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

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2015 2:00pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If anyone was trying to "expand concepts" here (segueway in their own agenda), it was KB, who completely changed the question to one they thought was a "better" one, and decided to offer an answer to that, instead of actually offering any answer to the question in the opening post.

Reframing the question as being based on evidence (one smaller part of science), instead of being based on science, is limiting - not expanding - the question.

Since evidence is a part of science, it's a perfectly fitting and on-topic post - which makes the thread a lot easier to debate, since evidence is a lot less of a broad topic than science is, and a lot easier to defend as a way of basing management of society (in the not-entirely-strict way I presented).

One eyed Jack · 14-11-2015 2:08pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No you just misrepresented what I said. I'm not going to debate from the position of something I did not say, and when posters insist on trying to present me as saying something I did not (by asserting that they 'rebutted' something I didn't say), that gets very tedious and becomes a big waste of time/space in threads.

Sorry? I didn't misrepresent anything you said. It's there in your post in black and white if you'd care to go back and read it for yourself. I wasn't trying to misrepresent you, I was questioning the idea that undoubtedly the world would be a better if the idea of making decisions based on evidence were to gain any traction (or pressure as you put it).

Do you think policy decisions aren't based on evidence already? You're the financial and economics genius (and I mean that genuinely, you're quite passionate about the subject, but not everything can be measured in pence and pounds!), but what happens when the evidence is politically motivated? People presenting evidence that suits their agenda?

I'm not particularly interested in lofty debates myself, it's after hours, there are no stakeholders here.

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2015 2:12pm

sup_dude wrote: »

People don't know what credible evidence is.

And the world would be a better place if people did - it's not really hard at all to learn the critical thinking skills, needed to evaluate the quality/credibility of sources, and of evidence (yet for some reason, so so many people are incredibly bad at it) - those skills should be taught in school.

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2015 2:19pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sorry? I didn't misrepresent anything you said. It's there in your post in black and white if you'd care to go back and read it for yourself. I wasn't trying to misrepresent you, I was questioning the idea that undoubtedly the world would be a better if the idea of making decisions based on evidence were to gain any traction (or pressure as you put it).

Do you think policy decisions aren't based on evidence already? You're the financial and economics genius (and I mean that genuinely, you're quite passionate about the subject, but not everything can be measured in pence and pounds!), but what happens when the evidence is politically motivated? People presenting evidence that suits their agenda?

I'm not particularly interested in lofty debates myself, it's after hours, there are no stakeholders here.

Well, when people present evidence to suit their own agenda, that's not actually real evidence - when you manufacture false 'evidence', that's fraud not evidence, and when you ignore competing evidence against your argument, that's another kind of intellectual fraud.

A better way to put my argument, is having society be managed on evidence, and proper/accurate evaluation of evidence (all the evidence); that's where the scientific method comes in, as it's a proven method of evaluating evidence and advancing knowledge based upon that.

Ave Sodalis · 14-11-2015 2:20pm

KomradeBishop wrote:

And the world would be a better place if people did - it's not really hard at all to learn the critical thinking skills, needed to evaluate the quality/credibility of sources, and of evidence (yet for some reason, so so many people are incredibly bad at it) - those skills should be taught in school.

Including scientists. Repeating what I said in my other posts, there is too much bad science out there that you can get evidence for near enough any argument you wish to make. Or you can do what too many studies do, and make your own evidence.

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2015 2:26pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Including scientists. Repeating what I said in my other posts, there is too much bad science out there that you can get evidence for near enough any argument you wish to make. Or you can do what too many studies do, and make your own evidence.

That's not evidence though - that's fraud.

People should face complete exclusion from the scientific community for that, and should go to prison wherever that kind of fraud is used to hide/cause harm to society - as both the tobacco industry (when it comes to cancer from smoking), and the oil industry (when it comes to climate change research) are both guilty of - the oil producer Exxon in fact, is now looking at facing massive massive lawsuits, just like the Tobacco industry did, for promoting fraudulent climate change science.

steddyeddy · 14-11-2015 2:33pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Including scientists. Repeating what I said in my other posts, there is too much bad science out there that you can get evidence for near enough any argument you wish to make. Or you can do what too many studies do, and make your own evidence.

