Reg Prescott

Challenging Science - split from The Selfish Gene Theory

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Recent posts assert that my arguments commit the fallacy of (i) begging the question, (ii) polysemy, (iii) equivocation, and (iv) appeal to authority. Well, did you evah!

And of course we can add to that your never ending philosophical nonsense and hand waving.

Quote

(i) has already been refuted.

Yes most certainly...refuted every day, every week and ever since the implementation of the scientific methodology.

Quote

(ii) Perhaps SamCogar does not mean by "mainstream" what I, and presumably everyone else, means by the term, this complaint asserts.

My only concern with you, Sam or anyone else claiming  science is recalcitrant, is that it flies in the face of the actual empirical evidence.

Quote

 

(iv) Were we to consult Max Born on poetry of the late Tang dynasty, say, his authority might indeed be suspect. I see nothing whatsoever fallacious, however, in appealing to an authority on matters that he is indeed authoritative about. Judicial courts call it an "expert witness". 


Does being an expert entail that he's right? Of course not, but neither can he simply be dismissed with a wave of the hand, and a "Buzz! Fallacy #37! Next!". Born is an expert and his testimony has to be taken seriously.

 

One Swallow [expert or not] does not a Summer make. There is no discipline anywhere in this big wide fart arse world, where you can get everyone speaking to the beat of the same drum. Born was/is wrong and the continued ongoing evidence says he is wrong...just as Fred Hoyle an otherwise great Astronomer was wrong with his "Steady State" hypothetical. 

Quote

Born's testimony constitutes only a small part of a case I've been building which includes theoretical and historical evidence, as well as expert opinion from various sources, amounting to good reasons for thinking that mainstream science is not "questioned all the time".

Whatever you have attempted to build is simply a house of cards with no foundation. The overwhelming, continued evidence shows you are most definitely wrong.

Quote

Now, is the plan of attack really to go through the entire book of logical fallacies? Who knows, if you throw enough of them out there, some members less able to appraise these matters for themselves may even be persuaded.

You can go through whatever you like and continue to fool yourself that you have any argument at all re your ongoing anti science mission, and the members here, at least the vast majority of them, will continue to see your claims and anti science rant/s for what they are. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little more...

It has recently been suggested that my appeal to Max Born's expertise runs afoul of the "fallacy of argument from authority" (see swansont's most recent post - previous page). Appeal to expertise is somehow illegitimate.

I've noticed that this very site has its own panel of resident experts. If appeal to the authority of experts is indeed fallacious, as swansont asserts, what function do your own resident experts serve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reg

 

You have pitted direct quotes from one member against those of another using misrepresentation of the words of a third member.

Polysemy?

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

(ii) Perhaps SamCogar does not mean by "mainstream" what I, and presumably everyone else, means by the term, this complaint asserts.

Well, it's possible. It's also possible that when SamCogar says "undergraduate" he has in mind "Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves". In this kind of debate, though, we presume that our interlocutors are competent speakers of English who use words more or less the same way as every other competent speaker, and if a word is being used in a deviant, technical, or unorthodox manner, we expect this to be indicated. Otherwise the rules break down.

I give and gave you credit for stating your definition of mainstream.

But you have no basis whatsoever for asserting that 'everyone else' uses this definition.
 

In fact I specifically ruled out any polysemy by the words "in this context"

15 hours ago, studiot said:

you have to agree the meaning of the word mainstream in this context.

 

Since you wish to claim that everybody else uses your definition (quite reasonable in some very limited contexts) here is my version.

By far the greatest majority of the activities of scientists is in the application of existing Science, not the search for new Science.

As such I would offer mainstream to represent the major activity of Science.

Application is, by definition, using science for something we want to work and be successful.

As an example, since you are fond of these, consider the motor car.

There is an existing world land speed record.

New Science would be trying to build a car to exceed this speed.

But this would be one single solitary car.

Set that against the output of the world car manufacturing industry building mainstream cars, using mainstream Science.

