Much Respect, But What's With All The Tittle-Tattling?

[Rick Deckard]

It is NOT meant to stifle flights of fancy, or creative thought, or brainstorming, or any form of free thinking. The teachers you quote, sadly, misunderstood what it was to be a good teacher, or a good scientist. To be a good scientist is to be equal parts childlike, creative thinker and skeptical truth-seeker. One absolutely has to be able to dream and imagine and wonder about the possible, but it's also true that as far as actually advancing hard science, there has to be pretty stringent criteria for what we accept as our understanding of fact at this present point in time. One can have beliefs, and one can work toward establishing them as facts, but at the end of the day there has to be a real test for what we accept as "fact."

I guess the problems I have with modern science is my perception that this sort 'critical thinking' process *is* being used to stifle creative thought and debate. My biggest 'peeve' is the idea that scientific investigation appears to be directed towards areas that may bring a financial profit to one of the big corporations rather than solve some of lifes 'mysteries'. Money isn't made available to investigate the paranormal because they can't justify it to their shareholders.

I've recently been looking at 'water cracking' technologies - you can download Stan Meyers complete research papers for his 'water powered' engines, including all the schematics, equations and test results. You can watch videos of these technologies being built and tested by amateur enthusiasts and they appear to work. Are *all* these people charlatans? What is the 'established science' view on these technologies? Why can't I buy a water-powered car? Is it because *all* of these technologies are bogus or is it because the 'gaze' of modern science is kept away from technology that would kill off the oil industry overnight?

Can you appreciate my frustration towards modern science and all of it's 'heel-dragging' processes?

 

[Empty Planet]

Can you appreciate my frustration towards modern science and all of it's 'heel-dragging' processes?

Oh, without a doubt.

The fact is, many (most?) people opt to go along with the status quo, expending only as much effort as they need to get by, but no more, and "scientists" are absolutely no exception. The scientists who can really be free with their thoughts as well as rigorous in their conclusions are about as rare as hens teeth. Names like Kepler, Einstein, Watson & Crick, and Hawking come to mind.

Add to that the fact that even when all the criteria are met with any startling new research, there's still a lengthy period of time before the old guard dies out and the new ideas come into wide acceptance. THAT, alas, is human behavior. Well, primate troup dynamics to be a bit more precise.

Look at how long it took the established community to accept that the "spiral nebulae" were in fact outside our own galaxy, and are in fact gigantic galaxies in their own right. Read about Hubble and Shapley and "The Great Debate." I find it endlessly amusing to read about the history of science, and astronomy in particular. The incredible and lengthy reluctance to accept a heliocentric solar system. The stolid opposition to this absurd notion of "continental drift." The examples are endless.

Real scientists a bit like real artists...outside the mainstream, with ideas that are a bit outside the pale. Society is slow to take in real innovation. And hoary old science institutions tend to be just as stodgy as any of society's other institutions. Again, that's human behavior.

Fortunately, there always seems to be some punk or a group of punks that comes along every few generations and turns everything on its head.


Cheers.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Fortunately, there always seems to be some punk or a group of punks that comes along every few generations and turns everything on its head.

If they live long enough...

 

[CapnG]

Me too or are you implying that I don't use logic? If so, please provide 'evidence' to support your implication. Thank you.

BTW, well done for hitting #1 on the fallacies list - Ad hominem.

I'm not implying anything, I'm underlying your preference. And an ad hominem attack would require a direct insult, not an implication. However, since you asked, my point is that you're criticising something you use all the time, a stance which isn't entirely well...logical. Let's look back over your previous comments and I'll show you what I'm getting at:

Wow - No. 3 - Argument from Authority - that must mean everyone is talking crap because we all pretty much rely on other people's research...

You use this chesnut yourself all the time. The majority of scientists on earth agree that global warming is man made (on a scale from partially to fully) whereas a minority disagree but you say they're right and the majority are wrong, citing fallicy #3 as proof. Lately I've dubbed this the "Gallileao Defence".

so a paranormal investigator might conclude he's seen a ghost. He's therefore explained the phenomena. What's wrong with that? Or is it that *science* won't accept *that* explanation?

Because it's NOT an explanation. He might as well say it was a "floob". You can't use a questionable concept to explain an unknown phenomenon (ie you first have to explain and prove what a ghost IS). See fallicy #20.

...often exercised by so-called 'skeptics' - how does it go again "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - yeah and who defines what is *extraordinary*?