There isn't bad science it's just bad conclusions or bad data. Science exposes this with new studies. Science is not static. It's the process of discovery rather than a set of facts.

Ave Sodalis · 14-11-2015 2:45pm

steddyeddy wrote:

There isn't bad science it's just bad conclusions or bad data. Science exposes this with new studies. Science is not static. It's the process of discovery rather than a set of facts.

I mean in terms of misconduct. Look at the fairly recent case of Dipex Das. 145 cases of misconduct and he is only one person.

Yes, there is fraud but its on a very wide scale. Much too wide to rely on evidence. Yes, there is bad data (huge amounts of it), but could you recognise it in fields that aren't your own? How much of that bad data is referenced, even within fields where they should know better? If people really want to justify something in every day life, they would more than likely be able to find a study or two that supports what they are saying, giving credit to what could be nothing but tripe. A clean up of journals is needed before we start living by them.

One eyed Jack · 14-11-2015 2:46pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

There isn't bad science it's just bad conclusions or bad data. Science exposes this with new studies. Science is not static. It's the process of discovery rather than a set of facts.

I don't understand then how that would be any different from the way most Western democratic secular societies are run now though?

Evidence based decision making is hardly a new thing? We make decisions based upon the weight of evidence available to us at the time, so how do we know, even using critical thinking and evaluation, or even using the scientific method, that the evidence before us is actually incredible if the tools we use fo evaluate the evidence don't catch the bad conclusions or bad data?

I hope that question makes sense, I know it's a bit long, I was trying to get my head around how would what you guys are proposing, be any different from what we have now?

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2015 2:48pm

sup_dude wrote: »

I mean in terms of misconduct. Look at the fairly recent case of Dipex Das. 145 cases of misconduct and he is only one person.

Yes, there is fraud but its on a very wide scale. Much too wide to rely on evidence. Yes, there is bad data (huge amounts of it), but could you recognise it in fields that aren't your own? How much of that bad data is referenced, even within fields where they should know better? If people really want to justify something in every day life, they would more than likely be able to find a study or two that supports what they are saying, giving credit to what could be nothing but tripe. A clean up of journals is needed before we start living by them.

Yes but you're misusing the word evidence - fraudulent 'evidence', is not actually evidence - it's fraudulent misinformation, trying to masquerade as evidence.

Ave Sodalis · 14-11-2015 2:54pm

KomradeBishop wrote:

Yes but you're misusing the word evidence - fraudulent 'evidence', is not actually evidence - it's fraudulent misinformation, trying to masquerade as evidence.

But it is used on a wide scale basis as it is, nevermind getting people who dont really have an interest in science to find credible evidence. For example, if I stuck a study in front of you from a veterinary journal on the effect of garlic seaweed on a horses diet, would you be able to tell if it would be considered sufficient evidence for whatever conclusion it came to? If it came to a positive conclusion (let say that it gives a horse a shiny coat and improves joints), and I came running onto the equestrian forum with this study, how many people would just believe me because I have a study?

RDM_83 again · 14-11-2015 2:57pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Religion degrades us.

If I behave in a decent and socially responsible way, is that because I know logically this is the best way to act or is it because I fear judgement day?

Why don't I commit murder? Is it because God told me not to?

Our ethics and morals come from....OURSELVES. In terms of evolution and a healthy human society, murder, rape, theft and fraud are largely disruptive and unhelpful - humanity didn't learn this from stone tablets or scrolls - we are social creatures - we work better in groups - murder, rape etc have a negative impact on the cohesiveness of those groups - that's why we avoid these things.

We are the result of unimaginable celestial forces billions of years ago - ancient starts exploding - dust and debris scattered throughout the universe at alarming speeds - we are stardust....how beautiful is that? And we will return to stardust...our planet will eventually be swallowed by the sun and it will be like we never existed....*poof*....gone.

Thats a very narrow view thats framed completely in a largely peaceful Europe thats been shaped by Christian morality.

Yes we work better in groups but between groups rape and murder have traditionally been astoundingly common throughout history.

