|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Death of Darwinism
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
I suppose there is really something to collective consciousness (CC). In this case technology accelerated the growth of this blob of CC in Darwin's direction. Hard to predict what smaller blob is growing now that will become the next big one. Is it the alien religion the next thing?
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Dean Radin is doing some excellent meta-analysis on the influence of mind in the material with compelling data.. for those who care to do their "homework".
Hold on a sec. Doesn't that fall foul of your stance against materialism in science? Of course I'm still waiting for your answer to my earlier question about how you do science without reference to the material universe. I don't see how you can square that circle and still call it "science".
Another interesting question is the bounds of "materialism". Does Newtonian gravitation count as non-materialist because in addition to matter Newton postulated an immaterial force ("spooky action at a distance") that acted on matter? Is it 'materialist' to model electromagnetic interactions in terms of force carrier particles but non-materialist (immaterialist?) to model the same interaction in terms of electromagnetic 'fields'? And does the approach used affect the validity of the results?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777
|
Posted
I think there is always "something" behind the thing that we are observing, looking for the next layer. Materialism might simply be defined as the continued effort to explain the something. But what may be harder to nail down is whether it was predecided that Materialism is on the correct path to the ultimate something at the end of it all...
Is this a correct conclusion is different than, were we heading in the right direction when we made this conclusion.
If the Higgs Boson is the something, once that is resolved, there will be a next something. What is the ultimate objective we hope to find?
An issue with "Darwinism" though is not that people were ever curious enough to explore evolutionary links, either macro, or micro, but that Darwinism is not readily able to be rolled backward -if it needed to be- because scientists view their notion of progress and purpose to be much like a religious purpose - for "the good".
So if any branch of science needed to retrace their steps, go back, look for the right road, they are reluctant to do so because so much effort has been spent on going in one direction. It lends insult to what is considered honorable, or for the good of society.
Rather than being encouraged to explore new directions, it is discouraged and mocked to be the first one or first group to say "let's look at this a whole new way" - or worse - lets stop studying this and moving in this direction, and study this new idea.
Has anyone ever studied a map and realized there was a faster route, but found it hard to make the decision to turn back because it was uncomfortable? Something like that.
[ 08. June 2017, 16:12: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.
Posts: 200 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
In my post at 16:22 I said "It may be if the scientist is scrupulous in the scope of its implications, but becomes pseudoscience if he publishes what he expects to find." In the context of the previous discussion I thought it self evident that I was inferring pseudoscience in publishing "only" what he expects to find, abandoning any other result as contaminated.
What you are describing is bad practice.
pseudoscience:
quote:
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
quote:
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", a thoroughly unscientific approach to methodology.
It is very scientific. If I claim yogic flying is real, I would need to show that what I am doing exceeds the results of physically launching my body forward whilst in the lotus position.
This is also the standard in more accepted theory.
quote:
This despite the body count of institutional atheists regimes (societies that enforce atheism at the point of a gun) far outweighing religiously inspired or backed wars.
This is something that whilst perhaps not completely wrong, is an inaccurate way to frame the debate. But that is a discussion for another thread, perhaps.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
An issue with "Darwinism" though is not that people were ever curious enough to explore evolutionary links, either macro, or micro, but that Darwinism is not readily able to be rolled backward -if it needed to be- because scientists view their notion of progress and purpose to be much like a religious purpose - for "the good".
Not sure what you're getting at here. Yes, it would be convenient to "roll back" certain mutations, like antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but I don't think you can really attribute that to the actions of "scientists". It seems like that's something more inherent in descent with modification than anything scientists declared by fiat.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Dean Radin is doing some excellent meta-analysis on the influence of mind in the material with compelling data.. for those who care to do their "homework".
Hold on a sec. Doesn't that fall foul of your stance against materialism in science? Of course I'm still waiting for your answer to my earlier question about how you do science without reference to the material universe. I don't see how you can square that circle and still call it "science".
Another interesting question is the bounds of "materialism". Does Newtonian gravitation count as non-materialist because in addition to matter Newton postulated an immaterial force ("spooky action at a distance") that acted on matter? Is it 'materialist' to model electromagnetic interactions in terms of force carrier particles but non-materialist (immaterialist?) to model the same interaction in terms of electromagnetic 'fields'? And does the approach used affect the validity of the results?