 

 

Turning the the  other member statement you placed in opposition brings us to the meaning of "all the time"

It may have been an unfortunate use of words fo those who  can only take pedantically literally what others say.

I did not, anymore than when I use the phrase "I am forever making typing errors" do I mean literally that every word I type is in error or that I will live forever or that I am doing nothing else with my time.

You use literary hyperbole liberally and I take Phi's words in the same vain.

Most of the activity of Scientists is, as I already mentioned, spent performing activity where it is undersirable to challenge what is known to work.

But some of it is spent on new Science.

For instance I am reading an interesting book about the history of Earth interior geophysics. In the last two decades our knowledge and understanding of the interior of the Earth has been turned on its head at least 3 times. Perovskite, post perovskite and other matters.

Fascinating.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Studiot

 

In response to the above, I can only say my understanding of "mainstream", with respect to science, would mean something like that which is generally accepted. This would include, but not be exhausted by, major theoretical frameworks or paradigms, of the type I've alluded to in the earlier sections of the thread. (e.g. Newtonian mechanics in a past age, natural selection in this age, etc.).

 

Whether or not my usage is isomorphic with that of SamCogar is something only SamCogar can answer. Where'd he go anyway?

 

Edit: And before anyone pounces with another accusation of "begging the question", I see nothing inconsistent in the claim "such-and-such is generally accepted, yet questioned all the time nonetheless". In fact, this would be quite consonant with the image that scientists commonly project of themselves.

 

This image, I'm arguing, is spurious.

Edited by Reg Prescott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

A little more...

It has recently been suggested that my appeal to Max Born's expertise runs afoul of the "fallacy of argument from authority" (see swansont's most recent post - previous page). Appeal to expertise is somehow illegitimate.

I've noticed that this very site has its own panel of resident experts. If appeal to the authority of experts is indeed fallacious, as swansont asserts, what function do your own resident experts serve?

Wow! You don't have a chip on your shoulder, its a damn whole tree! :rolleyes:

 

Now a couple of simple direct questions....I can show you plenty of scientific models that are being tested, researched, further tested, sometimes modified and challenging incumbent models every day. Do you deny these tests and research efforts are being undertaken? In turn please give me some scientific aspect/discipline etc that has been totally recalcitrant and obstinate by the  refusal of mainstream scientists to accept newly found experimental and/or observational evidence that falsifies the incumbent model, or explains beyond the applicable zone of the incumbent model?

Please answer these two questions without any of your continuing philosophical jargon and flimsy hairy fairy claims. quotes, misinterpreting data etc That is all my bone of contention is with your nonsensical claims...nothing else.

 

 

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beecee said:

Now a couple of simple direct questions....I can show you plenty of scientific models that are being tested, researched, further tested, sometimes modified and challenging incumbent models every day. Do you deny these tests and research efforts are being undertaken?

 

This has been covered. From my sixth post on page 1:


"Of course, questions are being asked in science all the time. Where I'd object is to the claim that the mainstream, i.e., the overarching theoretical framework, or paradigm, is subject to constant questioning or challenge."

 

In the case of natural selection, say, that I cited as one of two examples in my most recent post, it is indeed the case that the degree to which natural selection plays a role in evolution remains a matter of debate. I can, once again for the benefit of the less attentive among us, sportingly concede that this kind of thing is "questioned all the time". 


It's what Kuhn refers to "puzzle solving", the bread and butter of "normal science", that is carried out within the context of a paradigm which is, by and large, not itself questioned. On the other hand, show me someone who questions the very validity of selection or mainstream evolutionary doctrine itself -- someone who questions the paradigm -- and I'll show you a person who has very likely been marginalized, ridiculed, and, in all probability, accused of not doing science at all.
 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

In turn please give me some scientific aspect/discipline etc that has been totally recalcitrant and obstinate by the  refusal of mainstream scientists to accept newly found experimental and/or observational evidence that falsifies the incumbent model, or explains beyond the applicable zone of the incumbent model?

 

This has also been covered. See my entire first post. In fact, see the entire thread -- as well as its now catatonic spin-off.

