6 ms·

> This is not an evidence of scientific fraud... In its scriptures/philosophy, science describes extremely thorough and sound principles and guidelines...but i

> This is not an evidence of scientific fraud... In its scriptures/philosophy, science describes extremely thorough and sound principles and guidelines...but in on the ground practice (by scientists, which are a part of "science"), they are often not achieved[1]. However, this distinction is not only not advertised broadly and without aversion, it is usually (in my experience) not mentioned at all, if not outright denied using persuasive rhetorical language (like, for example, when an object level instance of not achieving it is pointed to in the wild, such as in forum conversations). This may not be fraud (that requires intent I think?), but it achieves the same end: misinforming people. I absolutely agree with your database idea, and if science would like me to take them seriously (something near how seriously they take themselves) they'd also have to go much further. [1] Not unlike in religion, a competing metaphysical framework (model of reality) to science.

3np 2y ago
> Not unlike in religion, a competing metaphysical framework (model of reality) to science. No. Correlation fallacy.
- mistermann 2y ago
  Fallacy fallacy. Naive Realism fallacy.
kerkeslager 2y ago
This sort of comment is why I think a lot of philosophy is just communicating poorly to make yourself sound smart. In your footnote, for example, you translated your philosophy-speak into English (metaphysical framework -> model of reality). Why not just say that? Your entire comment goes into "philosophy mode" and communicates a few very simple ideas in overcomplicated language. Science and religion are pretty poorly understood as competing models of reality. Religion originates when people make up answers to other people's questions to gain social standing, and religion continues due to (among other things) anchoring bias--the bias people have toward continuing to believe what they already believe. While religion does result in those people having a model of reality, there is no attempt being made at any point to relate the model to reality. When religious people and scientists disagree, it's not because the religious person is trying to model reality differently--the religious person isn't even trying to model reality--it's because the religious person is biased in favor of their existing belief. You said: > In its scriptures/philosophy, science describes extremely thorough and sound principles and guidelines...but in on the ground practice (by scientists, which are a part of "science"), they are often not achieved[1]. This is presented as some sort of gotcha, but it's not: few scientists will claim that science is being practiced perfectly or even well. Outside of a few areas such as particle physics, we're quite aware that our ability to practice scientific ideals is hampered by funding, publication incentives, availability of test subjects in human studies, data privacy, etc. And we're aware that this means that our conclusions need to be understood as probabilities rather than 100%-confidence facts. There are certainly some people who treat scientific conclusions with religious absolute confidence, but doing that is fundamentally against scientific principles. The accusation you are leveling against science would be better targeted toward people: generally science journalists and the science-illiterate public rather than scientists themselves. The entire reproducibility crisis is scientists using science to show that our practice of science is too imperfect to result in high-confidence conclusions. Religious people jumping on the replication crisis because they think it disproves science is rich. The replication crisis isn't a disproof of science, it's an application of science. The reason we know that there's a replication crisis is because scientists asked "How confident can we be in the conclusions of existing studies?" and applied science to answer that question. If you really think science is invalid, then you can't use science to prove that. And the fact remains that any confidence in conclusions at all is more than religion has to offer, because again, religion isn't trying to model reality--the fact that religion produces a model of reality is merely an unfortunate side-effect.
- mistermann 2y ago
  > While religion does result in those people having a model of reality, there is no attempt being made at any point to relate the model to reality. When religious people and scientists disagree, it's not because the religious person is trying to model reality differently--the religious person isn't even trying to model reality--it's because the religious person is biased in favor of their existing belief. A problem: you're talking to one right now, and you (your mind's model of reality, technically - you do not have access to the state of the things you claim to) could hardly be more wrong. From large quantities of experience, I am confident I would have no success tackling your disagreements on a careful, strict, point by point basis. Instead, I will simply present two links (I have many others, but let's see what happens with these) and ask: do you believe these have some substantial relevance here, related to the truth value (and appearance of) of our respective claims? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism I can appreciate that this approach may seem unworthy of anything more than a rhetorical response that dodges the question (and the importance of the phenomena these links discuss), so hopefully you can take the challenge seriously. I am more than happy to offer a more substantive reply later, but if you declare victory by fiat[1] it's a bit tough to have a serious conversation. [1] Roughly: declaring that one's opinion of the unknowable is necessarily correct, and that it is(!) contrary to my (actual) stance.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > A problem: you're talking to one right now, and you (your mind's model of reality, technically - you do not have access to the state of the things you claim to) could hardly be more wrong. A problem: you're talking to someone who used to be religious, so I have as much access to the internal thinking of a religious person as you do. A second problem: people's self-perceptions of their own internal processes are quite often measurably wrong. > From large quantities of experience, I am confident I would have no success tackling your disagreements on a careful, strict, point by point basis. Instead, I will simply present two links (I have many others, but let's see what happens with these) and ask: do you believe these have some substantial relevance here, related to the truth value (and appearance of) of our respective claims? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism Short answer: not in any interesting way. Long answer: From large quantities of experience, I would guess that you're about to make a special pleading argument that based on convenience beliefs that you yourself don't believe in any other context, as evidenced by the fact that you don't practice them. Those pages, particularly the latter, are another example of poor communication being presented as intelligence. If we translate to English instead of philosophy-speak, it boils down to an argument about whether perception is reality or not. Let's cut to the chase with a relevant parable: The Buddha and his disciple were walking down the road. Suddenly, the disciple drew his sword and cut the Buddha in half at the waist. The Buddha turned to his disciple and said, "Now you're beginning to understand!" Would you be willing to reproduce this parable experimentally with you as the Buddha? After all, perception is reality, so if you're the Buddha and you perceive being cut in half with a sword as no big deal, that will be just fine, right? The thing is, science is perfectly capable of answering this question--it's not unknowable. The experiment of cutting someone in half with a sword has sadly already been performed too many times in history: we don't need to perform it again. The scientific answer, which we already have, is that no amount of changing our perception prevents the person cut in half with a sword from dying in horrible agony. And when you're not speaking philosophese, you already believe the scientific answer just like every philosopher who believes perception is reality until faced with the prospect of being cut in half with a sword. So if you're about to make an argument about direct and indirect realism, I'd have to ask, why do you believe that reality is reality when it comes to swords (and everything else in your day-to-day life), but you suddenly you want me to believe that perception is reality when it comes to your invisible friend? My only opinion of the unknowable relevant to this conversation is that by definition, neither of us knows it. More parts of philosophy I think we can discard without losing anything of worth: 1. Arguing that perception=reality when it's convenient and refusing to practice it in any other context. 2. Talking about the unknowable as if we know it.

