Re: To all advocates of science in this NG.

On 2005-08-20, noctiluca <robertlcamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Longfellow wrote:
>> There have recently been abominable examples of irresponsible behavior
>> on the part of the advocates of science. This behavior deeply threatens
>> the perceived image, and understanding of, science in this venue. What
>> I have to say here is, I believe, commensurate with the seriousness of
>> the issue.
>
> I've read your protests elsewhere, and here. I think you are seriously
> overreacting.

Very well, you think what you like.

>> Such statements as "astrology is bunk", and "...voodoo is...more
>> efficient", and the like, are blindingly obvious signals that the makers
>> of same have no more intellectual integrity than those who advocate
>> creationism, intelligence design, and institutional religion.
>
> If I could parse that, I suspect it would be nonsense. First, if you
> rate the integrity of creationists and IDists as low, then it is silly
> to include institutional religion in that group. Few here throw all
> religious individuals into the same barrel as creationists. Second,
> stating that astrology is bunk is no signal of lack of intellectual
> integrity (except perhaps to those who have a pseudo-scientific soft
> spot for astrology), it is a short-hand recognition that there is no
> empirical, replicable support for such paranormal assertions.

Few throw all religious individuals into the same barrel as
creationists? You're probably right, but that doesn't mean they don't
belong there. Undoubtedly, there are people who have critically
assessed their religious beliefs and made such adjustments and decisions
as seemed of value. Most of them don't talk about what they believe,
because it is unique in detail, relevant in toto only to that person.

Others who buy religious dicta/dogma whole cloth off the shelf also buy
the stricture of noncriticality: Faith only is allowed. Acceptance of
that stricture demonstrates a lack of intellectual integrity, in my
view. And those are the folk who are apt to be vocal about their Faith.

Making statements like those I cite deliberately avoid the issue of lack
of empirical and replicable support. The truth of the matter is that
lack of such support is exactly what it is: lack of support. It means
"we find no support for this alleged phenomenon, and so cannot offer a
conclusion". It doesn't mean none exists, it means none was found.
Period.

But such a statement is not sufficient, as a conclusion is demanded in
any case. So a conclusion is issued based on an unwarranted
interpretation of findings. If it didn't matter one way or another, a
simple statement of lack of finding would suffice. But it does matter,
and Scientism (and some socially pressured scientists) go along with the
crowd.

> Gauquelin's studies largely debunked much of astrology. He said,
>
> "Having collected half a million dates of birth from the most diverse
> people, I have been able to observe that the majority of the elements
> in a horoscope seem not to possess any of the influences which have
> been attributed to them."
>
> He did find data which supported a correlation that came to be known as
> the "Mars effect." This phenomenon has been the subject of much
> scrutiny (including that which I believe to be the most logical
> explanation - Dean's recognition of "social effects" in the data), but
> it has by no means been concluded to be legitimate evidence of
> astrology (or horoscopy if you prefer).
>
> Astrology suffers from many scientific difficulties, the most egregious
> of which is, as with "intelligent design," or homeopathy, or esp, the
> inability to posit a reasonable mechanism by which the mystery would
> work its magic.
>
> Most people who say "astrology is bunk," are simply recognizing that
> legitimate evidence for the effect posited is conspicuously absent. I
> suspect most are not attempting to hang a "science has disproved this"
> sign on anything, just saying the burden of evidence challenge has not
> been met.
>
> In that vein, I'll just add; homeopathy is bunk.

Nothing about astrology other than the example of the statement that
"astrology is bunk" was included in my post. The above is irrelevant
here.

>> The fact
>> is that those who mouth such brainless sound-bytes know absolutely
>> nothing
>> whereof they speak. At best, all they know is what they've read, most
>> if not all of which is equally uninformed.
>
> How do you know this is "the fact?"

Because of the conclusions drawn. So far as I know, no physical law
forbids the phenomenon of interest to astrology, or voudon, or any of
the other such subjects. In fact, non-local interaction is one of the
more interesting phenomena currently under investigation. The only
things that would support the kind of summary refutation would be a
demonstration of violation of physical law, or a definitive
investigation. To my knowledge, neither exist, so I make my assertion
without qualification.

If you can show that a physical law forbids any of these subjects,
please do so.

>> In the above regard, those who engage in such behavior are no different
>> than those they criticize for the very same reason. What makes this so
>> serious is that the advocates of science know better!! It cannot have
>> escaped anyone with even a rudimentary (K-12) introduction to science
>> that unsupported claims are anathema therein.
>
> If you're talking about claims like "astrology is bunk," or "homeopathy
> is bunk," then they are not unsupported. They are made in the context
> of the laws of physics and chemistry and biology etc. They are made
> with the understanding, or familiarity with the understanding of
> professionals, that some pseudo-scientific phenomena require levels of
> evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the claims. Both
> astrology and homeopathy fit this category. Both posit effects that
> would require us to re-think or re-write natural law. Both depend on as
> yet unknown forms of "energy." Neither currently qualifies as anything
> more than "bunk."

