Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WooHoo! More idiots running the gub'ment.
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 138 of 245 (549524)
03-08-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by nwr
03-08-2010 1:58 PM


Re: The Mindless Middle
Without personal opinions, preference, emotions and other forms of human bias, there would be no science.
Science is indeed a human endevour that is susceptible to both our very human failings and indeed strengths. But I would argue that science is unique in the way that it attempts to overcome some of those human proclivities that stand in the way of reliable understanding and knowledge.
There is probably no such thing as "the scientific method" either, though that discussion is off topic for this thread.
That is quite a statement. Do you fancy starting a thread on that topic? I suspect you would get a lot of responses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by nwr, posted 03-08-2010 1:58 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by nwr, posted 03-08-2010 3:11 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 141 of 245 (549534)
03-08-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by nwr
03-08-2010 3:11 PM


Re: The Mindless Middle
I certainly agree that science attempts to achieve reliable understanding and knowledge.
OK.
But it does not do so by overcoming opinions, emotions and bias.
Then in what way does it attempt to achieve a superior level of reliability of knowledge and understanding than other methods of knowing?
ou might even say that science is itself biased in favor of empirical evidence as opposed to ancient traditions.
Are you saying that science and other ancient methods of knowing are equally reliable, equally valid and equally successful in terms of results?
Do you fancy starting a thread on that topic?
No, I don't
Well I am not surprised as I don't think you can justify your rather ambiguous but nevertheless all too obvious assertions here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by nwr, posted 03-08-2010 3:11 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 143 of 245 (549537)
03-08-2010 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by nwr
03-08-2010 3:50 PM


Re: The Mindless Middle
Science is a highly creative enterprise. With your "and nothing else" you have ruled out that creativity.
Rahvin is more than capable of speaking for himself. But WTF?
Nobody is suggesting that intuition and creativity are not part of science. Or indeed any other human endevour. We are not robots. We do not live by logic alone. Nobody disputes these facts. Nobody here is claiming that we should even aim to be like robots or deny our humanity in this way. Nobody is claiming that this would be even remotely desireable.
But that is not the same as proclaiming that all conclusions are merely the result of wholly creative subjective processes and that none are more or less valid than any other.
Why do you have to try and depict anyone who claims sceintific knowledge as superior to other forms of knowing as some sort of mechanistic nutjob? What are you proposing as an alternative method of knowing and why do you think it is even remotely reliable?
Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by nwr, posted 03-08-2010 3:50 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by nwr, posted 03-08-2010 4:18 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 145 of 245 (549548)
03-08-2010 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by nwr
03-08-2010 4:18 PM


Re: The Mindless Middle
Nwr writes:
You might even say that science is itself biased in favor of empirical evidence as opposed to ancient traditions.
Straggler writes:
But that is not the same as proclaiming that all conclusions are merely the result of wholly creative subjective processes and that none are more or less valid than any other.
Nwr writes:
I'm not sure what's the point. I certainly have never made such a proclamation. I am a strong proponent of science.
OK. Then what did you mean by the above?
Nwr writes:
There is probably no such thing as "the scientific method" either.....
Nwr writes:
That's a damnable lie. I have not criticized scientific knowledge. What I did criticize was a grossly simplistic description of scientific knowledge.
If the scientific method probably doesn't exist then on what basis do you advocate scientific knowledge as different or superior to any other?
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it Nwr. What is your position? Be specific.
Edited by Straggler, : Formatting
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by nwr, posted 03-08-2010 4:18 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by nwr, posted 03-08-2010 8:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 236 of 245 (560792)
05-17-2010 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by nwr
03-08-2010 8:06 PM


Re: The Mindless Middle
Picking up on old unanswered posts.
Similarly, if I suggest that what is often given as "the scientific method" is merely a "Just So" story, I am not thereby questioning whether there is such a thing as science.
If science isn't dependent upon it's method then what is it characterised by? What makes science different from any other method of drawing conclusions? I think you should have a read of The Scientific Method For Beginners

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by nwr, posted 03-08-2010 8:06 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Rahvin, posted 05-17-2010 6:11 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 238 of 245 (560801)
05-17-2010 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Rahvin
05-17-2010 6:11 PM


Re: The Mindless Middle
Rahvin writes:
I don't think that's what nwr is saying at all.
It may just be me but Nwr seems to say a lot of stuff where working out what he actually means or what position he is taking requires a lot more work than it should.
Nwr writes:
I certainly agree that science attempts to achieve reliable understanding and knowledge. But it does not do so by overcoming opinions, emotions and bias. You might even say that science is itself biased in favor of empirical evidence as opposed to ancient traditions.
Nwr writes:
There is probably no such thing as "the scientific method" either......
Nwr writes:
Similarly, if I suggest that what is often given as "the scientific method" is merely a "Just So" story, I am not thereby questioning whether there is such a thing as science.
So what is he saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Rahvin, posted 05-17-2010 6:11 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 242 of 245 (560943)
05-18-2010 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by onifre
05-17-2010 11:35 PM


Re: The Mindless Middle
I think you've misread his initial intent. Straggler seeks to destroy. lol
Oh boy have you seen through me.
EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by onifre, posted 05-17-2010 11:35 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 243 of 245 (560960)
05-18-2010 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by nwr
05-17-2010 8:41 PM


Re: The Mindless Middle
I'm saying that while there are some broad characterizations that can be given of science, there isn't anything that could be codified precisely enough to be considered a method.
Science is a human endeavor. Nobody disputes this. Nobody is suggesting that we can write the "science algorithm" and leave a bunch of computers to "do science" while we get on with more artistic pursuits.
But that doesn't mean that there is no methodology behind it at all does it? A methodology that (I would argue) is chiefly characterized by the requirement that ones conclusions be compared with empirical reality.
But I won't elaborate here or provide further references because somebody might actually want me to justify something I say. And we can't have that on a science/religion debate board can we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by nwr, posted 05-17-2010 8:41 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Wounded King, posted 05-18-2010 9:59 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 245 of 245 (560969)
05-18-2010 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Wounded King
05-18-2010 9:59 AM


Re: The Mindless Middle
I was using the royal "nobody". I.e as in "nobody that is me".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Wounded King, posted 05-18-2010 9:59 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024