No, of course the recognition of matter and its habits does not negate other possible influences. I didn't miss your previous question but assumed in the light of what I'd said, and the speed of incoming posts, the difference was self evident.
Briefly, and very roughly, the alternatives include (but are certainly not restricted to):
An entirely material universe with immutable laws of unknown origin that emerged full formed at the Big Bang. A reality akin to a Platonic or mathematical realm of pure abstraction and devoid of consciousness, not least the conscious mind of a deity. The human observer is only epiphenomenally conscious, the result of incipient survival mechanisms and genetic imperatives that have seduced him into an illusory world view of which he is a wholly unreliable observer.
A similarly sealed material universe, machine like in every detail (even if we don't currently recognise the precise nature of the machine), put in place by an infinitely creative mind in which the creator plays no further part.
The same universe, but having an ongoing relationship with the deity, a relationship that can be detected through manifest interventions like miracles, and/or subtly via human nature, which reflects something of the nature of God.
A universe like the above, but which can only be detected by conscious mind, and which may be contained entirely within it. As there's no way of knowing anything outside conscious experience, there's no reason to believe such a domain exists.
Each are philosophically consistent, in so far as philosophy is the study of what it is possible to know, but take a different perspective on parsimony. For instance materialism is difficult to square with qualia and the unavoidability of conscious experience, Idealism is theoretically consistent but doesn't accommodate the apparent immanence of matter.
Choose your poison.
[ 08. June 2017, 19:08: Message edited by: romanesque ]
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I'm not sure the distinctions you're making are scientifically testable or scientifically relevant. How exactly to you tell the difference between:
- Massive objects are attracted to each other in direct proportion to their mass and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between them because of the underlying laws/structure of the universe. (Gravity!)
- - Massive objects are attracted to each other in direct proportion to their mass and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between them because the underlying laws/structure of the universe have been set up that way by an outside entity of some sort. (Gravity is set up by God!)
- - Massive objects are attracted to each other because an outside entity of some sort decides to push on them in direct proportion to their mass and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between them. (Gravity is God!)
- - There are no such things as massive objects but we believe there are and that they're attracted to each other in direct proportion to their mass and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between them. (There is no spoon!)
I'm not sure why these unanswerable questions are relevant to Darwinism specifically or science generally. It starts to sound a little like angels and pin heads*.
--------------------
*This is actually a modern myth. Theologians in the Middle Ages didn't actually argue about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. They argued about important stuff, like whether or not angels defecated.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure why these unanswerable questions are relevant to Darwinism specifically or science generally. It starts to sound a little like angels and pin heads*.
Stephen Meyer proposes a challenge to Darwinism. Personally I find the term intelligent design unsatisfactory, as it reduces creativity to process, and if there is a conscious mind at work its immanence may too apparent to perceive "logically". God may submit to logical analysis, or deduction may be a tiny subset of what's necessary for navigating the deity. Perhaps instincts like love connect to the creator in a way deconstruction does not? Most people would say human beings contain instinct and deduction.
My point re. scientism is science education privileges method over philosophy, rewarding a "shut up and do the math" approach for analytical minds. This is exploited by people like Richard Dawkins who state that philosophy is irrelevant to science, even though science is rooted in natural philosophy, and introducing an ideological element to a blameless method of observing the physical world. Physicalism is assumed, physicalism plus an undetectable deity for sentimental reasons if absolutely necessary, but suggestions that mind may be an a detectable agent is career suicide and for woo woo mongers only.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Stephen Meyer proposes a challenge to Darwinism. Personally I find the term intelligent design unsatisfactory, as it reduces creativity to process, and if there is a conscious mind at work its immanence may too apparent to perceive "logically".
How about "cdesign proponentsists"? It's an interesting 'transitional (linguistic) fossil' between creationism and intelligent design. I believe Meyer was involved in the publication of Of Pandas and People, though I don't think it was that particular edition. I'm mostly familiar with him as the author of the "Wedge Document", outlining a PR campaign to sway scientific consensus. So yes, I agree "Stephen Meyer proposes a challenge to Darwinism", I just disagree that he does so on any grounds that could be considered "scientific".
