Hard News: Miracles just rate better, okay?
510 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 Newer→ Last
-
Ben, when I was at school, one of my friends had really bad eczema and asthma.
His folks eventually found out that he was allergic to anything remotely related to dairy products: milk, beef, icecream, etc etc. They went to the extent of checking food additives in any processed foods they bought for diary derivatives. He was fine after that.
I haven't mentioned it 'til now because I assumed this was an avenue you've had probably already explored, but just in case you haven't....
-
Steve
but the article you linked to makes it pretty clear astrology, as well as rain dances, were examples of practices that he considered scientists dismissed because of racism or elitism or both.
It could probably do with some clarification then. I read that as saying that scientists sometimes dismiss either view, for either or both reasons. Which does not necessarily say that they dismiss either one for racist reasons - it's not clear which one is meant, or if both are meant. I'll go to the primary source as soon as I can get to the library.
There are plenty of good reasons scientists have to be fairly dismissive of astrology, say, so that it is a stretch to assume the predominant one is elitism or some other irrational prejudice.
If racism or elitism play any part at all then that undermines quite a lot of the claims of rationality.
It’s difficult for science to conclusively prove something wrong, by its very nature. It’s a bit like proving God doesn’t exist, or conclusively proving leprechauns do not exist. How many folk tales, myths and traditional practices should scientists take seriously because they haven’t been absolutely, conclusively disproven?
I'm not so sure it's difficult to prove scientific theories wrong. Popper's entire theory of science rests on falsifiability. He would rate claims about God and leprechauns mostly unscientific when they could not be in any way proven wrong. But generalized claims for which experiments could be conducted fall within his umbrella of science, and many of them have been proved wrong by many experiments. But many also have not been. This includes many non-mainstream theories. It is their own business what scientists take seriously, but how seriously should their claims that things are bunk be taken, if they have not actually proved that?
Who are these cheerleaders?
Here you hit upon one of the straw men that I'm fairly sure 81stcolumn was hinting at upthread. Certainly Feyerabend is inventing his antagonist here. I feel pretty sure he'd put most of the earlier philosophers of science under that umbrella, though, and many prominent scientists. You don't have to look too far to find scientists saying all sorts of dismissive stuff about all sorts of non-mainstream-scientific beliefs. I guess he's talking to anyone who actually made such a claim without doing a hell of a lot of research to back it up. We already had a scientific evangelist on this thread earlier, telling me not to bother doing any alternative research of my own into my skin problem, because science had already proven that nothing else was going to help. IIRC Against Method seemed to rag on Popper a lot. Not surprising, considering that Popper made it his business to say "this is scientific, that isn't" about a great many theories.
If we must consider science an ideology and compare it to other ideologies (such as religion), I think science is a relatively humble enterprise. Religion makes a lot more claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity.
I don't see how we can consider it anything other than an ideology. What else would you call it? A simple truth? Can you even describe what it is?
Is it humble? I don't think so for a second. It makes claims into the farthest reaches of human knowledge, the highest, the furthermost, the most ancient, the smallest, the most powerful, the fundamental structure of all matter, all molecules, all lifeforms, the makeup of the mind, the possibilities of calculation, etc etc. Religion certainly claims all that and more, depending on the religion. Many have learned to make far less claims, to the point where they are almost reasonable, at times. But I'm not saying this to say religion is better. I'm saying it to show that science shares features with religion that often slip under the radar, so complete is its domination over our thinking these days.
As for its “colossal power”, what is it that any US politician needs to say they believe in if they are to have a realistic chance of being elected in most states, and certainly for president? Do they have to make clear they have great faith in science? Nope... it’s God and the Bible.
Which one receives more funding, though? Religious studies, or science? But again, I'm no advocate of religion. It is also awesomely powerful, well in excess of what I personally think it should be. This is an argument against such power, not about who should have it. "Science or Religion" is a false binary.
This is why you have some sympathy with Feyerabend’s desire to increase the influence of the lay person over the direction of science?
I'd say it's more accurate that Feyerabend wanted orthodox science to have less influence over the direction of lay people. If lay people must pay for science then they should get more influence, sure. They should be able to decide, for instance, whether money would be better spent researching new ways to blow the planet up, or on a cure for various diseases.
He apparently thinks: “... science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people.”
