5 ms·

I don't have much to add to this, but I am amazed that basically every comment that you've made in this thread is downvoted, while almost none of the others are

by jsight 7y ago

I don't have much to add to this, but I am amazed that basically every comment that you've made in this thread is downvoted, while almost none of the others are. It isn't necessarily that you are right or wrong, but your thoughts are interesting and well presented and yet they have managed to prick some intrinsically negative emotional response. Human nature... sigh.

ncmncm 7y ago
No, it's just that we have seen this dance plenty of times before. None of it is ever original. It's all cribbed from the same tired script: "phlogiston" this, "ether" that. Ultimately it always leads to, "but how can you know, really know?" The intent is always the same, too: Not to evoke subtle insights, or to open up new vistas of thought; but to gather in the pigeons who crave really knowing, and fatten them up on deception. Concealing subtext doesn't mean there's no subtext. BS presented well is still BS. There is far more to know than science has ever even looked at. Not because it's not interesting, useful, or earthshaking, but just because science is hard, and we've been at it for less than 1000 years. There is plenty that science's best efforts had wrong and improved upon, and plenty that's still wrong. Not because we're blinkered and pigheaded (although everyone is) but because it takes time, and we don't each have much, while jokers like this, congratulating themselves on their cleverness despite never having had a single original idea, waste it. Do I sound disgusted? Yes, I said I have seen this before.
- EGreg 7y ago
  Yeah, I’m sure you have seen or heard before noises that rational people made about your unscientific theories, and then... wilfully ignored them! Phlogiston? Ether? Pssht. They were obviously wrong, but my theory is right cause... well cause if not, you’re a creationist! Why else can you POSSIBLY say that my theory is unfalsifiable? I mean, sure, it is, but hey... your expectations are too high. In this area of science, falsifiability is just too much to ask for. Hey dudes! Guess why men fall asleep after an orgasm? It’s so the woman could get away, in the past! It must be true cause: 1) Evolution can only happen by random mutation and natural selection that increases fitness 2) I just need to describe a possible story about how the trait is an adaptation that gave some ability to survive better, sorta 3) And I win! Profit. The game has simple rules. Dude that game is not science. Accept it. Ad hominems won’t get you out of this embarassing situation of calling non-scientific stuff science. And frankly I can day the same about multiverse theories, they are a copout. Anything, including fine tuning of any constants, is explainable by postulating an infinite number of possible universes. To me this is just like another religion. You just want to claim it’s science. But it is NOT SCIENCE. And your disgust is just an attempt to avoid logic and use feelings and bullying to make people agree with you. Same old story. You accuse people of being creationists, as if that somehow makes your theory more valid. Well the shoe is on the other foot. What you have motivating you is that you are against theism. You’d rather believe any unfalsifiable theory as long as it doesn’t involve something Daniel Dennett calls a “skyhook”. Because psychologically you prefer simple things leading to more complex things. That matches your intuition. Well, classical physics matches our intuition too but it can’t explain quantum phenomena. So we challenge our intuitions. Multiverse theories and a bunch of just-so stories that beg the question are cute. But what’s not cute is the rabid religious fervor that makes you LIE and say they are just as scientific as the theory of common descent or special relativity. They are not. And your emotional tantrums and bullying are disgusting to others.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    I wonder who's feeding you this stuff. Pop socio-biology gets no attention from working biologists. Multiverses don't impress working physicists. Not because they're impossible, but because they're boring and sterile. I haven't read Dennett. Not interesting.
    - EGreg 7y ago
      Those are positions I arrived at myself, by applying the same standard and using intellectual integrity. My professional grad school educational background is mathematics. So I guess calling a spade a spade is easier for me in some cases. But I think that I have sufficiently pointed out and illustrated my position. I mentioned multiverse theory to illustrate the same problem in another area.
      - ncmncm 7y ago
        Great, do maths. Every single thing in maths amounts to "suppose X, then what?" Assuming x, then y or w? Assuming x and deriving y, then z or v? Anybody is free to say "Let's suppose a, then what?" But nobody is obliged to pitch in. If you do the work and find a=>b=>c, other mathematicians might be impressed at its beauty, or be bored or disgusted and ignore it. So all of mathematics is made of stuff that mathematicians collectively thought was beautiful at the time. Probably many explored negative or complex numbers, or group algebra, years or centuries before other mathematicians were ready for those. So mathematics is naturally driven by what is fashionable. Science is supposed to be driven by evidence. But scientists are people first and scientists second, so fashion is strong in science too. You can see it in particle physics, where a huge fraction of them are chasing string-theory rainbows that will never be tested against experimental data, and astronomy where everything they can see is plasma, but it officially mustn't be doing anything because plasma-dynamics maths are intractable. (That said, solar physicists are doing amazing work in it.) There's plenty wrong in science, you have just completely missed what it is.

