ScienceApologist

[Willbeheard]

Had there been a Wikipedia in the 16th Century, the dominant pack of editors ... would have mercilessly defamed Copernicus and Kepler.

What is this with history? There's no way under any plausible notability rules that Kepler would have been considered notable at any time in the 16th century. He only became notable when he became Imperial Mathematician in 1601 which is, of course, the 17th century.

[Hersch]

Your comment presumes that this hypothetical Wikipedia would not last until the turn of the century. Well, one may always hope. But given the politics of the time, the hypothetical Wikipedia would probably be affiliated with the Church, which was a very durable institution in those days.

[lilburne]

And just a moment ago in a FB group I look in at for the LULZ an Aromatherapist posted this:

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=5CFDF ... C4717A9513

that boy has been dropped on his head one too many times at least.

[Ismail]

Halton Arp is a notable critic of the Big Bangers. Vladimir Vernadsky's evolutionary theory is better than Darwin's (although not according to Wikipedia, which says it "complements" Darwin's, to which some astute editor has helpfully added, "citation needed.")

Where do you get your source of information on Vernadsky's views being superior to Darwin's? It's well-known that you support the views of Lyndon LaRouche, but I'm just curious if there are other modern sources outside of him and his followers.

For anyone else, here are two articles on the subject by LaRouche supporters:
* http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2011/3 ... arwin.html
* http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/confp ... ience.html

I mention this because your argument about Wikipedia apparently undervaluing Vernadsky's work on this subject is rather untenable if the only source on Vernadsky's understanding of evolutionary processes being superior is LaRouche.

Anyway, I concur with most others here that Wikipedia must fundamentally alter itself to serve as a reliable guide on scientific matters, because it can't actually do so under the present "anyone can edit" framework. Unfortunately Wikipedia tends to attract the most "intellectual" of internet denizens, who generally aren't known for being well-adjusted socially.

[Vigilant]

Unfortunately Wikipedia tends to attract the most "intellectual" of internet denizens, who generally aren't known for being well-adjusted socially.

Or being all that intellectual on the grander scale.

[Zoloft]

I'm not going to split this. But if there aren't any more cogent points about ScienceApologist then I might lock it. If you folks want to argue about the fringe science itself, go start another topic in the Off Topic subforum.

[EricBarbour]

Yeah, if you wanna argue the "history of science", start a new thread.

Wanna see something funny, involving Josh? Try this! Which leads to this article. Oopsie!!

28 July 2011: Due to legal threats from an anonymous individual, claiming unspecified privacy and defamatory issues, this page has been removed.

[Hersch]

Since I am fairly certain that SA has an account here, I wonder when he is going to comment on this thread.

[EricBarbour]

Apparently he's not going to say anything. I got email from him a few days ago, which went along the lines of

"undo" of the "Right to Vanish" was done completely against my wishes......they like to use it in their edit summaries to make it look official so no one questions their actions.

In short: it's merely another dirty trick, being used to defame him. Dennis Brown is simply the "useful idiot" here.
Welcome to the People's Undemocratic Republic of Wikipedia. Backstabbery is their most important product.

[iii]

My response is that you are presenting a number of false dichotomies. For example, serious questions have been raised about both the Big Bang and Natural Selection, but the serious questioners are not proposing ignorant superstition as an alternative.

Here, friends, is the problem. All these folks think there are "serious questions" in science where there are none. Neither natural selection nor the big bang are seriously questioned by people who actually research these topics for a living, and it is comments like this which absolutely dumbfound those fighting for science literacy.

That Hersch is ideologically prone to question the "Big Bang" and "Natural Selection" due to his particular socio-political stance (discussed in other less accessible places at this forum) is something that Wikipediocrats can expect and accept here in this forum. In this context, there is no confusion as to how the grain of salt is to be taken. However, Wikipedia is elevated by its boosters to a status that ends up confusing otherwise well-meaning readers. There are far too many casual readers of Wikipedia who are entirely unaware that the writers may have ideological predispositions of one sort or another. The editorial policies are gobblety-gook and the vetting is haphazard at best and idiopathic at worst.

It would be better if Wikipedia didn't exist at all so that such confusion could be avoided entirely.