What imposing a pacifist morality (which Christianity and some other belief systems are at its core) does is essentially pushes towards a co-operative response when the Game Theory ideas of co-operation vs aggression (Hawks vs Dove).
Rationally can you say that somebody like Ghengus Khan was not a model to aspire too, he was amazingly successful in passing on his genes and ensuring their survival which from a truly rational and scientific perspective is all that really matters. He killed millions but scientifically why is human life precious and suffering a bad thing? its just electrical signals in a mass of self replicating long chain amino acids and proteins.

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2015 3:00pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't understand then how that would be any different from the way most Western democratic secular societies are run now though?

Evidence based decision making is hardly a new thing? We make decisions based upon the weight of evidence available to us at the time, so how do we know, even using critical thinking and evaluation, or even using the scientific method, that the evidence before us is actually incredible if the tools we use fo evaluate the evidence don't catch the bad conclusions or bad data?

I hope that question makes sense, I know it's a bit long, I was trying to get my head around how would what you guys are proposing, be any different from what we have now?

Politics pays lipservice to evidence, but doesn't really operate based upon evidence, unless the evidence is so well established with the public that it's impossible not to.
The idea of the Overton Window is a good way of understanding how politics works - and how it doesn't have much bearing on evidence/science.

Even then, you've got whole fields like economics, where the dominant ideology largely ignores all evidence and resists reform, because economics is really all about political power - and maintaining that political power, depends upon corrupting that field of research and delaying the proper application of evidence, for as long as possible (I reckon it might even be possible to avoid that field from ever reforming - all the conditions are in place, for allowing raw political power to isolate reformists, and in a generation or two all the lessons learned from the current crisis can be forgotten - just like after the 1930's).

Evidence based decision making, and proper application of the scientific method to evaluate available evidence, is fairly easy - the tools we have available, work, and are largely accurate, and catch bad conclusions/data if applied well - it's getting people to actually do that, without politics corrupting the process, that's the hard/intractable bit.

It's not the process (evidence and the scientific method) that becomes the problem, it's the corruption of the process so that it's no longer about evidence/science, but about politics instead, that's the problem.

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2015 3:09pm

sup_dude wrote: »

But it is used on a wide scale basis as it is, nevermind getting people who dont really have an interest in science to find credible evidence. For example, if I stuck a study in front of you from a veterinary journal on the effect of garlic seaweed on a horses diet, would you be able to tell if it would be considered sufficient evidence for whatever conclusion it came to? If it came to a positive conclusion (let say that it gives a horse a shiny coat and improves joints), and I came running onto the equestrian forum with this study, how many people would just believe me because I have a study?

If people accept what you say, just because you present a study, they're not really engaging in any kind of critical thinking - all potential evidence/sources need to be evaluated and continuously re-evaluated.

That doesn't change my original point though, that if the 'evidence' presented is fraudulent, it's not actually evidence - that'd be a misuse of the word evidence.

When I talk about evidence in the thread here, I am talking about proper evidence, correctly evaluated and vetted, and subject to the scientific method - definitely not any kind of 'evidence' that is based on fraud, or intellectual sleight-of-hand, that goes against the scientific method.

dirtyden · 14-11-2015 3:17pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Would the world be a better place if science governed our politics and morals. Straight off the bat science doesn't recognise races. There's less than 1% difference in the genetic code of all humans. That should end racism.

The Palestinians and the Jews are nearly identical genetically indicating they both come from the same region. There's no Holy land ! No more wars there.

No more ISIS because there's no religion.

No more American health service because science says treating the individual to deal with pathogens rather than society doesn't work and makes things worse (multi drug resistant bacteria).

Would the world be a better place if we let science govern our lives?

The world would be pretty much the same, minus Christmas.

This simplistic argument that religion is the source of all evil that you appear to be promoting really has no basis in reality.

From the day people learned how to use tools they started using that skill to kill other people.

Knowledge has been used for good and ill just as religion has.

Ave Sodalis · 14-11-2015 3:28pm

KomradeBishop wrote:

When I talk about evidence in the thread here, I am talking about proper evidence, correctly evaluated and vetted, and subject to the scientific method - definitely not any kind of 'evidence' that is based on fraud, or intellectual sleight-of-hand, that goes against the scientific method.

But what I'm saying is that it's difficult to determine what is proper evidence when you have no experience in the field. So until it's cleaned up, you cannot expect every day people to tell the difference.