No statement that "..... is bunk" has any place in science. Such
statements reek of unstated and unwarranted assumptions. No statement
of definition, of description, of essential detail, of anything of
interest to a critical investigator accompanies such assertions.

Let's take homeopathy, for instance. Homeopathy basically claims that
small amounts of certain chemicals catalyze what eventually constitutes
remediation of a condition. The current or historical practice of
homeopathy may or may not have value, but the principle itself has been
observed in medical science, and is the basis of the practice of
immunization. What's really the case is that homeopathy as practiced is
without scientific rigor, does not possess a robust clinical basis.
Doesn't mean it couldn't, though.

So far as I know, homeopathy itself does not address "energy" of any
kind, but practitioners of homeopathy may include such things. That is
the responsibility of the practitioner, and does not speak to
homeopathy.

> This does not mean, of course, that someday someone might not
> demonstrate otherwise. But if an interested party asks about either
> astrology or homeopathy, or any pseudo-science, are we doing them any
> favors by saying science has proved nothing either way, rather than
> that the evidence to date suggests its nonsense?

It is not in the interest of science to engage in such issues. To the
extent it does so, it is itself tarnished by misuse. Scientists may
wish to trade on their reputations, as I have said, to make such
assertions, but such behavior does not flow from the principles and
philosophies of science. You may engage in this sort of thing if you
like, but understand what you're about: You are making an unwarranted
interpretation of lack of evidence.

I would guess that at some point, someone will discover the mechanisms
of such phenomena of correspondence as is of interest to astrology. One
thing seems certain: They damn well will *not* call it astrology!!!!

> Like many others, I'll go way out on that limb and say its bunk.

Very well. Argumentum ad populum?

>> However, there is a cadre of academically qualified scientists that
>> trade on their credentials to engage in that very same behavior. I have
>> elsewhere called them the Apostles of Scientism, who present themselves
>> as "experts at large", licensed thereby to hold forth authoritatively on
>> any subject whatever. The late Carl Sagan was one of these, sadly.
>
> Cite, please?

Anyone who claims that science is the only protocol that leads to
knowledge is treading on an illusion. Sagan, if I recall correctly,
made that claim. What scientific protocol is involved in the discovery
that a stove is hot? Certainly we don't retest and retest to gather
enough data to make a determination!!!! If we don't do that, we're not
doing science!

The fact is that we gather knowledge in many ways. Science is, in
essence, how we keep from fooling ourselves. Science is, of necessity,
a communal process. One cannot independently verify one's own work in
each and every case, and this verification is a necessary part of
science. Thus, no individual can rely only on scientific protocol to
gather knowledge.

>> Scientism is the religion of science. It is the uncritical worship of
>> the dicta of those with scientific credentials. It is the very same
>> sort of phenomena as is found in any other religion: "Those guys know
>> what they're talking about, so they must be right". A simple statement
>> with two very fatal assumptions: 1) That they know what they're talking
>> about. 2) That therefore they must be right.
>
> Actually those seem less like assumptions than they do a restatement.

Nope, it's the assertion that both parts of the statement are
assumptions.

> In any case, if the guys we're discussing really do know what they're
> talking about (and isn't that the crux?) then I'll take their expertise
> into account every time, precisely because they're more likely to be
> right.

So how do you make that determination?

Academic accreditation is a license to practice, so that's necessary.
Peer approval is necessary to remain in practice, so that's necessary.
Yet case after case demonstrates that those two requirements do not
robustly indicate that an individual will not make a fool of themselves.
Even Nobel Laureates fall into that trap, as evidence Linus Pauling and
vitamin C.

No, what we do is to take their opinions under advisement, as you state.
But like anything else in science, those opinions are subject to
scrutiny. If a scientist obtains remarkable results from an
investigation, and they are accepted on peer review, one can make a case
for citing those results in one's own work if appropriate. But opinions
are like orifices, everyone has several.

>> The Apostles of Scientism have gained for themselves the very same sort
>> of power that the agents of other such religions have had traditionally.
>> It should not escape anyone that such power is almost certainly the
>> exact reason for the resurgence of those other religions: The Apostles
>> have overstepped their competency too often and too far, and they've
>> lost their credibility. Unfortunately, most lay folk don't know the
>> difference between the agents of Scientism, and the agents of science
>> itself.
>
> Perhaps you can provide some examples so we can understand your
> argument in more depth, as well as decide if you yourself know the
> difference.