[iii]

If he really wanted to support science on Wikipedia, he would start a campaign to make them change
their miserable, incoherent policies on content wars, to make a pro-science official stance an inherent
part of Wikipedia. The "system" they have now rewards abuse and editwarring.

Obviously he likes to fight with the cranks. (What encyclopedia?)

I sorta agree and disagree, Eric. I don't want to support science "on Wikipedia". I think Wikipedia is a project that ought to be shut down because it starts from a flawed premise that an open-sourced model based on no particular quality assurance or epistemic community can somehow generate worthwhile "content".

Starting a campaign to make Wikipedia change its policies? Now THAT'S a waste of time. There are people who have agitated for a "Scientific POV" standard at Wikipedia, but there is no way that will ever happen because Wikipedia enjoys control by the pseudonymous masses, many of whom as witnessed by this very thread are explicitly or implicitly anti-science/anti-intellectual and balk at any suggestion to enforce some sort of consistent content editorial policy. It is openness to such crankiness that made Wikipedia "successful" in the first place and what ultimately makes it a battleground.

Is it worth lulz-ily fighting on Wikipedia? You are right in the sense that the system actually rewards abuse and edit warring, so in the functionalist sense one MUST enter into such modes if one is going to accomplish anything. The alternative is to approach the internet with a moralistic "edit warring bad: attacking other users bad!" approach, but that's not very effective if one is hoping to affect positive change to content. I've seen some of the worst content generated on Wikipedia and promoted to "Featured" status by inane collaborations that adopt such a moralistic philosophy. The alternative is to accept the game that Wikipedia presents and play it. I'm not proud that I understand the game to the extent that I do, but I'll agree to play it with the right motivation. I believe almost everyone on this forum acts or at least attempts to act similarly. Making a single post to Wikipediocracy is just as much part of the game as clicking on the "edit" tab at Wikipedia.

I will point out, though that a true "LULZ" philosophy would pick fights with all sides, Poe's Law being as amusing as it is.

[Vigilant]

I will point out, though that a true "LULZ" philosophy would pick fights with all sides, Poe's Law being as amusing as it is.

You are still young in the way of the LULZ, my padowan learner.
The best way to access the LULZ is to argue correctly against the most venal players of the game and then to agitate against them using anonymous accounts which draws sympathy from other idiots for the unworthy target .
Therein lies the wikipedia clusterfuck, the most rich vein of LULZ known to man.

[EricBarbour]

You are still young in the way of the LULZ, my padowan learner.
The best way to access the LULZ is to argue correctly against the most venal players of the game and then to agitate against them using anonymous accounts which draws sympathy from other idiots for the unworthy target .
Therein lies the wikipedia clusterfuck, the most rich vein of LULZ known to man.

[HRIP7]

I don't want to support science "on Wikipedia". I think Wikipedia is a project that ought to be shut down because it starts from a flawed premise that an open-sourced model based on no particular quality assurance or epistemic community can somehow generate worthwhile "content".

Starting a campaign to make Wikipedia change its policies? Now THAT'S a waste of time. There are people who have agitated for a "Scientific POV" standard at Wikipedia, but there is no way that will ever happen because Wikipedia enjoys control by the pseudonymous masses, many of whom as witnessed by this very thread are explicitly or implicitly anti-science/anti-intellectual and balk at any suggestion to enforce some sort of consistent content editorial policy. It is openness to such crankiness that made Wikipedia "successful" in the first place and what ultimately makes it a battleground.

This effectively summarises some of the key problems with Wikipedia.

[Hersch]

All these folks think there are "serious questions" in science where there are none.

So you finally arrived.

[Cla68]

All these folks think there are "serious questions" in science where there are none.

So you finally arrived.

iii, are you sure that the world's scientific population supports your view of what is true science, or is it really mainly Western, mainstream, anglo-dominated science culture that does?

[Volunteer Marek]

I don't think there's much difference between what Westerners think of science and what non-Westerners think of as science. "Mainstream" already implies "majority" more or less so the answer to that one would be an almost tautological "yes". In terms of "anglo-dominated", again I don't think there's any difference between "anglos" and "non-anglos".

Where we to bring global warming into this then it might be worth pointing out that it's actually scientists from non-Western, non-anglo countries that have the biggest cause to worry about it, as these are the places which will be hurt the most by it.

