Presidential Debate Schedule

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]forlife wrote:

While it’s convenient to dismiss conclusions you don’t agree with as “half-baked facts and speculative conclusions”, that doesn’t mean those conclusions aren’t strongly supported by empirical evidence.[/quote]

I never suggested otherwise. But “speculative conclusions” and the ideological thrust of them should be met with skepticism - including yours.

This is the basic rule I have been trying to drill into your head in thread after thread. But, you aren’t quite exactly right - science is only part of the conclusions. The conclusions are (and should be) informed by other forms of knowledge.

I realize you love the sound of your own voice while lecturing about “science”, but you aren’t as equipped as you think you are for the lecturing. After all, and a fact in my post you ignored, is that it was you blathering on about how Nature needed gays to write good poetry, etc. and that is the evolutionary basis for homosexuals - pure ideological drivel unsupported by anything “scientific”, but convenient to your Crusade - and you had to be educated on the basics of evolution in response by a number of posters.

I’d dial back the “expertise” meme a tad.

Then you should get out more. And you should stop indulging in Scientism, as I have mentioned earlier - if you don’t know what it is, go look it up. People’s opinions are formed by more than science, and rightly should be - science does not answer moral questions, and never has. It might inform them, but does not answer them.

If people disagree with the results of science, that is certainly one thing - disagreeing with what the science means is an entirely different endeavor.

The Path to Enlightenment is not and has never been by Reason alone - and such an approach, as history informs us, leads straight to the gallows.

And given your level of fundamentalism in your political Crusade, it seems odd you would scold about people having their heads “buried in the sand”. Since you think people who come to different political conclusions as you to be categorically irrational - setting aside that two people can have arrived at opposite conclusions and both be rational, happens all the time in a world made up not of easy black and white decisions, but rather a world that is made up of difficult trade-offs - you’ve shown your feathers as the very ignorant wretch you think is the opposite of your “scientific” approach.

102

[quote]forlife wrote:

Larry Summers drew conclusions about the nature of the physical universe which directly contradicted the conclusions of the Harvard faculty.

He provided objective proof for his claims, and the Harvard faculty told people to have faith.

Who turned out to be right in the end?[/quote]

Modified it to current circumstances for you.

103

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But, you aren’t quite exactly right - science is only part of the conclusions. The conclusions are (and should be) informed by other forms of knowledge.[/quote]

What do you mean by “other forms of knowledge”? Objective facts are what they are. Either a hypothesis correctly reflects the nature of objective reality or it does not. The more reliable empirical evidence there is for the hypothesis, the more confident you can be in the correctness of the hypothesis.

For as much as you write about science, you have never answered my question about your educational background. Have you been trained in the scientific method? Have you even conducted a scientific experiment? Have you published an article in a peer reviewed journal? You accuse me of presenting myself as an expert on science, but you are doing exactly the same thing. What are your credentials?

I said exactly the same thing in another thread in which you participated.

Don’t confuse morality, which is inherently subjective, with facts, which are inherently objective. I consistently restrict my comments to the scope of objective reality, and have said nothing about science and subjective areas like morality, except that morality should be informed to the extent possible by objective reality.

Red herring. I referred to the scientific method, not to reason. Science usually draws conclusions which are reasonable, but sometimes science will surprise us as well.

The point, again, is that science can back up its claims with empirical evidence. Religion cannot.

Nice accusation, can you back it up with a quote?

Values are not about rationality. If I say that I like peanut butter more than jelly, what is irrational about that?

Rationality only matters in a discussion of objective facts.

104

[quote]forlife wrote:

What do you mean by “other forms of knowledge”? Objective facts are what they are. Either a hypothesis correctly reflects the nature of objective reality or it does not. The more reliable empirical evidence there is for the hypothesis, the more confident you can be in the correctness of the hypothesis. [/quote]

Conclusions on many topics - particularly political ones - aren’t based on purely on science, thankfully so, and never will be. Other forms of knowledge - such as philosophy, morality, theology, history, etc. - are part of the mix. That was and is the point.

I don’t share that level of personal detail on internet chat boards and never have - and it is a faulty appeal to authority.

I could have learned all I know about the scientific method and evolutionary biology from the public library, and it is meaningless from your perspective.

As for “credentials”, you’ve already supplied us with yours, but in your fit of self-congratulations you never told what your PhD was in - but given that you are full of “credentials”, what about your “scientific” nonsense w/r/t gays being “naturally selected” to remain in the population so they can paint pretty pictures or write good fiction?

That was a trainwreck that needed only a cursory knowledge of evolution to dispatch, yet “a PhD!!!” was trying to pass it off as science. Care to address, or continue to leave it be?

Which was the point I made above, particularly as it pertains to public policy. So, why continue to ask questions if you agree with me on the issue?

