Look, orcenio, I unjustly broke the rules out of frustration at the extremely childish and immature and babyishly wrong and wrong-headed view of science you were trying to push down our throats by improperly writing that you were childish instead of following the rules and writing instead that your views of science are extremely childish and immature and babyishly wrong-headed. I genuinely apologize for personalizing my remarks in reply to your posts in this thread.
I will not make the rule-violating mistake of criticizing you personally here again. What you will see here is not criticism of you, but of your views. (Though I remain quite puzzled and taken aback by the fact that I received a mod warning for doing in one post the exact same thing that you did in several posts now that only earned you a “heads up”. But that puzzlement will pass…)
The babyish view of science you are trying to sell is ridiculously immature and flat-out false. The low level of understanding of science that your words represent is spectacularly immature and spectacularly wrong. It is beneath any possibility of respect. The view of science and what science is and what scientists do you keep espousing is, in a word, infantile. You, on the other hand, are not infantile.
Nothing I’ve written has been “bluster”, orcenio. It is accurate information that you desperately need to try to understand and learn. It is an attempt at educating you out of those extremely childish views. It is advice. It is an effort to enlighten you out of the childish 5’th grade view of science as “THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD”.
The truth is, orcenio, science is far, FAR more sophisticated and complex and nuanced and refined and intricate and elaborate and abstract and enlightened than the babyish, 5’th grade textbook blither about THE EE-ZEE “SCIENTIFIC METHOD” Cookbook of “hypothesis - experiment - conclusion” baby food you’ve been espousing.
You imagine that you’re the one who knows more about science than posters like Spiff, Der Trihs, Darwin’s Finch, myself and others, but the truth is that your understanding of science is actually quite immature and simplistic. I tried to explain that to you, but the words of your two posts replying to me clearly demonstrate that you still think you know more about science than posters like Spiff, Der Trihs, Darwin’s Finch, myself and others. Be assured that this is not the case.
orcenio, I’ve worked with and provided working contributions to professional scientists, most recently with a highly esteemed Stanford University professor who was one of the authors of one of the American Chemical Society’s “Most Cited Paper of 2006” and an all-around brilliant scientist and wise, warm human being. But your view of what science is and how it is done represents an extreme insult to him, his work, and his colleagues! You don’t appear to be aware that you are viciously insulting scientists, but that’s what you’ve been doing nonetheless. Science is tremendously more sophisticated and nuanced than the 5’th grade view of it you keep pushing here. You need to drastically increase your knowledge of science!
Science is most emphatically not what you keep insisting it is, orcenio! It’s not the 5’th grade lousy science textbook pap of “hypothesis - experiment - conclusion” vapidity that you keep very unwisely insisting it is.
Do you know the name Richard Feynman, orcenio? Winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics? Brilliant, witty raconteur and devilish troublemaker? Here’s what he had to say about your 5’th grade lousy science textbook childishness:
William Beaty, Alistair Fraser, and very many others are in full agreement with Feynman in mocking this infantile view of science that you keep arguing for, orcenio. As Beaty and others correctly point out, people who share that ignorantly infantile view of science represent a serious menace to both our society and to science, science literacy, and just about every intellectual effort to understand the universe. Science is a far grander and far more subtle intellectual endeavor than that!
Let’s start with your references to “direct observation” and “proof/prove/proving”.
Your assertion that if investigation and experiments are not based on “direct observation”, it is not science, is quite ridiculous. That ontological view is known as “naïve realism”, for the obvious reason that it is hopelessly naïve. That view asserts that things are precisely as they appear to be from direct observation. Thus, in that view, when a partially submerged pencil is viewed at an angle, since it appears to be broken, it really is broken! To “fix” it, all you have to do is remove it from the water! That’s infantile, but that’s precisely what your view entails.
