The world would be a better place if we lived by science

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Not really, it's not really hard to analyze the critiques and counter-critiques of evidence, or even dive into examining it for yourself if you've a good critical mind, in order to determine what problems may be present in a certain piece of evidence.

You definitely don't need experience in a field to evaluate the quality of evidence - especially not if you are able to evaluate the quality of arguments/counterarguments in support/opposition of the evidence - after reading a lot of the latter regarding physics, I can confidently support the claim that e.g. the entire field of string-theory is mostly pseudo-scientific and wont become falsifiable anytime soon.

Usually all it takes, is taking the time to do a bit of your own research with Google, and - after evaluating their quality - finding some good sources to learn from.

You can learn pretty much anything you like, if you just put a bit of time into it - doesn't even have to be that much time.

Thought experiment -

Do you think you have a good critical mind KB?


You can see how subjective a question this is, that requires a person to make a critical evaluation of themselves, and then how do you measure your own data and determine it's falsifiability and so on? How do you know when you have gathered enough evidence to make that determination?

Quite frankly I was shocked when you said you use google to research the credibility of your sources, you know what a terribly unscientific method that is, goes completely against the scientific method tbh.

Critical evaluation is entirely based upon a judgement call, and your judgement is often informed by other factors. For instance to use sup_dude's example - I know nothing about horses, I know nothing about seaweed. How can I honestly critically evaluate the evidence presented upon something I have no understanding of? I wouldn't understand the terminology would be the biggest stumbling block.

Just how much time do you think other people have to wait around while you make a decision? The idea of constant evaluation would also create a huge demand for resources that would simply negate any cost savings or efficiency improvements in systems.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You don't need to force everyone to do that, you just need to create a culture which holds it up as a good standard for running society, to pressure those in charge into acting using evidence-based decision making.

If people 'grab evidence wherever they can get it' - i.e. cherry-picking their evidence or failing to evaluate the quality of evidence they're using - then they're not living in an evidence-based society (which has more of a focus on application of the scientific method in evaluating evidence).

People keep trying to bring back the same straw-men again and again in this debate.

With all due respect, I don't think you're reading what I'm saying (ironically!), although I was under the assumption that the OP wanted everyone to live by science.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I know a lot about the methods of critical thinking, how to spot logical fallacies, how to spot flaws in my own thinking, and the humility to know that I make mistakes just like everyone else, and am open to having them pointed out - all of that's a good basis for having a critical mind.

All of that, is like the X Factor contestant that doesn't have a note in their head and says "I'm a great singer, and my family think I'm a great singer". I don't see how you're able to claim you can spot the flaws in your own thinking when (ironically enough), evidently you don't possess the humility to know you make mistakes like everyone else, and you're certainly not open to any possibility of having your mistakes in your own thinking pointed out by anyone.

All it is is a set of tools/methods for learning - it's fairly simple/basic in the end, and works really well.

The judgement that it "works really well", is completely a judgement call dependent upon how the user uses those tools to engineer a successful outcome for themselves. I imagine your success rate is somewhere near 100%, and therefore no wonder you think the tools work really well.

Every scientist worth his salt on the entire planet, uses Google. The days of doing research solely in libraries are over. How you find your sources doesn't matter (the more expansive the search the better), it's how you evaluate the quality of sources, is what matters.

So every scientist worth their salt uses google (argumentum ad populum), The days of doing research in libraries are over (more argumentum ad populum).

How you find your sources doesn't matter (it bloody well does!), and the more expansive the better? (for someone who I consider a financial and economic genius, you're ignoring the massive demand on resources here, or do you actually believe that scientists sit around all day googling?).

So, how long, again, do you expect you should be allowed time to evaluate the quality of soirces when there are people have invested their whole lives in these fields, and you're coming along with your laptop and your google and you think you'll be able to evaluate their evidence on an equal footing with them?

That sounds very much like the modern peer review system which is the very reason why there's so much bad science being put out there, popular science being passed off as 'the truth'.

A fairly embarrassing amount of it actually, and I gave two examples earlier in the thread - anti-vaccination crowd, and proponents of evolutionary psychology.

If you know how to spot a logical flaw in an argument, you can debunk a study/paper on any complex/esoteric field of knowledge that you know nothing about, just by pointing out the logical flaw.

No, no you really can't. If you can't understand the argument, how are you supposed to be able to determine logical inconsistencies in the argument?

