Which Sciences Are the Most Useful?

[teo123]

You haven't really learned anything at all from this experience, have you?

I am not sure what you mean. Yes, I've learnt why not to trust people who assert massive conspiracies.
Do you mean to ask me whether I see that the best way to study some issue is to trust that which some people believe most of the scientists believe? No, I don't see that.
Think of the Monty Hall Problem, for example. Some problems simply come close to fooling all the people (including the scientists who have spent years studying somewhat related stuff, but not exactly that) all the time.
And this is especially true when there is big business and the government involved. Most of the people think most of the scientists believe eating meat is beneficial to health and that most of the scientists believe animals are not conscious (as is written in the textbooks).

Do you know what a scientific theory is?

Well, it's a bit hard to define, but let me try. It's a set of explanations about something that can't be directly observed, from which the laws (descriptions of the observable) are supposed to logically follow.

Can you list some theories in recent memory that have been disproved?

Actually, I can. Remember Lysenkoism? Up until the late 1950s, the Mendelian genetics was not accepted by a significant number of biologists, who instead believed in Lysenkoism (which is now considered pseudoscience). And the government of some countries tried to implement science-based agriculture, taking Lysenkoism to be respectable science. And it had devastating results.
Also, we can't pretend that, for example, the Darwin's original theory of evolution was entirely correct. Only its basic tenets were correct. Darwin assumed multiple times that genes control hereditary properties in continuously, rather than discretely.

You still have to be honest enough to know that there are millions of people more educated than you in just about every field.

Millions? LOL, there certainly aren't even one hundred people more educated than I am in the field of Croatian toponyms.

In a sense, yes, but we have to remember that one side (usually the right side) is exponentially more complex and nuanced, and difficult for lay people to understand.

Well, yes, the science often isn't communicated to laymen in a good way, or even at all. But not letting laymen hear what's not mainstream science isn't a good way of communicating science either.
And I don't quite see science is harder to understand than pseudoscience if it's communicated in a good way (or even at all).
Why exactly would: "The horizon apparently rising as you climb is a counter-intuitive consequence of the basic trigonometry. See, if you draw a diagram, you see that the angle at which you see the horizon is given by the formula..." be any harder to understand than: "The horizon appears to rise with you as you climb. The simple truth is, if the horizon were caused by the Earth being round, it would fall as you climb. Therefore, the horizon has to be caused by light not following a linear path, but instead following a path that approaches the graph of the function (the Bishop's formula, basically some trigonometric nonsense) as it gets more vertical."?

it's just not practical for everybody to have that level of education on these topics to be able to competently assess the validity of the competing claims.

Well, I got the education needed to evaluate the claims of the Flat-Earthers, and I got in a lot more painful way than it would have been had I been taught those things at school.

Saying they're both usually wrong is deceptive because it fails to account for degree.

Well, Lysenkoism was wrong to a very high degree, at least in the sense that it had very devastating results when it was put in practice.

Lay people rarely create actual theories, but hypotheses that fail to be precise enough to be testable (that is typical of pseudoscience).

Well, there are also a few theories made by actual scientists that are rejected exactly because they are practically unfalsifiable.

[Red]

Do you mean to ask me whether I see that the best way to study some issue is to trust that which some people believe most of the scientists believe? No, I don't see that.

That was not the point.
It's more about humility; there are people who know more than you in most fields, in within those fields, you must know that you don't know enough to make conclusions on the same level as them.

Think of the Monty Hall Problem, for example. Some problems simply come close to fooling all the people (including the scientists who have spent years studying somewhat related stuff, but not exactly that) all the time.

That isn't really a scientific problem, that's more of a statistics and probabilities problem (which I guess can be considered a science in a way), but this problem has never confused mathematicians, since it's a fairly simple problem, though it may not seem that way to the layperson. (you don't even have to be a professional at this; when you get the trick, it isn't really all that mind-boggling).

And this is especially true when there is big business and the government involved. Most of the people think most of the scientists believe eating meat is beneficial to health and that most of the scientists believe animals are not conscious (as is written in the textbooks).

I think we've established why, in your country, the textbooks are not reliable. And your government.

Well, it's a bit hard to define, but let me try. It's a set of explanations about something that can't be directly observed, from which the laws (descriptions of the observable) are supposed to logically follow.

That isn't entirely accurate, but you're on the right track. Some things in scientific theories can be directly observed (such as evolution, both micro and macro if I'm not mistaken), so something being able to be directly observed or not is pretty irrelevant. True, we shouldn't be trusting our senses, but that's not how we formulate scientific theories. If you mean 'directly observed' in that respect, then you are correct in that front.

