as governing? Who evaluates the evidence?
The problem with your viewpoint is that you argue from objective ideology where information implies knowledge implies understanding, disconnected from the practical process of acquiring understanding and knowledge. It is simply not so.
The disconnection you harbor is artificial no matter how ideal it is.
Anyway, to prove my points: Could you elaborate which scientific field you're in? I want to produce a few claims for you to pursue with rigor if you don't mind. And if you decide not to pursue them I would like you to elaborate why you decided so. And if you think this statement is ludicrous, please let me know why.
<!--quoteo(post=1770952:date=May 12 2010, 05:07 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ May 12 2010, 05:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770952"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Indian man is human. We know physical limitations of a human. Thus he's lying through his front teeth. Lock the thread already.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Party pooper.
<!--quoteo(post=1770953:date=May 12 2010, 05:23 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ May 12 2010, 05:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770953"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really dont hope "we'll learn to deal with those eventually". Nothing is as frightening, or indeed as futile and pointless, as science without conscience.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As is every tool, it all depends on how you use it. You can use a hammer to build a house, or you can plant it up someone's face. Depends.
"Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men." - Jean Rostand
<!--quoteo(post=1770954:date=May 12 2010, 05:24 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 05:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770954"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You touch the key point: Who has this understanding? At which critical mass of evidence is a theory decided as governing? Who evaluates the evidence?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> People, of course. What I'm actually outlining is our tribal nature of electing something to be governing at all. This is a social thing, and has nothing to do with information.
Naturally we will not have objectivity as long as personal bias is involved: but that's what science exists to prevent. Any such electoral processes reside outside of realm of science itself, even though they govern its product.
What I actually advocate here is not only possible, it's how things are done today for the most part; the misconceptions of democracy, popular vote or authority are just that, misconceptions, because we can hardly imagine any other way of being. In doing research, however, you very quickly learn to rely on information over authority.
<!--quoteo(post=1770954:date=May 12 2010, 05:24 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 05:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770954"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyway, to prove my points: Could you elaborate which scientific field you're in? I want to produce a few claims for you to pursue with rigor if you don't mind. And if you decide not to pursue them I would like you to elaborate why you decided so. And if you think this statement is ludicrous, please let me know why.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Pardon, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm definitely not going to write a scientific paper for you if that's what you mean.
<!--quoteo(post=1770928:date=May 12 2010, 11:05 AM:name=Sonic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sonic @ May 12 2010, 11:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770928"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People who are rocket scientists:
Tankefugl: 1 Draco_2k: 0
People who are wrong:
Draco_2k: 1 Everyone else: 0
People who are lying about not eating/drinking for 70 years
That indian guy: 1 Everyone else: 0<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ###### not you again.
The reason this stuff hasn't been completely blown out of the water many years ago is because people don't want to look intolerant to other peoples beliefs. Even if the belief is <a href="http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Breatharian" target="_blank">###### YOU I'M A PLANT!</a> (incredibly retarded and also impossible) Recognise this whole thing as the stupid crap that it is.
It's a real shame that science rarely confronts religion, magic and whatever else. Not looking for truth out of "respect" is a very terrible idea. If people believe it, it deserves investigation, surely world would be a better place if the masses knew if their tradition is right or wrong instead of relying on popular opinion (there is also such as thing as outright delusion, but insanity is hard to take into consideration).
If anything, I think there should be more studies like this.
90% of the world's population currently believe some form of unscientific nonsense or other, I'd say those are good figures to merit some investigation.
Right after renewable energy and fertilizer since we need those to, like, live. Actually stem cells research and nanotechnology probably deserve second place after that. As aforementioned, we have pretty crаp priorities.
There's a lot of research being focused on religion, much of it in my opinion very important. For instance, why do so many religions share the messiah myth? Why did we invent religion in the first place? Does religious dogma actually damage the brain's ability for fact-based decision-making? Etc. etc. etc.
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pardon, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm definitely not going to write a scientific paper for you if that's what you mean.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? You imply that every idea should be examined with the same rigor. What is your reason for not applying rigor to my claims if I state them? What is any good scientist's reason for not applying rigor?
I can answer that for you: Heuristics. You know I am illustrating a point, so the claims I make will most likely be false. So why should you bother examining them?
Let me, just for reference, make such a claim: "Santa is a high tech robot designed to kill."
<!--quoteo(post=1770975:date=May 12 2010, 07:38 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ May 12 2010, 07:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770975"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's a lot of research being focused on religion, much of it in my opinion very important. For instance, why do so many religions share the messiah myth? Why did we invent religion in the first place? Does religious dogma actually damage the brain's ability for fact-based decision-making? Etc. etc. etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That'd be really cool if it's true. The things you mention in particular might be some of the most important threads of all.
The most extensive research I personally recall is between links between religiosity and intellect which is, ironically, pretty dumb.