by jsight 7y ago

ncmncm 7y ago

No, it's just that we have seen this dance plenty of times before. None of it is ever original. It's all cribbed from the same tired script: "phlogiston" this, "ether" that. Ultimately it always leads to, "but how can you know, really know?" The intent is always the same, too: Not to evoke subtle insights, or to open up new vistas of thought; but to gather in the pigeons who crave really knowing, and fatten them up on deception. Concealing subtext doesn't mean there's no subtext. BS presented well is still BS. There is far more to know than science has ever even looked at. Not because it's not interesting, useful, or earthshaking, but just because science is hard, and we've been at it for less than 1000 years. There is plenty that science's best efforts had wrong and improved upon, and plenty that's still wrong. Not because we're blinkered and pigheaded (although everyone is) but because it takes time, and we don't each have much, while jokers like this, congratulating themselves on their cleverness despite never having had a single original idea, waste it. Do I sound disgusted? Yes, I said I have seen this before.

EGreg 7y ago
Yeah, I’m sure you have seen or heard before noises that rational people made about your unscientific theories, and then... wilfully ignored them! Phlogiston? Ether? Pssht. They were obviously wrong, but my theory is right cause... well cause if not, you’re a creationist! Why else can you POSSIBLY say that my theory is unfalsifiable? I mean, sure, it is, but hey... your expectations are too high. In this area of science, falsifiability is just too much to ask for. Hey dudes! Guess why men fall asleep after an orgasm? It’s so the woman could get away, in the past! It must be true cause: 1) Evolution can only happen by random mutation and natural selection that increases fitness 2) I just need to describe a possible story about how the trait is an adaptation that gave some ability to survive better, sorta 3) And I win! Profit. The game has simple rules. Dude that game is not science. Accept it. Ad hominems won’t get you out of this embarassing situation of calling non-scientific stuff science. And frankly I can day the same about multiverse theories, they are a copout. Anything, including fine tuning of any constants, is explainable by postulating an infinite number of possible universes. To me this is just like another religion. You just want to claim it’s science. But it is NOT SCIENCE. And your disgust is just an attempt to avoid logic and use feelings and bullying to make people agree with you. Same old story. You accuse people of being creationists, as if that somehow makes your theory more valid. Well the shoe is on the other foot. What you have motivating you is that you are against theism. You’d rather believe any unfalsifiable theory as long as it doesn’t involve something Daniel Dennett calls a “skyhook”. Because psychologically you prefer simple things leading to more complex things. That matches your intuition. Well, classical physics matches our intuition too but it can’t explain quantum phenomena. So we challenge our intuitions. Multiverse theories and a bunch of just-so stories that beg the question are cute. But what’s not cute is the rabid religious fervor that makes you LIE and say they are just as scientific as the theory of common descent or special relativity. They are not. And your emotional tantrums and bullying are disgusting to others.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  I wonder who's feeding you this stuff. Pop socio-biology gets no attention from working biologists. Multiverses don't impress working physicists. Not because they're impossible, but because they're boring and sterile. I haven't read Dennett. Not interesting.
  - EGreg 7y ago
    Those are positions I arrived at myself, by applying the same standard and using intellectual integrity. My professional grad school educational background is mathematics. So I guess calling a spade a spade is easier for me in some cases. But I think that I have sufficiently pointed out and illustrated my position. I mentioned multiverse theory to illustrate the same problem in another area.
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      Great, do maths. Every single thing in maths amounts to "suppose X, then what?" Assuming x, then y or w? Assuming x and deriving y, then z or v? Anybody is free to say "Let's suppose a, then what?" But nobody is obliged to pitch in. If you do the work and find a=>b=>c, other mathematicians might be impressed at its beauty, or be bored or disgusted and ignore it. So all of mathematics is made of stuff that mathematicians collectively thought was beautiful at the time. Probably many explored negative or complex numbers, or group algebra, years or centuries before other mathematicians were ready for those. So mathematics is naturally driven by what is fashionable. Science is supposed to be driven by evidence. But scientists are people first and scientists second, so fashion is strong in science too. You can see it in particle physics, where a huge fraction of them are chasing string-theory rainbows that will never be tested against experimental data, and astronomy where everything they can see is plasma, but it officially mustn't be doing anything because plasma-dynamics maths are intractable. (That said, solar physicists are doing amazing work in it.) There's plenty wrong in science, you have just completely missed what it is.