Wikipedia has a good explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Actually, I can. Remember Lysenkoism? Up until the late 1950s, the Mendelian genetics was not accepted by a significant number of biologists, who instead believed in Lysenkoism (which is now considered pseudoscience). And the government of some countries tried to implement science-based agriculture, taking Lysenkoism to be respectable science. And it had devastating results.

No, that was not considered a scientific theory, and was well known to be pseudoscience, even among the scientists who came out in support of it. It was promulgated by political activists, not scientists (biologists in particular) who knew the consequences that would ensue.

Firstly, this took place in the Soviet Union (so not a global consensus, and not representative of the entire community) under a dogmatic and oppressive government where they basically forced the scientists at gunpoint to discard the accepted theory of genetics in favor of a new one, and some were imprisoned or killed for not obeying orders.

So basically, it was not a scientific theory in any sense of the term, and was never honestly considered one.

Also, we can't pretend that, for example, the Darwin's original theory of evolution was entirely correct. Only its basic tenets were correct. Darwin assumed multiple times that genes control hereditary properties in continuously, rather than discretely.

Darwin wasn't able to figure that part out until Mendel came along. Regardless, Darwin was spot on with his new perspective about evolution. With new knowledge about genetics, this allowed the science of evolution to start to establish itself as the foundation of all modern biology.

Millions? LOL, there certainly aren't even one hundred people more educated than I am in the field of Croatian toponyms.

I assume you're being sarcastic?
I'm referring to the sciences.

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, yes, the science often isn't communicated to laymen in a good way, or even at all. But not letting laymen hear what's not mainstream science isn't a good way of communicating science either.

In the right context, teaching about why pseudoscientific beliefs are wrong is a great way to teach science, maybe even the best way because it's more interesting and appeals to human psychology (drama and conflict).
The problem is when you allow these advocates to blast this to the public without the correct information.

It's like contracting a disease without being properly vaccinated.
And the problem at hand is that it's not practical to vaccinate everybody with scientific knowledge, particularly the needed scientific knowledge in EVERY field they'd need to be protected in.

It may be possible to instead teach people epistemology so they will be more skeptical of non-mainstream claims and understand that they aren't able to evaluate them without a more complete education. But that's basically what I'm saying here: non-experts just aren't reliable, and rarely if ever are capable of doing science today.

Why exactly would: "The horizon apparently rising as you climb is a counter-intuitive consequence of the basic trigonometry. See, if you draw a diagram, you see that the angle at which you see the horizon is given by the formula..." be any harder to understand than: "The horizon appears to rise with you as you climb. The simple truth is, if the horizon were caused by the Earth being round, it would fall as you climb. Therefore, the horizon has to be caused by light not following a linear path, but instead following a path that approaches the graph of the function (the Bishop's formula, basically some trigonometric nonsense) as it gets more vertical."?

I said the underlying idea is typically apparently simpler to people. This is a specific back and forth over a very specific observation, and as I said they are functionally equal in terms of being unintelligible technobabble to the public.

If flat-earth wins in terms of apparent simplicity of the underlying idea, and then they come out the same in being equally impossible for the uneducated to understand the arguments between them, then what's the outcome of that? No correct knowledge.

it's just not practical for everybody to have that level of education on these topics to be able to competently assess the validity of the competing claims.

Well, I got the education needed to evaluate the claims of the Flat-Earthers, and I got in a lot more painful way than it would have been had I been taught those things at school.

I can not school billions of people. You know how long that thread was, and there aren't millions of people with that level of patience or knowledge available to correct every pseudoscience.

Well, there are also a few theories made by actual scientists that are rejected exactly because they are practically unfalsifiable.

Because that's more of a hypothesis, and as well it should be put aside until somebody can come up with a way to falsify it and test it. Remember, a theory is something that is or can be tested.

[teo123]

It's more about humility

What does that word "humility" even mean? I understand that, if you claim you've discovered something new, there is a very high risk that you are wrong. I also understand that the probability you are right increases as you learn more about the field and the related fields, but it only increases slightly in response to a lot of effort (Many, if not most of the, important scientific discoveries were accidental).
When is claiming you've discovered something worth the risk? Almost impossible to tell.

but this problem has never confused mathematicians

Actually, it has, look it up on Wikipedia.

you don't even have to be a professional at this; when you get the trick, it isn't really all that mind-boggling

Even when you think you've "got the trick" about something, there is a high risk of being wrong. For instance, when I thought I've figured out airplanes didn't exist, I thought I understood why most of the people believed airplanes exist, but that I knew better.

