What philosophy buffs have against Science buffs

[Kriminal99]

I think we all know what science buffs don't like about philosophy buffs (but feel free to share), but here I just wanted to point out some common "science buff" behavior that makes it hard to take some "science buffs" as seriously as people who carefully studies various aspects of philosophy.

 

And before I say anything I just wanted to say it is entirely possible for someone to be both, and there seem to be more of them on this site than any other I have visited thus far...

 

Heres what I think:

 

#1 People who argue in the name of science (Science fans) are often not what I would consider true intellectuals (Intelligence fans). By this I mean intelligence fans think more politically than objectively. Like it doesn't matter whether a belief or idea is the truth, it matters how many people already agree with the belief or idea. To intelligence fans, right = whatever opinion people respect you for having and wrong = going against common belief, and this is depsite what intelligence fans claim about themselves. One argument against that overtakes any argument for social acceptance being the point of life is that even if human's are social animals and need to be respected by others, the truth will be agreed on by a potentially infinite number of people in the future.

 

#2 Science fans often argue using fallacious arguments based on science rhetoric.

The term "armchair intellectual" is a perfect example of what I mean here as it is completely meaningless yet often tossed around by scientists and science buffs alike. For example, everyone already has a life time of experience with human behavior, so of course the average person is going to be able to sit in a chair in analyze their past experience to create theories. It's not controlled scientific experimentation, but when you compare a lifetime of experience with controlled experimentation that costs a lot of money, time and effort to create a very small amount of information, you might find it is easier to remove unknowns with deductive reasoning and different experiences then create the perfect test enviornment.

 

#3 Science buffs often do not really understand science's origins in philosophy, or anotherwords what makes scientific method useful or what scientific method's limitations are. It cracks me up every time I hear a science buff say "It's been proven that X". Unless you were there to watch the experiment, saw how the sampling was done and are aware of potential sampling biases that can occur, and are 100% clear on the line between evidence produced by experimentation and the reasoning a scientists made based on these results etc all you have is someone elses belief not proof. Any time someone has an outside interest in the results (like to sell a drug) you can't trust the results at all. Sometimes you hear scientists/science buffs use terms like reproducable to indicate parties of different biases have redone the experiment and make a clear distinction between what was determined experimentally and what they and others think it means, but these people fall more into the category of being both philosophers and scientists in my opinion.

 

So the next time you see a thread like "SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS WRONG!!!111one+one=2" before you respond think about what you are going to say and whether or not it is really objective and convincing to someone that doesn't have to agree with it to get good grades or advance in career. What you might realize is that you encourage this type of thing every time that you make an argument that is not objective and/or criticise someone for subjecting any new information to careful scrutiny yet fail to address their legitimate concerns.

[Erasmus00]

It cracks me up every time I hear someone say "It's been proven that X". Unless you were there to watch the experiment, saw how the sampling was done and are aware of potential sampling biases that can occur, are 100% clear on the line between evidence produced by experimentation and the reasoning a scientists made based on these results etc all you have is someone's belief not proof.

 

Except a trained scientists making the statement "it's been proven that X" in regards to their own field IS aware of the reasoning and the statistics used. They might not have personally seen the experiment, but most of the time they are familiar with similar ones, and the apparatus used. Often times, if its a particularly important result, they'll repeat the experiment. Hence, when a scientist makes the statement "such and such experiment verified X" it does carry with it a certain amount of weight.

-Will

[Kriminal99]

Except a trained scientists making the statement "it's been proven that X" in regards to their own field IS aware of the reasoning and the statistics used. They might not have personally seen the experiment, but most of the time they are familiar with similar ones, and the apparatus used. Often times, if its a particularly important result, they'll repeat the experiment. Hence, when a scientist makes the statement "such and such experiment verified X" it does carry with it a certain amount of weight.

-Will

 

No doubt for themselves this is true. But for someone that doesn't know that scientist, it is meaningless for that scientist to say to them X has been proven.

[Tim_Lou]

yes, to a certain extend, scientists tend to say that x has been proven. However, things are not "proven" merely based on experiments. scientists look over assumptions, hypothesis and mathematics (specially in physics). Scientists do not merely say GR is right, SR is right simply because everyone else says it is right. they judge the theory based on the equations given and the fundamental reasonings behind it.

 

" To them right = whatever opinion people respect you for having and wrong = going against common belief"

 

this is totally untrue. A theory that has fallacies will be quickly rejected by scientific communities. Yes, people who pretend they are real scientists will say that they are true simply because other say they are. however a true "science" person will look over the derivations of all equations and ideas carefully. For example, for most equations I learnt, i DO NOT simply learnt the equations, i learnt the derivations, the proofs. Ask me where Maxwell's equation come from, or ask me how to derive lorenz's transoformation, i'll be glad to show anyone.

