Thoughts on The Science Delusion by Curtis White

[cjlr]

(11-06-2013 10:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Right. So the witch doctor hands you a juju bag, and the scientist gives you a course of quinine. ... Which is the better malaria cure, I and I?

I'm still curious. Which is it?

(11-06-2013 10:58 PM)I and I Wrote:  Science and religion both believe there is an ultimate truth, religion believes that it has already been found, science believes it can be found and that we are getting closer to it like the "theory of everything".

Philosophy says there is no such thing as a "truth" or a "fact" that is absolute. Philosophy shits on science and religion all day everyday.

There is an entire field called the philosophy of science. They've got journals and conferences and everything! Might be worth checking out.

No competent scientist has ever believed in a single, immutable, ultimate truth. No one here has ever claimed such a thing either. I'm not sure why you persist in such a Quixotic debating strategy, but it isn't getting you anywhere.

If all paradigms are equivalent, then they would never change. I refer you once more to a classic example:

(11-06-2013 10:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  How much luck did the Soviet Union have with Lysenkoism?

Here's a hint for you: none at all.

[I and I]

(12-06-2013 08:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 10:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Right. So the witch doctor hands you a juju bag, and the scientist gives you a course of quinine. ... Which is the better malaria cure, I and I?

I'm still curious. Which is it?

(11-06-2013 10:58 PM)I and I Wrote:  Science and religion both believe there is an ultimate truth, religion believes that it has already been found, science believes it can be found and that we are getting closer to it like the "theory of everything".

Philosophy says there is no such thing as a "truth" or a "fact" that is absolute. Philosophy shits on science and religion all day everyday.

There is an entire field called the philosophy of science. They've got journals and conferences and everything! Might be worth checking out.

No competent scientist has ever believed in a single, immutable, ultimate truth. No one here has ever claimed such a thing either. I'm not sure why you persist in such a Quixotic debating strategy, but it isn't getting you anywhere.

If all paradigms are equivalent, then they would never change. I refer you once more to a classic example:

(11-06-2013 10:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  How much luck did the Soviet Union have with Lysenkoism?

Here's a hint for you: none at all.

I already stated above that humans use logic and reason in assessing the empirical evidence with the tools given to them. The tools given to me in 2013 allow me to come to the conclusion from a logic and reasoned approach that todays cure for malaria is the best (to the tools provided to me in 2013). I stated this process before, thanks for not reading.

What does your other question have to do with the price of thongs in japan?

Nobody ever said that all paradigm shifts (the very few that have happened) are equivalent, I also never made a judgement on any scientific paradigm as being good or bad or not as good or not as bad. Thanks for not reading.

Saying that there is no viable way to show that one paradigm is "better" than the other is not the same thing as saying they are equivalent.

[MrAttacus]

(11-06-2013 09:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  " purpose of the book is to counter the statements made by scientists that philosophy as well as the arts are dead"

Well, that's a fucking strawman argument if there ever was. I know of no reputable scientist who says any such thing.

/thread

It sounds like this book equates "philosophy" and "art/culture" as the same thing as well as misrepresenting the views of "science;" whatever that means, its not like there's just a collective cabal of "scientists" somewhere who all agree on everything.

[MrAttacus]

(11-06-2013 09:10 AM)yumeji Wrote:  My thoughts?

That gif is even funnier when you know the context of it.

But yes, that is the perfect reaction to this fail of a book.

[cjlr]

(12-06-2013 01:39 PM)I and I Wrote:  Nobody ever said that all paradigm shifts (the very few that have happened) are equivalent, I also never made a judgement on any scientific paradigm as being good or bad or not as good or not as bad. Thanks for not reading.

... You're welcome?

You said - well, I'll let you say it:

(12-06-2013 01:39 PM)I and I Wrote:  ... there is no viable way to show that one paradigm is "better" than the other ...

You started a whole thread on that premise.

And yet -

(12-06-2013 01:39 PM)I and I Wrote:  today's cure for malaria is the best.

Sounds to me like one paradigm produces better results than the other. In what sense is that not being better?

When you said 'there's no such thing as better', I thought you meant it. In which case, no paradigm would have better results than another - because, surely, that's how we're determining 'better'? If absolute knowledge is an impossibility (again - nobody has denied that), then it does not follow that all paradigms are equally knowledgeable.

I inferred, then, that the claim ('none is better') would imply that none is more effective. If 'better' is a matter of efficacy, then for none to be better (and, consequently, none worse) means none are more or less effective. Equally effective explanatory paradigms are therefore equivalent (since none is better at being explanatory).

Hence my example. State-sanctioned Soviet biology thought they'd be all post-modern, back in the 30s - scientific results were a cultural artifact, after all, so instead of accepting the capitalist-imperialist doctrine of eugenic cultivation (the Nazis espoused eugenics!) they'd pretend real hard that neo-Lamarckianism was where it was at.

The predictable result of that was jack and shit.

[I and I]

(12-06-2013 02:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 01:39 PM)I and I Wrote:  Nobody ever said that all paradigm shifts (the very few that have happened) are equivalent, I also never made a judgement on any scientific paradigm as being good or bad or not as good or not as bad. Thanks for not reading.

... You're welcome?

You said - well, I'll let you say it:

(12-06-2013 01:39 PM)I and I Wrote:  ... there is no viable way to show that one paradigm is "better" than the other ...