I think we've established why, in your country, the textbooks are not reliable. And your government.

So, you are saying I can't trust the textbooks in my country and the government in my country, but that I am somehow justified to trust those same things in the USA? How does that make any sense?

It was promulgated by political activists, not scientists (biologists in particular) who knew the consequences that would ensue.

That certainly played a role, but I don't think that negates my point. The truth is, up until the middle of the 20th century, many biologists didn't accept Mendel's genetics, and instead believed in something like Lysenkoism. And when the government tried to implement science-based agriculture (as was recommended by Karl Marx), it was misled by that.
True, the consequences would be less severe if the government protected free speech.
But, you are not arguing for a government that protects free speech, you are arguing for a government that censors "pseudoscience", right?
Also, the consequences would be even less severe had the government just left agriculture alone.

Darwin wasn't able to figure that part out until Mendel came along.

Darwin was, like most of the biologists of his time, aware of the Mendel's work. Mendel's work was rejected in his time because it relied too much on statistics, which was considered a sign of pseudoscience at that time.

I assume you're being sarcastic?
I'm referring to the sciences.

No, I honestly don't understand what you mean. Are you saying Croatian toponyms can't be studied scientifically?
Science is defined in terms of falsifiable explanations. If I claim that "Issa" and "Iasa" meant "health-giving springs" in Illyrian (as I do), that is an (at least theoretically) falsifiable claim: find a few potentially-Illyrian toponyms in which that element occurs and show they refer to places where there couldn't have plausibly been springs believed to be health-giving, and you have falsified my claim.

And the problem at hand is that it's not practical to vaccinate everybody with scientific knowledge, particularly the needed scientific knowledge in EVERY field they'd need to be protected in.

I don't quite see that. That horizon-rising is pretty much the only convincing argument flat-earthers appear to have, right?
Also, most of the pseudo-linguistics can be refuted by pointing to the fact of the regular historical sound changes. Pseudoscience in linguistics almost always comes either in the form of the phonosematic hypotheses or in the form of pseudoscientific language comparisons. Pseudoscientific language comparisons are obviously contradictory to the regular historical sound changes, and the phonosemantic hypotheses can be refuted by pointing to the fact of the regular historical sound changes and the fact that loan-words between related languages, but which have undergone different historical sound changes, are common.

They are functionally equal in terms of being unintelligible technobabble to the public.

Why do you think that's the case? You once said I was one of the dumbest people you've ever met. If I was able to understand how that horizon-rising-as-you-climb illusion was a consequence of the basic trigonometry, why wouldn't the "general public" also be able to?

[Red]

What does that word "humility" even mean?

A modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness.

I understand that, if you claim you've discovered something new, there is a very high risk that you are wrong. I also understand that the probability you are right increases as you learn more about the field and the related fields, but it only increases slightly in response to a lot of effort.

Correct.

(Many, if not most of the, important scientific discoveries were accidental)

Interesting hypothesis. Care to provide some evidence of that?

When is claiming you've discovered something worth the risk? Almost impossible to tell.

What, so just give up? Are you also telling those PhD students to give up too?
If you aren't some established figure in the scientific community, there isn't much risk when you have your work reviewed and possibly scrutinized. If you're a student though, it's safe to make mistakes (as long as they are fixed), or if you're not too established in the community.
Fellow scientists are there to correct you if you make mistakes.

Plus, you seem pretty keen on saying your alternative interpretations, as if you've discovered something new:
http://flatassembler.000webhostapp.com/toponyms.html

Actually, it has, look it up on Wikipedia.

Well, that was surprising. My mistake, it actually did cause a lot of contention among mathematicians.

Even when you think you've "got the trick" about something, there is a high risk of being wrong. For instance, when I thought I've figured out airplanes didn't exist, I thought I understood why most of the people believed airplanes exist, but that I knew better.

I never said when you've figured out the trick, I was referring to a professional's explanation to the answer.

So, you are saying I can't trust the textbooks in my country and the government in my country, but that I am somehow justified to trust those same things in the USA? How does that make any sense?

You've been over this several times, and I never brought up the USA. There are problems with American textbooks and government (though they are better than their Croatian counterparts).

