m3, the reason why David B. seems so “agressive” is because, unlike you, he is diligently pursuing the logical extensions of your original arguments. Notice how few supportive replies you have received in this thread?
It may have something to do with the fact that you can drive a Mac truck through the holes in your logic. More likely, it is because you come off like some smarmy fundamentalist saying, “God wrote it, the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”
David B’s refutations of your poor reasoning is obligatory to anyone with a brain that encounters such nebulous tripe as your OP. If you read it all a little more carefully, you would instead gain a better appreciation of how to posit an idea in a more valid manner. Until then, when all that you can correct in my posting is one incorrect word usage, you come off like an ill mannered brat, GROW UP!
Zenster,
Despite the fact that I found your post ironic, I really didn’t mean to offend by pointing out the spelling. If someone type “teh” instead of “the” or “freind” instead of “friend” it’s likely that someone just typed in a hurry. OTOH if someone types “grate” instead of “great” or “won ton” instead of “wanton” it’s likely they might have the words confused. I was trying to save you further embarassment.
Too bad you felt obliged to type in capital letters about it.
[quote]
Despite the fact that I found your post ironic, I really didn’t mean to offend by pointing out the spelling. …
Too bad you felt obliged to type in capital letters about it.
[quote]
Wow, this is surreal.
Zenster posts a message hat does not mention spelling and is in correct mixed case. M3 posts a reply that completely ignores the points that Zenster made, and talks about spelling and uppercase.
I wonder what m3’s smoking? He’s certainly not rational …
Thanks for the drive by posting JohnF,
Zenster called word usage what I called spelling, if you had read my post carefully you would have realized why in this case the terms were almost synonymous. Directly after the sentence that Zenster mentioned word use he also typed “GROW UP” in all caps. Capiche?
I didn’t try to adress the rest of Zenster’s post because it would have made my explanation of why I addressed his “word usage” seem pretty disingenuous.But if you think it’s warranted here goes:
Zenster,
that’s interesting Zenster, in your last post he was distributing “brick bats”. Your latest characterization sounds a lot more tame. So which is it?
Yes, but a minority opinion is not necessarily wrong, especially when the majority is making the argument “everybody else thinks so.”
Your leading by example, but unfortunately it’s a bad example. Your doing exactly what you’re accusing me of doing: making an argument without supporting the point and coming off sounding like an ass. There’s a beautiful irony to that but unfortunately I don’t think it’s intentional. David B at least went through point by point when he made his arguments, your just saying “what he said.” It was chummy and all for you to try to explain David B’s actions to me, but I think he was doing a better job by himself.
I made many attempts to support my argument. Each one was tossed aside casually by David B. Then he accused of avoidance because he wasn’t satisfied with my arguments. Of course when one demands objective proof for what is inherently a subjective issue, one is bound to be dissappointed.
Actually could be a helpful suggestion, I’m not sure how that slipped into your rant, but if you take your own advice and reread the thread, you’d realize I’ve already tried that.Unlike David B, Sock Puppit actually had laid down some reasonable ideas on what it would take to convince him of my point of view. It was unfortunate that I was already too annoyed at that point to keep supporting my original argument. If my honesty and character hadn’t been repeatedly called into question, I still wouldn’t be here.
Overall Zenster, I’m saddened that you think that bats (even metaphorical ones) are effective means of communication or teaching. I imagine you probably hang your pictures with a sledge hammer and a railroad spike.
While the minority opinion isn’t neccessarily wrong, you do need to lobby for your opinion to be heard. The person making the extraordinary claim hs the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. It isn’t enough to have evidence or opinions, you must convince others of the validity of that evidence.
Wait, wait, wait… You’re proposing to submit science and its methods, principle and philosophy to a complete overhaul for subjective reasons? How, pray tell, is that an improvement? And how do you expect anyone to agree with you?
No wonder you’re feeling overwhelmed.
While I disagree with your original five points – and not just because you haven’t adequately supported them – I will say this: scientists can definitely benefit from the inclusion of the history of science and scientific thought in their educations. I don’t know what everyone’s experiences have been, but at my undergraduate institution such courses were not required for science majors (I was, and still am, in chemistry). I enrolled in one which traced the history of scientific thought and philosophy from Aristotle, Democritus and Galen through Locke, Bacon, Descartes, Darwin, Dawkins et al. From this I learned how scientific thought has developed over the centuries. It reminds me to think about how I think.