Edited by Reg Prescott
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

This has been covered. From my sixth post on page 1:


"Of course, questions are being asked in science all the time. Where I'd object is to the claim that the mainstream, i.e., the overarching theoretical framework, or paradigm, is subject to constant questioning or challenge."I

Object all you like....What I highlighted thus, "that falsifies the incumbent model, or explains beyond the applicable zone of the incumbent model?" The over-arching theoretical framework or paradigm is the best we have and no better method is forthcoming, so we have no need at this time to over ride it with hypothetical questioning or challenging, that  do  not improve it...It's that simple. The scientific method works, despite your continuing online claims.

 

Quote

This has also been covered. See my entire first post. In fact, see the entire thread -- as well as its now catatonic spin-off.

No, again  you  are being rather obtuse in claiming philosophical comments, isolated quotes that "seem" add some semblance of respect to your claim but ignore actual evidence that has been supplied to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, beecee said:

Object all you like....What I highlighted thus, "that falsifies the incumbent model, or explains beyond the applicable zone of the incumbent model?" The over-arching theoretical framework or paradigm is the best we have and no better method is forthcoming, so we have no need at this time to over ride it with hypothetical questioning or challenging, that  do  not improve it...It's that simple. The scientific method works, despite your continuing online claims.

 

No, again  you  are being rather obtuse in claiming philosophical comments, isolated quotes that "seem" add some semblance of respect to your claim but ignore actual evidence that has been supplied to you. 

 

All I can say, I'm afraid, is that your understanding of falsification in science is woefully impoverished.

What a naive falsificationist (e.g. yourself) calls "falsifying evidence", another person -- the "normal scientist" -- is likely to call "puzzling evidence" or an "anomaly" or some similar locution.

There are simply no precedents for the kind of thing you're suggesting two posts above ("the  refusal of mainstream scientists to accept newly found experimental and/or observational evidence that falsifies the incumbent model" - you), i.e. that certain experiments are conducted, or certain observations are made, which are inimical to (cf. falsify) the overarching theory, and the community in question concludes, "That's it, boys. The paradigm is false. Let's go to the pub".

This kind of thing just does not happen, as the history of science bears witness. Whatever else we can say about falsification, a major paradigm is never pronounced to be false -- and usually not until much later -- in the absence of an alternative to supplant it.

If you know of any counterexamples, gimme a nudge.

Edited by Reg Prescott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

All I can say, I'm afraid, is that your understanding of falsification in science is woefully impoverished.

Your opinion is just that...an opinion, but you actually need to reflect seriously about those opinions and their justifications based on agenda, when it is you who has had threads closed because of preaching/ranting/obfuscation.

Quote

What a naive falsificationist (e.g. yourself) calls "falsifying evidence", another person -- the "normal scientist" -- is likely to call "puzzling evidence" or an "anomaly" or some similar locution.

Again your bias and agenda reflects in misinterpretations.....It is not I, nor any lone scientist that judges what is obviously falsification or otherwise...it is the overwhelming scientific discipline and the scientists that make up that discipline, and of course the success of those incumbent theories, that you seem so fanatical about putting down.

 

Quote

There are simply no precedents for the kind of thing you're suggesting two posts above ("the  refusal of mainstream scientists to accept newly found experimental and/or observational evidence that falsifies the incumbent model" - you), i.e. that certain experiments are conducted, or certain observations are made, which are inimical to (cf. falsify) the overarching theory, and the community in question concludes, "That's it, boys. The paradigm is false. Let's go to the pub"

.More unsupported if rehearsed rhetoric and nonsense. Science, the scientific method and all it entails, is in perpetual progress and advancement. But it now appears that rehearsed unsupported rhetoric is all you seem to have.

Quote

 

This kind of thing just does not happen, as the history of science bears witness. Whatever else we can say about falsification, a major paradigm is never pronounced to be false -- and usually not until much later -- in the absence of an alternative to supplant it.

If you know of any counterexamples, gimme a nudge.