That certainly played a role, but I don't think that negates my point. The truth is, up until the middle of the 20th century, many biologists didn't accept Mendel's genetics, and instead believed in something like Lysenkoism. And when the government tried to implement science-based agriculture (as was recommended by Karl Marx), it was misled by that.
True, the consequences would be less severe if the government protected free speech.
But, you are not arguing for a government that protects free speech, you are arguing for a government that censors "pseudoscience", right?
Also, the consequences would be even less severe had the government just left agriculture alone.

You completely ignored everything I wrote and insist on citing this irrelevant nonsense and shoving words into my mouth.
Please, go back and read what I wrote, which addresses what you said. First, get an idea of what a scientific theory is, then see my response to you.

Why are you bringing up free speech? The Soviet Union had little of such a thing, and Stalin (who supported the campaign) was always quick to oppress. I assume you just want to get your anarchist/libertarian foot in. You are right though; I do support censoring of pseudoscience by the government, since the harm done otherwise is much too immense.

Darwin was, like most of the biologists of his time, aware of the Mendel's work.

He probably wasn't.
https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/ ... 87/1598792

Mendel's work was rejected in his time because it relied too much on statistics, which was considered a sign of pseudoscience at that time.

This is irrelevant. What point are you trying to make?

No, I honestly don't understand what you mean. Are you saying Croatian toponyms can't be studied scientifically?

If it's a scientific field with very few people with expertise in it, it probably is not very reliable science, since there is less peer-review, and possible biases. Not to mention it seems to be a soft science.

Science is defined in terms of falsifiable explanations. If I claim that "Issa" and "Iasa" meant "health-giving springs" in Illyrian (as I do), that is an (at least theoretically) falsifiable claim: find a few potentially-Illyrian toponyms in which that element occurs and show they refer to places where there couldn't have plausibly been springs believed to be health-giving, and you have falsified my claim.

I probably should have said that I was more referring to the natural sciences.

[teo123]

A modest or low view of one's own importance

So, what would my "importance" be? Do you think that, for instance, Donald Trump is more likely to be right about some scientific issue just because he is considered more important by some people?

Interesting hypothesis. Care to provide some evidence of that?

Look into the research about the incubation period in psychology. Basically, both the experimental data and the anecdotal evidence from the scientists who discovered something important point to the fact that, beyond a certain degree, actively searching for a solution to some problem psychologically prevents us from finding it. And the anecdotal evidence is that many, if not most of the, scientists who solved some unsolved problem in science weren't the scientists who were actively looking for the solution to it.

What, so just give up? Are you also telling those PhD students to give up too?

Well, again, it's hard to tell.
I am saying that if you claim you've discovered something new, there is a high risk that you are wrong. If you are wrong, you will lose a lot of time and possibly some reputation (the value of which is hard to determine). If you are right (or at least more scientifically right than the currently accepted hypotheses are), you will also lose a lot of time, but you will gain a lot of reputation. If you think you are possibly close to discovering (and, of course, proving) something new, but you shut up about it, you save yourself a significant amount of time (hopefully spent well), but you lose a chance to improve the current scientific knowledge and gain yourself reputation.
Perhaps the best thing I can do is make a web-page about my supposed discoveries and publish a few papers in some peer-reviewed journals (I've published three of them, all of them having at least partly to do with my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms, and I don't think I'll publish more of them, because it takes a lot of effort to write them), and hope some expert takes my ideas seriously. That way I've not spent way too much time on that theory, but there is still a chance of me ending up being right.

Well, that was surprising. My mistake, it actually did cause a lot of contention among mathematicians.

Well, it shouldn't have been surprising to you.

I never said when you've figured out the trick, I was referring to a professional's explanation to the answer.

Well, it kind of feels the same, doesn't it?
Also, that's obviously not how logic works. Statements are logically consistent or not regardless of who makes them. Using the knowledge about who makes the claim to determine whether it is true is always logically fallacious. Logic must not be based on empiricism. Appealing to authority can be at best classified as a form of inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning is itself not logically correct. And before you start with that "The science itself is based on inductive reasoning.", it's not. The science is based on falsifiability, not on inductive reasoning.

(though they are better than their Croatian counterparts)

The real knowledge is one that's independent of the experience. Can it be known that the American government is better than the Croatian government in a way that's independent of the experience? No? Then, it can't really be known.

You completely ignored everything I wrote and insist on citing this irrelevant nonsense and shoving words into my mouth.

How is that irrelevant nonsense? The truth is, the Mendelian genetics wasn't accepted by most of the biologists until the early 20th century. And, some biologists didn't accept it even until as late as the middle of the 20th century. And Stalin and Mao were misled by that.
You are trying to deny that because it doesn't fit your ridiculous idea that you can never end up being wrong because you are trying to figure out what is the mainstream science.

