7 ms·

Doctors shouldn't treat themselves, lawyers shouldn't have themselves as clients Why not? Is there a law against that? I'm genuinely curious. and scientists s

by ced 16y ago

Doctors shouldn't treat themselves, lawyers shouldn't have themselves as clients Why not? Is there a law against that? I'm genuinely curious. and scientists shouldn't advocate on the topics they are deeply attached to That's a non-sequitur analogy. Besides, who do you propose to advocate a position if not those who have learned the most about it? Shall we forbid Dawkins from advocating evolution? Economists (it's a science!) from advocating economic policy? Should we forbid programmers from advocating software patent reform because "it's a topic they are deeply attached to"?

electromagnetic 16y ago
> Shall we forbid Dawkins from advocating evolution? Yes, please, I'm begging you. Dawkins has made himself the WORST person to be advocating evolution because he's turned it from a rational scientific argument into the moron-capades by arguing about the existence of god. To put it simply, he's trying to get his finger out of a Chinese-finger-trap by pulling, which makes him a moron because every 5-year old will tell you to give up and push your fingers together because its... you guessed it... POINTLESS, just like arguing about an unresolvable argument like whether god does or doesn't exist. Does a tree falling in the forest make a noise? Yes, it's called science lets invite Dawkins to talk about it again. Why shouldn't a doctor treat themselves? Because it's very hard to do open heart surgery on yourself! Edit: > Should we forbid programmers from advocating software patent reform because "it's a topic they are deeply attached to"? I thought the conventional wisdom with copyright reform was that the MPAA, RIAA, etc. should be forbidden from advocating because "it's a topic they are deeply attached to" ... you know all those hundred-dollar bills don't roll themselves up into big fat wads and slip into Congressmen's pockets for nothing.
- pstuart 16y ago
  There is a war on evolution by the religious right. How is one to try to take that on without talking about God?
  - gloob 16y ago
    Because the existence or nonexistence of god has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution?
    - Jach 16y ago
      Depends which god you're talking about. A god that created the earth and everything on it in seven days some number of years ago is in direct conflict with observable evidence. The generic "idea of god", where it may be possible that some being with powers that shouldn't be possible according to our understanding of physics exists somewhere in the universe, does not conflict with evolution. If you don't think evidence is powerful enough to let us infer the existence or non-existence of something, well...
    - pstuart 16y ago
      But is has everything to do with the "debate" over evolution, i.e., if evolution doesn't exist how did we get here? It's maddening that this is even taken place, but it is. In the videos I've seen of Dawkins he's been polite, respectful, and very well spoken.
  - amitvjtimub 16y ago
    But why do scientist should care who wins. Natural laws/evolution will decide the winner. After all everything is governed by rules of nature, and scientist is theoretically just supposed to observe it.
- danielmason 16y ago
  To put it simply, he's trying to get his finger out of a Chinese-finger-trap by pulling, which makes him a moron because every 5-year old will tell you to give up and push your fingers together because its... you guessed it... POINTLESS, just like arguing about an unresolvable argument like whether god does or doesn't exist. The crux of Dawkin's position is that the question of the existence of God is entirely resolvable. So your statement above is actually a direct disagreement with his position, not a critique of his methods. Have you read The God Delusion?
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    Did you read the book, because it entirely boils down to Occam's Razor, that the universe is simpler without a god because god has to be so incredibly complex that it's more rational that god doesn't exist. However, that shows the whole naivety of his argument. We're perceiving the universe from 14 billion years. It's unbelievable in scale and complexity and we've not even moved enough dust to even have started scratching the surface of understanding our universe as a whole. Yet this is the preferable choice under Occam's Razor? Why? Because of a reliance on an as-of-yet unproved hypothesis of a multiverse. So multiple (by multiple I mean more than a googolplex of universes) universes is the preferable simpler scientific resolution to how we ended up in this universe, at this point in time capable of asking these questions? So my choice is God vs A universe for every I/O binary action that has ever taken place in the universe. Dawkin's method and argument is exceptionally simplistic and wholly biased by his perspective, which is exactly why he is hindering the teaching of evolution. If he wasn't making this huge crusade against God, he might have been able to spread evolution. However he's alienating himself from receptive Religious people and he's also alienating those religious people's children.
    - Jach 16y ago
      Just so you know, the actual number of distinct many-worlds does not hurt the simplicity of the theory. Check out: http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_testable/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_te...
LaGrange 16y ago
It's a malformed version of a genuine research principle. Attachment to research objects is often cited as a deficiency of a publication. But it's not disqualifying by itself, and has nothing to do with advocacy.
lionhearted 16y ago
> Shall we forbid Economists (it's a science!) from advocating economic policy? Yes!
msg 16y ago
Here is the real problem with moral statements by scientists as scientists. The task of science is, roughly, explaining observation in reference to proximate causes and systematizing those causes as completely and minimally as possible. There is a divide between this task of explaining what is and proclaiming what should be. There is no way to make the leap with the tools of science (measuring, hypothesizing, testing, theorizing). Put another way, science does not have the meta makeup to look outside itself and say, "what is science good for?" So when scientists make moral claims as scientists, they are dressing up a lay moral opinion in their lab jacket. Like Freud talking about linguistics or economists talking about love, we should only trust them as far as the limits of their expertise. And we should recognize that when scientists say that science proves an ought, they are committing a category error.
CapitalistCartr 16y ago
" Economists (it's a science!) from advocating economic policy?" Forbid them, no. But when an economist switches from telling us the facts, and his professional opinion, to advocacy, he has a moral obligation to make it clear when he switches. As an advocate, he's not acting as a scientist (economist), but as an activist citizen.

