3 ms·

> I simply have no interest in engaging It's not just that you have no interest (which would be fine), you have made falsifiable claims about my beliefs, and y

> I simply have no interest in engaging It's not just that you have no interest (which would be fine), you have made falsifiable claims about my beliefs, and you ignore the evidence I am presenting to you which disprove your claims. You are lying to yourself about my beliefs. Not a very scientific approach. > That’s not a complement. Why, what's wrong with the social sciences? Don't you trust in the social sciences? I thought you trusted the scientific method? Can't it be applied to human behavior?

teakettle42 4y ago
> Why, what's wrong with the social sciences? Said no-one arguing in good faith, ever. As I’ve said, we’re not going to establish shared meaning. Your belief system is a faith-based ideology totally incompatible with my own, and it’s clear that there’s no shared ground whatsoever. You are free to subscribe to a faith in scientists. That’s not science, but it’s a belief system you’re welcome to. I’ll only object if (or more likely, when) you attempt to enforce your ideological orthodoxy by limiting what others are allowed to say.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  I beg of you, for your own good, when you try to characterize someone else, and they tell you that your characterization is inaccurate, pay attention and try to do better. > Said no-one arguing in good faith, ever. If science is so great, I'd love to hear you explain what has gone wrong in the social sciences. I thought the scientific method would produce the best results, even for studying human behavior.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > If science is so great, I'd love to hear you explain what has gone wrong in the social sciences. It’s not science, thanks to adopting an anti-science religious belief system rather similar to your own. Your religiously dogmatic sophistry has exhausted me, so congratulations, you win the last word. Have fun with it!
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      > It’s not science, thanks to adopting an anti-science religious belief system rather like your own. But how is that possible? You believe in science. There are findings in the social sciences, and people have replicated the original findings. There's literature you can review. Why do you not trust the science? Have you actually falsified their claims? Well then why haven't you published your findings? Clearly that's how science works. It's a recursive application of the scientific method in a way that admits falsifiability at every level, and it allows you, or anyone else, to independently verify or disprove the results. Multiple independent social scientists have performed the same experiment and achieved the same results. Why then don't you trust in the science? The methodology? What evidence do you have that Every. Single. Person. Who has replicated those results has "adopted an anti-science religious belief system"? That's an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary proof. If there's a problem in the social sciences, how are the other sciences immune from that problem? I still don't get it, though. There's a scientific process. The BELIEFS of the scientists surely can't matter! If the beliefs of the scientists mattered, we'd be relying on scientists to have the CORRECT BELIEFS. We couldn't just trust in the scientific method! Oh goodness, what can be done?!? I'll admit my tongue was firmly in my cheek while typing this, but you still have the burden of proof of explaining: 1) How do you know that ALL of the social scientists have the wrong beliefs? 2) Why does it matter if they have the wrong beliefs, if they follow the scientific method? 3) How is it possible that not ONE true scientist has come along and published results that contradict the social sciences? 4) How do you as a lay person know the difference between which scientific results are valid, and which ones are invalid? Are there, say, some scientists who have a track record that you trust, and other scientists who have a track record that you do not trust? 5) What evidence would it take to convince you that you are wrong, and the social sciences are correct? If you can't come up with any examples, that sounds like a religion to me. > Your religiously dogmatic sophistry has exhausted me, so congratulations, you win the last word. I have no intention of winning the last word. I'm begging you to examine your own beliefs, and to improve yourself by realizing that you are fooling yourself.

teakettle42 4y ago

> Why, what's wrong with the social sciences? Said no-one arguing in good faith, ever. As I’ve said, we’re not going to establish shared meaning. Your belief system is a faith-based ideology totally incompatible with my own, and it’s clear that there’s no shared ground whatsoever. You are free to subscribe to a faith in scientists. That’s not science, but it’s a belief system you’re welcome to. I’ll only object if (or more likely, when) you attempt to enforce your ideological orthodoxy by limiting what others are allowed to say.

VikingCoder 4y ago
I beg of you, for your own good, when you try to characterize someone else, and they tell you that your characterization is inaccurate, pay attention and try to do better. > Said no-one arguing in good faith, ever. If science is so great, I'd love to hear you explain what has gone wrong in the social sciences. I thought the scientific method would produce the best results, even for studying human behavior.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > If science is so great, I'd love to hear you explain what has gone wrong in the social sciences. It’s not science, thanks to adopting an anti-science religious belief system rather similar to your own. Your religiously dogmatic sophistry has exhausted me, so congratulations, you win the last word. Have fun with it!
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    > It’s not science, thanks to adopting an anti-science religious belief system rather like your own. But how is that possible? You believe in science. There are findings in the social sciences, and people have replicated the original findings. There's literature you can review. Why do you not trust the science? Have you actually falsified their claims? Well then why haven't you published your findings? Clearly that's how science works. It's a recursive application of the scientific method in a way that admits falsifiability at every level, and it allows you, or anyone else, to independently verify or disprove the results. Multiple independent social scientists have performed the same experiment and achieved the same results. Why then don't you trust in the science? The methodology? What evidence do you have that Every. Single. Person. Who has replicated those results has "adopted an anti-science religious belief system"? That's an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary proof. If there's a problem in the social sciences, how are the other sciences immune from that problem? I still don't get it, though. There's a scientific process. The BELIEFS of the scientists surely can't matter! If the beliefs of the scientists mattered, we'd be relying on scientists to have the CORRECT BELIEFS. We couldn't just trust in the scientific method! Oh goodness, what can be done?!? I'll admit my tongue was firmly in my cheek while typing this, but you still have the burden of proof of explaining: 1) How do you know that ALL of the social scientists have the wrong beliefs? 2) Why does it matter if they have the wrong beliefs, if they follow the scientific method? 3) How is it possible that not ONE true scientist has come along and published results that contradict the social sciences? 4) How do you as a lay person know the difference between which scientific results are valid, and which ones are invalid? Are there, say, some scientists who have a track record that you trust, and other scientists who have a track record that you do not trust? 5) What evidence would it take to convince you that you are wrong, and the social sciences are correct? If you can't come up with any examples, that sounds like a religion to me. > Your religiously dogmatic sophistry has exhausted me, so congratulations, you win the last word. I have no intention of winning the last word. I'm begging you to examine your own beliefs, and to improve yourself by realizing that you are fooling yourself.