Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?

This may be true in some fields of science, but at least in cognitive science, the degree to which this is true is questionable. I think nwr would also attest to the degree in which old, philosophical ideas on the nature of mind dominate people's ways of thinking. Breaking away from these things is hard, and convincing them takes more than just evidence--it takes extreme literary skills and a slew of literary devices to even get people to question the premises upon which their ideas rest.At least, that's the way it feels to me.Ben

I understand this point, but I disagree, because I see the gaining of this knowledge as not being completely neutral.The knowledge of science is an evolutionary process. Each discovery working of the one preceding it. Picture science as a tree, or even better a garden. If we only water certain plants, then those are the only ones that will grow.So we must take responsibility in the gaining of all scientific knowledge. Not everything is for the "greater good". Some only look to gain knowledge to use it for what is and should be wrong.Science is just as non-biased as religion. A word in a book doesn't mean a thing until someone comes along and tries to translate it, and apply it.The one thing that does not change about science is its ability to change.

Riverrat,I agree to some extent with what you seem to be getting at. You CAN make a "theory of science" that abstracts scientific theories from the worlds in which they're introduced (and that's what Mammuthus seems to be doing). But I don't think it's the best way to make the abstraction.But that's just what GOFAI has done--to define context-free entities and to create situations in which they apply, and it's a dichotomy that just doesn't work. Now we work with "situated cognition" and "embodied cognition", where entities aren't context free. Abstracting knowledge from the context in which it exists makes modelling the situation more difficult and less accurate.Or, to speak in less ugly terms... the abstraction that Mammuthus proposes is just one way to break things up, but I don't see that it's necessary nor that it's a useful distinction. All scientific theory exists within a broad cultural context. There is responsibility on ALL shoulders to be aware of and evaluate the effects of scientific discovery within those contexts. Denying that responsibility and placing it on the shoulders of others is making the same mistake of those who place it only on the shoulders of scientists (like you may be doing?).We all have a responsibility for ourselves and the others in our societies. Scientists have a responsibility to those to whom they present findings, to anticipate the viewpoints based on knowledge of a culture, and to address them knowingly at the time where they present the findings. They also have a responsibility to themselves to be good scientists, truthful, and uphold the principles that they hold.Those who have scientific results presented to them have a responsibility to deal with the information in an appropriate manner, and also have a responsibility to be "true" to themselves.None of us live in insulated worlds, as much as we'd all like to. To the degree in which we buy into the thought that we co-exist and are co-dependent within the context of culture and society, we have responsibilities to each other. It's up to each of us to respond appropriately to those responsibilities.Ben

Maybe it's scientific peers, or maybe it's religious peers, or maybe it's some other variety of peers, but the core theme is "peer pressure".All messages should have some obvious connection to the "peer pressure" theme.Any response to this message, if done within this topic, is off-topic. Please use the "General Discussion..." topic if you feel the need to respond.Adminnemooseus

---

I agree with you.I would like to introduce my 80% rule at this point in time. That is to say that I have found that in all walks of life, no matter what the profession/religion, that 80% of those involved just don't get it, or are porr at what they do, or they involve their own personal needs, and selfsh ways.This can all lead to peer pressure, and going against what you feel in your heart is the right thing to do with all this knowledge, religion/science.

Are you familiar with Sturgeon's Rule? "90% of everything is crap."Just thought your rule was oddly similar.

I certainly agree with that. I'm not sure that this contradicts Mammuthus, however, for there isn't a whole lot of evidence available. Cognitive science is still at a primitive stage where it hasn't fully settled on what is to be considered evidence.

(faking like I originally used a useful subtitle...) Good point, and a bad omission on my part. Operating within the context that cognitive science / psychology is science, this does contradict Mammuthus' characterization of how science operates... but maybe we just want to push this into the "Is psychology science?" thread as an argument against that viewpoint.Ben

It is not defensiveness.It is frustration with your constant and persistant misrepresentation and inability to be corrected regarding science, in some cases by actual scientists, that you are mistaking for defensiveness.This discussion with you is quickly becoming not worth my time, because of your apparent refusal or inability to listen, nor comprehend what people write to you.It is nothing personal, rat, but I really do think that you come across as either being incredibly stubborn or incredibly dense when it comes to reading comprehension.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2005 05:34 AM

quote:

---

Your missing the point. If something is not right and widely accepted, and only one person really has the right idea what is going on, then it takes some doing to prove it.

---

So what? It's still the E V I D E N C E that is needed.And it takes others R E P L I C A T I N G the first person's reults to confirm them further.and that's the scientific method.

quote:

---

Then you say scientists aren't saying their results should be taken as an authority. Well of course not, no one would ever admit to that, unless they needed the money. But there is a responsibility and an accountability there. Seems no one wants to be responsible for things when they are wrong. Why should they? We have the blameless scientific method as law.

---

When the professional wrestlers in the WWF take folding chairs and hit each other with them, do you blame the folding chair manufacturers for the wrestlers' using them for a bad purpose?

quote:

---

He is supposed to be, but that is rarely the case. All this technology and still people die unecssary deaths.

---

Why do you require perfection from imperfect people?Doctors and scientists are not gods.Of course, if you would like to go back to the days before antibiotics, before we understood the role of microorganisms in disease, before vaccinations eliminated or greatly reduced the occurance of around a dozen deadly or dangerous childhood diseases, etc., you are welcome to it.It's only been a few hundred years, you know, since SCIENCE made your life expectancy quite a lot longer, made it possible for you and your children to avoid most formerly common dangerous infectious diseases, and for proper dentistry to save their teeth rotting out, but hey, you can just dismiss all of that because people still die.Grow up, riverrat.

quote:

---

I would like to introduce my 80% rule at this point in time. That is to say that I have found that in all walks of life, no matter what the profession/religion, that 80% of those involved just don't get it, or are porr at what they do, or they involve their own personal needs, and selfsh ways.

---

...except that in science, all your work, should you get published much, is evaluated by others in the same field.If you consistently do poor work that is rejected by professional journals, or is accepted but consistenly gets shredded and demontrated to be incorrect or poor by others, you aren't going to be able to get a tenure track position. Have you hever heard the phrase, "publish or perish?"IOW, there's really no way to hide it if you are a bad scientist, because all of your work is out there in the public, for all to see.I shudder to think what would happen to biomedical science if 80% of the people working in it were incompetent.

I wanted to be fair and say 80%, but really I think it is 90%.
No I never heard that rule, funny.Maybe thats why the bible says such a small percentage of people will actually make it, lol.

Thats funny, because that is what I say about you. Either that or your so rapped up in disagreeing with me, that you really don't understand where I am coming from. I completely understand what the scientific method is "supposed" to be. I also understand the "reality" that scientists think they operate in. I am just bringing out some real world views, and not really disagreeing with people too much. I am asking you to think outside the box, although you think I am in a box.
Science has had a huge affect on our reality, and peer pressure. To think otherwise is just silly. That affect is in no way un-biased. But science, and scientist do not want to take any blame because hey, scientific knowledge cannot hurt anyone, unless you use it. That is just silly.