You agree with this?I can see what he's getting at. He's talking about publicly funded science, for starters, so he's not suggesting that private research be suppressed by order of the people. He's also making the point that some 'conclusions' of science delve into the deeply political and/or highly immoral. Science already self-governs that with various ethics institutions, but I don't think he's a fan of oversight of an institution by the institution and feels such oversight should rest with the people. For instance, a conclusion that every person should be inoculated against some rare disease is something that every person should have some say in.
-
@Rich, I've heard a number of people linking dairy to eczema. I have asked dermatologists about this on several occasions and always their answer has been that there is no proven link. But they have not discounted the possibility of food group allergies being a contributing factor. They do, however, point out that actually being systematic about working out if there is a connection is a really big job for the individual concerned. It's not a simple matter to see if something is helping - the problem is cyclical over a long time cycle, and I'm unwilling to stop other treatments just to isolate the variables, because it can get so bad, so fast, that life can suck for several days at time, and the only way out is prolonged exposure to strong steroids.
-
steven crawford - eczema really really sucks, so thank you for your
comment.Add it to a strong reaction to chlorine in water, and you have a recipe for lotsa misery. To this day, if I see parents with a small scaley/red weeping skinned child, I will very politrey stop them, and ask them if they want to talk about matters - saying, while introducing myself, what I basically wrote. Kind of spreading hope, I hope-
BenWilson- yeah,UV definitely - but also the composition of uncontaminated seawater (as well as all the other positives- swimming in the sea is just so damn GOOD!)
Sofie-your advice is just in time for me to resucitate my aloe! All well with you3? Shall I onsend photos et al?
Everybody: is there another place like PAS? Nope. Is it great & good? Yep. Hooray! -
Shall I onsend photos et al?
Ok let's start this ball rolling.For anyone out there who would like to donate artworks/sculptures reading matter or financial donations for postage of artworks etc to the Rehab Plus in Auckland could you step forward now .Russell may have organised the financial stuff for postage but I believe it involved donations so please mail him if you can. but I been away so my bit is to organise a Powhiri to present with due respect onto the soil.Can anyone interested in donating please inform Russell or me. For those of you happy to donate and post yourselves, can we wait until 30 November to send and I will give an address for everything closer to the date (i.e. when I get the courier company arranged).So names forward now.
Islander, thanks for the cheese. We 3 are 1 again and all is getting better . xxxx -
Coiincidental timing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/17/bad-science-chiropractors
-
Sofie/PAS
-I have this chunk of pounemu (this is just to remind people)which I am happy to donate.
(This is because I had an --episode-- and wound up in DN EDICU and was checked out, and no-one yet knows what happened BUT
-it turned out I had had an historic stroke = lacuna -which is why I am very interested in ths matter-)I ALWAYS have pounemu about me- other people who esteem the stone arnt necessarily so lucky. I would love for this gifted piece of jade to be there, in the Auckland recovery unit, for people who have have struck by strokes to be able to hug/cuddle/stroke/cherish/finger/lick/enjoy/listen to-
(it's big enougnh to cuddle)if it's on the right plinth (and I am sure Steve will make it so)
it will *ring*
What is needed is syupport via Sofie/Russell/ PAS for the physical bits.
I will happily get the stone north. I will also happily get one of my neighbour's (Andris Apse's) books north. But it may need input-
cheers n/n Keri -
I'm one of those filthy landlubbers. All I know of matters nautical I learned from stuff like this:
-
ur. cockpit- steve?
We can deal with that kind of stuff day-to-day because- that is what it is-
-
if it's on the right plinth (and I am sure Steve will make it so)
Yes it will.
it will *ring*
so we need the photo, size etc Islander. If you can send those details ,would be excellent. Cheers.
Steven C, you do what you want, aint no pressure at this end :) -
Aye.
-
Steve - I have wee(but not small) pieces of the old Hokitika wharf (kauri!)
Can you work those?
Photos apopo - eye's pretty buggered after a long drive just now- -
"A wharf is where you come to
after going
a tie-up place - not a home
-you may journey on-"(by me)
-
The old Hokitika wharf (the timber offer was to Steve H) aint there any more...Greymouth still has working wharves.
On other fronts, camera recharging-
-
Quacks - Humour:
-
Just to stay congruent with the original post. I must say, never ever kill an albatross. Because thats what brings on the bad weather. It isn't good to whistle below decks ether.
Link that to global warming & we're onto something.
