0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
the peer-review system, is based on mistrust.
Human behaviour has a very wide spectrum. .....................................Scientifically this can all be analysed with "game theory"; the "prisoner's dilemma" is one simple example.
This assertion "Conversely, if a person is treated with trust and respect they will behave well and will BE trustworthy. If a person is treated as though they are good then they will be (or become) good. " is at odds with common experience.If, for example, the presence of cctv cameras makes people commit theft, how come there were thieves before the cameras were invented?We only created the police force because there were crimes.The message from the camera isn't "We don't trust you"; it's "We know that are crooks out there and we are doing are best to stop the bastards."
Evil and human behavior is a complex issue, but I don't think it is outside of the realm of science. There is a neurological basis for altruism. ........................................... It does contribute to that atmosphere of suspicion. On the other hand, I'm guessing cops don't rough up suspects like they used to either, when every body and his brother has a video camera on their cell phone.
An alternative way of looking at this is that we all make mistakes, and sometimes overlook something obvious (me included!). I actually like people to quickly point out errors or omissions in my work, even though I wouldn't go so far as to say I "enjoy" it! ............................................ But this may be a good training ground for new researchers, and may reduce the cost of science, overall.
Pantodragon, you seem to have a strong view on what is human behaviour, and that it is outside the realm of scientific analysis. ..................
Pantodragon, I've merged a bunch of your posts. If you're continuing an essay across multiple posts, please keep it all in one thread so that we can keep the forum organized. Thanks,the mods
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 prove it false.So, for Popper, the essence of a scientific theory was that it was something that made predictions, which could then be tested to see if they came true or not.An extreme way of expressing this is: if a theory cannot be proven wrong, it is not scientific. So the essence of science has to be one where the originator of a theory suggests ways the theory could be proven wrong, and others taking up the challenge to actually show that the theory is wrong (and sometimes, repeatedly failing). But science works a lot smoother if the potential errors are pointed out politely, being acutely aware of the very real possibility that one's disproof may well be flawed. This is like the proverb: "How can you say, ‘Friend, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?".
To be clear, Raphael, are you saying that you think the development of ears and eyes disproves the theory of evolution?
I, too, welcome my work being questioned so long as the questions are friendly in intention.
Quote from: pantodragon on 14/01/2013 14:56:17I, too, welcome my work being questioned so long as the questions are friendly in intention.I found this remark quite telling. I may be reading too much into it in which case I hope you will correct me. If I have prepared a research paper, an engineering report, or a business plan I welcome that work being questioned and I am wholly indifferent to the friendliness of the intention. Friendlieness will not make the findings of my research more accurate; friendliness will not make the conclusions of my engineering report more useful; friendliness will not ensure the success of my business plan. I expect, indeed I demand, a probing, skeptical, hostile attack upon my observations, my interpretations, my conclusions and my recommendations. Anything less may fail to unearth weaknesses or errors and I do not wish to be associated with second rate work. 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 expect, indeed I demand, a probing, skeptical, hostile attack upon my observations, my interpretations, my conclusions and my recommendations. Anything less may fail to unearth weaknesses or errors and I do not wish to be associated with second rate work.
I don't think whether evolution is "continuous" or features "punctuated equilibrium" makes any difference to the overall concept of evolution in the general sense.
People behave as they are treated.
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.
how about you just focus on the 'work' being offered instead of offering nonsense?
DISCUSS the topic?What a concept?
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?
Do you mind if I toss you overboard and severe the rope so we can continue on with the journey?
there is my observation and my hostile attack probing your skepticism regarding how pantodragon phrased his request for discussion.
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.
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'?
Hello Pantodragon, may I ask what your objective would be here in the question proposed?