I keep repeating that the application of evidence-based decision making wouldn't be strict, so your last sentence is a straw-man trying to pretend again, that I did say that.

It's not a strawman at all. You're sitting on the fence there suggesting that society would benefit from evidence based decision making, but you're not going to pressure anyone into it, but we should all pressure each other to create a culture, but it wouldn't be strictly implemented or followed and people should be allowed to carry on as before without being pressured to buy into an idea that you claim would undoubtedly benefit all in society?


It's like a bizarre sort of logical argument that circles round on itself while not stating a position either way, like you just don't want to make a decision on whether it actually would benefit society or not, let alone undoubtedly so!

Very confusing, very confusing altogether tbh

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

So some guys book is your counter-agument and your go to source?
One joe-blow out of 7 billion people. Think about that for a second.

FFs, maybe you should reading the link before you actually respond. I suggested the book if were interested in actually finding out about it, but if you won't even read a fúcking link that will take a few minutes to read, that suggestion is wasted on you.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

All of your claims here are missing an argument or quote or anything to back them.


This is just a longwinded way for you to say "that's just your opinion". You haven't even tried to point out any flaw with the methods I point out.


Every time a statement is made in my posts, you try to pick at it, and stretch to an extreme, as if I'm advocating enforcing what I say in a wholly impractical way.

Please stop constantly straw-manning me like that.

I'm ignoring all of the above quote relating to Google, because it should be bloody obvious to anyone, how Google searching a topic is useful to scientists - and how even if they want to search a public archive or journal, they will go to Google and type e.g. "arxiv *field of study* *topic*".


If you understand that string theory is not falsifiable - something easy to establish by reading e.g. Peter Woit - and you understand that falsifiability is one of the key markers of real science, then you know all you need to know, to write-off string theory a pseudoscience.

You don't need to understand a single argument that any string theorist makes, to discard what they are presenting - all you have to ask them is: Is it falsifiable?


It's very simple: Don't try and pigeon-hole me into advocating a strict standard of evidence-based decision making, or whatnot.

Whenever you present an argument, trying to make what I propose seem impractical, due to e.g. impracticality of verifying every single source or such, then you are creating a straw-man - because I haven't argued for such a strict standard of verification or enforcement.

I'm not trying to strawman or any of the rest of it KB. I'm genuinely trying to understand where you're coming from, and I thought I did there for a bit, and now I'm completely and utterly lost again, and that's why I'm confused, because you don't actually seem to be advocating anything that isn't used already, and it's been shown to be problematic, whereas you consider it to be undoubtedly beneficial.

I understand what you mean when you advocate applying the scientific method only in certain situations, and applying critical thinking to evaluate evidence, but that happens already, just not in every decision making process.

That's not governing society using evidence based decision making, which isn't what you want, as that would be cherry picking, so I'm confused as to what exactly your position is, and what you are actually advocating for that would be undoubtedly beneficial to society?

Surely if you have critically evaluated your position, and come to the conclusion that it would be undoubtedly beneficial to society, then it appears illogical to me at least, that you wouldn't be wanting to have it applied to all decision making processes?

Am I being too black and white here I wonder?

Does it depend upon context?

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yea I used the wrong phrase. Saying that there would still be no religion because scientific method requires evidence. There is no evidence for religion.

Isn't there? Some would say our very existence is evidence of a creator. Nothing comes from nothing, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted and yet the universe is full of energy.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

And God came from where ? Your reasoning just moves the question a step back

Donno. I'm not trying to prove religion (which is what your question is asking) I'm proving that the existence of an intelligent creator (religion) cannot be disproven by science.

It;s neither scientific nor unscientific to assume the existence or lack of an intelligent creator, there's no overlap between science and religion in this area.

I looked to most of the thread to see if anyone else had reference this but didn't see it.

Any time someone says that there'd be no wars etc without religion, I think of the South Park episode where Dawkins and Mrs Garrison get rid of religion from the world. Fast forward a thousand years and there are three factions at war over "The Great Question". There is constant war, killing and it seems like it won't stop. What is "The Great Question?". It was what to call themselves, with each believing their name was best.

So basically, we'll always find something to fight about, regardless of religion.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

'Nothing can come for nothing.' 'God came from nothing' talking to religious types is infuriating

God is infinite . . . at least get what you're arguing against correct.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nothing can come from nothing, according to current understanding of science.

No it isn't.

La Fenetre wrote: »

God is infinite . . . at least get what you're arguing against correct.

As in always has and always will or to put it another way came from nothing