-
Ross - long ago when this thread was young you asked whether anyone had read Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" - well yes I have. It's clearly another of his very significant books, good reading, full of interest throughout, but I have to admit to being just a little disappointed in it. After The God Delusion and especially The Ancestor's Tale, I had very high expectations, not quite met.
I think this is because it seems like he wasn’t trying as hard as he could to systematically and absolutely nail the arguments establishing the overall case that evolution is a fully reliable fact, how compellingly strong are the individual strands of evidence as well as their mutual reinforcement. His sub-title "The evidence for evolution" describes it well - he presents the various lines of evidence and some of the context and arguments around them, does it well, but leaves it at that. (Although there is a wonderful last chapter expanding and expounding on the last two sentences of Darwin's Origin " ... There is grandeur in this view of life ..." line by line.) Perhaps a conscious decision to take a lowish-key approach, dialling back the stance that some inevitably characterise as arrogance and worse, of him personally and science in general.
He's more assertive in his very positive review of Jerry Coyne's book "Why Evolution is True" published earlier this year for Darwin's 200th birthday. This (his review) includes such gems as "Evolution is true in whatever sense you accept it as true that New Zealand is in the Southern Hemisphere". It is a substantial review of the context, as well as of the book itself, and I think he might be acknowledging generously that Coyne has done the sharper job of demonstrating why evolution is true and how we know it.
Has anyone around here read 'Why Evolution is True' then?
-
Not yet, but on my tobuywithLottowinnings list ChrisW-
-
Hi Chris, Thanks for the reply, I agree it was a cracker review and no, I have yet to spend on it. I will though. I have a friend who acquired it and will swap with him.
I see Our Tube has a link to an earlier Sunday Morning Laidlaw story re Creationism being taught in schools.
http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,1672,should-creation-be-taught-in-schools.sm
Maybe we should head for there and restart the discussion eh what? :-)
-
Linking back to discussion earlier in the thread here is a curiosity from the WW1 Waimate Red Cross Cookery Book
Homeopathic Pudding
(From Mrs B. Shears of Hunter)
Line a basin with bread cut about half inch thick. Pour into it stewed black currants and put a piece of bread on top. When cold turn out and serve with boiled custard or cream.
(So a sort of prototype summer pudding - but what is the homeopathic link? Incidentally, found this inherited recipe book between other treasures, 'Household Poultry Keeping' Bulletin No 336 Animal Industry Division, Dept of Agriculture,1954, and 'The New Hypnotherapy' from the Professional Hypnotherapists' Institute of NZ Inc,c1960s) -
Indeed the homeopathic connection in Mrs B. Shears' recipe is obscure. Could it be related to her husband not coming back from the war, but popping up singing vaudeville in Liverpool in the 1960s (for the benefit of Mr Kite)?
-
Gidday Ross - Looks like a lonely thread over there, strung along by a few interesting posts over 6 months. Obviously Giovanni nailed the answer to the header 'Should creation be taught in schools?' in the first word :-)
Instead we have here the more stimulating proposition - Miracles just rate better? There must be something appealing to many in that, as applied to creation/evolution as elsewhere. But also perhaps there's a common reaction against what Ben a few days ago expressed as -
I think orthodox science is extremely arrogant in a way that serves no good purpose except for the perpetuation of it's own colossal power.
But Ben - surely an overstatement or two there? What power science has derives from the evidence of its power to explain and accurately predict the physical and biological world, much/most of the time.
The exceptions are really important too, of course, hence the focus on them, using the ongoing processes of science as well as intuition and ....
-
Link that to global warming & we're onto something.
Global warming and it's associated ills (ruined harvests, etc) are caused because modern society no longer carries out the blood sacrifice. Fact.
Modern science dismisses the wisdom of the ancient peoples of this world at our peril. We need to appease of the cruel and capricious gods of the seasons.
So, if you guys can go and round up some livestock, and possibly a virgin or two, I'll pop up into the attic and get the old alter down. No bother, thank me later.
-
But Ben - surely an overstatement or two there?
Surely. Naturally nowhere near all orthodox scientists are 'extremely arrogant', nor does arrogance serve 'no good purpose' in all cases. I think most scientists who do actual scientific research are humbled by nature on a daily basis, and will seek inspiration wherever they can find it. They are aware that they, as individuals, push back the boundaries of knowledge very slowly and painstakingly, and that they 'stand on the shoulders of giants' in order to reach into the unknown.