3np 2y ago

> Not unlike in religion, a competing metaphysical framework (model of reality) to science. No. Correlation fallacy.

mistermann 2y ago
Fallacy fallacy. Naive Realism fallacy.

kerkeslager 2y ago

This sort of comment is why I think a lot of philosophy is just communicating poorly to make yourself sound smart. In your footnote, for example, you translated your philosophy-speak into English (metaphysical framework -> model of reality). Why not just say that? Your entire comment goes into "philosophy mode" and communicates a few very simple ideas in overcomplicated language. Science and religion are pretty poorly understood as competing models of reality. Religion originates when people make up answers to other people's questions to gain social standing, and religion continues due to (among other things) anchoring bias--the bias people have toward continuing to believe what they already believe. While religion does result in those people having a model of reality, there is no attempt being made at any point to relate the model to reality. When religious people and scientists disagree, it's not because the religious person is trying to model reality differently--the religious person isn't even trying to model reality--it's because the religious person is biased in favor of their existing belief. You said: > In its scriptures/philosophy, science describes extremely thorough and sound principles and guidelines...but in on the ground practice (by scientists, which are a part of "science"), they are often not achieved[1]. This is presented as some sort of gotcha, but it's not: few scientists will claim that science is being practiced perfectly or even well. Outside of a few areas such as particle physics, we're quite aware that our ability to practice scientific ideals is hampered by funding, publication incentives, availability of test subjects in human studies, data privacy, etc. And we're aware that this means that our conclusions need to be understood as probabilities rather than 100%-confidence facts. There are certainly some people who treat scientific conclusions with religious absolute confidence, but doing that is fundamentally against scientific principles. The accusation you are leveling against science would be better targeted toward people: generally science journalists and the science-illiterate public rather than scientists themselves. The entire reproducibility crisis is scientists using science to show that our practice of science is too imperfect to result in high-confidence conclusions. Religious people jumping on the replication crisis because they think it disproves science is rich. The replication crisis isn't a disproof of science, it's an application of science. The reason we know that there's a replication crisis is because scientists asked "How confident can we be in the conclusions of existing studies?" and applied science to answer that question. If you really think science is invalid, then you can't use science to prove that. And the fact remains that any confidence in conclusions at all is more than religion has to offer, because again, religion isn't trying to model reality--the fact that religion produces a model of reality is merely an unfortunate side-effect.