<!--quoteo(post=1770976:date=May 12 2010, 07:39 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 07:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770976"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why not? You imply that every idea should be examined with the same rigor. What is your reason for not applying rigor to my claims if I state them? What is any good scientist's reason for not applying rigor?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, you're being completely ridiculous. You cannot seriously compare an argument on Internet forum to scientific conduct.
What I said about rigour applies to scientific process, not day-to-day life: just like you don't double-blind test your vegetables in Wallmart - which in case of Wallamart just might be a good idea - you don't apply scientific rigour to every aspect of your life. It'd be wonderful if we could, but it's not happening. In case of scientific conduct, rigour requirements being uniform among all studies is the very requirement which holds it together as a system, it's literally what standard is. It just cannot be based on personal belief, science is not a matter of opinion.
I think you're in confusion as to where science starts and ends. Science is a type of methodology used to acquire knowledge; practical considerations as to where, whether or how to apply it lie outside of its application. Which is, of course, what I've been saying all this time: these considerations have nothing to do with science. They are done at user's discretion.
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited May 2010
Of course I'm being ridiculous! That was the entire point! But it doesn't matter anymore, because you have already folded your original view, even though I'm not sure you see it yourself:
<!--quoteo(post=1770981:date=May 12 2010, 07:12 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 07:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770981"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(...)They are done at user's discretion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
... which you claimed inherited dangers. I'm sorry, I fail to see how this then ensures the objectivity you so absolutely state and require. The properties you give modern science (you have given it far too much credit in terms of objectivity) can not hold as long as you keep that statement.
Where science "starts" or "ends" is really irrelevant, as it is the entire process at work that is important, not single features. If you want to maintain objectivity, you have to do it all the way through and don't cop out on arbitary decisions like "users discretion". As I've said before, the processes are not disconnected, regardless what definition of science you choose to use. (Ironically, the limits of science are pretty arbitary ...)
<!--quoteo(post=1770988:date=May 12 2010, 08:45 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 08:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770988"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... which you claimed inherited dangers. I'm sorry, I fail to see how this then ensures the objectivity you so absolutely state and require.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It does not. I have already stated that it's a very bad thing, that's the whole point. I have also multiple times stated that is not part of science, but social conduct surrounding it.
That's the whole point. It's not a scientific rule. Just because some scientists use it doesn't make it anymore scientific than belief in god, or any other common-sense principle. It's ludicrous to appeal science to segregate claims based on anyone's personal beliefs.
<!--quoteo(post=1770988:date=May 12 2010, 08:45 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 08:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770988"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Where science "starts" or "ends" is really irrelevant...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>What.</b> That's what the entire discussion has been about so far.
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited May 2010
Sigh. And I've said you can't separate social conduct from the method in a trivial manner. Complexity is rarely visible in ideal regimes. "Science" and "People doing science" are not orthogonal quantities.
I have previously demonstrated that this filtering mechanism is required for this method to actually produce results and can in that light be seen as a needed mechanism, something you continue to disregard.
<!--quoteo(post=1771009:date=May 13 2010, 12:14 AM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 13 2010, 12:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1771009"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sigh. And I've said you can't separate social conduct from the method in a trivial manner. Complexity is rarely visible in ideal regimes. "Science" and "People doing science" are not orthogonal quantities.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mon dieu.
I should probably clarify that I was talking about "science" as in "scientific method" all this time.
"Extraordinary claims" is not part of it: it neither can nor should be, not any more than any other common-sense considerations. Common sense and any convictions are common part of, you know, humans who do science, but that's their own thing. It's voluntary. And arbitrary. It's just a popular saying, however widely respected.
So, it has nothing to do with science. It's just common sense.
Comments
The problem with your viewpoint is that you argue from objective ideology where information implies knowledge implies understanding, disconnected from the practical process of acquiring understanding and knowledge. It is simply not so.
The disconnection you harbor is artificial no matter how ideal it is.
Anyway, to prove my points: Could you elaborate which scientific field you're in? I want to produce a few claims for you to pursue with rigor if you don't mind. And if you decide not to pursue them I would like you to elaborate why you decided so. And if you think this statement is ludicrous, please let me know why.
Party pooper.
<!--quoteo(post=1770953:date=May 12 2010, 05:23 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ May 12 2010, 05:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770953"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really dont hope "we'll learn to deal with those eventually". Nothing is as frightening, or indeed as futile and pointless, as science without conscience.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As is every tool, it all depends on how you use it. You can use a hammer to build a house, or you can plant it up someone's face. Depends.
"Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men." - Jean Rostand
<!--quoteo(post=1770954:date=May 12 2010, 05:24 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 05:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770954"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You touch the key point: Who has this understanding? At which critical mass of evidence is a theory decided as governing? Who evaluates the evidence?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People, of course. What I'm actually outlining is our tribal nature of electing something to be governing at all. This is a social thing, and has nothing to do with information.
Naturally we will not have objectivity as long as personal bias is involved: but that's what science exists to prevent. Any such electoral processes reside outside of realm of science itself, even though they govern its product.
