Government money is a corrupting influence. Gotta get those sweet grants.
- lack of intellectual honesty is required for academia
- curiosity is punished by careerists
- ego grandstanding encouraged (‘celebrity scientists’ make me gag)
- ‘the science is settled’ ~ not a scientist, then
- no political parity and confirmation bias
- fraud is not a crime
- government grants cause 99% of these problems
- feelings > facts or PC > reality
- you accept the postmodernist frame of relative truth when no, that is unscientific
- science of psychological perception is a science and can bridge qualia gap
- most issues with experimental limits are based in poor methodological paradigms
- everybody studied science at school, nobody ever studies the philosophy of science
- scientism – the belief an authority of ‘Truth’ can never be abused by its agents and we’ve found everything important already so quit your denial, you bigoted skeptic.
He also went on to call himself out in a sense, stating that journal editors aid and abet the worst behaviours, that the amount of bad research is alarming, that data is sculpted to fit a preferred theory. He goes on to observe that important confirmations are often rejected and little is done to correct bad practices. What’s worse, much of what goes on could even be considered borderline misconduct.
N is for Narrative.
When your opponent isn’t using logic? Or reality? Or objectivity?
(Logical rudeness)…Unlike a petitio, it does not purport to justify a conclusion or belief; it purports to justify believers in disregarding criticism of their beliefs as if such criticism were inapplicable, irrelevant, or symptomatic of error. This is not self-justification in the manner of a petitio, in which assumed premises can validly imply the disputed conclusion.“…
Sum: If somebody isn’t playing by the rules of formal debate, they bring the whole thing down and might be excluded.
…”Philosophers have no equivalent of default except the presumption that the silent or rude theorist has no answer on the merits to offer, and (qua individual proponent) may be presumed ignorant or incorrect and dismissed. This presumption, however, is very legalistic, and in many cases will be false.”…
Practice of Law =/= ” ” Science
It may seem that the imputation of a foible or fault to a critic simply qua critic is always optional, never necessary to preserve the consistency of the theory or the good faith of the proponent. But this is not true. First, there is the case of the brazen theory which includes as a tenet the forthright equation of disagreement and error. This tenet is not as rare, nor probably as naive, as one might at first suspect. It may be called (using legal jargon) the “exclusivity clause” of the theory. Any theory may have an exclusivity clause, and most theories may have them without contradicting their own content. The “clause” merely states that the set of tenets comprising the theory is the truth and the only truth on its precise subject. It does not imply completeness; but it does imply that propositions inconsistent with the theory are false. It may be tacit and understood, and indeed it does seem to follow from the mere claim of truth according to the principle of excluded middle (tacit in many theories) and most classical notions of truth. If a theory contains an exclusivity clause, even a tacit one, it impels the good faith proponent to equate disagreement and error. Critics may courteously be indulged in the realm of debate, and cajoled into seeing the light, if possible, but that would be supererogatory under the canons of logic and good faith. One premise of “civilized” debate —that any contender might be speaking the truth and debate is one way to tell who— is not shared by all the contenders. For this reason it is disturbing to note that almost any claim to truth may bear a tacit exclusivity clause.
If you are being purely logical and the other person comes up with a personal story, you can, in most instances, rightfully call them an idiot for using that as a parry to your point. It’s like bringing a spoon to a knife fight.
Even more disturbing is the case of philosophical systems. The paradigm of good philosophy for several western traditions —the complete, consistent system— is impelled to be rude….
If the system is supposed to be complete as well as true, then the good faith proponent must believe the critic in error, and therefore must apply the system’s explanation of error to her. Note that mere belief in the completeness and truth of the system suffices here to justify the conclusion that disagreement is error. The good faith proponent need not immediately act on this belief in the critic’s error, but neither can he escape concluding it, any more than he could willingly suspend judgment on the truth of his beliefs. Proponents of what are supposed to be true, complete, consistent systems must choose between apostasy and rudeness. [DS: rude people tell the truth] They must defend their beliefs either by appeal to premises and principles from outside the system, which they believe are false, or by appeal to premises and principles from withing the system, which is question-begging and liable to be very rude. [demonstration of depth of explanation] This may be called the dilemma of systematic self-defense. To ask such a believer to be logically polite “just for the sake of argument” is equivalent to asking him to give up some tenets of the faith he wishes to defend just to enter a realm of debate to defend it. This is why systems with pretensions to completeness have traditionally seemed rude, have traditionally authorized rude defenses in their proponents, or have gone undefended at fundamental levels….