“Direct observation”, orcenio, means “observation without instruments”. It means naked eyeball observation. Thus, if an experiment requires the use of a scanning tunneling microscope or even just an ordinary optical microscope, your view asserts that that cannot be a “scientific” experiment because the observation is not “direct”! But even though I’ve explained that already, you personally insulted me for doing so!
The concept of “proof/prove/proving” – words and concepts that you use quite foolishly in this context – has nothing whatsoever to do with science. Science or a scientific experiment cannot “prove” anything! The concept of “proof/prove/proving” only has validity in the domain of formal systems: a priori non-empirical constructs that are neither contingent upon empirical observation / experiment nor are open to revising as a result of empirical observation / experiment. Formal systems include mathematics, logic, algorithmic analysis (a type of logic) and the like. Science often employs formal systems – especially mathematics – but mathematics itself is NOT scientific! It is not scientific because mathematics is not empirical and it is not synthetic. It is a priori and purely analytic. There is no empirical experiment possible that can “prove” that 1 + 2 = 3, orcenio! The statement “1 + 2 = 3” is an a priori axiomatic assertion of the formal system known as basic number theory that can be proved because the concept of “proof” ONLY applies to formal systems, but it cannot be demonstrated scientifically. There is NO SUCH THING AS PROOF IN SCIENCE! (I suspect that all that and everything I’ve ever written in this thread will likely continue to whoosh right by, but since you are so unwisely certain that you possess superior knowledge on these matters and do not recognize your own severe lack of knowledge and understanding of these issues, I’m not sure that anything can be done about that).
Since it is so unlikely that these latest words of my own are getting through to you, I will cite and quote from the words of others regarding the incredibly naïve view of science you are espousing…
First, orcenio, please rush to your local library to borrow or otherwise buy Chemistry professor Henry Bauer’s Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method and read it a few dozen times front to back, particularly chapter 2: “The So-Called Scientific Method”; chapter 3: “How Science Really Works”; and chapter 4: “Other Fables about Science” (including the infantile myths surrounding the alleged absolute necessity of making predictions and the limits of the very concept of testing predictions).
Allow me to quote a portion of Bauer’s introduction:
He’s talking about the infantile view of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD exactly like yours, orcenio, and why that’s such a dangerous and severely destructive view.
Bauer goes on:
(I’d refer you to Popper’s classic work: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, but it will likely be quite a few years until your understanding of science and the philosophy of science has advanced far enough to allow you to be able to properly grasp what Popper is saying.)
I will now quote small portions of: Ten Myths of Science (pdf), by William McComas of the School of Education, University of Southern California:
Are you starting to get it, orcenio? What I’ve written in all of my posts in this thread is not “bluster”, but far more correct and nuanced information and knowledge than what you apparently grasp. Information and knowledge that you do not possess yet desperately need to acquire and come to grips with.
Why is all this relevant to this discussion of the scientific merits of evolutionary psychology?
Because the highly naïve criticisms of EP from posters like DanBlather, Nametag, foolsguinea, Chum, and – worst of all – orcenio, are far too scientifically and philosophically shallow to have any genuine merit. All of these criticisms are based on a deeply flawed view of what science actually is. There are many sciences that include large portions that simply do not permit experiments, such as observational astronomy, paleontology, and evolutionary biology, yet the same arguments orcenio et al. employ to attack evolutionary psychology would just as surely attack and reject large swathes of astronomy, paleontology, and evolutionary biology as legitimate sciences, too!
All of those criticisms are simply invalid. The extremely young science of evolutionary psychology has experienced real epistemological difficulties as it struggles to grow out of its infancy, but it is hardly alone in that and it absolutely does not follow that EP is therefore not scientific!
The criticisms of Malthus and Darwin’s Finch and a few others are far more sophisticated and therefore have far more validity, even if I take issue with their arguments and views.
But orcenio?
The views he promotes in this thread are simply infantile and represent a very real threat to our culture, as Beaty, Fraser, Feynman, Bauer, and McComas also point out. I will continue to challenge such a harmful, infantile, and naïve view of one of the most important cornerstones of our civilization.