Let’s lay this one to rest, shall we?
All science is observational – observations are what we call “data”.
All science is predictive, whether it concerns events that happened in the past, and are unlikely to occur again, or events that are reproducible.
The scientific method is simple: you construct a model that fits a current set of observations, and then use that model to predict new observations.
There IS a difference between correlational and experimental inference, and some of what the likes of Ken Ham call “historical science” is correlational rather than experimental inference. The difference is that in experimental methodology the experimenter manipulates a randomly allocated variable. That way, if the observations correlate with the manipulation, you know the observed phenomena were the result of the manipulation – you know that the observation did not cause the manipulation. Although that may be moot in QM, I don’t know.
But it has no bearing on Ham’s faux distinction. We can make models about the past that we can test by making predictions about what we will find e.g. Tiktaalik, as Bill Nye pointed out. The fact that Tiktaaliks are long dead is as irrelevant to the methodology as the fact that a murder victim is dead is irrelevant to forensic methodology. In fact there is a sense in which all observations are in the past by the time we’ve observed them.
And it is possible to make predictions about what observations we will make if the world is 13 billion years old, and if it is 6000 years old. And the predictions arising from the former model are confirmed by multiple independent observations, and those from the latter by zilch.
When I read that I picture a little boy in knickers holding his breath and stomping his feet. 🙂
I’ve had a look at the Wikipedia page, but I’m not really any the wiser. I don’t think I’m a ‘scientismist’. But that could be the ideological blinkers talking.
Even science’s ‘goods’ are in some way evils. Improving health and agriculture and lifespan are arguably good things. But there are way too many of us, and the better we make things, the worse it gets. Science can point out the problems, too (hmmm … what happens to organisms that overdo their reproduction and consumption?). But science does not say what we should do about these things.
Well geeze. Using knowledge gained by science, people have found new and exotic ways to kill and oppress each other, That’s news.
There are people who think about science the way people think about religion. It’s magic, it cures all ills merely by its application, That’s really news.
There are people who are in awe of lab coats. The same people are in awe of surgeons’ gowns.
Okay, psychology and sociology can have something useful to say about how authority gets misused.
But oddly enough, only if they submit their hypotheses to testing.
olegt,
Pinker says nothing of the sort. He writes:
I have no idea where Gregory gets his notions of the history, philosophy, and sociology of science in the US and the UK. He seems like some closed-minded ideologue in some backwater prison somewhere.
On the other hand, some of us have been in many places around the world, and we have had coworkers and colleagues from all over the world. We aren’t isolated hicks as he apparently supposes. Quite the contrary; and from that worldwide perspective, Gregory looks pretty provincial and dogmatic in this thinking. I also see evidence of sectarian religious bigotry in his attitudes.
Robert Merton was certainly not the last word in the history of science; there has been far better historical research since Merton wrote his tomes. Even many of the professional scientific societies have sections devoted to collecting and preserving history. I belong to one of them. I have at least a couple of large bookcases full of the history and philosophy of science; and I have read them all.
Scientists constantly learn from their own history, hence the strong motivation to preserve it along with trying to understand the milieu from which insights and ideas emerged. Gregory may be thinking of “scientists” who are primarily technologists; but even there, good inventors are well aware of the history of their specialties, otherwise they would be repeating history and not inventing anything new.
There is also a lot of as yet “unwritten” history of which scientists are aware. Gregory would not know about any of this because he doesn’t have the background, credentials, and clearances necessary to gain access to it let alone understand any of it.
And I still don’t believe Gregory is what he claims of himself. For the young kid that he is, he is already too dogmatic, rigid, and fuzzy in his thinking about things. He really doesn’t know what other people know; and he is too quick to presume that others are backwoods idiots because they don’t buy into his peculiar ideological claims. What political prison does he speak from?
But he sure does know how to hog the spotlight. That trait alone disqualifies him as a legitimate researcher in the history, philosophy, and especially the sociology of science.
Folks, I made 2 main points:
1) There are more than one (> 1) scientific methods. This contradicts Lizzie’s OP language.
Anyone who has studied HPSS (no one at TSZ or in the IDM), HPS (a few in the IDM and a small few here) or even just HS (on the surface, like most natural scientists) would confirm this. No one yet at TSZ has assented to that point. But hey, you’re supposed to be merely ‘skeptical,’ right, so why assent to anything?
Is Kalamazoo really such a “backwater prison” full of “backwoods idiots,” Mike? That’s language I probably wouldn’t have come up with without Mike bringing it up himself. No doubt he feels ‘back-superior’ in his schoolish retirement.