Ever notice how someone comes up with a breakthrough finding, like
Darwin and evolution, and suddenly other "experts" get on the
bandwagon and come up with the sort of stuff that Herbert Spencer did.
Made a name for himself, though not well regarded now, I think. That's
a good example.

And then there's all the relativism explanations, such that lead to
Post-Modern deconstructionism, etc. In each of these cases, the
proponents did not have a grasp of what they were trying to use because
it was outside their competency. They were by the way of being "experts
at large", such that they could come up with some new revelation in
their own bailiwicks.

Oh, and then there's guys like Frank Tipler, apparently well regarded
cosmologists, who came up with a theory (the Omega theory, as I recall)
which did not get accepted. So he wrote a book "proving" the Christian
notion of rebirth in the last days, or whatever, using his rejected
theory as the hook. How many good Christian folk were convinced that
he'd made his case, even when they didn't understand his arguments? I
can tell you that I've run across more than one thoughtful Christian who
sincerely believed that he did, and were using it as an argument for ID,
etc.

Most of what I was talking about was the phenomenon of summary rejection
and judgment of those who did not accept their views. Statements like
"astrology is bunk" when no published definitive peer reviewed
demonstration thereof appeared. That's far too close to a summary
rejection and criticism of religion itself. I can do that and get away
with doing so, because 1) I can argue my case, and 2) I claim no
authority of my own.

Scientists who flout both of those (don't argue their case, but flaunt
their presumed authority) represent science as just another form of
authoritarian religion, and a very negative one as well.

Hmmm... well then there's the case of a Harvard professor of marine
biology, IIRC, who, after retiring decided to put his energy into an
earlier love, the Gaelic language. Name of Barry Fell, if memory
serves.

Fell discovered that some putative evidence of pre-Columbian European
artifacts was in fact demonstrable. He could read marking on stones in
New England as a form of Irish Ogham, and that started him looking
around for more such. The archeology community thrashed on him
incessantly, because they summarily rejected his claims when he
presented them (outside his competency, so it must be wrong), without
ever investigating them. So Fell wrote a series of popular books. And
they then thrashed on him some more, because he had circumvented their
"authoritative" rejection.

More such tales abound.

Is that enough?

>> What they do know and understand quite well is that Scientism is indeed
>> a religion. Two things result: 1) Those who espouse religion now
>> accept Scientism as fair game for their territorial warfare. 2) Those
>> who do not, but do not have a valid understanding of science itself,
>> reject both as equally invalid. To the extent that Scientism is seen as
>> the accredited agent of science itself, science becomes no different in
>> the minds of the public than religion.
>
>> The thoughtless behavior of issuing knee-jerk sound-bytes is exactly
>> what supports Scientism in the perceptions of the readers. Such
>> behavior is inexcusably irresponsible, especially for those who know
>> better. The cumulative result of this sort of thing contributes to the
>> preference for traditional religion in the eye of the honest but
>> uninformed.
>
> As I said before, I really think you're overreacting. Even given the
> qualification of certain statements as "knee-jerk sound-bytes" I don't
> think it contributes as you suggest.

Well, I suggest that you aren't really qualified to make that judgment,
as you've not been on the receiving end of such stuff. The harsh and
violent behavior of some of these guys toward pet beliefs is far worse
than that of the terrible storm god of the Jews/Christians/Muslims:
after all, said god did all that stuff so long ago... Get told that
you're an idiot and that you are too stupid to understand how stupid you
are, and see if you don't change your mind.

I've have never said, and will never say, that any of you guys are too
stupid to comprehend what you're doing. Far from it. All of you are
far too smart not to know better, and I doubt many of you really don't
understand that you engage in that kind of harshness for your own
private reasons.

Copying the excreble manners of cantankerous and lonely college
professors who are really venting their angst at their own perceived
failures is not a smart thing to do, and yet this harsh and summary
judgmentality is exactly that in quite large part.

In short, if one commits to advocate reason in the regard of an issue
that is as important as this, one damn well better walk the talk or get
shot down when caught not doing so.

>> This behavior threatens me. It contributes to the ever increasing hold
>> of fundamentalist religion on the public, and on the government, and I
>> don't like what they intend: A virtual theocracy no different from that
>> practiced in the Islamic Nations! Well, yes, there is a difference, of
>> course. Those folk have no illusions about what they have, and we do:
>> we steadfastly ignore what we create.
>
> Umm, what?

What about burgeoning virtual theocracy do you not understand?

>> So damn all you pissant thoughtless blokes to hell!!! Every one of you
>> do, or should, know better!!! Your smarmy irresponsibility is your own
>> choice to advertise yourself as "politically correct" in the eyes of
>> your fellow mindless followers of Scientism!!! You are in fact
>> advocates of the same behavior, and thus the same goals, as the
>> brainless golum army that marches forth from the institutions of
>> traditional religion!!!
>
> Okay, I take it back. You're not overreacting at all.