 

"science rhetoric"? science is logic, science is based on scientific method which is based on logic.

 

"you might find it is easier to remove unknowns with deductive reasoning and different experiences then create the perfect test enviornment"

again, you cannot "prove" something based on common senses in sciences. Let's say i think rats are smarter than dogs. can i just say dogs have bigger brains so they are smarter? now the best way to solve the problem is to carry out experiemnt and use statistical analysis.

 

"It cracks me up every time I hear someone say "It's been proven that X". Unless you were there to watch the experiment, saw how the sampling was done and are aware of potential sampling biases that can occur, are 100% clear on the line between evidence produced by experimentation and the reasoning a scientists made based on these results etc all you have is someone's belief not proof"

i think you should not generalize all "science buff". what you have here is about people who really do not know about sciences and scientific method. yes, all of the experiments will be "someone's belief" in some ways. People evaluate things based on the author's authority and credibility. but hey, if 30 other experiments/papers showed the same results and they are all conducted by well-known scientists. you would probably be convinced that the conclusions are indeed true in some ways. Anyway, if anyone is not happy about it, you can conduct another experiment anytime to show the world who is right!

 

the thing is, if you think the idea is wrong, show us. dont just say "OMG THIS IS WRONG I DONT LIKE IT IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE" show us some proofs and we will evaluate it. To reject something merely based on "beliefs" is as bad as accepting something merely based on "beliefs".

 

the next time i see "SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS WRONG!!!111one+one=2" i will ask the person, why, show him the derivation of SR's equation, and ask him how he/she can explain the results in Michelson-Morley's experiment without it.

 

i dont know where you get all these negative impressions, but in Hypography.com, everything requires proves and one cannot rant without a firm argument base.

 

anytime you see someone posting "x has be proven x times" ask him the source, where he got the information and details about the proofs.

[IDMclean]

You took that personally I think Tim. Nice analysis but you missed something crucial I think.

 

If we have a number line where -1 is science buff and 1 is Philosophy buff, and no value you can be greater or less than those numbers, where zero is a perfect balance between the two, you would find yourself close to zero, I think.

 

I would like to believe I would find myself close to zero, except I do not have the kind of philosophical training I wish I had.

 

Anyway what is really being discussed here is extreames of Method. A difference of resolutions. Philosophy is not so concearned with the exact details of it, this forms the basis of concept. Science is not so concearned with the exact concept of it, this forms the basis of expression.

 

It's a Heisenberg trade off. The more one knows of Philosophy, the futher from 0 they go, the less they know about Science. Vice versa.

 

Some people get caught up in the microscopic of things, and miss the big picture, and some people get caught up in the macroscopic of things and don't look close enough to notice the fine details.

 

It's a balancing act that any innovator needs to learn.

 

Which brings me to a definition. The closer to zero you are the more of an Innovator you are.

[Racoon]

 

Some people get caught up in the microscopic of things, and miss the big picture, and some people get caught up in the macroscopic of things and don't look close enough to notice the fine details.

 

It's a balancing act that any innovator needs to learn.

 

Well said KickAssClown. :cup:

 

If you are a real philosopher, or a real scientist, you do not discount that which may be true and beneficial. :)

 

Looking at both sides of the coin is always optimal.

 

There are degrees of truth and fallacy in both worlds. One should strive towards being a good scientist and a good philosopher.

 

This "for and against" is the minds worst enemy.

(thats asian philosophy by the way)

 

whatever works best,

Rac

[Pyrotex]

...I just wanted to point out some common "science buff" behavior that makes it hard to take them seriously...

It is not clear to me exactly WHO you are referring to as a "science buff". Are you talking about people you know who claim to know some science? Or are you talking about, say, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman and other actual scientists?

#1 They are often not what I would consider true intellectuals. By this I mean they think more politically than objectively.

I doubt you are talking about actual scientists who have produced recognized scientific work. But without more specific informat as to whom "They" are, it is nearly impossible to agree or disagree or even criticize your post.

Like it doesn't matter whether something is the truth, it matters how many people already agree with it.

Feynman said that no matter what the vote is, no matter how many agree or disagree, if the experiment disagrees with theory then the theory is just wrong. Period. Do you think that is political?

To them right = whatever opinion people respect you for having and wrong = going against common belief...

That sounds more like the action of science cynics, you know, the kind who sneer about those 'ivory tower inty-lek-shuals' who think they know everything. I grew up with a lot of those.

In philosophy it is recognized that even if humans are social animals and need to be respected by others, the truth will be agreed on by a potentially infinite number of people in the future.

I would like you to rephrase this sentence, please. It is a non-sequiter on the face of it. And my readings of Kant, Dennett and other philosophers just doesn't jive with this. But, I might be misreading your statement. Please expand.

#2 They often argue using fallacious arguments based on science rhetoric.

