Fuck you, Science!

[birdman]

I'd say you might've found yourself in a bit of a logical pickle: if you can't use rational thought to know something, then you can't use rational thought to know that you can't use rational thought to know something. I'd be curious to hear your logical steps on how you got where you are.

Yes, it would probably be so much easier if I'd just come to a different conclusion. My problem with reasoned thought as a basis for knowledge is that everything is relative then and there can be no actual knowledge. Everyone thinks about things differently and your reasoned truth is different from mine, but both can't be truth, unless we scuttle the meaning of the word.

 

[birdman]

It's probably one of the biggest flaws in medicine, most straight medical doctors don't know a damn thing about research.

P-values and their mis-application is probably the biggest flaw of science and statistics over the last century. Do you know why p=0.05 was established as the core metric of success in statistical analysis? Because publishers of statistical texts books were able to fit on a single page a table with t-statistics values up to p=0.05, any more and they'd have to use a second page and that cost more money.

 

[OldGoldBeard]

That is an interesting thought, but the core of mathematical knowledge is the "Proof".

Name aside, a mathematical proof is simply the result of logical, deductive thinking, is it not?

 

[birdman]

Name aside, a mathematical proof is simply the result of logical, deductive thinking, is it not?

I'm not a mathematician, just a fan of probability theory. You'll have to ask someone else. Let me know what you find out.

 

[TownieDeac]

We could rant about p-values instead.

Let's! Another good read http://www.nature.com/news/statisticians-issue-warning-over-misuse-of-p-values-1.19503

Though in basic research I think it has more to do with the reproducibility #crisis than science's ability to perform valid observational science.

 

[TownieDeac]

I'm no philosopher, but haven't we arrived at a large portion of our knowledge about math just by thinking about it?

Math may be the purest form of reason and logic.

They say biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics, and physics is applied math.

But mathematics doesn't require empiricism. It is mostly immaterial anyway, though in applied forms (modeling, statistics, geometry, calculus) helps us with empirical evidence gathering.

That's my lay understanding anyway.

 

[OldGoldBeard]

Math may be the purest form of reason and logic.

They say biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics, and physics is applied math.

But mathematics doesn't require empiricism. It is mostly immaterial anyway, though in applied forms (modeling, statistics, geometry, calculus) helps us with empirical evidence gathering.

That's my lay understanding anyway.

I agree. Know any good books on epistemology?

 

[TownieDeac]

I agree. Know any good books on epistemology?

Not really. Closest I've read is more behavioral psych/econ, Thinking Fast and Slow. That was good though. I'd be interested too if anyone knows any.

 

[ConnorEl]

 

[birdman]

While I am pleased to hear that you have at least one presupposition with which I agree (i.e., that there is a "truth"), I think it is erroneous to suggest that disagreement between thinkers undermines that view. Rather, one of us (at least) has simply failed accurately to perceive the way things are. It's really not that much different from two scientists who conduct the same experiment, get the same results, but come to different conclusions as to their meanings. The results often don't mean anything in themselves; instead, they have to be interpreted according to a theory. The fact that there are different theories doesn't mean that there isn't a way things are. It just means that some people are better (or maybe just better schooled) at coming up with theories.

How do we know who is better? How do we distinguish between theories of differing quality?

 

[TownieDeac]

Impact factor

 

[RJKarl]

I wonder what the mathematical probabilities would have been in 1750 that you could instantaneously send a note from Boston to Nepal.

 

[TownieDeac]

Is the point you're building towards that science will eventually prove or disprove a godcreator?

 

[birdman]

I wonder what the mathematical probabilities would have been in 1750 that you could instantaneously send a note from Boston to Nepal.

The probability of doing that in 1750 was very low.

 

[birdman]

Is the point you're building towards that science will eventually prove or disprove a godcreator?

It's the ever disappearing space for god. God occupies the unknown/unknowable spaces and science continually shrinks the space available for god to occupy by building on our knowledge base and so god shrinks and shrinks.

 

[RJKarl]

Or maybe it's getting closer. What happens to the sphere of knowledge if man can discover how to use 30,40 or 70% of our brains? As recently as the 1950s wristwatch telephones were science fiction. Now you can go to the corner and buy one for each suit you own.

To take a definitive stance is counter-intuitive.

 

[birdman]

Which is precisely why the "god of the gaps" theory is flawed.

There is nothing about any scientific theory that has ever been proposed that is inconsistent with or leaves no room for God. Nothing. In fact, if one sees God as the creator, not just of the things in the universe but all of its natural laws, then as our scientific knowledge increases, our appreciation for the work of God increases.

I can't argue with this. I just come to a different conclusion than you when doing the probability assessments and applying the principles of parsimony.

 

[birdman]

By perpetually refining our reasoning. I know you will object that there is no way to know for certain who is correct and who is incorrect, but that just doesn't pose an intellectual hurdle to me. No one ever said that, in addition to being knowable, the truth must be known for certain to be the truth.

Agree actually. I don't know that truth can be known even in empiricle studies, but having better approximation of reality can often be helpful. So honing in on the better theory I'd a good thing. The thing that worries me about all of this is that, without empiricism as your standard for knowledge acquisition, it is much more difficult to dismiss bad thinkers, like Alex Jones, from the public discourse, because the basis for good vs bad ideas is less objective. Usually it doesn't really matter expect for when religion contradicts science in the public policy realm.

 

[TownieDeac]

At the risk of boring you, this is not my view. I only mention it because you seem to be confused about what I have posted (by accusing me of saying the same thing as RJ) and I would hate for the smartest person in the room to be confused.

You're saying different things with the same final conclusion, as far as I've read it. Your arguments are cogent at least.

 

[RJKarl]

Thanks for the smiles Townie. Your self-created arrogance is hilarious and sad at the same time. No wonder you don't believe in the possibility of something bigger than yourself. it's impossible for you to comprehend that potential. All Hail Townie!