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2015 4:20pm

sup_dude wrote: »

But what I'm saying is that it's difficult to determine what is proper evidence when you have no experience in the field. So until it's cleaned up, you cannot expect every day people to tell the difference.

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.

Ave Sodalis · 14-11-2015 4:36pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

Anything you like is really the key element here. Many people don't like science. They have no interest in it, and it should not be forced on them. However, if in a hypothetical situation (such as the one being proposed that everyone should live by science and evidence), we force everyone to produce evidence for everything they believe, then people aren't going to sit down and look at every bit of literature out there to draw a conclusion, based on credible evidence. They're going to find what supports their statement. If you truly believe the human race can quit being bias in favour of true evidence (when pressed for evidence and otherwise haven't care for it), then you have more faith in people than I do.

Xeyn · 14-11-2015 4:46pm

Can you tell me where you are getting this notion that scientific fraud is widespread? Scientific consensus does not rely on one bad study. There is a hierarchy for evidentiary support. Your claim that you can find a study to support any view is disingenuous. If someone does a case study and reports on his findings and they contradict a prospective double blind meta analysis - that doesn't even come close to changing scientific consensus or even bringing it into dispute.

Ave Sodalis · 14-11-2015 4:52pm

Xeyn wrote: »

Can you tell me where you are getting this notion that scientific fraud is widespread? Scientific consensus does not rely on one bad study. There is a hierarchy for evidentiary support. Your claim that you can find a study to support any view is disingenuous. If someone does a case study and reports on his findings and they contradict a prospective double blind meta analysis - that doesn't even come close to changing scientific consensus or even bringing it into dispute.

It's widespead in the way it's not every so often. Studies that are funded by certain companies, poor studies (which isn't fraud as such but I was talking about bad science in general, if you read my posts). No, science doesn't rely on one bad study and I've never stated that. I'm talking about if everyone in the world lived by science and evidence. Not science the way it is now. Please read my posts.

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2015 4:59pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Anything you like is really the key element here. Many people don't like science. They have no interest in it, and it should not be forced on them. However, if in a hypothetical situation (such as the one being proposed that everyone should live by science and evidence), we force everyone to produce evidence for everything they believe, then people aren't going to sit down and look at every bit of literature out there to draw a conclusion, based on credible evidence. They're going to find what supports their statement. If you truly believe the human race can quit being bias in favour of true evidence (when pressed for evidence and otherwise haven't care for it), then you have more faith in people than I do.

What you're describing, is not science - if people use fraudulent 'evidence', then that is not actual real evidence, and that if people ignore evidence that contradicts what they want to support, then they're engaging in a type of intellectual fraud.

Presenting that as representing science, and presenting false-evidence as representing evidence, is creating a straw-man; that's not what people are arguing for.

One eyed Jack · 14-11-2015 5:03pm

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.

Ave Sodalis · 14-11-2015 5:03pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What you're describing, is not science - if people use fraudulent 'evidence', that that is not actual real evidence, and that if people ignore evidence that contradicts what they want to support, then they're engaging in a type of intellectual fraud.

Presenting that as representing science, and presenting false-evidence as representing evidence, is creating a straw-man; that's not what people are arguing for.

But you cannot force people to use correct science is what I'm saying. If everyone lives a purely evidence based society, then people are going to grab evidence where ever they can get it, because you can't make them do otherwise. A way to minimise that would be to clean up the bad science.

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2015 5:32pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

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

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.

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.

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2015 5:36pm

sup_dude wrote: »

But you cannot force people to use correct science is what I'm saying. If everyone lives a purely evidence based society, then people are going to grab evidence where ever they can get it, because you can't make them do otherwise. A way to minimise that would be to clean up the bad science.

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.

Ave Sodalis · 14-11-2015 5:39pm

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.

Iwasfrozen · 14-11-2015 5:46pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Would the world be a better place if science governed our politics and morals. Straight off the bat science doesn't recognise races. There's less than 1% difference in the genetic code of all humans. That should end racism.

The Palestinians and the Jews are nearly identical genetically indicating they both come from the same region. There's no Holy land ! No more wars there.

No more ISIS because there's no religion.