Well, let’s review what you posted:

What I see instead is a lot of people with preexisting ideas about the nature of the universe who refuse to consider anything that contradicts those views. Whenever science disagrees with their ideas, these people predictably dismiss the science as “half-baked” and “politically biased”. It’s a nice way to keep your head buried in the sand, but it isn’t the most reliable path to enlightenment.

My response was that science can’t answer all of our questions, directly to your point that folks that disagree with science have their heads buried in the sand - and my reply was that blindly following “science” without regard to what the science means is a recipe for disaster.

You didn’t mention the “scientific method”, nor did I address.

Definitionally true - so what? Your banality aside, so one is disputing this point.

You mean I have to post every single instance when you accused those of disagreeing with you on political matters to have their views “fall apart completely under rational scrutiny”?

Heh - be serious.

Not all values are the same - think about the right not to be murdered: it is based on a value. In your world, thinking murder is ok is just as rational as thinking murder is a moral evil that should be outlawed.

Most of the “human rights” we hear about are entirely based on values and yet they are lauded as examples of rational humanism. They are considered both, not just a flimsy “subjective preference” - thus refuting the very claim you are making.

Nonsense, because rationality applies to a number of decision-making choices that, based on facts, could go a number of ways.

Rationality involves the path to a conclusion and that may involve facts not available - in fact, in nearly every real world transaction of any consequence (especially in politics), information is always incomplete. Many decisions have to be based on assumptions, predictions, biases of error, and heuristics, in addition to known, indisputable facts.

Nothing unusual, and full of “rationality”, and full of gaps of “objective facts”. Think of welfare - there are rational arguments for welfare, and there are rational arguments against.

105

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Larry Summers drew conclusions about the nature of the physical universe which directly contradicted the conclusions of the Harvard faculty.

He provided objective proof for his claims, and the Harvard faculty told people to have faith.

Who turned out to be right in the end?

Modified it to current circumstances for you.[/quote]

Oh, and bump - let’s hear Forlife, PhD opine on whether Harvard was right to have Larry Summers leave his post because he made “sexist” comments.

Was Harvard wrong? If not, why not?

106

For the science-oriented folks here, SEA compared the two candidates’ positions on science.

http://sharp.sefora.org/innovation2008/compare/race/president/2008/

107

[quote]forlife wrote:
Scientists and priests both make claims about the objective universe.

The difference is that scientists provide proof for their claims. Priests tell you to have faith, and use their authority as proof.

You can test any scientific hypothesis, and objectively determine for yourself whether or not it is true. The more peer-reviewed studies there are which find the same results, the more confident you can be in the integrity of the conclusions based on those results.

Copernicus drew conclusions about the nature of the physical universe which directly contradicted the conclusions of the Catholic church.

He provided objective proof for his claims, and the Catholic church told people to have faith.

Who turned out to be right in the end?[/quote]

I don’t care what the priest, or the church, or what the religion says, my statement stands.

Science does attempt to find truth, the facts But then people apply meaning to those facts, and that meaning is not science.

A scientist does some research, and publishes his findings. A reporter writes about that research, of which he does not understand, and applies meaning that may not be there. Then somebody reads the article, and through the media form of the game telephone, they misinterpret what the article said.

Now we have a full blown myth. And if somebody with a political agenda uses that science, then more often then not the science is gone in a puff of agenda. (Ala Al Gore.)

108

(Thunder, I’ve said I’m not going to address the gay issue further in this thread to avoid derailing the conversation. If you want to continue the discussion, post in the Gay Agenda thread. BTW, I’m still waiting for a response to my points in that thread.)

Mage,

I’m not talking about a reporter twisting scientific studies to suit his purposes. Obviously you need to be wary of that, and take anything you read in a newspaper or a blog with a grain of salt.

What I said was that you have two options when it comes to correctly understanding the conclusions of science:

  1. You need to be trained in the scientific method (sorry Thunder, but a visit to the library doesn’t count) and have enough expertise in the given subject matter to draw informed conclusions after reviewing the research.

  2. Lacking that expertise, you can look at the consensual conclusions of the scientific organizations dedicated to conducting and reviewing the research.

What I see instead is a lot of people with preexisting ideas about objective facts, who aren’t willing to do either of the above options. They dismiss science that doesn’t confirm their ideas, deluding themselves into believing that they are right and science is wrong.

109

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nothing unusual, and full of “rationality”, and full of gaps of “objective facts”. Think of welfare - there are rational arguments for welfare, and there are rational arguments against.[/quote]

I’m not sure why you’re going on about rationality. I was referring to the scientific method, which as I already pointed out can lead to accurate conclusions about the nature of the universe which may or may not be rational.

The ultimate test of truth is not whether something is rational, but whether it describes the way things really are.

110

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The point, again, is that science can back up its claims with empirical evidence. Religion cannot.

Definitionally true - so what? Your banality aside, so one is disputing this point.[/quote]

If you admit that religion has no empirical evidence for its claims, what differentiates those claims from fairy tales?

112

Sorry to disappoint, Micky. I’m sure I’ll find another thread to derail with my agenda at some point.