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
My point re. scientism is science education privileges method over philosophy, rewarding a "shut up and do the math" approach for analytical minds. This is exploited by people like Richard Dawkins who state that philosophy is irrelevant to science, even though science is rooted in natural philosophy, and introducing an ideological element to a blameless method of observing the physical world. Physicalism is assumed, physicalism plus an undetectable deity for sentimental reasons if absolutely necessary, but suggestions that mind may be an a detectable agent is career suicide and for woo woo mongers only.
From this I gather that your big complaint isn't that there's "an ideological/philosophical element" in science education, you're just upset it's not your ideology/philosophy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
If the Higgs Boson is the something, once that is resolved, there will be a next something. What is the ultimate objective we hope to find?
Why should science have our need an ultimate objective? Science is a method, and more loosely a body of knowledge. Why anthropomorphize it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
From this I gather that your big complaint isn't that there's "an ideological/philosophical element" in science education, you're just upset it's not your ideology/philosophy. [/QB]
No, my complaint is ideology of any kind has no place in the scientific method. One can be Atheist, Christian or Jedi Knight and conceive excellent scientific protocols.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
No, my complaint is ideology of any kind has no place in the scientific method. One can be Atheist, Christian or Jedi Knight and conceive excellent scientific protocols.
I have no disagreement with the words you have written in this post. However, I do think we would disagree what those protocols entail.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So yes, I agree "Stephen Meyer proposes a challenge to Darwinism", I just disagree that he does so on any grounds that could be considered "scientific".
ID isn't scientific. That was never its intention and is exterior to its function.
Outside of finding God's patent number stamped on a quark or an alien species arriving with the complete blueprints and permit applications for the universe, it is a belief.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
From this I gather that your big complaint isn't that there's "an ideological/philosophical element" in science education, you're just upset it's not your ideology/philosophy.
No, my complaint is ideology of any kind has no place in the scientific method. One can be Atheist, Christian or Jedi Knight and conceive excellent scientific protocols.
I disagree. The scientific method requires experiments to have results which can be observed, for example. This would seem to be the dreaded "materialism" you've been complaining about, that "results" without any physical evidence aren't considered scientific.
Don't concepts like "in order to have your hypotheses accepted you need to produce evidence" count as "ideology"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]Don't concepts like "in order to have your hypotheses accepted you need to produce evidence" count as "ideology"?
No. You are stating a method, not an ideology. Science is a method of procuring data or evidence. An ideology tells you what to think about data or evidence regardless of what it is or shows. So someone could be ideological about a theory, such as creationism, and the method of scientific data collection would refute it and an ideologue still holds the disproven theory.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Don't concepts like "in order to have your hypotheses accepted you need to produce evidence" count as "ideology"?
Yes but also no. It is certainly true that Science follows a particular philosophy and that almost everyone has signed up to it to the extent that those who fall foul are named, shamed and excommunicated.
At the same time, it is hard to call it an ideology when it boils down to "do your damn work openly and honestly". That's like saying that the civic expectation on a policeman to work honestly and fairly is an "ideology". Err..
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
[Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Don't concepts like "in order to have your hypotheses accepted you need to produce evidence" count as "ideology"?
No. You are stating a method, not an ideology. Science is a method of procuring data or evidence. An ideology tells you what to think about data or evidence regardless of what it is or shows. So someone could be ideological about a theory, such as creationism, and the method of scientific data collection would refute it and an ideologue still holds the disproven theory.
Not true. The current mania for "evidence-based medicine" demonstrates perfectly how a scientific principle turns into an ideology. The critical step is an obfuscation: behind the scientific methodology sits the process of selecting the hypotheses to be tested, and before that, the problems in respect of which hypotheses and solutions are to be developed. The "evidence" produced by the development and evaluation processes is used to hide that process of selection, and protect it from questioning. That is how a scientific method becomes an ideology, and it's everywhere.
