1 1
wmw999

Science vs debate

Recommended Posts

Over the years, it seems like one of the divides on dz.com is a scientific approach vs a debate approach. And since any more the audience is small, the debaters are debating “against” the “evaluative” scientists. So they go round and round, each with different criteria for intellectual success. 
Me, I’ll go with science — look at the data, rather than trying to direct the discussion. Debate seems to require a more narrowly defined arena than science, and the real world and actual knowledge (as opposed to sophistry and winning).

Me, I’ll come down against debate. It seeks to win, rather than expand. 
Wendy P. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kallend said:

"My opinion is as valid as yours" is not only invalid when the claimant is a high school dropout and the disputed opinion is the consensus of actual qualified scientists, but it also wastes a lot of time and energy.

Actual qualified scientists have been wrong en masse, and a few of us high school dropouts have made the odd breakthrough.  

Argumentum ad Hominem - circumstantial and Argumentum ad Vericundiam are at play here.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a church sermon entitled "Religion or Science? What is your best guess?"

It outlines how in olden days, when anyone did not have a logical explanation for something, they replied "Because god wanted it that way." Theologians refer to this as "God in the gaps."

Some debaters and theologians got stuck on rigidly reinforcing the written words of god(s).

Since the Enlightenment, scientists have experimented and invented many new explanations for why the world is the way it is. Most of those explanations have been confirmed by other scientists who repeated those same experiments and achieved similar results.

However, I must caution you that many concepts that were accepted as scientific "fact" a few centuries ago are laughed at today. Furthermore, some of what we agree on as scientific "facts" will be laughed at in another 20 or 30 years. For example, I am still skeptical about much of the "quantum" science currently accepted by physicists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

Furthermore, some of what we agree on as scientific "facts" will be laughed at in another 20 or 30 years. For example, I am still skeptical about much of the "quantum" science currently accepted by physicists.

The predictions of quantum mechanics are the most accurate and thoroughly tested in all of science.  The fact that you are reading this on a screen somewhere remote from me suggests that it's predictions work very well indeed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, riggerrob said:

However, I must caution you that many concepts that were accepted as scientific "fact" a few centuries ago are laughed at today. Furthermore, some of what we agree on as scientific "facts" will be laughed at in another 20 or 30 years. For example, I am still skeptical about much of the "quantum" science currently accepted by physicists.

Well, except they work.  GMR is how most hard drives work now.  And quantum computers are here.

Undoubtedly there are details we don't understand yet that we will learn in the future, but that won't invalidate what we know now.  It's like the discovery of quantum physics vs. Newtonian physics.  Newtonian physics still works as well as it ever does - there's just a lot more details to things like mass and gravity than we knew about 400 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, winsor said:

Actual qualified scientists have been wrong en masse, and a few of us high school dropouts have made the odd breakthrough.  

Argumentum ad Hominem - circumstantial and Argumentum ad Vericundiam are at play here.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Such a bullshit argument.

Sure, untrained people absolutely add to our scientific knowlege and can very. very, VERY occasionally debunk established theories, but it's such a small occurance against the general progress that you'd have to be an utter moron to bet on it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, riggerrob said:

For example, I am still skeptical about much of the "quantum" science currently accepted by physicists.

And yet...we have smartphones.

(to clarify - they use flash memory/sd cards, which use electron quantum mechanical tunnelling to store data. Among many other technologies.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Over the years, it seems like one of the divides on dz.com is a scientific approach vs a debate approach. And since any more the audience is small, the debaters are debating “against” the “evaluative” scientists. So they go round and round, each with different criteria for intellectual success. 
Me, I’ll go with science — look at the data, rather than trying to direct the discussion. Debate seems to require a more narrowly defined arena than science, and the real world and actual knowledge (as opposed to sophistry and winning).

Me, I’ll come down against debate. It seeks to win, rather than expand. 
Wendy P. 

It 's challenging when there are qualified experts that disagree, and when there is specific evidence that supports the opposing opinion. Some rely on "their" experts and quote what they say. Others rely on experts with opposing statements. It's especially irritating when folks are attacked and dismissed for having a different view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

It 's challenging when there are qualified experts that disagree, and when there is specific evidence that supports the opposing opinion. Some rely on "their" experts and quote what they say. Others rely on experts with opposing statements. It's especially irritating when folks are attacked and dismissed for having a different view.

There's a big (and I mean HYOOOOGE) difference between a legitimate difference of opinion and having an unsubstantiated position based on bullshit.
Anti vax falls under the second, not the first.

One of the big problems with the pandemic is the anti-intellectualism. 
These fools take pride in not knowing. 

And they then dismiss 'science' because it changes.
One of the principles of Darwin evolution is 'survival of the fittest'. Which is somewhat true, but it's better put as 'survival of the most adaptable'. Change is inevitable. Being able to adjust and adapt to that change means survival. 
Science changes as knowledge grows. It adapts. Ignorance refuses to admit there's any change at all.
Remember the 'evolution debate' between Ken Hamm & Bill Nye? When asked 'what would make you change your position?', Nye replied "Evidence". Hamm replied "Nothing."
Sums it up very nicely.