113

[quote]forlife wrote:

(Thunder, I’ve said I’m not going to address the gay issue further in this thread to avoid derailing the conversation. If you want to continue the discussion, post in the Gay Agenda thread. BTW, I’m still waiting for a response to my points in that thread.)[/quote]

I am not discussing the “gay issue” per se - I am inquiring how the great champion of the scientific method could advance such foolish claims regarding the science of evolution.

And, an explanation how someone as “well-trained” and appreciative of the wisdom of the glories of the scientific method could manage to hoist himself by his own petard on that “correlation versus causation” trainwreck you tried to pass off as an argument.

You see, your purported confidence in your abilities to generate “the Truth” via superior methods is belied by sloppy and ideologically-driven arguments you have made recently - and I want to know how someone like yourself, an enlightened being with a vaunted “PhD!!” and an aversion to clinging to pre-existing conclusions can manage to make the mistakes you made?

And, I am still curious as to your opinion: was Harvard right to send Larry Summers packing for his comments suggesting women were not equal in math and sciences?

114

Ad hominem, beginning to end. My personal understanding of the scientific method and your lack of understanding has no bearing on the value of science as a touchstone for truth.

If you find yourself disagreeing with the collective conclusions of every major medical and mental health organization, drawn from two decades of research, it is remotely possible that you are right and all of them are wrong. However, the probability is far more likely that the reverse is true.

I see this black and white mentality repeated over and over in these threads. It goes something like this:

“Science isn’t perfect. Look at example X where science got it wrong! Given that, science is no better than any other method for understanding objective facts.”

The above statement blatantly ignores probabilities. It promotes an all or nothing mentality, where a conclusion is rejected unless it is 100% probable.

The reality is that most knowledge is not black and white. Most of the time, we base our conclusions on the probability that something is true.

If Hypothesis A is 95% likely to be true and Hypothesis B is only 5% likely to be true, it makes sense to go with Hypothesis A, conditionally but confidently. Suggesting that the two hypotheses are equally probable because neither is 100% probable makes no sense.

116

How could I go away when we have so much fun together?

117

forlife, you’re getting schooled in every possible way here. You are embarrassing me as a scientist. It does not matter whether someone has be ‘trained’ in the scientific method, only that they understand precisely what the scientific method is.

Btw, in order to head off the criticism I’m sure is coming my way, yes, I’m “trained” and published, thankyouverymuch. Thunder, whether he is trained ‘officially’ or not, is schooling you. Furthermore, you are using your PhD as an indirect method of appealing to authority, which is a classic logical fallacy.

I’m not touching the gay marriage debate with a ten foot pole. I’m speaking strictly without regards to your political view.

Interestingly enough, Lixy is about the only person staying on topic in this thread. I am dumbfounded.

On topic, I can’t wait for the debates. This will be extremely interesting.

118

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< If Hypothesis A is 95% likely to be true and Hypothesis B is only 5% likely to be true, it makes sense to go with Hypothesis A, conditionally but confidently. Suggesting that the two hypotheses are equally probable because neither is 100% probable makes no sense.[/quote]

Given that in most cases the same framework employed to form the hypotheses is also employed to reach it’s probability of accuracy that whole argument is left dangling in the realm of subjectivity. No observation occurs in the absence of the preconceptions of the observer.

A hypotheses endowed with a 95% probably of accuracy today that winds up being proven 100% false tomorrow calls into question the hypotheses itself and the methods used to reach both it and it’s level of probable accuracy.

In other words every method including the sacred scientific one requires a significant component of faith somewhere in the equation because we, as a specie, are not in possession of comprehensive knowledge of anything. A whole host of assumptions based on probability which itself is the product of those very assumptions falls prey to the same charges as does theistic religious conviction.

119


McCain Seen as Less Likely to Bring Change, Poll Finds

120

[quote]forlife wrote:
Mage,

I’m not talking about a reporter twisting scientific studies to suit his purposes. Obviously you need to be wary of that, and take anything you read in a newspaper or a blog with a grain of salt.

What I said was that you have two options when it comes to correctly understanding the conclusions of science:

  1. You need to be trained in the scientific method (sorry Thunder, but a visit to the library doesn’t count) and have enough expertise in the given subject matter to draw informed conclusions after reviewing the research.

  2. Lacking that expertise, you can look at the consensual conclusions of the scientific organizations dedicated to conducting and reviewing the research.

What I see instead is a lot of people with preexisting ideas about objective facts, who aren’t willing to do either of the above options. They dismiss science that doesn’t confirm their ideas, deluding themselves into believing that they are right and science is wrong.[/quote]

You still don’t understand what I said. I very much support science, but that is not what you are presenting here.

Science attempts to find the truth. You have decided the truth, and are trying to either find, or make science fit your truth.

Then if anyone has a disagreement with you, they are disagreeing with all of science.

On this issue you have lost your objectivity.