Here, this would seem to be referring to picayune uneducated louts who know just enough about something to make themselves dangerous. Although I know a few engineers who talk this way too. Oddly enough, this kind of engineer usually winds up selling real estate after five years. :)

The term "armchair intellectual" is a perfect example of what I mean here as it is completely meaningless yet often tossed around by scientists and science buffs alike.

I haven't encountered any scientists who use that phrase, at least, not in their books and presentations. Perhaps it is more popular in your social circles. It would REALLY help knowing who the hell you are criticising here. Is it a blanket criticism of all so-called scientists? Or just specific ones?

For example, everyone already has a life time of experience with human behavior, so of course they are going to be able to sit in a chair and analyze their past experience to create theories...it is easier to remove unknowns with deductive reasoning and different experiences then create the perfect test enviornment.

More confusion. Are you saying that this is they way scientists DO behave (and you are criticizing it)? Or that this is the way the average Joe behaves and you think it's a valid way of approaching science? Way too many pronouns, dude. Your POV shifts around like a loose cannon on the deck of a storm-tossed pirate ship.

#3 They often do not really understand science's origins in philosophy, or what makes scientific method useful or what it's limitations are....

Okay, at this point, I'm just gonna stop and let you reword this essay. I have no idea who YOU mean "They" are. I'm sure this essay is clear to YOU and you know who the pronouns refer to and whether you are making positive or negative statements. I'm not trying to make you "wrong" just pointing out that your essay could be a lot clearer.

[IDMclean]

Popular science is it's own kind of politics. Scientific method is it's own kind of philosophy. Dogmatic Scientist (those who set out to apply science in real world apps and have a grasp on theory without the cross training to truely innovate) I believe are the extreame end of the spectrum for Science. So the opposite would be Dogmatic Philosophers. In the middle you have well cross trained individuals who understand as many aspects of the given problem as possible.

 

I do note an air of superiority intrinsic to the essay, but that is part and parcel for a human creation.

[Kriminal99]

Like I said, no self styled intellectual admits doing things like reason based on whether or not an idea is commonly accepted. This does not mean it is not the case however. And to clarify by the word reason here I mean the basis for an action or behavior.

 

IMO The things a person says, even in an intellectual debate are somewhat driven by instinct and emotion. Personally I believe instinct and emotion are driven by simple inductive reasoning using past experiences. Meaning unless a person (lets call him fred) has had some kind of experience seeing a group of people convinced by a thoughtful person of something that group initially did not agree with, fred's instincts might drive him to act as though fred believes things like commonly accepted = right.

 

This would be demonstrated by frequently resorting to insults, passive aggressiveness or other forms of aggressiveness towards someone who disagreed with a commonly accepted belief. If a person truly does not believe social acceptance = right, said person would not get mad at others simply for disagreeing with a belief that is commonly accepted in said person's social circle or enviornment.

 

If you think about it, most of the time a person makes a claim noone challenges the claim or shows it to be incorrect. So therefore the average person's instincts (if based on past experiences) might tell them that if something is said it is likely true. An example of this is that the average person for example becomes angry when insulted. And the more the insult fits the situation often the more angry the insulted person becomes. Perhaps because they are inductively reasoning that the made statement is probably true (as most claims are true according to their experiences) and then reacting to this information which negatively impacts the insulted person. I on the other hand have often experienced situations where people have said things and it was then demonstrated (effectively demonstrated to all involved that is) that what was said was untrue. (Where both I and others were responsible for demonstrating their claims to be untrue)

 

Insults towards me often have no effect whatsoever, and I do not become angry when someone respectfully disagrees with one of my beliefs or a belief that I think is commonly accepted. But when dealing with some people, sometimes even scientists I often find the other person quick to anger when their slightest statement of this other person does not end the argument. Worst of all these people often either outright refuse to recognize it, or cannot recognize it or who knows what else.

 

PS Pyro do you realize you referred to commonly accepted authors in philosophy for a justification of how philosophy highlights the idea that truth is more important than social acceptance? Anyways I tend to associate this idea with socrates and consider it an important foundation of philosophy. It's just one of many ways of explaining why some people can and will argue against many angry people when they believe what they are talking about is the truth.

 

The people who I have met who exhibit these behaviors range from scientists to science students to sci fi fans who post on science sites. I have also met all of the above who exhibit objective behavior. The use of a lifetime of experience stuff is referring to approaching exploration of the human mind (not the human brain) through experimentation or through analyzation of life experiences. The last time I heard the armchair statement used was in a debate with an anti race distinction biologist who was mad that holes were being poked in his theory by non scientists. This scientist had reasoned that since there was more % difference in dna between members of the same race than there was between different races that race distinction was meaningless. It didn't take a biologist to poke holes in this reasoning.