[ 10. June 2017, 11:41: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
No again. Evidence based practice is the ideology. This may be a misapplication of the research or not. The science is the data collection.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Seeing as the alternative to evidence-based medicine is medicine without evidence to back it up --- guesswork, unproven quackery, snake-oil --- I'm having a hard time seeing the "mania" as a bad thing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
That may somewhat overstate it MT. There's a lot of nonspecific factors embedded in medical care, particularly at the level of family physicians. Medicine is both a science and an art. It does no good to have a physician (or nurse practitioner, physiotherapist etc) prescribe the exactly right evidence based treatment and have the patient not adhere to the treatment. -- though on the other hand, we have practitioners who manage the communication and adherence to treatment plans rather well, but are not very good at applying evidence to diagnosis and applying the right treatment, thus command great adherence to plans, but to the wrong ones.
To get back to the topic, we have good evidence, from multiple independent data sources that converges on the same interpretation - thus evidence for evolution. We also have people who take one data source and run with it to the wrong conclusions, not taking into account other sources. The one I've seen most is the evolution of the eye, which has actually evolved some 5 times independently, which refutes the anti-Darwinian idea that such structures cannot be formed by natural processes. Others are structures that allow flight and swimming (wings and fins/flippers).
"Every formula which expresses a law of nature is a hymn of praise to God." (Maria Mitchell, 1896)
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
romanesque, you'll find you get a better response to your points about Darwinism when you don't rely on articles from Evolution News which is published by the Discovery Institute, described by Wikipedia as:
quote:
best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).
and the Skeptico Forum that is run by Alex Tsakiris who:
quote:
advocates various forms of quantum woo, parapsychology and evolutionary teleology
Intelligent Design was part of this thread back from the start. There is a mention on page 1 - post 8 on this thread referring back to the mention of Behe in the opening post. In the first few posts, the argument was made that science and philosophy are looking at different aspects of the same problem. Intelligent Design is looking at the philosophy and the why, not the how that science considers.
Yes, there are problems around the distortion of scientific research by the pharmaceutical industry in particular, as outlined in Bad Pharma and there are various campaigns pushing for all results to be published, particularly All Trials. There are issues with the funding of research and the distortions that can cause but that doesn't mean all science is made up or should be ignored.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I guess the comment about links was aimed at me - and I wasn't saying links aren't acceptable, but I find that a post pointing to a link without explanation isn't always helpful, particularly when I am using phones to read.
[ 11. June 2017, 10:04: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
romanesque, you'll find you get a better response to your points about Darwinism when you don't rely on articles from Evolution News which is published by the Discovery Institute, described by Wikipedia as:
quote:
best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).
and the Skeptico Forum that is run by Alex Tsakiris who:
quote:
advocates various forms of quantum woo, parapsychology and evolutionary teleology
Intelligent Design was part of this thread back from the start. There is a mention on page 1 - post 8 on this thread referring back to the mention of Behe in the opening post. In the first few posts, the argument was made that science and philosophy are looking at different aspects of the same problem. Intelligent Design is looking at the philosophy and the why, not the how that science considers.
Yes, there are problems around the distortion of scientific research by the pharmaceutical industry in particular, as outlined in Bad Pharma and there are various campaigns pushing for all results to be published, particularly All Trials. There are issues with the funding of research and the distortions that can cause but that doesn't mean all science is made up or should be ignored.
I'm too old and ugly to accept Rationalwiki as a value neutral window on the world. I don't happen to agree with Alex Tsakiris on any number of issues, but in the same way I don't hold the BBC in contempt for allowing terrorists and extreme nationalists to air their views as well as mainstream politicians, Tsakiris has interviewed some compelling voices outside the mainstream whose voices demand an answer.
Similarly for the Discovery Institute, one doesn't have to be a young earth creationist to welcome debates on C19th scientific perspectives. There's a problem funding any research that fails to acknowledge an exclusively physicalist interpretation of reality, which inevitably places all challenges to it in the academic margins. That doesn't mean the topic at hand is marginal to the nature of reality. I reject "woo" is a barometer of anything except the prejudices of its user.