by ced 16y ago

electromagnetic 16y ago

> Shall we forbid Dawkins from advocating evolution? Yes, please, I'm begging you. Dawkins has made himself the WORST person to be advocating evolution because he's turned it from a rational scientific argument into the moron-capades by arguing about the existence of god. To put it simply, he's trying to get his finger out of a Chinese-finger-trap by pulling, which makes him a moron because every 5-year old will tell you to give up and push your fingers together because its... you guessed it... POINTLESS, just like arguing about an unresolvable argument like whether god does or doesn't exist. Does a tree falling in the forest make a noise? Yes, it's called science lets invite Dawkins to talk about it again. Why shouldn't a doctor treat themselves? Because it's very hard to do open heart surgery on yourself! Edit: > Should we forbid programmers from advocating software patent reform because "it's a topic they are deeply attached to"? I thought the conventional wisdom with copyright reform was that the MPAA, RIAA, etc. should be forbidden from advocating because "it's a topic they are deeply attached to" ... you know all those hundred-dollar bills don't roll themselves up into big fat wads and slip into Congressmen's pockets for nothing.

pstuart 16y ago
There is a war on evolution by the religious right. How is one to try to take that on without talking about God?
- gloob 16y ago
  Because the existence or nonexistence of god has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution?
  - Jach 16y ago
    Depends which god you're talking about. A god that created the earth and everything on it in seven days some number of years ago is in direct conflict with observable evidence. The generic "idea of god", where it may be possible that some being with powers that shouldn't be possible according to our understanding of physics exists somewhere in the universe, does not conflict with evolution. If you don't think evidence is powerful enough to let us infer the existence or non-existence of something, well...
  - pstuart 16y ago
    But is has everything to do with the "debate" over evolution, i.e., if evolution doesn't exist how did we get here? It's maddening that this is even taken place, but it is. In the videos I've seen of Dawkins he's been polite, respectful, and very well spoken.
- amitvjtimub 16y ago
  But why do scientist should care who wins. Natural laws/evolution will decide the winner. After all everything is governed by rules of nature, and scientist is theoretically just supposed to observe it.
danielmason 16y ago
To put it simply, he's trying to get his finger out of a Chinese-finger-trap by pulling, which makes him a moron because every 5-year old will tell you to give up and push your fingers together because its... you guessed it... POINTLESS, just like arguing about an unresolvable argument like whether god does or doesn't exist. The crux of Dawkin's position is that the question of the existence of God is entirely resolvable. So your statement above is actually a direct disagreement with his position, not a critique of his methods. Have you read The God Delusion?
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  Did you read the book, because it entirely boils down to Occam's Razor, that the universe is simpler without a god because god has to be so incredibly complex that it's more rational that god doesn't exist. However, that shows the whole naivety of his argument. We're perceiving the universe from 14 billion years. It's unbelievable in scale and complexity and we've not even moved enough dust to even have started scratching the surface of understanding our universe as a whole. Yet this is the preferable choice under Occam's Razor? Why? Because of a reliance on an as-of-yet unproved hypothesis of a multiverse. So multiple (by multiple I mean more than a googolplex of universes) universes is the preferable simpler scientific resolution to how we ended up in this universe, at this point in time capable of asking these questions? So my choice is God vs A universe for every I/O binary action that has ever taken place in the universe. Dawkin's method and argument is exceptionally simplistic and wholly biased by his perspective, which is exactly why he is hindering the teaching of evolution. If he wasn't making this huge crusade against God, he might have been able to spread evolution. However he's alienating himself from receptive Religious people and he's also alienating those religious people's children.
  - Jach 16y ago
    Just so you know, the actual number of distinct many-worlds does not hurt the simplicity of the theory. Check out: http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_testable/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_te...

LaGrange 16y ago

It's a malformed version of a genuine research principle. Attachment to research objects is often cited as a deficiency of a publication. But it's not disqualifying by itself, and has nothing to do with advocacy.

lionhearted 16y ago

> Shall we forbid Economists (it's a science!) from advocating economic policy? Yes!

msg 16y ago

Here is the real problem with moral statements by scientists as scientists. The task of science is, roughly, explaining observation in reference to proximate causes and systematizing those causes as completely and minimally as possible. There is a divide between this task of explaining what is and proclaiming what should be. There is no way to make the leap with the tools of science (measuring, hypothesizing, testing, theorizing). Put another way, science does not have the meta makeup to look outside itself and say, "what is science good for?" So when scientists make moral claims as scientists, they are dressing up a lay moral opinion in their lab jacket. Like Freud talking about linguistics or economists talking about love, we should only trust them as far as the limits of their expertise. And we should recognize that when scientists say that science proves an ought, they are committing a category error.

CapitalistCartr 16y ago

" Economists (it's a science!) from advocating economic policy?" Forbid them, no. But when an economist switches from telling us the facts, and his professional opinion, to advocacy, he has a moral obligation to make it clear when he switches. As an advocate, he's not acting as a scientist (economist), but as an activist citizen.