2) No, not *everything* evolves. Mike Elzinga was exaggerating/misspeaking as an ‘evolutionist’ by claiming things ‘evolve’ that actually are not properly said to ‘evolve.’ Nobody at TSZ has confronted that point. The notion of ‘things that don’t evolve’ wreaks havoc to the universal evolutionist worldview that often gives spine to agnosticism-atheism in western countries. Many spines at TSZ in USA and UK are likely so constructed and easily deconstructed by clear, rational boundary-setting for ‘evolution’.
Apparently there’s enough hot air in Kalamzoo, Michigan for Mike to float his own balloon festival. Notice, nevertheless, he won’t check his spinal premises. If he did, the gas would quickly run out and the balloon would fail.
On a balloon? Yeah, and there’s many birds in the world too and you probably think you can speak for them without knowing anything about them. That’s something I don’t presume.
‘Clearances’ – to meet a great scholar-atheist like Michael Elzinga? That’s a ticket I’d likely not even voluntarily inflict on an innocent student. Hearty emptiness of the non-Solomon variety seems to be M.E.’s IDism/creationism-hating trademark. But that doesn’t make Ham’s presentation, nor Nye’s any more relevant or potent as it comes to the OP main topic.
I’m sure in your own little parochial scientifically illiterate mind you think you made some devastating points. To the rest of us who live and work in reality, not so much so.
No, it doesn’t contradict.
You are demonstrating you failure at English comprehension. A natural language is not a logic calculus. When one says that there are more than one scientific methods, one is using the work “method” in a narrow sense. When one talks of “the scientific method”, one is using “method” in a far broader sense. You seem to have great difficulty comprehending that language is a very flexible communication instrument.
That’s your same language problem. You want to insist on using “evolve” in some sort of narrow sense known only to sociologists, while Mike was using it more broadly.
What the hell is this obsessive fixation you have about Kalamazoo? Is it some funny name you like?
The University of Michigan is in Ann Arbor. Damn; you can’t even get geography right, even with maps available on the internet.
And your intense hatred of “atheists” is nothing but vile sectarian bigotry. You have no clue what others think about religion.
The topic of this thread is Ham’s notion of “historical versus observational science.”
Start your own thread if you want to draw all attention to yourself.
“When one says that there are more than one scientific methods, one is using the wor[d] “method” in a narrow sense. When one talks of “the scientific method”, one is using “method” in a far broader sense.”
What is this a ‘homeland security’ project? ; )
Plural or singular. Not difficult, Neil. Stick it.
Gregory, this is not a comment on your worth as a human being or the correctness of your opinions, but it is a comment on your obsession with correct language in an informal chat situation. You seem unable to accept informal language and unable to look for the intended meaning rather than dictionary meaning.
Has anyone ever uttered the word Aspergers with reference to you?
You have asserted this on a number of occasions, but you have failed to ever support this assertion with anything resembling a coherent argument.
This statement, in this context, is factually incorrect.
You have repeatedly made a rather lame semantic argument – asserting that you are the only holder of the one true meaning of words such as ‘evolve’. And you continue to do so, despite it being pointed out to you that ‘evolve’ has different meanings, depending on context.
Your definition of ‘evolutionism’ is the “inappropriate extension of the concepts of evolution into realms outside of biology”. So it has nothing to do with biology by definition.
This makes no sense at all.
We humored you with your “things that don’t evolve” thread, in which you refused to explain what you meant be the word, but asked posters to name things that did not evolve. You were provided with lists of hundreds of things that don’t evolve, but then insisted that these responses were “wrong”.
Are you able to see that this makes no sense?
In summation, Gregory, if you view yourself as an ambassador or advocate for the importance of HPSS, you are doing a terrible job. Rather than merely asserting that your field of study is sooo important, and we cannot see this because of our (strangely uniform, given the disparate backgrounds) blinkers, you need to step up your game and actually make a coherent effort to justify your argument. Make your case, man! You have not even tried.
With your “my interlocutors are not worthy” schtick, you remind me more of Richard Kepler (see amazon) than Gary Gaulin.
“Has anyone ever uttered the word Aspergers with reference to you?”
No, but probably you’ve been called a ‘hamburger’ before.
Classy group of atheists you’ve gathered here, Lizzie. Classy. ; )
Well, good, you’ve been listening! Really? That’s a surprise for a ‘skeptic’.