In the case of Dean Radin, his research is concerned with the measurement problem of quantum physics and the implications of it for consciousness. When studying clear scientific inferences puts the researcher into the freakzone, the problem isn't with the hypothesis.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
romanesque, you'll find you get a better response to your points about Darwinism when you don't rely on articles from Evolution News which is published by the Discovery Institute, described by Wikipedia as:
quote:
best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).
and the Skeptico Forum that is run by Alex Tsakiris who:
quote:
advocates various forms of quantum woo, parapsychology and evolutionary teleology
Intelligent Design was part of this thread back from the start. There is a mention on page 1 - post 8 on this thread referring back to the mention of Behe in the opening post. In the first few posts, the argument was made that science and philosophy are looking at different aspects of the same problem. Intelligent Design is looking at the philosophy and the why, not the how that science considers.
Yes, there are problems around the distortion of scientific research by the pharmaceutical industry in particular, as outlined in Bad Pharma and there are various campaigns pushing for all results to be published, particularly All Trials. There are issues with the funding of research and the distortions that can cause but that doesn't mean all science is made up or should be ignored.
I'm too old and ugly to accept Rationalwiki as a value neutral window on the world. I don't happen to agree with Alex Tsakiris on any number of issues, but in the same way I don't hold the BBC in contempt for allowing terrorists and extreme nationalists to air their views as well as mainstream politicians, Tsakiris has interviewed some compelling voices outside the mainstream whose voices demand an answer.
Similarly for the Discovery Institute, one doesn't have to be a young earth creationist to welcome debates on C19th scientific perspectives. There's a problem funding any research that fails to acknowledge an exclusively physicalist interpretation of reality, which inevitably places all challenges to it in the academic margins. That doesn't mean the topic at hand is marginal to the nature of reality. I reject "woo" is a barometer of anything except the prejudices of its user.
In the case of Dean Radin, his research is concerned with the measurement problem of quantum physics and the implications of it for consciousness. When studying clear scientific inferences puts the researcher into the freakzone, the problem isn't with the hypothesis.
Rampant harassment on Wikipedia: http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/rampant-harassment-on-wikipedia/
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
[qb] romanesque, you'll find you get a better response to your points about Darwinism when you don't rely on articles from Evolution News which is published by the Discovery Institute, described by Wikipedia as:
[QUOTE]best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).
and the Skeptico Forum that is run by Alex Tsakiris who:
quote:
advocates various forms of quantum woo, parapsychology and evolutionary teleology
Intelligent Design was part of this thread back from the start. There is a mention on page 1 - post 8 on this thread referring back to the mention of Behe in the opening post. In the first few posts, the argument was made that science and philosophy are looking at different aspects of the same problem. Intelligent Design is looking at the philosophy and the why, not the how that science considers.
Yes, there are problems around the distortion of scientific research by the pharmaceutical industry in particular, as outlined in Bad Pharma and there are various campaigns pushing for all results to be published, particularly All Trials. There are issues with the funding of research and the distortions that can cause but that doesn't mean all science is made up or should be ignored.
I'm too old and ugly to accept Rationalwiki as a value neutral window on the world. I don't happen to agree with Alex Tsakiris on any number of issues, but in the same way I don't hold the BBC in contempt for allowing terrorists and extreme nationalists to air their views as well as mainstream politicians, Tsakiris has interviewed some compelling voices outside the mainstream whose views demand an answer.
Similarly for the Discovery Institute, one doesn't have to be a young earth creationist to welcome debates on C19th scientific perspectives. There's a problem funding any research that fails to acknowledge an exclusively physicalist interpretation of reality, which inevitably places all challenges to it in the academic margins. That doesn't mean the topic at hand is marginal to the nature of reality. I reject "woo" is a barometer of anything except the prejudices of its user.
In the case of Dean Radin, his research is concerned with the measurement problem of quantum physics and the implications of it for consciousness. When studying clear scientific inferences puts the researcher into the freakzone, the problem isn't with the hypothesis.