Indeed!!!
>
>> Now that I've delivered of myself my spleen on the matter, let me
>> instruct you all:
>>
>> If you don't know of your own investigation, then remain silent, or tell
>> what you in fact do know. It is quite acceptable to make citations of
>> the opinions of others, but they *must* be labelled as such. If you are
>> familiar with such work, cite it in such a manner as to open it to
>> critical examination and question.
>>
>> If you don't know of your own investigation, then ask questions!!! How
>> much of a no-brainer is that!
>
> Here's the no-brainer. Instead of constantly complaining about this
> kind of behavior, how about you just respond when it happens by making
> your own referenced and informed contribution? Let your evidence do the
> talking, not just your, well, talking.

Well, I try to make a habit of doing so. But all our credibility gets
shot down by that behavior. I get lumped with those who spout that
crap, and if I don't shout loudly against it, am seen as tacitly
supporting it. I refuse!!!

>> Assertions are considered as statements of fact, not opinion. If it's
>> opinion, label it as such, preferably right out front. Same with
>> belief. If you want to have any credibility, support your opinions and
>> beliefs in some rudimentary manner, at least.
>>
>> If you do know of your own investigation, then state as much. Tell what
>> you did and why. Describe with a thumbnail sketch what you did and how
>> you did it. Tell what you found. *Then* tell what you concluded. It
>> doesn't take much to do this, usually a couple of paragraphs, far less
>> than I'm expending on this subject.
>
> True enough.
>
>> Open yourself to question and submit what you have for examination.
>> That way, those you would persuade do the work for you, and having done
>> so, will remain persuaded with no further effort on your part. If they
>> are not persuaded, then you should at least have cause to re-examine
>> your own conclusions.
>>
>> If you can do these things, you have no need of verbal passion or
>> rhetoric, and you will never fall into the trap that yawns for the
>> unwary. And you also might learn something!!
>
> I refer you to your statements some eight paragraphs ago.

ROFL!!! So you vent your temper without passion? What kind of person
are you? I intended to make it very clear that I am *ANGRY*!!! My own
credibility is being tarnished, and our common cause of reason is being
sullied!!

>> Do I follow these tenets? Well, sorta... like everyone else, I tend to
>> fall short on the business of assertions as a form of shorthand, but I
>> guess I tacitly expect to be handed my lunch when I've blundered. So I
>> make a habit of having proper form at hand as a second sortie if the
>> first fetches aground.
>>
>> I know very well how little I know about almost everything, these issues
>> included. I do know somewhat of many things, at least enough to plug in
>> to opportunities to learn more. But then, I'm on the downhill slope in
>> years, and I should have what I profess.
>>
>> I have myself learnt the hard way of the issues I raise, having been
>> young, impetuous, etc. And I've gotten slapped down extremely hard for
>> my pains, much harder and more viciously than my efforts here. So I
>> know whereof I speak, and I know why as well.
>>
>> I learned, and so can you all. Do so before more damage is done!
>
> Perhaps all is not lost. After all, you are here to save us.

Nope, here to save myself. I have undertaken to argue the case of
reason in this venue, and I'm being assumed to defend this unacceptable
behavior. After this post, the record will be very clear that I do
not!!!

> (Really, don't you think you're overreacting just a bit?)

Not at all. If you don't comprehend the seriousness of deliberately
flouting what one professes to represent (it's called fraud in some
cases), when the issue is as important as this one, then I claim that
you are in need of some serious reflection, and probably mentoring as
well.

Longfellow

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... >> ID out of science classrooms. ... that its proponents are merely trying to couch their religion in ... >> their ability to understand, and astrology, Von Daniken, pyramid power ... That is the problem ID is not even a weak hypothesis at present. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God/No God
    ... astrology is not like that. ... I do not reject science. ... I don't know a single one who considers it a religion. ... scientists to skeptically and rigorously evaluate your assertions. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: To all advocates of science in this NG.
    ... > the perceived image, and understanding of, science in this venue. ... > creationism, intelligence design, and institutional religion. ... spot for astrology), it is a short-hand recognition that there is no ... > Scientism is the religion of science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: pnyikos might consider compiling a list of lies about Behe in talk.oriigins
    ... science was equivalent to astrology. ... it is being quoted during Behe's testimony by the cross-examiner: ... Behe certainly did not deny it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: pnyikos might consider compiling a list of lies about Behe in talk.oriigins
    ... science was equivalent to astrology. ... Did Judge Jones claim that Behe had clarified why ID wasn't science? ... Evolutionary scientists merely take the grand theory of the genetic ...
    (talk.origins)