We do, with conventional wisdom. Sorry if that's not good enough for you but it's all we've got to work with at our current level of understanding.

This stuff reminds me of the Bible - The 20 Commandments - it tells you *how to think*. Brilliant.

#8. The Bible tells you WHAT to think. Anyone or anything can tell you HOW to think. Nobody says you have to listen.

Now, I have said several times that I am perfectly happy and willing to accept that there are things which are simply beyond human understanding. Period. We either lack the mental wiring or our physical brains and sensory organs simply aren't designed to deal with that information. That's fine.

But that still leaves a whole universe full of crap for us to study and gain an understanding of, so we have to establish some ground rules. We have to come together as a species and generally agree on what reality is. To do that, we need a set of ground rules and logic seems like the best place to start. Identifying logical fallicies (the better to recognize them later) means we can remove unecessary obstructions along that path of learning more easily. I'm flabberghasted that anyone could think this is a negative thing.

 

[Rick Deckard]

The majority of scientists on earth agree that global warming is man made (on a scale from partially to fully) whereas a minority disagree but you say they're right and the majority are wrong, citing fallicy #3 as proof.

Says who? How *do you know* that the majority of scientists support this?

Lately I've dubbed this the "Gallileao Defence".

How frightfully clever of you - is that one going into the 'Skeptics Toolkit'?

We do, with conventional wisdom. Sorry if that's not good enough for you but it's all we've got to work with at our current level of understanding.

Can you tell me what 'conventional wisdom' is? Can you define what is encompassed by 'conventional wisdom'? Can you tell me how the definition of 'conventional wisdom' came about and how it is maintained? Or is the truth that 'conventional wisdom' is something that *just feels right* to you? Very scientific.

I'm flabberghasted that anyone could think this is a negative thing.

No you're not. You're DELIGHTED because now you get another opportunity to demonstrate to your 'skeptic' friends what a super 'critical thinker' you are. You'll probably get a badge.

BTW, what's the view like from up there on your pedestal?

 

[CapnG]

Says who? How *do you know* that the majority of scientists support this?

Sigh... I'm not even going to bother. This is willful ignorance on a level that borders psychosis. You know who says so and you know where to look to confirm it, you just don't want to because you're comfy where you are. Fine. See no blame, hear no blame, take no blame.

How frightfully clever of you - is that one going into the 'Skeptics Toolkit'?

It's already in there, as you already pointed out. My name's catchier though, "Argument from Authority" would never sell T-shirts.

Can you tell me what 'conventional wisdom' is? Can you define what is encompassed by 'conventional wisdom'? Can you tell me how the definition of 'conventional wisdom' came about and how it is maintained? Or is the truth that 'conventional wisdom' is something that *just feels right* to you? Very scientific.

And again with the willful ignorance. Or rather, the illusion of it. The truth is you know damn well what it is, where it comes from and why it would be used as a baramoeter, you're just being petulant and dismissive to try and minimize my arguments and inflate your own ego. It's sad really, I was hoping for better.

No you're not. You're DELIGHTED because now you get another opportunity to demonstrate to your 'skeptic' friends what a super 'critical thinker' you are. You'll probably get a badge.

BTW, what's the view like from up there on your pedestal?

More petulance and some of that good old ad hominem thrown in to boot, how nice. Interesting how you accuse me of placing myself on a pedestal while simultaneously lording over my apparent ignorance with all this "how do you know?"/"What makes you so sure?" crap.

You understand you can't win this one, right? You're decrying the use of logical fallices and attempting to dismiss them by employing logical fallicies.

Tell you what though, I'm a fair minded guy. Since (according to you) we critical thinkers are so very, very wrong in our approach, instead of giggling to yourself in the corner and muttering "I know something you don't know" how's about actually providing a concrete alternative?

Take your time, I'll wait.

 

[Rick Deckard]

And again with the willful ignorance. Or rather, the illusion of it. The truth is you know damn well what it is, where it comes from and why it would be used as a baramoeter, you're just being petulant and dismissive to try and minimize my arguments and inflate your own ego. It's sad really, I was hoping for better.

Wow great answer - put the onus on *me* to prove *your* argument while at the same time you're claiming you know what I know. Are you a mind reader?

More petulance and some of that good old ad hominem thrown in to boot, how nice. Interesting how you accuse me of placing myself on a pedestal while simultaneously lording over my apparent ignorance with all this "how do you know?"/"What makes you so sure?" crap.

