The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Causes of Evil?  (Read 9975 times)

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Re: The Causes of Evil?
« Reply #25 on: 22/01/2013 16:28:18 »
Actually Dawkins critique was more concerned about showing that "punctuated equilibrium" did not conflict with continuous evolution and that the scientific press (and to some extent the authors Eldredge and Gould) made more of this concept than it deserved.

It is not "science negating science" at all, even if there was a theory that did result in rethinking the original concepts. Science aims to exactly do this. Theories are there to be disproven but not discarded on the basis of simple non-belief. Evolution as a theory, has been tested regularly and has yet to really fail any significant test - and there are plenty of attacks from religions and concepts such as intelligent design. Before these idea came along in the 19th century the only view of how flora and forna came about were the, now obviously false, religious ones.

 

Online evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4092
  • Thanked: 243 times
    • View Profile
Re: The Causes of Evil?
« Reply #26 on: 22/01/2013 18:05:39 »
OK, so now we've seen an example of how a robust attack & defence of theories can quickly degenerate, especially when there are strongly held opinions and emotions heat up.

In some ways this confirms the original assertion that
Quote
People behave as they are treated.

It is an instructive example - but that particular debate must be continued in other threads, eg http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46731.0

To a large extent, a scientific debate (and normal social interaction) is oiled by politeness, and helped by sticking to the facts.
« Last Edit: 22/01/2013 20:59:59 by evan_au »
 

Offline Raphael

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: The Causes of Evil?
« Reply #27 on: 22/01/2013 23:26:05 »
Actually Dawkins critique was more concerned about showing that "punctuated equilibrium" did not conflict with continuous evolution and that the scientific press (and to some extent the authors Eldredge and Gould) made more of this concept than it deserved.

It is not "science negating science" at all, even if there was a theory that did result in rethinking the original concepts. Science aims to exactly do this. Theories are there to be disproven but not discarded on the basis of simple non-belief. Evolution as a theory, has been tested regularly and has yet to really fail any significant test - and there are plenty of attacks from religions and concepts such as intelligent design. Before these idea came along in the 19th century the only view of how flora and forna came about were the, now obviously false, religious ones.



yes graham.d as evan suggests our discussion can continue here:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46731.0

selah V
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: The Causes of Evil?
« Reply #28 on: 25/01/2013 15:47:47 »
how about you just focus on the 'work' being offered instead of offering nonsense?
We are in danger of moving off topic, but could you explain what you think is nonsensical about a robust peer review system? In essence that is what I described; that is what I said I was in favour of; that is what has served science rather well. Where is the nonsense?

While the 'work' is obviously of central importance other members had addressed it. I believe the attitude an author has to criticism of their work is pertinent. Do you feel it is wholly unimportant, or just of too minor a relevance to warrant attention?

DISCUSS the topic?
What a concept?
I like Marshall McLuhan's expression the medium is the message. How someone presents their thesis is important. Would you agree to any degree? As I just noted others have addressed aspects of pantodragon's thesis. I have chosen to address the relevant issue of how they perceive that thesis. Why do you feel this is invalid as an approach?

You are so typical of the nonsense trolling the internet...
why do folks who have so little to say always manage to find an issue in what somebody said or how they said it, resorting to even pointing out grammar or spelling errors?
I don't believe I have pointed out any errors at all. I have implied a concern about an apparent unwillingness on the part of pantodragon to entertain hostile criticism of their work. Do you think people should reject or ignore criticism of their work that is hostile? If so, why?

Do you mind if I toss you overboard and severe the rope so we can continue on with the journey?
I would prefer it if you would take the time to consider my questions and points and respond to them. Of course it remains your choice.

there is my observation and my hostile attack probing your skepticism regarding how pantodragon phrased his request for discussion.
I'll be able to gain more from it if you are willing to address my resultant questions.

Thanks.
O.
 

Offline pantodragon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: The Causes of Evil?
« Reply #29 on: 26/01/2013 15:01:10 »
Karl Popper revolutionised the philosophy of science by pointing out that you can never prove a theory correct, no matter how many observations you make; you can only succeed in proving it false.


I daresay what Popper says may be true, but I feel hesitant to accept, feeling something niggling at the back of my mind.  Really I would have to see his arguments.  However, I think that what he says may be true, but it is not interesting, and it is not interesting because it is not a SIGNIFICANT characteristic of scientific theory. 

This sort of thing is a great problem today; one sees the practice all over the place, not just in science: one can ferret away and find some aspect of scientific theories or the scientific method that has not yet been described and one can then make one’s name by making much of it, or rather by making over much of it.  The real trick is to be able to pick out what is SIGNIFICANT from all the detailed characteristics.

The bad thing about Popper’s idea is that it’s a killer.  To live by constantly criticizing, constantly trying to prove things wrong, constantly finding obstacles to put in the way of things, is to kill all creativity, to kill all joy, and eventually to succumb to depression.  You see this sort of attitude in many people and where you see it, you also see depression.  Creativity comes from a more positive attitude, an attitude of delight in new ideas, a desire to grab a new idea and run with it and see where it will get you.  This latter is a cooperative attitude and cooperation leads to richness and diversity such as one finds in the natural world.  Popper’s shoot-down system is competitive and it leads to “last man standing” i.e. to loss of diversity, to impoverishment.
 

Offline pantodragon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: The Causes of Evil?
« Reply #30 on: 26/01/2013 15:02:54 »

In contrast you seem to be more concerned about the form of the criticism (and its intent) rather than its efficacy. Am I reading you correctly and if so can you explain why you would favour an approach that is less efficient at improving  the 'end product'?

I think you have it the wrong way round.  It is friendliness which is efficient and improving.  Hostility is a time waster, a liar, cunning trickster, lawyerish, teasing and is out to kill by any means possible, including using psychological games (well known in the chess arena) to induce failure where in a straight contest there might be success.  (Also, see my reply to evan_au re Popper.)
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
Re: The Causes of Evil?
« Reply #31 on: 27/01/2013 01:41:19 »
Hello Pantodragon, may I ask what your objective would be here in the question proposed?
 

Offline pantodragon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: The Causes of Evil?
« Reply #32 on: 28/01/2013 16:25:58 »
Hello Pantodragon, may I ask what your objective would be here in the question proposed?

To initiate a discussion on the causes of evil, with particular reference to the issues I raised in the original post.  If the thread has strayed somewhat from its starting point, I have no problem with that.  That's the way discussion go, that's how you get to new places and new ideas.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: The Causes of Evil?
« Reply #32 on: 28/01/2013 16:25:58 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length