This is something everyone can benefit from. Many of the other posters to this thread have obviously learned this already. They are not ganging up on you out of malicious glee; they are trying, not so gently, to point out that you have not thought through your arguments properly and found evidence to support them. Therefore, scientifically speaking, you cannot make such generalized statements and sweeping proposals as you have. Rules of proof and evidence apply to history as well as science.
MJH,
Thank you for a calm post that managed to avoid making personal accusations.
Your arguments are fine, but I feel that you’re taking my words out of context. Making a scientific proof that said anything about the level of specialization in science, too much, not enough, or just right is nigh impossible. But if you say that science is not overspecialized, I think it’s fair to assume that you must then believe that its underspecialized or just peachy. You folks seem to think the burden is mine, but your asking me to make a proof that I doubt any of you could do yourselves. If anyone wants to show me a scientific proof that science is underspecialized or at just the right level of specialization please do. I’ve made this invitation more than once and I’ve yet to see anyone take it up. If you can’t make the same proof for your own sweeping generalizations why should I?
I’m unhappy with the status quo, I was trying to debate the changes that should be made. Most of the respondants seem to be happy with the status quo for thier own subjective reasons. Why should my reasons be any more objective?
I tried to provide concrete examples, but if you folks know about the proven consequences of DDT, if you know that your being exposed to proven carcinogens and your happy with that what good does it do?
It makes no sense to argue how many people put do death while W.Bush was in office if the person your arguing with believes that capitol punishment is just dandy to begin with.
Let’s take this concept to its logical conclusion. Why not have a philosophy for each individual area of human endeavor. Let’s start with a philosophy of religion. Since religion has so many specialized branches, it is a prime candidate for some sort of regulatory oversight. Things are entirely out of control in the churches these days, what with different days of worship, different deities and different rites. We need an overseeing body to make sure that everyone is worshiping correctly. Let’s standardize all of this messy interpretation of creation and purpose. Why not have:
[li]One standard deity to worship.[/li]
[li]One way of worshiping that deity.[/li]
[li]One religious text for all believers.[/li]
[li]One code of conduct.[/li]Think that you could get this approved in a million years? Hardly. Just as there are so many ways to worship, there are just as many ways to seek knowledge. One would hope that a common ethos or credo could guide all worshipers, but it isn’t likely. So it is in science. There are many paths by which knowledge is sought. It is up to the individual to maintain standards of propriety. I find it amusing that all scientists are in greater agreement about scientific method than most religious people are in agreement about worship. Sense a pattern here? You cannot enforce a philosophy upon anyone. Cooperation is voluntary and it is up to the individual to maintain an acceptable degree of conduct. Anyone can break that code, but there are consequences, both moral and legal. Trying to establish an overseeing body for either science or religion would be futile. In each case it would merely impede the original intentions of either school. Most ironic of all is that religion and its disputes have slaughtered more people than all of the scientific blunders in history. I realize that this will probably be too much of a reach for your limited mental resources m3, but I couldn’t resist hijacking your lame thread.
Zenster Nicely done. I love ideas taken to their logical extremes. Ever seen the movie, The Handmaid’s Tale?
Um… which words of yours did I take out of context? I quoted you, verbatim, where you stated quite frankly that your original post was a subjective argument. The issue is not whether you are entitled to your point of view or whether your views have any subjective validity; you are so entitled and they do have subjective validity because that is how you perceive things. However, you began this thread by presenting your ideas as objective arguments, as all topics for serious debate must be, but did not present anything in the way of factual evidence for us to debate. How else can we debate your point of view? It would be like a presidential candidate debate in which one candidate said, “My administration will provide universal health-care,” without describing how he/she intends to do so. It might be true, but if he/she can’t be specific, why should any credit this point of view?
A word of advice: if you wish to post completely subjective points of view, use the IMHO board. I think part of the difficulty is that the kind of discussion you are looking for belongs elsewhere. The topic itself is not uninteresting, but a board called Great Debates has a rather more specific rules of engagement, so to speak.
