tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post7440914908684056844..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Philosophy Still Owns Science.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78333093432802172632017-02-05T11:26:45.967-08:002017-02-05T11:26:45.967-08:00JH that's a silly arguent,
(1) it doen't ...JH <i>that's a silly arguent,<br /><br />(1) it doen't doesn't answer the historical argument<br /><br />(2) the discussion in history of science includes current practice, the whole Kuhn thing is current, Leviathan and the air pump talks about the modern heirs to Boule's propaganda,<br /><br />the whole premise of learning history is that it has reliance ot present</i><br /><br />Of course the present relies on history, I m not saying otherwise. The game of baseball today relies on the sports of the seventeenth century.<br /><br />The point is that ignoring how things have changed in the last three hundred years is stupid. If you want to know how baseball is played today, you are far better off watching a game. If you want to know how science is done today, you are far better off looking at what scientists do today.<br /><br />Now, if your history of science includes current practice then you are in a position to do. However, claiming that your history of science course includes current practice does not mean that what Boyle was doing in the seventeenth century is going to be the same as what modern scientists do.<br /><br />Pix: <i>Science is about making predictions and testing them to support hypotheses. Sure, bad hypotheses get disprove along the way, but facts are not proven as such, just sufficiently well supported to be accepted.</i><br /><br />JH <i>that only apply to hypotheses that belong to their proper domain,it does notapply to things that aren't scientific questions like the existence of God.</i><br /><br />It applies to all science, which is why the first word in my paragraph was science. The existence of God, as a general question, cannot be addressed, because the term God covers too many possibilities that there are no predictions. Specific claims can sometimes be tested.<br /><br />JH <i>you strongly incriminate when you advance the dichotomy scinece =fact religion = no facts</i><br /><br />Not at all. I think you are confusing "no facts" with "not true". They are not the same. "no facts" also includes "don't know".<br /><br />JH <i>wscience has no edge in understanding spiritual things, it only has an edge in its own domain,</i><br /><br />I have never said otherwise. However, that does leave us with scientific claims that are very well supported, and then other claims (outside direct experience) that are not as well supported. The latter includes spiritual claims.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-38363402672749510742017-02-05T05:18:48.799-08:002017-02-05T05:18:48.799-08:00JH: It's misleading to cast it in terms of opi...JH: It's misleading to cast it in terms of opinion vs fact.As I already pointed bout science iw not about proving facts it;s about disproving bad hypotheses. When you try to pretend that the verisemilitude left over that gives us our scientific assumptions is really the guarantee of facility and that that assumption of facts somehow disproves God or disproves religion, is totally dishonest and a game you play with yourself. You keep trying to imply that thye assumption of fact gives science some kind of edge but in its way it is no less a pretense than the assumptiomn of faith,<br /><br />Science is about making predictions and testing them to support hypotheses. Sure, bad hypotheses get disprove along the way, but facts are not proven as such, just sufficiently well supported to be accepted.<br /><br /><b>that only apply to hypotheses that belong to their proper domain,it does notapply to things that aren't scientific questions like the existence of God.</b><br /><br />We discussed how the assumptions of science are actually well supported on your forum. Turns out that actually they are. Not proven, but very well supported.<br /><br /><b>when they are actually scientific questions</b><br /><br />I have never said science disproves God or religion.<br /><br /><b>you strongly incriminate when you advance the dichotomy scinece =fact religion = no facts </b><br /><br /><br />I do say that the methodology of science gives it an edge. A part of that is that claims in science are supported by evidence, which immediately elevates it above most of philosophy, but the manner in which the claims are tested greatly lessens any human bias, and elevates it higher still.