What I actually advocate here is not only possible, it's how things are done today for the most part; the misconceptions of democracy, popular vote or authority are just that, misconceptions, because we can hardly imagine any other way of being. In doing research, however, you very quickly learn to rely on information over authority.
<!--quoteo(post=1770954:date=May 12 2010, 05:24 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 05:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770954"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyway, to prove my points: Could you elaborate which scientific field you're in? I want to produce a few claims for you to pursue with rigor if you don't mind. And if you decide not to pursue them I would like you to elaborate why you decided so. And if you think this statement is ludicrous, please let me know why.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pardon, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm definitely not going to write a scientific paper for you if that's what you mean.
Tankefugl: 1
Draco_2k: 0
People who are wrong:
Draco_2k: 1
Everyone else: 0
People who are lying about not eating/drinking for 70 years
That indian guy: 1
Everyone else: 0<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
###### not you again.
The reason this stuff hasn't been completely blown out of the water many years ago is because people don't want to look intolerant to other peoples beliefs. Even if the belief is <a href="http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Breatharian" target="_blank">###### YOU I'M A PLANT!</a> (incredibly retarded and also impossible)
Recognise this whole thing as the stupid crap that it is.
I mean we can build machines that provide more energy that was put into them then surely this is real too!
Oh wait. We never did that.
This guy probably eats and drinks very little. But no way can he survive on nothing.
If anything, I think there should be more studies like this.
Right after renewable energy and fertilizer since we need those to, like, live. Actually stem cells research and nanotechnology probably deserve second place after that. As aforementioned, we have pretty crаp priorities.
Why not? You imply that every idea should be examined with the same rigor. What is your reason for not applying rigor to my claims if I state them? What is any good scientist's reason for not applying rigor?
I can answer that for you: Heuristics. You know I am illustrating a point, so the claims I make will most likely be false. So why should you bother examining them?
Let me, just for reference, make such a claim: "Santa is a high tech robot designed to kill."
That'd be really cool if it's true. The things you mention in particular might be some of the most important threads of all.
The most extensive research I personally recall is between links between religiosity and intellect which is, ironically, pretty dumb.
<!--quoteo(post=1770976:date=May 12 2010, 07:39 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 07:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770976"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why not? You imply that every idea should be examined with the same rigor. What is your reason for not applying rigor to my claims if I state them? What is any good scientist's reason for not applying rigor?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, you're being completely ridiculous. You cannot seriously compare an argument on Internet forum to scientific conduct.
What I said about rigour applies to scientific process, not day-to-day life: just like you don't double-blind test your vegetables in Wallmart - which in case of Wallamart just might be a good idea - you don't apply scientific rigour to every aspect of your life. It'd be wonderful if we could, but it's not happening. In case of scientific conduct, rigour requirements being uniform among all studies is the very requirement which holds it together as a system, it's literally what standard is. It just cannot be based on personal belief, science is not a matter of opinion.
I think you're in confusion as to where science starts and ends. Science is a type of methodology used to acquire knowledge; practical considerations as to where, whether or how to apply it lie outside of its application. Which is, of course, what I've been saying all this time: these considerations have nothing to do with science. They are done at user's discretion.
<!--quoteo(post=1770981:date=May 12 2010, 07:12 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 12 2010, 07:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770981"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(...)They are done at user's discretion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
... which you claimed inherited dangers. I'm sorry, I fail to see how this then ensures the objectivity you so absolutely state and require. The properties you give modern science (you have given it far too much credit in terms of objectivity) can not hold as long as you keep that statement.
Where science "starts" or "ends" is really irrelevant, as it is the entire process at work that is important, not single features. If you want to maintain objectivity, you have to do it all the way through and don't cop out on arbitary decisions like "users discretion". As I've said before, the processes are not disconnected, regardless what definition of science you choose to use. (Ironically, the limits of science are pretty arbitary ...)
It does not. I have already stated that it's a very bad thing, that's the whole point. I have also multiple times stated that is not part of science, but social conduct surrounding it.
That's the whole point. It's not a scientific rule. Just because some scientists use it doesn't make it anymore scientific than belief in god, or any other common-sense principle. It's ludicrous to appeal science to segregate claims based on anyone's personal beliefs.
<!--quoteo(post=1770988:date=May 12 2010, 08:45 PM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ May 12 2010, 08:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770988"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Where science "starts" or "ends" is really irrelevant...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>What.</b> That's what the entire discussion has been about so far.
I have previously demonstrated that this filtering mechanism is required for this method to actually produce results and can in that light be seen as a needed mechanism, something you continue to disregard.
Mon dieu.
I should probably clarify that I was talking about "science" as in "scientific method" all this time.
"Extraordinary claims" is not part of it: it neither can nor should be, not any more than any other common-sense considerations. Common sense and any convictions are common part of, you know, humans who do science, but that's their own thing. It's voluntary. And arbitrary. It's just a popular saying, however widely respected.
So, it has nothing to do with science. It's just common sense.
--Scythe--