[ 13. June 2017, 20:23: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
Editing has turned the whole post into quotes. I don't know how to avoid this but it's clear who is speaking.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
<tangent>You haven't edited your posts (pen and paper symbol) when trying to correct them but have quoted (inverted commas symbol) and added to them.</tangent>
It's very difficult to find much on Alex Tsakiris other than his publications. However, there are queries about his interviews in that he changes the topic of the interview at the last minute to throw the interviewee off balance and make himself look good (from that Rational Wiki article), and a critical review of his book here querying his ideas and methodology.
I'll leave the quantum mechanics discussions to Alan Cresswell, as he's so much better at this.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Seeing as the alternative to evidence-based medicine is medicine without evidence to back it up --- guesswork, unproven quackery, snake-oil --- I'm having a hard time seeing the "mania" as a bad thing.
It's a bad thing if it obscures the decisions taken before evidence is gathered. For example, the use of aspirin in many contexts probably doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of "evidence-based" zealots, but that's because no-one can make enough money out of it to pay for that scrutiny to take place. My point is that, without a rigorous and publicly funded research base, this is true of an alarmingly wide range of potentially useful, cheap therapies. It's also true of a lot of approaches to psychotherapy that can't attract the money thrown at CBT. CBT has been crowned without the essential competition.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Seeing as the alternative to evidence-based medicine is medicine without evidence to back it up --- guesswork, unproven quackery, snake-oil --- I'm having a hard time seeing the "mania" as a bad thing.
It's a bad thing if it obscures the decisions taken before evidence is gathered. For example, the use of aspirin in many contexts probably doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of "evidence-based" zealots, but that's because no-one can make enough money out of it to pay for that scrutiny to take place.
Really? No one?
The supplement industry is a multi-billion £/$ industry. Much of it sold with nothing more than an outrageous, improbable promise.
There is money.
[ 11. June 2017, 15:49: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It's very difficult to find much on Alex Tsakiris other than his publications. However, there are queries about his interviews in that he changes the topic of the interview at the last minute to throw the interviewee off balance and make himself look good (from that Rational Wiki article), and a critical review of his book here querying his ideas and methodology.
I'll leave the quantum mechanics discussions to Alan Cresswell, as he's so much better at this. [/QB]
Alex Tsakiris has interviewed the cutting edge scientists and thinkers he claims in his Skeptiko podcast, but is far more inclusive and increasingly so of stuff that would press most people's crank button. What you describe as changing the topic is really nothing more than his guest's complete unfamiliarity with the research. People go on the show to promote their book, and when he offers a vying perspective they've rarely heard of the other perspective no matter how academically respectable. This - and the Skeptiko title - leads guests to claiming they've been bounced, when most were hoping to get an easy ride before a tame audience. Listening to the archive soon reveals a pattern of academics working in their individual silos and making bold claims, not least in the areas of consciousness studies, that don't bear scrutiny. This is not always easy listening.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
No romanesque, what is said about Alex Tsakiris is that he edits the interviews and changes the words of his interviewees in the transcripts as well as introducing the topics at short notice. That's not presenting ideas, that's changing the goal posts to show himself in a good light and others in a poor light.
The book review suggests that he starts with a hypothesis and will accept anything, including a satire that refutes the hypothesis as evidence, to prove his idea.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is money.
Yes, and in the case you cited it is buying silence. My point about the need for a fully publicly funded base of high quality research stands.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
No romanesque, what is said about Alex Tsakiris is that he edits the interviews and changes the words of his interviewees in the transcripts as well as introducing the topics at short notice. That's not presenting ideas, that's changing the goal posts to show himself in a good light and others in a poor light.
The book review suggests that he starts with a hypothesis and will accept anything, including a satire that refutes the hypothesis as evidence, to prove his idea.
I don't believe that's the case for one minute, it sounds like materialist evangelicals muddying the waters. I've listened to most of the podcasts and the transcript matches the audio, given the voluntary nature of the transcription and the inevitable umms, arrs of discussion.
The idea that he edits audio maliciously sounds like sceptical fantasy, there's no necessity for such monkey business when the guest hangs themselves so enthusiastically.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is money.
Yes, and in the case you cited it is buying silence.
I did not cite any case. Just pointing out that a large pharmaceutical company makes money from aspirin, a non-prescription* drug. They would be happy to increase that use if presented with a feasible idea.