<br /><br /><br /><b>wscience has no edge in understanding spiritual things, it only has an edge in its own domain,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43110124268885006442017-02-05T05:13:21.266-08:002017-02-05T05:13:21.266-08:00If you want to understand baseball, you do not loo...If you want to understand baseball, you do not look at games people were playing three centuries ago, and call it a day. You have to look at what people are doing today. Sure, what they did back then gives some historical background, but that is less important than, say, actually watching a game.<br /><br /><br /><b>that's a silly arguent,<br /><br />(1) it doen't doesn't answer the historical argument<br /><br />(2) the discussion in history of science includes current practice, the whole Kuhn thing is current, Leviathan and the air pump talks about the modern heirs to Boule's propaganda,<br /><br />the whole premise of learning history is that it has reliance ot present</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-50183067257052849012017-02-04T04:41:57.848-08:002017-02-04T04:41:57.848-08:00JH: first of all Boyle was real important to my di...JH: <i>first of all Boyle was real important to my dissertation so (history of science) so natural to turn to him. But since he laid the foundations for experiment the protocols of recording experiments it's real important to under the historical foundations that shows us why the problem arose. I am an historian so I think historically anyway.</i><br /><br />Okay, but surely any historian has to look at what happened in the next three hundred or so years.<br /><br />If you want to understand baseball, you do not look at games people were playing three centuries ago, and call it a day. You have to look at what people are doing today. Sure, what they did back then gives some historical background, but that is less important than, say, actually watching a game.<br /><br />JH: <i>Let's face reality now pix this is common knowledgeable in history of science this is what I mean by saying scientists are ghettoized, you don't know about other fields.This is the kind of stuff historians of science talk about and have for about 50 years now. Stop trying to pretend like it;s some aboration I made up..I am only repeating what I learned in graduate school.</i><br /><br />It is a comon opinion, especially amongst people whose worldview is threatened by science.<br /><br />Please note, I am not saying it is perfectly objective, but I am saying it is more objective than anything else (noting that I exclude maths as abstract, and not actually about reality).<br /><br />Pix: <i>Can you point to any other human endeavor is any more objective than science?<br /><br />JH: being objective itself is a scam. Humans are not objective, as I pointed out science has merely Lenard to use objectivity as a cloak for their biases,</i><br /><br />So in fact you cannot offer any human endeavor that is any more objective than science. I did not think so.<br /><br />JH: <i>It's misleading to cast it in terms of opinion vs fact.As I already pointed bout science iw not about proving facts it;s about disproving bad hypotheses. When you try to pretend that the verisemilitude left over that gives us our scientific assumptions is really the guarantee of facility and that that assumption of facts somehow disproves God or disproves religion, is totally dishonest and a game you play with yourself. You keep trying to imply that thye assumption of fact gives science some kind of edge but in its way it is no less a pretense than the assumptiomn of faith,</i><br /><br />Science is about making predictions and testing them to support hypotheses. Sure, bad hypotheses get disproven along the way, but facts are not proven as such, just sufficiently well supported to be accepted.<br /><br />We discussed how the assumptions of science are actually well supported on your forum. Turns out that actually they are. Not proven, but very well supported.<br /><br />I have never said science disproves God or religion.<br /><br />I do say that the methodology of science gives it an edge. A part of that is that claims in science are supported by evidence, which immediately elevates it above most of philosophy, but the manner in which the claims are tested greatly lessens any human bias, and elevates it higher still.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-59708028961638355132017-02-03T08:54:39.979-08:002017-02-03T08:54:39.979-08:00Anonymous said...