 

As before and again, science and scientific models and theories are continually running the gauntlet....The scientific methodology of course is unchallenged as it is the best we have and the best there is. So to put the onus where it belongs, on yourself, please tell me a better process along with some empirical evidence that supports whatever methodology you have and have been careful as yet not to divulge to the forum....Although I believe it is painfully obvious.

 

Quote

the other hand, show me someone who questions the very validity of selection or mainstream evolutionary doctrine itself -- someone who questions the paradigm -- and I'll show you a person who has very likely been marginalized, ridiculed, and, in all probability, accused of not doing science at all.

The theory of the evolution of life is unchallenged at this time....Nothing is available to falsify it, and nothing explains what we have observed better. Any one who claims to have questioned it, including the process of "natural selection" have I suggest already been researched, reviewed and failed in over turning that aspect. Evolution due to the preponderance of evidence is just about certain...are you questioning that? Is this the agenda? On the other hand, we have no evidence for abiogenesis...but there really is no other scientific alternative, do you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just went back in Reg Prescott's history as far back as 2015 where apparently then under the name SillyBilly, he was making exactly the same apparently rehearsed claims including the scientific method, his crazy take on the orbits of the planets in the solar system and Newtonian mechanics among his usual unmistakable attempt at humour when cornered or shown to be in error.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91338-scientific-testing-split-from-goal-of-science/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-886741

Just thought at this stage of this continued circular argument it might be an interesting observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

(iii) Now we're told that a mixing of two uses of the verb "to question" leads to fallacy and the end of the world as we know it. Well, as with (ii) above, lacking direct access to other contributors' inner mental states and concepts, I have only my own concept of "question" to work with, which I take to be fairly standard. If it weren't, it's hard to see how we'd be communicating successfully at all.

I explained the two cases, so to say that you only have your own concept to work with isn't actually the case, is it?

12 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

(iv) Were we to consult Max Born on poetry of the late Tang dynasty, say, his authority might indeed be suspect. I see nothing whatsoever fallacious, however, in appealing to an authority on matters that he is indeed authoritative about. Judicial courts call it an "expert witness". 

It's pretty clear he was wrong. By the very definition of the word, something that was established with evidence cannot be dogma, since it was not laid down by an authority, nor is it considered incontrovertibly true.

 

12 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Does being an expert entail that he's right? Of course not, but neither can he simply be dismissed with a wave of the hand, and a "Buzz! Fallacy #37! Next!". Born is an expert and his testimony has to be taken seriously.

Born was an expert in physics. I am unaware of his expertise regarding dogma. I think I know what he meant, and he would be correct, but dogma is not the right word.

12 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:


Born's testimony constitutes only a small part of a case I've been building which includes theoretical and historical evidence, as well as expert opinion from various sources, amounting to good reasons for thinking that mainstream science is not "questioned all the time".

Because you are only considering one meaning of the phrase.

 

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

A little more...

It has recently been suggested that my appeal to Max Born's expertise runs afoul of the "fallacy of argument from authority" (see swansont's most recent post - previous page). Appeal to expertise is somehow illegitimate.

As I've explained, it is not an appeal to expertise, despite your assertion, since it's not a matter of physics.

Quote

I've noticed that this very site has its own panel of resident experts. If appeal to the authority of experts is indeed fallacious, as swansont asserts, what function do your own resident experts serve?

 I made no such assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, beecee said:

Just went back in Reg Prescott's history as far back as 2015 where apparently then under the name SillyBilly, he was making exactly the same apparently rehearsed claims including the scientific method, his crazy take on the orbits of the planets in the solar system and Newtonian mechanics among his usual unmistakable attempt at humour when cornered or shown to be in error.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91338-scientific-testing-split-from-goal-of-science/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-886741

Just thought at this stage of this continued circular argument it might be an interesting observation.

 

That about says all that needs to be said.

It is clear that there is only one poster expounding inflexible views, regardless of anything anyone else says.

I thought it all sounded familiar.

Thank you for preventing any further waste of my time. +1

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.