Yes, it reminds me of a response that someone you may know once gave to me:

You get alot of nose bleeds on that high-horse of yours? If you had actually made a point somehere, perhaps I wouldn't have missed it so easily.

You understand you can't win this one, right? You're decrying the use of logical fallices and attempting to dismiss them by employing logical fallicies.

More arrogance.

BTW, these logical fallacies are something that *you* actively use, not me. I used them in this thread to show how tedious they are and that you and your 'septic' friends don't adhere to them either.

Tell you what though, I'm a fair minded guy.

I've yet to see evidence of that.

Since (according to you) we critical thinkers are so very, very wrong in our approach, instead of giggling to yourself in the corner and muttering "I know something you don't know" how's about actually providing a concrete alternative?

You know what - I AM giggling. I'm beginning to see that you and people like you are the polar opposite of the FIGU crowd and just as blinkered. You're both defending opposite ends of the 'reality' argument, neither of you ever admit that you might be wrong, neither of you will budge on any issue and you're hyper-critical of those that disagree with your point of view.

Turn the PC off, put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, take a deep breath and say 'la-la-la-la-la-la' ad nauseum. It won't change anything in the real world but at least you'll be oblivious to it.

Take your time, I'll wait.

No, you CAN'T wait - you're poised with your kleenex at the ready...

 

[Empty Planet]

Wow. Not that anybody should give a damn, but man, if this is the average level of discourse on these boards, I can't imagine wanting to hang out here much. I got enough of this shoving-match business back in grade school. Yikes.

I guess this is the answer to my original question.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I guess this is the answer to my original question.

Pretty much - 90% of the 'discussion' on here is plain old bickering.

 

[CapnG]

Wow great answer - put the onus on *me* to prove *your* argument while at the same time you're claiming you know what I know. Are you a mind reader?

No but in the event that I did not know something and wanted to find out about it I have a dictionary and can use Google. Evidently you don't and can't... or won't. Shame.

More arrogance.

Un nope, fact, sorry. No wait, you don't believe in facts because they rely on "consentual realities", right? My bad.

BTW, these logical fallacies are something that *you* actively use, not me. I used them in this thread to show how tedious they are and that you and your 'septic' friends don't adhere to them either.

Septic. That's cute. I have already demonstrated by direct quote that you use them. As for myself, I'm sure I probably do from time to time, I am not omnipotent (much as you would like to label me as believing I am). I howver can admit to it, whereas you refuse to despite the evidence before you. Oh but wait, "evidence" is one of those meaningless things employed by science isn't it?

I've yet to see evidence of that.

You've yet to offer a cogent response. To whit:

You know what - I AM giggling. I'm beginning to see that you and people like you are the polar opposite of the FIGU crowd and just as blinkered. You're both defending opposite ends of the 'reality' argument, neither of you ever admit that you might be wrong, neither of you will budge on any issue and you're hyper-critical of those that disagree with your point of view.

My request was very simple but I see no alternative was offered, just more labelling, more assumption, more hautiness, more crap. Oh and as far as admitting to being wrong, you might want to check back a few posts to where I said "I am perfectly happy and willing to accept that there are things which are simply beyond human understanding. Period." Try to keep up.

Now this one just stuns me:

Turn the PC off, put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, take a deep breath and say 'la-la-la-la-la-la' ad nauseum. It won't change anything in the real world but at least you'll be oblivious to it.

What "real world" would that be? The one you insist doesn't exist because it's "consentual"? Pick a team, Rick!

No, you CAN'T wait - you're poised with your kleenex at the ready...

Only one of us is mentally masterbating, Rick. Hint: It's not me...

You've got no argument and can offer no alternatives. Feel free to ramble on about how those of us who think critically about the world are oblivious, ignorant, hyper-critical (whatever the hell that means), I'm done. When you actually feel like saying something that means something to someone other than yourself, I'll be all ears.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Un nope, fact, sorry. No wait, you don't believe in facts because they rely on "consentual realities", right? My bad.

Your 'bad' what? Grammar?

When you actually feel like saying something that means something to someone other than yourself, I'll be all ears.

You mean when I entirely agree with everything you say

 

[pixelsmith]

someone please punch the other guy in the nose and be done with it. LOL

 

[Rick Deckard]

someone please punch the other guy in the nose and be done with it. LOL

I think we're done now. It sure was a big waste of time though.

 

[DBTrek]

How come I didn't get a hat in RD's signature file?

Standards are falling around this place.

-DBTrek