JH: I tried to read newton's...Anonymous said...<br />JH: I tried to read newton's optics. It was pretty tough. I've read a great deal of social sciences. It's a pity you don't understand that your prejudice against social science is still prejudice and is ideological.<br /><br /><b>PX</b>When have we ever even discussed social science?<br /><br /><b>The book i wrote is social sconce, and the studies i read for it, ad my BS is in sociology. I've tried to discuss it here and on all the message boards like carm with tons of atheists most of whom don't know shit about it.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />JH: It's certainly not opinion free at all in terms of people who do science.Boyle imposed a phony standard of objectivity upon experimental protocols so that it would give the appearance of being opinion free, But it;s just that opinions are expressed in different ways. it gives lip service to objectivity but uses objectivity to hide behind.<br /><br /><b>PX:</b>Boyle was a devote Christian who believed an alchemy and died in 1691. It is telling that you have to go back to a theist who lived well over three centuries to support your claim.<br /><br /><b>sorry my fried but that shows real naivete.<br />first of all Boyle was real important to my dissertation so (history of science) so natural to turn to him. But since he laid the foundations for experiment the protocols of recording experiments it's real important to under the historical foundations that shows us why the problem arose. I am an historian so I think historically anyway.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Pix:</b>This is just cherry-picking. You have decided science is not objective, and you have searched high and low to find evidence of it, and this is the best you can find to support your ill-informed opinion.<br /><br /><br /><b>Let's face reality now pix this is common knowledgeable in history of science this is what I mean by saying scientists are ghettoized, you don't know about other fields.This is the kind of stuff historians of science talk about and have for about 50 years now. Stop trying to pretend like it;s some aboration I made up..I am only repeating what I learned in graduate school.</b><br /><br /><b>Pix:</b>Especially ironic when you have just accused me of being prejudiced against social science.<br /><br /><b>you are trying to write off the past 50 years of history and Philosophy of sdince as just my little prejudice that wont work. Anyone can read the thinkers and see it;s a trend in academic work,</b><br /><br /><b>Pix:</b>Can you point to any other human endeavor is any more objective than science?<br /><br /><b>being objective itself is a scam. Humans are not objective, as I pointed out science has merely Lenard to use objectivity as a cloak for their biases,</b><br /><br /><br />JH: In under graduate school I studied astronomy four classes, I read the material. I had a class on geo-morphology which I liked a lot. I read the material there and used to talk to the prof every day before class, That class convinced me not to be a creationist.<br /><br /><b>Px</b>So think back to those classes and tell me what was merely opinion, but was presented as objective fact.<br /><br /><b>It's misleading to cast it in terms of opinion vs fact.As I already pointed bout science iw not about proving facts it;s about disproving bad hypotheses. When you try to pretend that the verisemilitude left over that gives us our scientific assumptions is really the guarantee of facility and that that assumption of facts somehow disproves God or disproves religion, is totally dishonest and a game you play with yourself. You keep trying to imply that thye assumption of fact gives science some kind of edge but in its way it is no less a pretense than the assumptiomn of faith, </b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72810678878350986602017-02-03T00:40:38.387-08:002017-02-03T00:40:38.387-08:00JH: I tried to read newton's optics. It was pr...JH: <i>I tried to read newton's optics. It was pretty tough. I've read a great deal of social sciences. It's a pity you don't understand that your prejudice against social science is still prejudice and is ideological.</i><br /><br />When have we ever even discussed social science?<br /><br />JH: <i>It's certainly not opinion free at all in terms of people who do science.Boyle imposed a phony standard of objectivity upon experimental protocols so that it would give the appearance of being opinion free, But it;s just that opinions are expressed in different ways. it gives lip service to objectivity but uses objectivity to hide behind.</i><br /><br />Boyle was a devote Christian who believed an alchemy and died in 1691. It is telling that you have to go back to a theist who lived well over three centuries to support your claim.<br /><br />This is just cherry-picking. You have decided science is not objective, and you have searched high and low to find evidence of it, and this is the best you can find to support your ill-informed opinion.<br /><br />Especially ironic when you have just accused me of being prejudiced against social science.<br /><br />Can you point to any other human endeavour is any more objective than science?<br /><br />JH: <i>In under graduate school I studied astronomy four classes, I read the material. I had a class on geo-morphology which I liked a lot. I read the material there and used to talk to the prof every day before class, That class convinced me not to be a creationist.</i><br /><br />So think back to those classes and tell me what was merely opinion, but was presented as objective fact.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40980277069302995872017-02-02T09:07:48.425-08:002017-02-02T09:07:48.425-08:00In under graduate school I studied astronomy four ...In under graduate school I studied astronomy four classes, I read the material. I had a class on geo-morphology which I liked a lot. I read the material there and used to talk to the prof every day before class, That class convinced me not to be a creationist. After that I took a class taught by the kind of guy I'm at war with, a bloody minded anti-religious assshole who was the epitome of what i call "scientisism." <br /><br />The scuttlebutt about that guy was that he had lived with a chimp as part of his research.His wife got fed up and gave him an ultimatum,me or the chimp. he chose the chimp.<br /><br />He had a trick he was always making literalistic statements about the statements religious people made. "How Jesus be in your heart?Is he pumping blood? I laid a little trap for him,One day, overcast, I said "Dr._____" do you think the sun will come out today?" He says "I expect it might" I said"where is is it coming out from?" He was so pissed!<br /><br />He also mocked and ridiculed Aquinas for not knowing about evolution I told him Aquinas had a theory of evolution. He was totally incredulous I brought in a book by Peter Singer (an atheist) to prove it he was mad as hell.<br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-79166436657271340032017-02-02T08:55:23.998-08:002017-02-02T08:55:23.998-08:00Hey Pix
Anonymous said...