[iii]

All these folks think there are "serious questions" in science where there are none.

So you finally arrived.

iii, are you sure that the world's scientific population supports your view of what is true science, or is it really mainly Western, mainstream, anglo-dominated science culture that does?

What a peculiar question! Perhaps you'd like to rephrase. Bonus points if you can somehow work in the "Sokal Affair".

[Vigilant]

All these folks think there are "serious questions" in science where there are none.

So you finally arrived.

iii, are you sure that the world's scientific population supports your view of what is true science, or is it really mainly Western, mainstream, anglo-dominated science culture that does?

OK,
You raise a point that might mitigate the overwhelming proof for Natural Selection and the Big Bang Theories.
Do you have large number of non-western, non-anglo scientists who disagree, fundamentally, with either theory?

Extraordinary claims, etc, etc.

P.S. The word 'mainstream' that you toss out as a pejorative is highly, highly, highly correlated with the theory being the most correct one out there.
Food for thought.

[Angela Kennedy]

All these folks think there are "serious questions" in science where there are none.

So you finally arrived.

Wow! Does this mean "Teh science is DONE?"

[Angela Kennedy]

What a peculiar question! Perhaps you'd like to rephrase. Bonus points if you can somehow work in the "Sokal Affair".

I think Alan Sokal would be one of the last people to claim there are no serious questions in science!

[Angela Kennedy]

Bloody hell. It's 2012 and we are all STILL mired in the 'science wars'.

[Angela Kennedy]

P.S. The word 'mainstream' that you toss out as a pejorative is highly, highly, highly correlated with the theory being the most correct one out there.
Food for thought.

JUNK food for thought. You need to buy some healthier food for thought yourself Vigilant.

PLEASE - go and read some introductory text on the philosophy of science. While you are at it, go and look at the book "Science Wars" edited by Andrew Ross. Some of it is annoying to read (as is the case with many books), but a good summation of the absurdities of some 'true believers' who treat science as a god rather than the tentative, rational, process it is supposed to be can be found in Dorothy Nelkins' chapter "The Science Wars: Responses to a marriage failed. You might want to read Alan Sokal's 'Beyond the Hoax', in which he addresses muddled thinking by 'scientists' themselves. Sokal wants clear thinking - he doesn't support people claiming supremacy in their positions by the use of unsubstantiated assertions, ad hominems and quasi-religious belief that scientific knowledge is finite and that questioners are some sort of infidel, which is sadly what so-called 'science apologists' on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) believe with all their little hearts.

[Zoloft]

I'm a skeptic about gravity, myself. I find evidence of marks left by cable-ties on almost everything that was outdoors more than sixty years ago.

'Physicists' haven't been able to fully explain how gravity propagates, as explained in my pamphlet, Leprechauns and Gravity.

Mind you, I don't think Wikipedia is quite ready for this theory. Maybe when Nature collects a bunch of peer-reviewed articles for their special St. Patrick's Day issue.


Pictured above: The Elusive O'Higgs Boson

[Vigilant]

JUNK food for thought. You need to buy some healthier food for thought yourself Vigilant.

Sorry Angela,
That's not how it works.
You raised extraordinary claims, you provide extraordinary evidence.
I'm not going off on a voyage of self discovery until you can answer the questions directly.

[Hersch]

Sorry Angela,
That's not how it works.

I beg to differ. Real life is different than Wikipedia. I think Angela is putting forward a traditional conception of science, which has been lost during the recent period, in which there has been little real progress in science, as well as a certain smugness in the scientific community and its attendant press. Add also a dash of whorishness/political correctness among those desperate for grant money, or other forms of approval.

[Vigilant]

Sorry Angela,
That's not how it works.

I beg to differ. Real life is different than Wikipedia. I think Angela is putting forward a traditional conception of science, which has been lost during the recent period, in which there has been little real progress in science, as well as a certain smugness in the scientific community and its attendant press. Add also a dash of whorishness/political correctness among those desperate for grant money, or other forms of approval.

You may beg as you please.

Angela made some statements of opinion.
I asked for her evidence.
She told me to go do my own reading.
I told her that's not how it works.
You chimed in with more non content.

I think we're done here until you guys bring something a bit more substantial than, "Wake up sheeple!" to the conversation.