No more American health service because science says treating the individual to deal with pathogens rather than society doesn't work and makes things worse (multi drug resistant bacteria).

Would the world be a better place if we let science govern our lives?

Science disproves religion now? I'm agnostic but that's factually incorrect.

One eyed Jack · 14-11-2015 6:22pm

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

KomradeBishop · 14-11-2015 7:50pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

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*".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

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?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

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.

magma69 · 14-11-2015 8:03pm

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.

Ave Sodalis · 14-11-2015 8:06pm

I think this thread shows exactly why it won't work :pac:

One eyed Jack · 14-11-2015 8:13pm

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 · 14-11-2015 8:43pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Science disproves religion now? I'm agnostic but that's factually incorrect.

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.

Iwasfrozen · 14-11-2015 9:55pm

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 · 15-11-2015 4:04am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

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

Iwasfrozen · 15-11-2015 4:14am

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.

mad muffin · 15-11-2015 10:15am

The biggest advances in science are due to conflict. I'm a big proponent of conflict. I reap the rewards of those who died in conflict.

Salvation Tambourine · 15-11-2015 10:24am

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 · 15-11-2015 12:32pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

It's not the question I was asking.
Science also cannot disprove that I've an invisible pink unicorn or Russels teapot but I don't believe they exist. It's entirely unscientific to assume something with no evidence exists

jonnny68 · 15-11-2015 2:58pm

Religion is the root cause of most wars and terrorism thus is fact

Iwasfrozen · 15-11-2015 6:39pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's not the question I was asking.
Science also cannot disprove that I've an invisible pink unicorn or Russels teapot but I don't believe they exist. It's entirely unscientific to assume something with no evidence exists

Some would say our existence is evidence of a creator. Nothing comes from nothing, energy cannot be created or destroyed only converted yet the universe is full of it so what is the source of this energy?

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent creator. To make assumptions either way or even to ask the question in the first place is unscientific.

Atheism is no more scientific than Christianity.

The_Valeyard · 15-11-2015 7:54pm

jonnny68 wrote: »

Religion is the root cause of most wars and terrorism thus is fact

Which wars?

c_man · 15-11-2015 8:25pm

Judge - "c_man you are charged with murder as stated and outlined by the prosecution, how do you plead?"

Me - "Well given the multiple parallel universe interpreation of quatuam physics, one of the many versions of me had to do it. Therefore while I did the act, I cannot be held accountable for merely obeying the course of this universe"

J - "Good point, free him. And lets get a coke and hookers party for the man"

lazza14 · 15-11-2015 8:43pm

Ally Dick wrote: »

Lack of religion could mean lack of morals, so I am not sure that living by science is enough

Do you seriously believe that ?

I can't believe that in 2015 people really think that one needs religions to have morals.

LeinsterDub · 15-11-2015 11:22pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Some would say our existence is evidence of a creator. Nothing comes from nothing, energy cannot be created or destroyed only converted yet the universe is full of it so what is the source of this energy?

Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent creator. To make assumptions either way or even to ask the question in the first place is unscientific.

Atheism is no more scientific than Christianity.

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

La Fenetre · 15-11-2015 11:52pm

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 · 16-11-2015 12:18am

LeinsterDub wrote: »

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

Nothing can come from nothing, according to current understanding of science. Yet the existence of energy, a force that can only be converted, not created or destroyed seems to counter that.

Which is why the existence or non existence of an intelligent cannot be proven or unproven by science, even to ask the question is unscientific and the belief or disbelief in an intelligent creator does not invalidate our current understanding.

La Fenetre · 16-11-2015 12:20am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

No it isn't.

KomradeBishop · 16-11-2015 1:04am

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nothing can come from nothing, according to current understanding of science. Yet the existence of energy, a force that can only be converted, not created or destroyed seems to counter that.

Which is why the existence or non existence of an intelligent cannot be proven or unproven by science, even to ask the question is unscientific and the belief or disbelief in an intelligent creator does not invalidate our current understanding.

Actually, energy comes from nothing all of the time - literally everywhere around you - and is annihilated almost immediately afterwards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Thanks to the counter-intuitive world of quantum mechanics.

LeinsterDub · 16-11-2015 1:08am

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

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

Comments