*Depending on the form.
quote:
My point about the need for a fully publicly funded base of high quality research stands.
I do not dispute this. Good luck making it happen.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Don't concepts like "in order to have your hypotheses accepted you need to produce evidence" count as "ideology"?
Yes but also no. It is certainly true that Science follows a particular philosophy and that almost everyone has signed up to it to the extent that those who fall foul are named, shamed and excommunicated.
At the same time, it is hard to call it an ideology when it boils down to "do your damn work openly and honestly". That's like saying that the civic expectation on a policeman to work honestly and fairly is an "ideology". Err..
Well, "rule of law" is also an ideology. And science dictates not just "do your damn work" but also has rules for what counts as evidence, or "work" as you put it. Spectral evidence, for example, falls outside the realm of science, largely because it usually can't be reproduced or examined by anyone else. This may seem unfair to those who wish to rely on such methods, but you can't really do anything that can properly be called "science" without such standards.
[ 12. June 2017, 01:29: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
For example, the use of aspirin in many contexts probably doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of "evidence-based" zealots, but that's because no-one can make enough money out of it to pay for that scrutiny to take place.
Actually there's a tremendous evidence base behind the use of aspirin, most of it paid for by the public purse. The UK government invests quite a lot in healthcare trials, all of it to advance treatments that wouldn't be supported by private funding. Similar things happen in the US.
It is actually happening, it's not just an idealistic dream. It is probably true that mental health care, and especially psychological therapy, has been underfunded, but I think the reason for funding trials of CBT over other forms also relate to the fact that it is easier to write down what CBT is and to deliver it in a set time period. Other therapies that are harder to write down and neatly deliver are less attractive to a high throughput health service.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I think there is always "something" behind the thing that we are observing, looking for the next layer.
If the Higgs Boson is the something, once that is resolved, there will be a next something. What is the ultimate objective we hope to find?
The Higgs Boson is not the something "behind" the previous layer in the sense that I think you mean.
Quarks would be a layer "behind" hadrons - in a nutshell, you could begin with the existence of protons and neutrons, move on to the discovery of other baryons, observe that they appear to have this property called isospin, and finally come to the quark model as an explanation for all of that.
If you want something to be "behind" the existing standard model, you could look at superstring theories. String theorists, however, have a computational problem - they find it difficult to make predictions that are testable at attainable energies.
What is the ultimate objective? A single theory that describes the universe. A theory that can include both gravity and quantum mechanics. A theory that can explain why the universe is matter-dominated. Understanding what dark matter, and dark energy, really are.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht--
You mentioned an idea that that the universe is matter-dominated. Is that standard, accepted science?
(Not poking at you. I'm just not sure if I've heard that before.)
Thx.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
You mentioned an idea that that the universe is matter-dominated. Is that standard, accepted science?
Yes. We know that the bits close to us are matter. If there were regions of antimatter, we'd see annihilations at the boundaries. We don't see that.
Is it possible that there are antimatter superclusters sufficiently well separated from their matter cousins? We can't quite rule that out, but nobody has a mechanism to produce it (and some reasonable arguments in support of it not happening.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It does rather depend on what you mean by "matter". Does it, for example, include energy that can transform into particles? Or, just as one side of an arbitrary line between "matter" and "antimatter"? How do you incorporate that we call the particles emitted in beta- decay an electron and antineutrino (conversely, beta+ decay emits an antielectron and neutrino and electron capture a neutrino) - would it make any difference to the argument about the dominance of "matter" if we had called the particle emitted in the more common decay mode the neutrino rather than antineutrino? Is the distinction between "matter" and "antimatter" significant? Or, is it just a particular naming convention for mutually annihilating particles, and "antimatter" is just another form of material particles?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The most difficult questions some of us ask run along the lines of is there honey still for tea. Now, they do matter.
[ 06. August 2017, 08:30: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, just as one side of an arbitrary line between "matter" and "antimatter"?