[SB_Johnny]

I think we're done here until you guys bring something a bit more substantial than, "Wake up sheeple!" to the conversation.

+1

[Zoloft]

Warning: post contains internal contradictions.

[Volunteer Marek]

Sorry Angela,
That's not how it works.

I beg to differ. Real life is different than Wikipedia. I think Angela is putting forward a traditional conception of science, which has been lost during the recent period, in which there has been little real progress in science, as well as a certain smugness in the scientific community and its attendant press. Add also a dash of whorishness/political correctness among those desperate for grant money, or other forms of approval.

With regard to "little real progress in science":

http://www.euronews.com/2012/07/04/higg ... unveiled-/

[dogbiscuit]

With regard to "little real progress in science":

http://www.euronews.com/2012/07/04/higg ... unveiled-/

Just proving some old theory from the 60s. Nothing new there.

[Volunteer Marek]

With regard to "little real progress in science":

http://www.euronews.com/2012/07/04/higg ... unveiled-/

Just proving some old theory from the 60s. Nothing new there.

I'm having trouble telling if you're serious.

[Vigilant]

With regard to "little real progress in science":

http://www.euronews.com/2012/07/04/higg ... unveiled-/

Just proving some old theory from the 60s. Nothing new there.

If only you'd read a selection of books that I personally approve of, then you'd see how the search for the Higg's boson is slavish devotion to an ancient religion...

[iii]

If only you'd read a selection of books that I personally approve of, then you'd see how the search for the Higg's boson is slavish devotion to an ancient religion...

If you replace "religion" with "natural philosophy", one can find some interesting narratives to that effect, though adhering to such a conceit in isolation necessitates ignoring empiricism and methodology -- in much the way that Hersch and Angela Kennedy do above.

And lest you think that there aren't people who "seriously" make this argument, read on.

Who still wants to crowd-source their encyclopedias? With potential contributors like this, we're bound to have a great time!

[Cla68]

I think the obvious questions here, and I don't intend a personal slight against anyone involved in this discussion, is...how many of you have lived for a substantial period of time in a country in which caucasians were not the dominant race, such as South America, Africa, or Southwest or East Asia, and observed how physical and medical science are interpreted and applied in the cultures of those regions? Do physicians wholeheartedly support the Western paradigm? If not, how do they not support it? Do their alternative remedies work, or are perceived to work? Are there alternate theories of creation, humans' relationship to nature, or metaphysics that their academics or influence-leaders teach but don't publicize (at least in a Western language) because they fear retribution, ridicule, or ostracization from the Western world, where most of the power is held?

[Volunteer Marek]

I think the obvious questions here, and I don't intend a personal slight against anyone involved in this discussion, is...how many of you have lived for a substantial period of time in a country in which caucasians were not the dominant race, such as South America, Africa, or Southwest or East Asia, and observed how physical and medical science are interpreted and applied in the cultures of those regions? Do physicians wholeheartedly support the Western paradigm? If not, how do they not support it? Do their alternative remedies work, or are perceived to work? Are there alternate theories of creation, humans' relationship to nature, or metaphysics that their academics or influence-leaders teach but don't publicize (at least in a Western language) because they fear retribution, ridicule, or ostracization from the Western world, where most of the power is held?

As I said before, you're completely off base on this. With regard to medicine, sure, people all over the world have their own version of folksy-medicine, which is more or less scientific or traditional. But this is true in the West as well.

But with regard to science in general there's is absolutely no difference between "Western paradigm" and science in "a country in which caucasians (sic) are not a dominant race". The "alternative theories of creation" may exist in religion, but not in "non-Western science" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to be). "Humans' relationship to nature" ... that's too vague to comment on. Metaphysics ain't a science.

Actually, you're being sort of patronizing towards South America, Africa, or Southwest or East Asia.

[iii]

Actually, you're being sort of patronizing towards South America, Africa, or Southwest or East Asia.

This is something I like to call the "Children of the Earth" fallacy. The proposal is that "we" must protect the "other" and "their" separate way of "knowing" which is somehow inimical to rationality or empirical fact. "Though vaccination prevents infectious disease, we should let these Children of the Earth live their lives without exposure to our technological corruption and our imperialistic medicine."

