Jacques Barzun on the epistemology of science

If they leave college thinking, as they usually do, that science offers a full, accurate, and literal description of man and Nature; if they think scientific research by itself yields final answers to social problems; if they think scientists are the only honest, patient, and careful workers in the world; if they think that Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Lavoisier, and Faraday were unimaginative plodders like their own instructors; if they think theories spring from facts and that scientific authority at any time is infallible; if they think that the ability to write down symbols and read manometers is fair grounds for superiority and pride, and if they think that science steadily and automatically makes for a better world — then they have wasted their time in the science lecture room; they live in an Ivory Laboratory more isolated than the poet’s tower, and they are a plain menace to the society they belong to. They are a menace whether they believe all this by virtue of being engaged in scientific work themselves or of being disqualified from it by felt or fancied incapacity.

Born gay is stupid and dangerous, especially if you’re gay

http://aeon.co/magazine/society/why-born-gay-is-a-dangerous-idea/

It’s been obvious to me since the beginning. Never rest your laurels on a single hypothesis – nor legal matters either.
Think of it this way – would you bet all your Finals on your answer to a random, ultra-hard question?

secretly amused laughing lol rdj saints yeah fuck you

For societal deviance and destruction of the Old Order, would you bet your life on a piece of speculation?

joker DC smile smirk evil grin lol haha

Exactly, it’s suicidally stupid.

There is a funny HBD parallel to this in race, their “rationales” oppose one another;

Yet one stark difference between these civil rights movements has escaped notice.

African-American activists aggressively called out {?} arguments about genetic and biological differences as legacies of racist, Nazi science. By contrast, the marriage-equality movement has embraced biological determinism. Gay and lesbian activists have led the way popularising the idea that identity is biologically determined.

Now, if their side is totally and completely wrong about one thing e.g. Gay Germ Theory withstands, what are the odds they’re wrong about their other ‘sciences’? It amuses me, is all.
I mean;

 The battle for gay marriage has been won, and other, even more challenging battles lie before the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) movement. To succeed in them, activists and scholars must abandon the fundamental fiction they have propagated.

Can you blame me?

david tennant 10 lol laughing cracking up

When politics and science mix, it’s hilarious.
They cannot win.
Even if there were biological predispositions, they’d be aborted out of the human genome. Either way – they’re fucked.

Nazi science was committed to uncovering the genetic differences associated with perversion, be that Jewishness, homosexuality, the Romani, people of colour, the mentally ill, or others deemed ‘born that way’.

All science looks to cause. ALL science. Like, that’s why we’re here.
We see a thing and we go – why did that happen? – about a billion times.

sherlock bbc cracking up lol laughing so hard

When we find differences between the forensic races, it’s called scientific racism by idiots. Nah, it’s forensics bruh.
Like, what will it be when we eventually find causative factors for gayness, whatever they may be? Scientific homophobia? That’s it – I’m using that phrase the next time some libtard says Born this Way.
These ridiculous SJW restraints on science won’t allow jack to get done. We’ll sit round twiddling our thumbs because drawing conclusions about people is bigoted stereotypy. Found a cure for cancer? Nah man, we don’t care, that’s albeist!

What is deeply ironic is that nowadays you could get the Jews to walk around with a Star of David on their clothing by choice if you made out it was the fashionable thing to do.

But both share the presupposition of biological determinism: that genetics determine identity; such genes must result in either elimination or embrace. This suggests why the activist alliance with genetic determinism yielded such successful results. [people respect science over rhetoric?]

Sweet while you’re in power (like now and Cathedral support for the useful idiots) or the explanations are nice and fluffy (e.g. pure genetics). What if they’re disgusting (i.e. pathogenic)? What happens when the Opposition take over, eventually? You only need to genocide a tribe ONCE. It’s like terrorism in that regard.

TLDR: LGBT, W/E+?

you're fucked lol tilda constantine gabriel

Can scientists think?

http://www.unz.com/freed/can-scientists-think/

problems

  • 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.

omg shut up stupid dumb idiots argh ahhhh hiddleston facepalm deep blue sea

RIP, peer review

http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/scientistry-is-not-scientody.html

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.

No Noooooo are you kidding me wtf are you testing me satan

Logical rudeness in debates

When your opponent isn’t using logic? Or reality? Or objectivity?

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/rudeness.htm

(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