…Logical rudeness may be considered a complex form of ad hominem argument. It tells critics and dissenters that they are defective human beings whose ignorance or error is well explained as frailty, fault, foible, or the absence of a boon. Moreover, this form of ad hominem is justified by the theory under attack. When our questions are answered by ad hominem assaults, we are angered. Our anger cannot be reduced to hurt feelings because we were not merely wounded in our dignity; we were put off in our inquiries for truth by a refusal to cooperate. A rude response can therefore trigger three levels of indignation: personal affront, thwarted cooperation, and crippled inquiry. The first is personal, the second social and political, and the third epistemic. …
..Some form of rudeness seems inevitable. Either the equality principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are unequally entitled to know the truth, [as if equally capable of understanding, psychometrics be damned] or the freedom principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are making impermissible moves in a game. These two fundamental types of rudeness can be barred only by one another. To secure some courtesies, then, we must impose other rude principles. There is something Gödelian about this result. No system of logical etiquette can be both complete and consistent. For every such system there will be a permissible but rude theory. ….
…..The automatic inference of falsehood from rudeness or undebatability may be called the fallacy of petulance —in which we peevishly allow our hurt feelings to supersede our better judgement. The fallacy of petulance is to use the criteria of courtesy as criteria (or as a subset of the criteria) of truth. Sociability in debate may be important for many reasons, even for the fundamental epistemic reason of keeping debate a fruitful avenue of inquiry and for basic ethical duties to other inquirers; but its norms do not thereby become criteria of truth. ……
….The danger of legislating a style of thinking in order to secure a form of cooperation is real. ….
Trigger warnings, anyone?
“To me it seems that those sciences are vain and full of error which are not born of experience, mother of all certainty, first-hand experience which in its origins, or means, or end has passed through one of the five senses. And if we doubt the certainty of everything which passes through the senses, how much more ought we to doubt things contrary to these senses – ribelli ad essi sensi – such as the existence of God or of the soul or similar things over which there is always dispute and contention. And in fact it happens that whenever reason is wanting men to cry out against one another, which does not happen with certainties. For this reason we shall say that where the cry of controversy is heard, there is no true science, because the truth has one single end and when this is published, argument is destroyed for ever.”~ Leonardo, Trattato della pittura
I prefer to call peer review what it is, friend panels. If they are your friends, you’re in. If not, you aren’t.
Science isn’t always right, science isn’t a person, it is a process. A process carried out by humans, liable to error. Humans in labcoats don’t suddenly mutate into flawless Gods of Truth in the manner of Ma’at.
It’s hardly difficult to apply the scientific method according to evolutionary markers.
To deny evolution has impacted humanity would be grossly anti-science. Neither does evolution magically stop at the neck, like a choker of changes.
…In 1987, Buss surveyed people from 37 different cultures from around the world about their sexual and marriage preferences. He also asked various social scientists if they thought that people around the world would basically have the same preferences. Based on their culture only theories, all the social scientists he asked predicted that Buss wouldn’t find any human universals. In fact, Buss found that many preferences, such as the female preference for men with money and status, and the male preference for young women, were universal or near universal (8). This data clearly contradicted theories suggesting that sexual preferences are the result of norms particular to a few cultures….
For example, contrary to evolution based theories, many feminists have argued that the differences in the ways that little boys and girls play are the result of the different ways that our society treats male and female children. This theory is made somewhat problematic by the fact that boys around the world engage in rougher play than girls. But it is made much more problematic by the fact that this same trend is seen in non human primates as-well (9)….
Evopsych is falsifiable. We have null hypotheses.
Before getting into what Alexis wrote, I want to briefly outline the meaning of, and case for, race being a valid scientific concept. Categories, of course, are just labels man invents for sets of objects he decides to group together. Science is aimed at explaining and predicting the natural world. So a valid scientific category is a grouping of objects that aids in our ability to predict and explain nature. Racial classification groups people together based on ancestry. A person’s race is simply determined by where most of their ancestors lived in the distant past.
As opposed to some forms of ‘ethnicity’, as if hopping a border changes one’s DNA.
As it turns out, grouping people in this way gives us the ability to predict an awful lot about a person. As almost everyone knows, there are differences in observable physical features between the races concerning skin color, cranial morphology, and the like. Some psychological differences are less well known. For instance, some races have larger brains than others and some physically mature faster than others. There are also well established psychological and behavioral differences between the races. For instance, in Race, Evolution, and Behavior, the psychologist Phillipe Rushton documented racial differences in intelligence, criminality, parenting, and sexual behavior. Others have shown that the races differ with respect their to moral senses, financial behavior, and political attitudes. The list could go on. In fact, it is the rare exception, rather than the rule, to find that the races score equally on a behavioral or psychological test.
Race clearly has predictive power. But what about explanatory power?……
There are even differences in maternal gestation. Black babies gestate for less time. Go Patriarchy, cos that’s some party trick.
The median gestational age at delivery was 39 weeks in Blacks and Asians and 40 weeks in white Europeans.
It makes complete sense when you realize Science aka The Scientific Method philosophy, was invented during this little-known time period called The Enlightenment….. by Europeans (or NA-dwelling WASP stock, descended thereof). Duh, we’re good at it.