[Pyrotex]

Like I said, no self styled intellectual admits that they do things like reason based on whether or not an idea is commonly accepted. ...PS Pyro do you realize you referred to commonly accepted authors in philosophy for a justification of how philosophy highlights the idea that truth is more important than social acceptance? Anyways I tend to associate this idea with socrates and consider it an important foundation of philosophy. ...

Well, actually I did NOT attempt to justify anything.

Ironically, this seems to indicate an interesting asymetry in our posts.

You seem to read things into my post that I did not make, and

I can't seem to read any of the things in your posts that you appear to think you made.

Too bad you didn't attempt to rephrase the first post in clearer text.

I think (perhaps) it might have been interesting and you might have had some serious points. I guess I'll never know now.

Have a nice one.

[Kriminal99]

Well, actually I did NOT attempt to justify anything.

Ironically, this seems to indicate an interesting asymetry in our posts.

You seem to read things into my post that I did not make, and

I can't seem to read any of the things in your posts that you appear to think you made.

Too bad you didn't attempt to rephrase the first post in clearer text.

I think (perhaps) it might have been interesting and you might have had some serious points. I guess I'll never know now.

Have a nice one.

 

I don't know what you mean by clearer. I meant that you were looking to see if there was a justification of my claim by looking to those authors. I don't know why you edited the post that way, but the first line was to point out that what I meant when I say that many scientists/intellectuals reason depending on what is commonly accepted is that they act in ways that demonstrate this belief even if they claim not to have it.

[Erasmus00]

I say that many scientists/intellectuals reason depending on what is commonly accepted is that they act in ways that demonstrate this belief even if they claim not to have it.

 

Give an example, or a support to this claim. I'm having trouble discerning your meaning.

-Will

[Pyrotex]

I don't know what you mean by clearer. I meant that you were looking to see if there was a justification of my claim by looking to those authors. ...

If I understand you (and it is not altogether clear to me that I do :hihi: ) then no, I did not specifically go to those authors to justify your claim. I meant that my general reading of philosophy (including those two) did not reflect the same kind of language you used to criticize the way science is (or is not) being discussed today. I think.

...I say that many scientists/intellectuals reason depending on what is commonly accepted is that they act in ways that demonstrate this belief even if they claim not to have it

I agree with the previous poster. It would really help if you could give a concrete example of what you are talking about, because I find your posts to be somewhat confusing. :confused:

[Chacmool]

I am puzzled by this thread. I wasn't aware that scientists and philosophers opposed each other. :hihi: In my view, both groups are dedicated to searching for the truth - philosophers by means of logic and reasoning and scientists (note: NOT pseudo-scientists) by means of experiment and deduction.

[Pyrotex]

I am puzzled by this thread. I wasn't aware that scientists and philosophers opposed each other. :hihi: In my view, both groups are dedicated to searching for the truth - philosophers by means of logic and reasoning and scientists (note: NOT pseudo-scientists) by means of experiment and deduction.

Thank you, Chacmool! Yes! I agree. I have read almost everything Daniel C. Dennett has written. He holds the Philosophy Chair at Tufts University and is THE preeminent philosopher in American today. Nowhere does he criticize scientists, the scientific method, the history of science, or the society of scientists. Frankly, he is one of science's biggest supporters today.

 

And a damned good writer.

[Pyrotex]

I don't know what you mean by clearer.....

I mean, be less ambiguous. Your posts suffer from ambiguity at several levels. WHO are you talking about? WHAT is this behavior you are criticizing? Too many undeclared, unspecified pronouns: they, they, they, they, you, you, you, you...! WHO is "they" and WHO is "you" in these sentences? You paint with such a large brush and such broad strokes, that in some cases I cannot tell if you are criticizing science-buffs or applauding them.

 

Try reading one of your own posts from the point of view of a "Martian" who knows English only because he has studied and memorized an English dictionary; he has no common cultural understanding at all. Read your own posts with that POV, and I believe you'll see what I mean.

[IDMclean]

It is only in recent century that Philosophy has been widely known to majorly effect the practice of science. Though Scientist, Theologist and Philosophers have been one in the same through out history it has not always been recognized widely that these three fields of study are really one in the same, and that each lends to the other.

 

Also as I have expressed before, I would Agree with Kriminal99 on one curcumstance, which is quite common. Infact to a degree it is being displayed here and now. Science, as with Philosophy, and Religion is something of a pack game. With each group (majority of that faction) holding to their own little piece of the truth (Seperate but not different). Often times with heated debates breaking out between the various factions over this or that little detail.

 

If you wish for proof then I would suggest Reading over this site more, as it is often the case that these factions (imaginary lines, like borders of countries) are in something of a intellectual feud about weather this or that is right or wrong.

 

Opposition is a fignewton of the imagination. We can say that we are in opposition or we can say that we are in debate. Either way is true.