[Hersch]

"Humans' relationship to nature" ... that's too vague to comment on. Metaphysics ain't a science.

VM, science is the study of "Humans' relationship to nature." We only learn about nature by intervening into it. It's not like stamp collecting. As for Metaphysics:

By his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive way but also- though through no fault of his- created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, a fateful 'fear of metaphysics' arose which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricist philosophising; this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the senses. ... It finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without metaphysics.

(Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 1944)

[lilburne]

Actually, you're being sort of patronizing towards South America, Africa, or Southwest or East Asia.

This is something I like to call the "Children of the Earth" fallacy. The proposal is that "we" must protect the "other" and "their" separate way of "knowing" which is somehow inimical to rationality or empirical fact. "Though vaccination prevents infectious disease, we should let these Children of the Earth live their lives without exposure to our technological corruption and our imperialistic medicine."

Interesting phrase 'Children of the Earth' I may use it. My current preference is like keeping them in zoo in order to preserve the diversity, or for future study and gawping at. For tigers that may be the right thing to do. Not so for human societies.

[iii]

It is wrong to deny other cultures access to methodologies which have proven themselves to be superior in practice, condemning them to live in want.

Perhaps you mean well, but this is poorly phrased. "We" only "condemn other cultures" to anything by imposition of some political, military, or economic might. In that case, this is not a matter of the exchange of scientific information. Sure, one can look at how ostensibly scientific endeavors have been deployed or withheld by means of various patronizing impositions in the context of colonialism, but this is beside the point I was making. Scientific methodology is a fundamental aspect of human existence. Inquiry is everywhere and to support it and promote the results of its practice is not imposing unless it's pushed by political, military, or economic might.

On the other hand, there are some theoretical features of "western" science on which the jury is still out, which in some cases are being imposed on other cultures to gain economic advantage, the AGW theory being the example that stands out.

This is extremely muddled thinking, perhaps promulgated by the old man LaRouche in his senility, but not backed up by things like facts. You think Michael Mann or James Hansen are shills for neocolonialist enterprises trying to keep the third world from developing? Gimme a break.

Incidentally, here's an anecdote which is tangentially related. My wife comes from a Third World country. Her brother received a scholarship to attend medical school in China (he is now a successful oncologist in the US.) He learned both conventional "western" medicine, and traditional Chinese medicine such as acupuncture. His comment to me about the latter was "I don't know why, but it works."

I know why. It's called the "placebo effect" and there is plenty of data to back it up. Read about sham acupuncture if you get a chance.

[iii]

It's the "A" in AGW that is the problem.

Because the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere isn't rising due to human activity?

Do tell us where you get your data!

[Vigilant]

You and Angela have indicted western science as some sort of conspiracy.

No we haven't, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Since I have been accused of argument by fallacy, I will ask it straight.
Which large parts of non western medicine have shown to be valid though double blind, randomized studies?
Be specific.

You're still doing it, by implying that I have asserted that "large parts of non western medicine have shown to be valid though double blind, randomized studies," or even that "large parts of non western medicine have shown to be pretty darn good." I told an anecdote involving my brother-in-law and acupuncture, without comment.

To re-summarize what I have said here, which appears to be painfully necessary, I reject the notion that we have come to the "end of science" in a manner analogous to Fukuyama's "end of history." I think that inevitably we will learn, down the road, that much in science that we thought was all settled and wrapped up in a bow was erroneous. The sooner we make those discoveries, the better -- to hasten the process, we need to get humans out into space, and start exploring and experimenting there.

Where did I mention the end of science?
The methodology of western science much more regularly produces reproducible, valid explanations for observable phenomenon.

Our least squares fit for underlying actions in the universe is much tighter than eastern stuff.
How's that.

[Hersch]

It appears that you are trying to argue with someone other than me. Perhaps Cla68, but then again, perhaps not.

[Vigilant]

I'll be blunt then.

You are a voluminous bag of conspiracy theories desperately masquerading as a deep thinker.

[Hersch]

Fine. You don't seem to have a specific disagreement with anything I have said. You have a sackful of disagreements with things I haven't said. You seem to be inclined to bypass the "argument" stage and to proceed directly to the "juvenile hurling of invective" stage.