But in cases where there is arrogant overreach, and dismissiveness to alternative views, then it doesn't serve any good purpose. It's something to watch out for, and I think putting science on a pedestal can make an attitude like that tempting. If scientific method slips towards dogma, then it will stagnate.
I like Popper's way of seeing scientific method - that it's a theory which in itself could be disproved, revised, improved. Seeking to legislate over it is a recipe for the death of true science and the beginning of a cult of science. Such a cult would be very hard to dislodge.
Older theories about scientific method than Popper's do seem rather quaint (there are many), especially those theories that come from actual scientists themselves. Newton wrote about what he thought the scientific method was, and despite being one of the all-time great scientists, his method doesn't shed much light at all. He seems to place supreme importance on Occam's Razor as his first principle. I see this as basically an aesthetic choice rather than an important starting point for science - OK more elegant theories are better than less elegant, but they are not necessarily any more true . The other laws pertain to the power of induction to confer truth to a theory. Principles 2 and 3 pretty much says that we should reason from the particular to the general (often known as making sweeping generalizations). Principle 4 suggests that this truth continues until disproof by contrary observation (which suggests that it was not true after all). The obsession with induction=truth continues in most theory of science right up until Popper, despite Hume's extremely powerful challenge to the idea.
All of this theory, which was and still is extremely influential over scientific minds, proposes to legislate against alternative beliefs from being considered scientific. That is Newton's scientific method, in a nutshell - gather data, then make inductive inference. What is supported is true, what is not supported, false. I think this is quite probably still what most people think science is.
The idea that you could conceive of theories for which there was, as yet, no evidence, seems to be something Newton rejected out of hand. This might explain why it took several hundred years for his theories to actually be improved upon - it took Einstein to simply dare to believe in his mathematics and maintain in absence of any evidence that the universe worked the way he said it did. Einstein's mathematics violates Newton's first principle by being far less elegant. It had slightly more explanatory power, in particular offering a solution to the conundrum of the perihelion of Mercury, but it also suggested that light bends around gravitational fields, something that had never yet been observed. It was many years later that the effect was actually observed, courtesy of a complete solar eclipse providing the opportunity to observe the 'gravitational lens' effect.
Physicists are not ignorant of the lesson in humility regarding induction here, but they often fail to generalize this lesson to science itself, and simply replace the 'naive inductionism' of the likes of Newton with something more like the falsificationism of Popper. They see evidence of falsificationism at work throughout the history of science, and conclude that it must be how it works, this must be the scientific method. Which is again, just a form of naive inductionism. It denies the possibility that entire methodologies of science could exist outside of this orthodoxy but have not yet gained enough legs to run. This is the danger inherent in over trusting the 'methodology of science' - the method itself is simply not a settled matter, by any stretch.
Criticisms of Feyerabend are probably at their most powerful simply by pointing out that in proposing no method he is pretty much making no account at all of science. He is failing to make any distinction between it and any old quackery, and he does not hide this. Which can be seen to mean that he considers all opinion about the nature of the universe to be equal, that no scientific theory is more true than another. I think he would disagree with this. He is simply arguing that science is a far more slippery beast than often imagined, and attempts to box it should be treated with the highest skepticism. He assuredly thinks most orthodox theories are of far higher worth than most quackery, on account of a great many factors - the amount of effort spent, care taken, results obtained, engagement with competing beliefs, etc. But he steadfastly refuses to make any general statement of what those factors are and how they can be evaluated, feeling that such an attempt damages more than it helps. Science gets on just fine without philosophers of science, thank you very much, is replete with methods (many of which are highly specific to particular sciences), and has performed miracles. It does not need a general theory of scienceness, and such a thing would only be limiting. The corollary of this is that quackery must be tolerated. If history of science teaches us anything it is that today's quackery is tomorrow's orthodoxy. Actually I think that's one of history's lessons, period.
-
If history of science teaches us anything it is that today's quackery is tomorrow's orthodoxy. Actually I think that's one of history's lessons, period.
In a literary or frivolous context perhaps this might be legitimate and due allowance made, but at the end of a serious essay on scientific method? I don't think that's really what you meant, given your prior discussion of your own approach. How about an alternative way of putting it, that two of history's lessons are that from among the broad range of today's quackery only a modest proportion will emerge as tomorrow's orthodoxy.
The corollary would be not so much that quackery per se must be tolerated, but that one should be careful in assessing non-orthodox practice, insofar as it does no harm, as there may well be some good stuff in there.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.