At the risk of repeating what I just said and what many others have said, less kindly: because you started the thread. We are debating science and scientific philosophy; the usual practice in science is that subjectivity alone does not constitute data or fact, and therefore does not require disproof. One may argue about what constitutes relevant evidence, the quality of the data, the logic of the proof, in order to assess the degree to which these things are objective/subjective. That’s not always an easy thing. But that’s where you should have started.
Instead, by plaining stating that you are presenting a subjective point of view, you do an end-run around exactly the kind of debate you were hoping to generate.
[QUOTE]
**I’m unhappy with the status quo, I was trying to debate the changes that should be made. Most of the respondants seem to be happy with the status quo for thier own subjective reasons. Why should my reasons be any more objective?
[quote]
**
Because you are using phrases like “should be made”, and making general assumptions about who is happy with what. I didn’t say that I was happy with the status quo; I said I didn’t agree with your five points. Who is taking whose remarks out of context?
Specialization (to whatever degree – including “none”) means that different scientists bring different bodies of knowledge, and therefore potentially different perspectives, to bear on a problem or question. Diversity and cooperation are what makes science strong as Zenster pointed out. Science is built on the fact that individually, we are human; individually, our knowledge is finite; individually, we have the capacity to be wrong. Even in cooperation, scientific knowledge is still finite and we might still be wrong. For this reason, the boundaries of science expand slowly sometimes, as much through controversy as by consensus; the only rule is that we must all speak the same language if we hope to get anywhere. This language is called the scientific method. Everything else proceeds from this.
No one here is arguing (I think) that science doesn’t ever make mistakes. All human endeavors are subject to human fallibility. But it is only by speaking the same language, by acting cooperatively, collectively and even controversially, within our own areas of expertise, that can we hope to minimize the extent of our mistakes.
Or let me put it this way: if science did not work this way, if scientists were allowed to run rampant, do as they please, subjectively, either without proof or by ignoring evidence, dabbling where they liked without any particular knowledge (i.e. specialization) of what they were doing – can you imagine how much worse our world would be?
If, instead of analyzing drug candidates to confirm structure (as I do), I started making my own “drugs”, running my own biological tests and marketted them as “cures”? Ever heard of snake oil? Radium water?
The only way to avoid making mistakes entirely is to stop doing science altogether, but that is not human nature. You might as well wish we had never have discovered fire.
Most excellent post MJH. Your patience seems to exceed mine in a most admirable fashion. m3 would do well to take notes as he reads your posts. Incidentally, I haven’t seen the movie “The Handmaiden’s Tale”, but I have read the book.
After seeing a splendid hijack by SeriousArt in the Bogeyman thread, I had to apply a similar tactic here to break this mental logjam. I have often found that by applying the extant mindset to another similar example, it illuminates any contradictions quickly. David B, you obviously take your role as moderator quite seriously. Your use of scientific method to dissect m3’s position has been commendable. I welcome your comments on any of my threads anytime.
By the way m3, brick bats and clue bats are euphemisms for criticism in the ordinary world. When I type “GROW UP”, it is for emphasis only (as in raising one’s voice). If you are unfamiliar with these online methods of expression please take a Remedial Email 101 course. Your online sulking is indeed immature and inappropriate to any Great Debate.
MJH…you are a spooky invisible ghost to me. No, I mean that literally. Your posts have no name attached, and they say you joined the board in 1969. Spooky.
I really liked what you said, even though you are invisible. But I’m keeping my garlic and holy water nearby just in case…
Yes, it was spooky, wasn’t it? Even I couldn’t see me! There was some problem with the system yesterday, and apparently I was the first to be affected. It’s always nice to be first at something. Those of you who assumed that MJH was the ghost-poster were correct. Until/unless they sort out the problems with my original account, I will remain “MJH2”.
Anyway, I have nothing to add to the thread beyond saying “thanks” to Zenster and Lemur for their kind words.
The kindest words were your’s MJH2. You patiently tried to walk m3 through his own mental minefield. The same applies to you too David B. Let’s see if m3 has the intestinal fortitude to actually repsond to this latest round.
::Folds arms and stares at screen::