JH: It's really sho...Hey Pix<br /><br />Anonymous said...<br />JH: It's really shocking and ridiculous that you put Philosophy in the same pigeon hole as ideology and bigotry,I wonder if you have ever read any philosophy?><br /><br />Odd, I was wondering if you have read any science.<br /><br /><b>I tried to read newton's optics. It was pretty tough. I've read a great deal of social sciences. It's a pity you don't understand that your prejudice against social science is still prejudice and is ideological.</b><br /><br />JH: who says it;s based upon opinion,science based upon pinon, you cant even start the process of logical deduction. Science always comes down to interpreting data., That medans using logic and making opinion.<br /><br />Science is based on observation. It is not entirely opinion free, but is probably the nearest we get to that. Certainly it uses logic, but how you think opinion is involved in "interpreting data". Again, I have to wonder if you have read any science.<br /><br /><b>It's certainly not opinion free at all in terms of people who do science.Boyle imposed a phony standard of objectivity upon experimental protocols so that it would give the appearance of being opinion free, But it;s just that opinions are expressed in different ways. it gives lip service to objectivity but uses objectivity to hide behind.</b><br /><br />JH: Philosophy is not programmatic as science is. It's not a matter of going through some set of issues and making discoverers about how they work,it's more methodical. Science uses th same medthod then prtends it doesnt.<br /><br />You appear to be saying that philosophy is more methodical than science, and also that it is less methodical than science.<br /><br /><b>No I, not saying that but there is a clearer standard of methodology in science and more diversity of method in philosophy,although there is no actual"scientific method," so there is some diversity there too.</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-3107884046667558222017-02-02T02:31:53.416-08:002017-02-02T02:31:53.416-08:00JH: It's really shocking and ridiculous that y...JH: <i>It's really shocking and ridiculous that you put Philosophy in the same pigeon hole as ideology and bigotry,I wonder if you have ever read any philosophy?></i><br /><br />Odd, I was wondering if you have read any science.<br /><br />JH: <i>who says it;s based upon opinion,science based upon pinon, you cant even start the process of logical deduction. Science always comes down to interpreting data., That medans using logic and making opinion.</i><br /><br />Science is based on observation. It is not entirely opinion free, but is probably the nearest we get to that. Certainly it uses logic, but how you think opinion is involved in "interpreting data". Again, I have to wonder if you have read any science.<br /><br />JH: <i>Philosophy is not programmatic as science is. It's not a matter of going through some set of issues and making discoverers about how they work,it's more methodical. Science uses th same medthod then prtends it doesnt.</i><br /><br />You appear to be saying that philosophy is more methodical than science, and also that it is less methodical than science.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84207938171422424872017-02-01T09:23:27.564-08:002017-02-01T09:23:27.564-08:00True. Wait, I thought you were arguing FOR philoso...True. Wait, I thought you were arguing FOR philosophy? I put my trust in the claims of science because they are supported by science. I will not put my trust in philosophy, ideology or bigotry because they are not, and because I am doubtful of our ability to distinguish between the three.<br /><br /><br /><b>It's really shocking and ridiculous that you put Philosophy in the same pigeon hole as ideology and bigotry,I wonder if you have ever read any philosophy?></b><br /><br />JH: supported by different kind of evidence, deductive e reasoning ss more certain than inductive.<br /><br />Deductive reasoning from a premise based on opinion is far less certain that inductive reasoning based on observations. At the end of the day, philosophy is not based on observations (if it was, it would be science). <br /><br /><b>who says it;s based upon opinion,science based upon pinon, you cant even start the process of logical deduction. Science always comes down to interpreting data., That medans using logic and making opinion.