I mentioned the anti-intellectualism in a post yesterday.
One thing I didn't go into is the fact that, despite the gains it's made in recent years, it's taking a huge hit right now. Proponents are removing themselves from the argument, and life itself. Many that survive the lesson are realizing how important knowledge & science are. Not all, but more than a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billeisele said:

It 's challenging when there are qualified experts that disagree, and when there is specific evidence that supports the opposing opinion. Some rely on "their" experts and quote what they say. Others rely on experts with opposing statements. It's especially irritating when folks are attacked and dismissed for having a different view.

There can definitely be intellectual arrogance, just as there can be anti-intellectual arrogance (and both can pass to bullheadedness easily).

The real telling factor of the scientist, or person who’s looking for knowledge rather than support, is the willingness to look at and learn about (I.e. invest time and effort beyond an internet search) the context and basis for these assertions and decisions. 

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

There can definitely be intellectual arrogance, just as there can be anti-intellectual arrogance (and both can pass to bullheadedness easily).

The real telling factor of the scientist, or person who’s looking for knowledge rather than support, is the willingness to look at and learn about (I.e. invest time and effort beyond an internet search) the context and basis for these assertions and decisions. 

Wendy P. 

That's one way to develop real objectivity.
To not 'hitch all the horses' to any given idea.

Another is to actively try to undermine or disprove one's own theories and ideas.
The good old "what did I get wrong?" self critique.

It's not easy. It takes practice.
But it pays off. In part because when someone throws up an objection, being able to respond with "I already looked into that fairly deeply and here's why it doesn't hold true" is a good thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, kallend said:

"My opinion is as valid as yours" is not only invalid when the claimant is a high school dropout and the disputed opinion is the consensus of actual qualified scientists, but it also wastes a lot of time and energy.

Sure on the theory of relativity, on social sciences probably less so. Public debate can most certainly drive scientific study. Both are important to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure on the theory of relativity, on social sciences probably less so. Public debate can most certainly drive scientific study. Both are important to have.

Knowledgeable public debate. The ignorant crap needs to be addressed as a social, not a scientific, argument. That doesn’t make it irrelevant if people need to do something, just means that arguing science alone won’t do it. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, billeisele said:

It 's challenging when there are qualified experts that disagree, and when there is specific evidence that supports the opposing opinion. Some rely on "their" experts and quote what they say. Others rely on experts with opposing statements. It's especially irritating when folks are attacked and dismissed for having a different view.

Or, as we've read here time and again, bias based on political leaning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, billeisele said:

It 's challenging when there are qualified experts that disagree, and when there is specific evidence that supports the opposing opinion. Some rely on "their" experts and quote what they say. Others rely on experts with opposing statements. It's especially irritating when folks are attacked and dismissed for having a different view.

It may be irritating but often it's just plain necessary.

If someone showed up to a DZ claiming parachutes don't work and he wanted everyone grounded, they would probably dismiss him.  Even if he had a compelling theory he wrote down about it.

Likewise, if during a pandemic a guy shows up at a clinic demanding that they stop vaccinating people because vaccines don't work, they'd probably dismiss him too.  Even if he had a theory that he read about and had ten Youtube videos to back it up with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a paper in high school once positing and defending that the Arthurian legend was the legend of the rich, and the Robin Hood legend was that of the poor. I got a B+. The comment was “well researched, well-argued, but wrong.” As a high school student, my understanding of what sources existed and were appropriate was not matured yet. I was in Rio, and largely used the school library instead of the distant and downtown public library. As a way to teach me that lesson, and not just the “you satisfied the basic requirements” lesson, it was extremely effective and equally valuable. 
Just because it’s as good as I know how to do doesn’t mean it’s good enough. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, yoink said:

How much of it do you actually understand? 

I freely admit to understanding very little about quantum physics.

I have a pretty good grasp of Newtonian physics.

I have also read many articles about quantum physics, but when quantum physics clash with Newtonian physics, I get confused.

Perhaps the problem is that I am a visual learner and have seen very few diagrams of quantum physics that I can grasp at a glance.

Please note that I am not dismissing quantum physics. I would like to better understand quantum physics, but am currently baffled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, riggerrob said:

I freely admit to understanding very little about quantum physics.

I have a pretty good grasp of Newtonian physics.

I have also read many articles about quantum physics, but when quantum physics clash with Newtonian physics, I get confused.

Perhaps the problem is that I am a visual learner and have seen very few diagrams of quantum physics that I can grasp at a glance.

Please note that I am not dismissing quantum physics. I would like to better understand quantum physics, but am currently baffled.

There's a quote attributed to Neils Bohr that goes something like:

If you are studying quantum and are completely, totally, utterly confused; then you are starting to understand it. If you think you understand it, you don't have a clue.

I looked a bit for it, and can't find it.

But I've seen it in the past.

I've got a good grasp of Newton. Some understanding of Einstein (relativity). 
But quantum is beyond me (mostly because I haven't really studied it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Do some reading on the Copenhagen interpretation, and the debates between Bohr and Einstein, and you don't feel so bad when you realize even Einstein had trouble wrapping his head around quantum mechanics.

These questions were philosophical rather than practical.

Quantum mechanics is incredibly successful at explaining observations, predicting effects, and designing devices.  The accuracy of it's predictions have been tested to 13 significant figures - more than any other branch of science.  Right now you are undoubtedly reading this on a machine whose components were designed using the principles of quantum mechanics.

What does it mean is another issue altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1