Evolutionism is beyond biology (or natural-physical sciences) – we are agreed. It is an attempted universalistic ideology. Shall we shake on that?
Just from memory of that thread, one of the suggestions of something that doesn’t ‘evolve’ I accepted. And lo and behold it happens to cover the very thing Kalamazoo Mike claims ‘does evolve.’ HUMAN-MADE THINGS. Check it folks – was Kalamazoo Mike claims that HUMAN-MADE THINGS *do* ‘evolve’? Yes or no? Avoidance of this simple question is what will likely happen at TSZ from my experience.
Thanks for proving the point! But you haven’t then the courage to actually stand behind the person you cite or provide concrete example of ‘things that don’t evolve.’ And neither does Mike. So you’re stuck in a vacuum of your own incredulity. Congratulations.
Well, I am aware of only one method myself. I use it for ecological research. It works…that is to say it provides results that can be used to predict the outcome of environmental management. Unless and until you or one of my peers provides a different methodology (or multiple methodologies) that work either a) as well as the one I am familiar with or b) better than the one I am familiar with, I will continue to ignore your apparent empty assertions.
Practical beats philosophical any day of the week for me.
But human made things do evolve. they do in a way analogous to the way viruses evolve. Bothe kinds of things have no internal means of replication. they are manufactured by a host. they have variants that undergo selection. The population of manufactured things changes over time as a result of variation and selection.
Metaphors can be useful, even when they have limitations.
You quoted this, but apparently didn’t understand it…
So to answer your bolded question:
Yes and no.
ETA:
when you say
You are ignoring the fact that I answered your “things that don’t evolve” question twice, although you did delete my first response…
And no doubt some of your best friends are atheists. And you are deeply disappointed that no one here can carry on a discussion without resorting to name calling.
Glad you raised this point. I’m working with others on this and can only say, you’re in bad shape to claim that “human made things do evolve.” Go on the slopes at Sochi with this claim and I’d walk or ride all over you. And you’ve got little to back this up except backward-looking academics. This ‘young kid’ is ready to dunk all over you like Paul George, Terrence Ross or Damian Lillard.
No, I deleted nothing.
Only a small few. My best friend is Orthodox. He married a Catholic. It was most beautiful (not in USAmerica) I can’t tell you. Many of my friends globally are Abrahamic theists, unashamedly so. Quite a few scientists and scholars among them, but artists, musicians, sportspersons as well.
Atheists-agnostics (like the majority at TSZ) respond to Nye vs. Ham so poorly, so myopically, so minimally in USA and UK, at least, from what I’ve read in media. It’s part of my research to study this, not just a hobby like for many of you.
Have a listen/read if you’re curious, just don’t be piggish over pearls – this is a different genre than blogging at anti-IDM TSZ
“I think I will stop posting here.” – Mike Elzinga
Thanks. Noted. But, of course, not believed.
I have to say, I find it a bit amusing that the myth of the given is called “sophistic” considering that the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective — of which Gregory is a member — had an entire special issue on Sellars, Brandom, and McDowell. Perhaps the SERR occasionally succumbs to sophistry?
It’s hardly a prudent use of my time to call out every error I see here — I have my own research to do and my own students to teach and, when necessary, correct.
I didn’t see how anything in Lizzie’s perfectly general remarks would be substantively altered by talking about “scientific methods” rather than “the scientific method”. Though it’s perfectly true that there’s no monolithic, single scientific method, of the sort dreamed of by the positivists (and demolished by Feyerabend), I’m not really sure what it is in Lizzie’s general point that would be decisively altered by abandoning the fantasy of a single scientific method.
KN, since Gregory won’t, perhaps you’d tell us what is wrong with the generalization that science builds models and test them. Obviously the details vary, depending on the discipline and the availability of the target phenomena for experimental control.
Would you agree with this:
Well, thanks. DO YOU HEAR THAT LIZZIE? DOES ANYONE AT TSZ HEAR THAT? No. Deafness. Chain gang.
Are you serious? You’re not a Professor of Philosophy who claims to be competent in PoS actually saying this are you?
Well, let’s see. Her entire dichotomy. Ham’s dichotomy. The IDM’s dichotomy. Meyer’s dichotomy. Are you really that dense, KN? Apparently yes.
Is it Washington Syndrome?
I’ve been really interested in this whole question of “scientism” for a couple of years.