<br /><br />Philosophy is not programmatic as science is. It's not a matter of going through some set of issues and making discoverers about how they work,it's more methodical. Science uses th same medthod then prtends it doesnt.</b><br /><br /><br />This means that any resemblence between philosophical claims and reality is merely coincidence.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-11852900938356123342017-02-01T04:27:29.785-08:002017-02-01T04:27:29.785-08:00Pix: Very true. Claims made by scientists that are...Pix: <i>Very true. Claims made by scientists that are supported by evidence are science. Claims not supported by evidence are philosophy.</i><br /><br />JH: <i>or ideology or bigotry</i><br /><br />True. Wait, I thought you were arguing FOR philosophy? I put my trust in the claims of science because they are supported by science. I will not put my trust in philosophy, ideology or bigotry because they are not, and because I am doubtful of our ability to distinguish between the three.<br /><br />JH: <i>supported by different kind of evidence, deductive e reasoning ss more certain than inductive.</i><br /><br />Deductive reasoning from a premise based on opinion is far less certain that inductive reasoning based on observations. At the end of the day, philosophy is not based on observations (if it was, it would be science). This means that any resemblence between philosophical claims and reality is merely coincidence.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-81586873915571130652017-01-31T21:26:46.530-08:002017-01-31T21:26:46.530-08:00Skepie links to more of his ignorant twaddle.Skepie links to more of his ignorant twaddle.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-22815090150539687782017-01-31T21:21:13.420-08:002017-01-31T21:21:13.420-08:00Anonymous said...
"problem is philosophy is s...Anonymous said...<br />"problem is philosophy is still very important to scinece, and in fact any time a scientist pretends to be using scinece to examine something beyond the domain of scinece he is using philosophy More over philosophy directly informs and shapes and guides science in its understanding."<br /><br />Very true. Claims made by scientists that are supported by evidence are science. Claims not supported by evidence are philosophy.<br /><br /><b>or ideology or bigotry</b><br /><br />So philosophy is clearly superior as it is not supported by evidence...<br /><br /><b>supported by different kind of evidence, deductive e reasoning ss more certain than inductive.</b><br /><br />Pix<br />7:24 AM <br /> Anonymous said...<br />With regards to reductionism, it certainly is a useful tool. Whether any scientist still holds it as a philosophy is unlikely, as pretty much everyone nowadays accepts that emergence is real.<br /><br /><b>I distinguish between methodologiocal aqnd philosophical. I still prefer wholism</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48582076644765918962017-01-31T16:43:43.176-08:002017-01-31T16:43:43.176-08:00The Science-Philosophy Schism<a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-science-philosophy-schism.html" rel="nofollow">The Science-Philosophy Schism</a>im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-12050450767660466442017-01-31T07:27:23.158-08:002017-01-31T07:27:23.158-08:00With regards to reductionism, it certainly is a us...With regards to reductionism, it certainly is a useful tool. Whether any scientist still holds it as a philosophy is unlikely, as pretty much everyone nowadays accepts that emergence is real.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-11549565855120850792017-01-31T07:24:05.068-08:002017-01-31T07:24:05.068-08:00"problem is philosophy is still very importan..."<i>problem is philosophy is still very important to scinece, and in fact any time a scientist pretends to be using scinece to examine something beyond the domain of scinece he is using philosophy More over philosophy directly informs and shapes and guides science in its understanding.</i>"<br /><br />Very true. Claims made by scientists that are supported by evidence are science. Claims not supported by evidence are philosophy.<br /><br />So philosophy is clearly superior as it is not supported by evidence...<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com