I'm confused. In what way is this line arbitrary? I was under the impression that if you mix matter and antimatter they react rather decisively with one another. That seems a pretty thick black line.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The arbitrariness is in the nomenclature. There could be a decent argument to call an electron "matter" and positron "antimatter" on the basis that one is far more common than the other. But, why have it one way round or the other for neutrinos when the anti-neutrino is produced in the more common form of beta decay?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm having a hard time thinking somebody flipped a coin. There must be something neutrinos have in common with protons, photons, neutrons, electrons, etc. (things that are indisputably "matter") that anti-neutrinos do not?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
romanesque, you'll find you get a better response to your points about Darwinism when you don't rely on articles from Evolution News which is published by the Discovery Institute, described by Wikipedia as:
quote:
best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).
and the Skeptico Forum that is run by Alex Tsakiris who:
quote:
advocates various forms of quantum woo, parapsychology and evolutionary teleology
Intelligent Design was part of this thread back from the start. There is a mention on page 1 - post 8 on this thread referring back to the mention of Behe in the opening post. In the first few posts, the argument was made that science and philosophy are looking at different aspects of the same problem. Intelligent Design is looking at the philosophy and the why, not the how that science considers.
Yes, there are problems around the distortion of scientific research by the pharmaceutical industry in particular, as outlined in Bad Pharma and there are various campaigns pushing for all results to be published, particularly All Trials. There are issues with the funding of research and the distortions that can cause but that doesn't mean all science is made up or should be ignored.
I'm too old and ugly to accept Rationalwiki as a value neutral window on the world. I don't happen to agree with Alex Tsakiris on any number of issues, but in the same way I don't hold the BBC in contempt for allowing terrorists and extreme nationalists to air their views as well as mainstream politicians, Tsakiris has interviewed some compelling voices outside the mainstream whose voices demand an answer.
Similarly for the Discovery Institute, one doesn't have to be a young earth creationist to welcome debates on C19th scientific perspectives. There's a problem funding any research that fails to acknowledge an exclusively physicalist interpretation of reality, which inevitably places all challenges to it in the academic margins. That doesn't mean the topic at hand is marginal to the nature of reality. I reject "woo" is a barometer of anything except the prejudices of its user.
In the case of Dean Radin, his research is concerned with the measurement problem of quantum physics and the implications of it for consciousness. When studying clear scientific inferences puts the researcher into the freakzone, the problem isn't with the hypothesis.
Rampant harassment on Wikipedia: http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/rampant-harassment-on-wikipedia/
Ohhhhhhhhh! Bollocks.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There must be something neutrinos have in common with protons, photons, neutrons, electrons, etc. (things that are indisputably "matter") that anti-neutrinos do not?
That's the point, there isn't really anything. Positrons and electrons are both leptons, both have the same mass and spin, it's only their charge that makes them different. Neutrinos and antineutrinos have the same (zero) charge, spin and mass with opposite chirality and lepton number. Basically each particle comes in two almost identical forms - electrons and positrons are far more similar to each other than either is to a neutrino or proton. Given sufficient energy (and some other conditions) these particles can be created in matching pairs, and those pairs can convert back to energy when they collide.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It does rather depend on what you mean by "matter". Does it, for example, include energy that can transform into particles?
Well, the photon is its own antiparticle, and pair production will produce matter and antimatter in equal quantities. When I talk about matter here, I really mean fermions.
quote:
Or, just as one side of an arbitrary line between "matter" and "antimatter"? How do you incorporate that we call the particles emitted in beta- decay an electron and antineutrino
Actually, that's the same reason. A photon can produce particle-antiparticle pairs, or equivalently, a charged particle can emit a photon (it's the same process.) A W- boson can produce an electron and an electron antineutrino, or equivalently an electron can transform into an electron neutrino by emitting a W- boson.
quote:
Is the distinction between "matter" and "antimatter" significant? Or, is it just a particular naming convention for mutually annihilating particles, and "antimatter" is just another form of material particles?
The difference between "matter" and "antimatter" fermions is significant. You can't trade the neutrinos for the antineutrinos, for example.
The left-handed electron and the (left-handed) electron neutrino form a doublet under the SU(2) symmetry of the weak interaction. In other words, a neutrino is "like" an electron because they transform into each other under SU(2) transformations. Physically, that means "emit a W boson".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