mistermann 2y ago
> While religion does result in those people having a model of reality, there is no attempt being made at any point to relate the model to reality. When religious people and scientists disagree, it's not because the religious person is trying to model reality differently--the religious person isn't even trying to model reality--it's because the religious person is biased in favor of their existing belief. A problem: you're talking to one right now, and you (your mind's model of reality, technically - you do not have access to the state of the things you claim to) could hardly be more wrong. From large quantities of experience, I am confident I would have no success tackling your disagreements on a careful, strict, point by point basis. Instead, I will simply present two links (I have many others, but let's see what happens with these) and ask: do you believe these have some substantial relevance here, related to the truth value (and appearance of) of our respective claims? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism I can appreciate that this approach may seem unworthy of anything more than a rhetorical response that dodges the question (and the importance of the phenomena these links discuss), so hopefully you can take the challenge seriously. I am more than happy to offer a more substantive reply later, but if you declare victory by fiat[1] it's a bit tough to have a serious conversation. [1] Roughly: declaring that one's opinion of the unknowable is necessarily correct, and that it is(!) contrary to my (actual) stance.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > A problem: you're talking to one right now, and you (your mind's model of reality, technically - you do not have access to the state of the things you claim to) could hardly be more wrong. A problem: you're talking to someone who used to be religious, so I have as much access to the internal thinking of a religious person as you do. A second problem: people's self-perceptions of their own internal processes are quite often measurably wrong. > From large quantities of experience, I am confident I would have no success tackling your disagreements on a careful, strict, point by point basis. Instead, I will simply present two links (I have many others, but let's see what happens with these) and ask: do you believe these have some substantial relevance here, related to the truth value (and appearance of) of our respective claims? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism Short answer: not in any interesting way. Long answer: From large quantities of experience, I would guess that you're about to make a special pleading argument that based on convenience beliefs that you yourself don't believe in any other context, as evidenced by the fact that you don't practice them. Those pages, particularly the latter, are another example of poor communication being presented as intelligence. If we translate to English instead of philosophy-speak, it boils down to an argument about whether perception is reality or not. Let's cut to the chase with a relevant parable: The Buddha and his disciple were walking down the road. Suddenly, the disciple drew his sword and cut the Buddha in half at the waist. The Buddha turned to his disciple and said, "Now you're beginning to understand!" Would you be willing to reproduce this parable experimentally with you as the Buddha? After all, perception is reality, so if you're the Buddha and you perceive being cut in half with a sword as no big deal, that will be just fine, right? The thing is, science is perfectly capable of answering this question--it's not unknowable. The experiment of cutting someone in half with a sword has sadly already been performed too many times in history: we don't need to perform it again. The scientific answer, which we already have, is that no amount of changing our perception prevents the person cut in half with a sword from dying in horrible agony. And when you're not speaking philosophese, you already believe the scientific answer just like every philosopher who believes perception is reality until faced with the prospect of being cut in half with a sword. So if you're about to make an argument about direct and indirect realism, I'd have to ask, why do you believe that reality is reality when it comes to swords (and everything else in your day-to-day life), but you suddenly you want me to believe that perception is reality when it comes to your invisible friend? My only opinion of the unknowable relevant to this conversation is that by definition, neither of us knows it. More parts of philosophy I think we can discard without losing anything of worth: 1. Arguing that perception=reality when it's convenient and refusing to practice it in any other context. 2. Talking about the unknowable as if we know it.