You started a whole thread on that premise.

And yet -

(12-06-2013 01:39 PM)I and I Wrote:  today's cure for malaria is the best.

Sounds to me like one paradigm produces better results than the other. In what sense is that not being better?

When you said 'there's no such thing as better', I thought you meant it. In which case, no paradigm would have better results than another - because, surely, that's how we're determining 'better'? If absolute knowledge is an impossibility (again - nobody has denied that), then it does not follow that all paradigms are equally knowledgeable.

I inferred, then, that the claim ('none is better') would imply that none is more effective. If 'better' is a matter of efficacy, then for none to be better (and, consequently, none worse) means none are more or less effective. Equally effective explanatory paradigms are therefore equivalent (since none is better at being explanatory).

Hence my example. State-sanctioned Soviet biology thought they'd be all post-modern, back in the 30s - scientific results were a cultural artifact, after all, so instead of accepting the capitalist-imperialist doctrine of eugenic cultivation (the Nazis espoused eugenics!) they'd pretend real hard that neo-Lamarckianism was where it was at.

The predictable result of that was jack and shit.

You are making a judgement from 2013 on the past, I never denied that one couldn't do this. I am merely pointing out this judgement for what it is, you are using the available data and tools in your culture (past failed attempts as well) to make a judgement on something. What makes you think todays methods for treating malaria are "better"?

[Chas]

(12-06-2013 03:56 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 02:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... You're welcome?

You said - well, I'll let you say it:


You started a whole thread on that premise.

And yet -


Sounds to me like one paradigm produces better results than the other. In what sense is that not being better?

When you said 'there's no such thing as better', I thought you meant it. In which case, no paradigm would have better results than another - because, surely, that's how we're determining 'better'? If absolute knowledge is an impossibility (again - nobody has denied that), then it does not follow that all paradigms are equally knowledgeable.

I inferred, then, that the claim ('none is better') would imply that none is more effective. If 'better' is a matter of efficacy, then for none to be better (and, consequently, none worse) means none are more or less effective. Equally effective explanatory paradigms are therefore equivalent (since none is better at being explanatory).

Hence my example. State-sanctioned Soviet biology thought they'd be all post-modern, back in the 30s - scientific results were a cultural artifact, after all, so instead of accepting the capitalist-imperialist doctrine of eugenic cultivation (the Nazis espoused eugenics!) they'd pretend real hard that neo-Lamarckianism was where it was at.

The predictable result of that was jack and shit.

You are making a judgement from 2013 on the past, I never denied that one couldn't do this. I am merely pointing out this judgement for what it is, you are using the available data and tools in your culture (past failed attempts as well) to make a judgement on something. What makes you think todays methods for treating malaria are "better"?

Because they work.

[cjlr]

(12-06-2013 03:56 PM)I and I Wrote:  You are making a judgement from 2013 on the past, I never denied that one couldn't do this. I am merely pointing out this judgement for what it is, you are using the available data and tools in your culture (past failed attempts as well) to make a judgement on something. What makes you think today's methods for treating malaria are "better"?

How are you defining 'better'?

(12-06-2013 01:39 PM)I and I Wrote:  today's cure for malaria is the best.

Because you clearly have a definition.

And how is that definition different from the one you're using when you make statements such as

(12-06-2013 01:39 PM)I and I Wrote:  ... there is no viable way to show that one paradigm is "better" than the other ...

?

'Cause yeah. My outlook is implicitly dependent on everything else that ever happened up to now. So is yours. No shit.

So what?

[I and I]

(12-06-2013 04:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 03:56 PM)I and I Wrote:  You are making a judgement from 2013 on the past, I never denied that one couldn't do this. I am merely pointing out this judgement for what it is, you are using the available data and tools in your culture (past failed attempts as well) to make a judgement on something. What makes you think today's methods for treating malaria are "better"?

How are you defining 'better'?

(12-06-2013 01:39 PM)I and I Wrote:  today's cure for malaria is the best.

Because you clearly have a definition.

And how is that definition different from the one you're using when you make statements such as

(12-06-2013 01:39 PM)I and I Wrote:  ... there is no viable way to show that one paradigm is "better" than the other ...

?

'Cause yeah. My outlook is implicitly dependent on everything else that ever happened up to now. So is yours. No shit.

So what?

I am defining "better" the same way you have been this whole conversation. The difference is I recognize my judgement of "better" to be just that, a personal judgement simply based on all the available tools in 2013 and not some grand woo woo step getting closer to the grand woo of woo known as ultimate truth in science. Historical periods before and after will produce different ideas of "better".

[Chas]

(12-06-2013 07:26 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 04:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  How are you defining 'better'?
Because you clearly have a definition.

And how is that definition different from the one you're using when you make statements such as
?

'Cause yeah. My outlook is implicitly dependent on everything else that ever happened up to now. So is yours. No shit.

So what?

I am defining "better" the same way you have been this whole conversation. The difference is I recognize my judgement of "better" to be just that, a personal judgement simply based on all the available tools in 2013 and not some grand woo woo step getting closer to the grand woo of woo known as ultimate truth in science. Historical periods before and after will produce different ideas of "better".

Your definition of better sucks.

There is an objective measure - modern scientific treatment works.