One problem is that there’s no consensus (that I can discern) on what exactly it means, though it’s a term thrown around a great deal. I’m not even entirely sure where the term first comes into use, though I suspect it’s a Heideggerian term of art. Adorno accuses Popper of “scientism” (Szientivismus), where that seems to be Adorno’s own portmanteau of “Positivismus and “scientia“. John McDowell accuses Sellars of “scientism” on account of the latter’s introduction of theoretical posits into the transcendental description of experience. (Don’t worry if that sounds confusing; it’s what I’m writing about now, and it’s maddening.) I have an article on how McDowell and Adorno were both looking for “naturalism without scientism” that I’ve started and stopped four times now. Trying to get clear about any of this stuff is extremely frustrating!
Pigliucci has a very nice article (here) arguing that “the new atheists” are distinguished from “old atheists” by virtue of “scientism”. I simply can’t tell if Pigliucci and Curtis White are using the term in the same way as Adorno or McDowell, let alone whether right-wing critics of “scientism” like Leon Wieseltier are using the term in ways similar to left-wing critics like White.
I won’t say that the term is entirely useless. Pigliucci in particular gave me a nice frame of reference for understanding what “scientism” means with regard to Dawkins and Stenger, and I think his way of explicating the term extends nicely to Hawking (“philosophy is dead”) and to Lawrence Krauss’s sneering dismissal of David Albert’s criticism of A Universe From Nothing. I’m not sure how closely related this is to Curtis White’s usage in The Science Delusion — though there is (pretty clearly) some relation.
“science builds models and test them”
No. People build models and test them. The term ‘science’ is not an ‘agent’. The term ‘science’ is not a ‘subject’ that chooses or builds.
You seem to give agent-hood status as a replacement psychological Solomon strategy without the Solomon. Ecclesiastes might help. It doesn’t bite. Open and read, Mr. 70 yr-old. Why not give a new flavour a try. Your generation was sucked of its soul, as most sociologists who study the phenomenon globally would agree. The only way out: try.
Who guano’d this: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?page_id=57&cpage=9#comment-41076?
Why? I’d like KN’s input on this. Would he guano it or not? It was addressed to him. And he has been more open than most here.
As I understood it, Lizzie’s point is that when we do science, we build models that account for our actual observations and then test those models by extrapolating new possible observation from those models and then seeing whether those possible observations are confirmed or disconfirmed by the actual observations.
That’s what gives science its self-correcting, fallible yet corrigible character. (It is also why it is apt to say that science is a sophisticated extension of the same sort of empirical knowledge that all us habitually employ all the time.) And that seems sufficient to refute Ham’s distinction between “historical science” and “observational science.” The fact that there’s a plurality of methods for doing so (in physics, molecular biology, ecology, paleontology, economics, etc.) seems irrelevant to the general point she is making here.
If there’s some further point I’m missing, please draw my attention to it.
False. You deleted my first response on your “things that don’t evolve” thread, along with the “Raindrops on roses” post to which it was a reply. The charitable explanation for your false statement is that your memory is defective.
These posts were subsequently restored – Lizzie restored the “Raindrops” post; I don’t know who restored my post.
I believe that comments on moderation belong on the Moderation thread, btw.
There’s a lot you’re missing, as usual. But I’m now being censored again at TSZ.
Call off the guano dogs.
This means LIZZIE WAS WRONG in her OP. Would she ever admit that on her own blog? Only if her ‘brain’ gets right, apparently.
In response to Gregory’s post that was sent to Guano-tanomo Bay
Well, looking for in Heidegger would involve reading Heidegger, and I try to avoid that as much as I can. But you’re right, it will be necessary.
And no, I skipped the Opening Ceremonies. In fact, I intend to boycott all coverage of the Olympics as a very small, very personal, and mostly useless protest against Putin’s homophobic and repressive policies.
I’ve read a few theists on “the scientism question” I found enlightening — in particular, McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion and Eagleton’s Reason, Faith, and Revolution. I particularly found Eagleton’s point about how “the new atheism” is part of the self-serving ideology of bourgeois liberal intellectuals quite powerful and incisive.
Well, if I request correction, and you refuse to provide it, whose fault is that?
Thank Goodness HMS HPSS Gregory is here to save us! If we only had his background. How’re your threads going, Gregory?
I find the generalization perfectly adequate. I believe that Gregory was objecting to the labeling of that generalization as “the scientific method,” rather than to the generalization itself. At any rate, that’s all I took myself to be saying, insofar as I agreed with him on this specific point at all. In any event, I find the generalization perfectly acceptable, as I’ve said the very same thing myself on numerous occasions on this very blog.
That’s such a strong and seemingly outrageous statement that I’d have to see in context before rendering any judgment about it.
I do think Americans have learned quite a bit from the Russians.m It would be interesting to know which lessons from Russia Gregory thinks are important and why.
I’m rather fond of their dashcam videos.
If I had the context I’d gladly provide it. I’ll dig a little.
ETA:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html
Haven’t studied them yet.
More directly, KN: do you personally find anything worth guano-ing in the post you linked to that was guano’d? You can contact me privately if you don’t want to make it public. If you don’t then you asking to rescind the guano (which was apparently aimed to protect you) seems proper.
Can a guano’d post be restored at TSZ? This one seems a perfect candidate.
“Putin’s homophobic”
That’s totally and utterly absurd. Putin is not ‘phobic’ of ‘homosexuals’. You are highly misinformed and jaded, senor Washington.
“I agreed with him on this specific point”
Yes, I know you agree with me that there are multiple scientific methods, KN. I don’t doubt that you’ve read more of the relevant literature than anyone here, and three times as much as most of them. You just seem to pretend not to know anything important when it serves your skeptic-atheist (ex-RJ) politics. I appreciate your honesty.
Lizzie likely won’t respond to your agreement with me here. Why should she? She’s got groupies among atheistic-scientismists (as Mike likes to call them/himself) here, right? They’ll defend her ignorance of HPSS over 30 years and her outdated languages. They’ll stroke her scientistic language. Of course!
“It would be interesting to know which lessons from Russia Gregory thinks are important and why.”
You have not proven yourself worthy of my time.
A scurrilous example of the evolutionist hegemony.
Gregory, please take your gripes to the sandbox so we can keep the focus on this thread. Mods – please Guano any (including this after a short while) posts that aren’t on topic? Cheers!
I didn’t find anything there particularly guano-worthy.
As I understand it, posts are sent to Guano only when they violate the site rules, and in particular, when the posts are ad hominem or accuse someone of not arguing in good faith (e.g. of lying, of being insincere, and so on.) I didn’t see anything like that there, but I’ve learned to have a pretty thick skin about these things.
Thus far, only Murry and Arrington have mastered the art of angering me to the point where I lose self-control.
In point of fact, Gregory, I very much enjoy conversing with you. Sometimes I wish you’d be less abrasive how you phrase your criticisms, that’s all.
I have to admit, though, Gregory is more flexible than ELIZA. the repeat what I said plus insult is an interesting twist.
.
“I do think Americans have learned quite a bit from the Russians”
Welcome to post 10 positive threads before you’ll hear from me on that theme here. You have everything to prove that you haven’t yet succeeded in expressing. HPSS is just a starter, but it is significant.
Kantian Naturalist,
“I didn’t find anything there particularly guano-worthy.”
Obviously that post should be restored. Some maverick moderator felt KN would be offended. It didn’t break any TSZ rules.
Why not restore it?
I moved a few posts to guano. That was not done to protect anyone. As far as I can tell, the folk who post here are not in need of protection.
The posts were moved to remind people to address the content of posts, not the persons.
And yes, posts can be restored from guano, if another admin thinks I used poor judgment.
Not that sentence make does sense.
Gregory, stop.
Homophobic, by any reasonable English-language definition, means demonstrating prejudice against homosexual persons. It does not mean being “phobic” in the strict sense of having a phobia/irrational fear of homosexuality. “Homophobic” hasn’t meant “fearful” in two generations of English-speaking world culture (if it ever did). You should know better than that, even from your Eastern European backwater.
I understand from world news that it is considered socially acceptable in Eastern Europe/former Soviet bloc to indulge in filthy levels of homophobic rhetoric, bigoted actions, and legal discrimination against gay people. Nonetheless, you should be better than that. I am terribly disappointed in you not elevating yourself above the homophobic culture swamp in which your academy is mired. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending Putin even to the small extent which you did. Putin is without excuse and, now, so are you.
Don’t. Just don’t. You either have no idea who you are talking to, who you harm, or you do know but you can’t care less. Either way, don’t.
I’m knitting a rainbow hat. Pair of rainbow socks, too, if I have enough time before closing ceremonies.
I think that, if we live another fifty years, Putin’s olympics are going to be seen in history as second only to the 1936 Berlin olympics as a permanent stain on the host country.
I thinkit implicitely assumed that people who hate and revile homosexuals do so to repress their own inclinations. Hence the fear element. I think it’s a stretch to apply this to everyone, but I’ve seen people to whom I think it applies.