I assume you just want to get your anarchist/libertarian foot in.

Well, not so much. I've tried to bring it up again there, but nobody responded:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4322

I do support censoring of pseudoscience by the government

Finally that you admit that!
So, why do you think a government is able to accurately determine what is science and what is pseudoscience? Wouldn't they just arbitrarily censor people instead? You realize that Darwinism was considered to be pseudoscience both under Stalinism and under Nazism?

He probably wasn't.

OK, let's say that the source you cite is more reliable than my textbook is about whether Darwin was aware of the Mendel's work. So what? You can discount Darwin as not being aware of his work, you cannot discount the countless scientists from his time who rejected the Mendel's work because it supposedly didn't follow the then-accepted scientific methods.

If it's a scientific field with very few people with expertise in it, it probably is not very reliable science, since there is less peer-review, and possible biases. Not to mention it seems to be a soft science.

And what would it take you to believe somebody you know has discovered something new? Nothing would convince you, as far as I see.
If somebody claims they have discovered something new about physics, they are wrong because most of the physicists (the vast of which, of course, don't work on anything related to the field, and haven't even heard of their theory) don't agree with them.
If somebody claims to have discovered something new in an understudied field such as the Croatian toponyms (where the chance of actually discovering something new is by orders of magnitude greater), they is wrong because they is making a statement about something not many people have studied, even if a significant proportion of the people who have studied it agrees with them.
Sounds like a perfect double standard to me.
What do you even mean by "soft science"? Speakers of languages unconsciously follow many laws that are, for all practical purposes, without exceptions. See the table which I used to explain why I think most of the proposed Latin etymologies of the Croatian toponyms are to be rejected, just to get a general idea.

[Red]

You're honestly doing my work for me in this post.

So, what would my "importance" be? Do you think that, for instance, Donald Trump is more likely to be right about some scientific issue just because he is considered more important by some people?

I'm aware that there's a bit of a language barrier here, but come on teo, you've shown yourself to be more competent at English than... this.

This is probably the most inane, daft, and asinine response I've ever seen to one of my arguments, and you honestly should be ashamed of yourself. I am legitimately stunned by the level of stupidity in this comment.

It's pretty obvious by the context that we are not referring to importance in the power or political sense, rather, importance in the ability and knowledge sense. In other words, I am referring to your importance in relation to scientific ability within the community.

Do some basic deductive reasoning man. If you can't do that, then pick up an English Dictionary and find the relevant definitions.

Let's look at a synonym of humility; modesty.

the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one's abilities.

Can you see what I'm trying to get at now?

Look into the research about the incubation period in psychology. Basically, both the experimental data and the anecdotal evidence from the scientists who discovered something important point to the fact that, beyond a certain degree, actively searching for a solution to some problem psychologically prevents us from finding it. And the anecdotal evidence is that many, if not most of the, scientists who solved some unsolved problem in science weren't the scientists who were actively looking for the solution to it.

This barely proves your point. You have to find examples of major discoveries that were accidental (since you pointed those out specifically), not cite anecdotes of scientists with obscure discoveries, since you're creating a false equivalence and a faulty generalization.

Have there been things that were accidentally discovered? Definitely (Penicillin is the most obvious example). But the majority of major scientific discoveries? I'm not sure about that. And don't cite the whole 'Relativity came to Einstein in a dream,' because that's a blatant myth. I'm not denying what you're saying necessarily, but it is overall pretty far fetched.

I am saying that if you claim you've discovered something new, there is a high risk that you are wrong.

If it's wrong, then you didn't really discover anything new, did you?

If you are wrong, you will lose a lot of time and possibly some reputation (the value of which is hard to determine). If you are right (or at least more scientifically right than the currently accepted hypotheses are), you will also lose a lot of time, but you will gain a lot of reputation. If you think you are possibly close to discovering (and, of course, proving) something new, but you shut up about it, you save yourself a significant amount of time (hopefully spent well), but you lose a chance to improve the current scientific knowledge and gain yourself reputation.

I don't understand what your point is.

You should still make an attempt to discover something new, even if you don't end up finding anything, since it's possible that someone else will come along, look at your progress, build upon it, and actually do find the answer. Looking at it as a waste of time is a poor attitude, and a self fulfilling prophecy.

Well, it shouldn't have been surprising to you.

Why not?

Well, it kind of feels the same, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.

Also, that's obviously not how logic works. Statements are logically consistent or not regardless of who makes them. Using the knowledge about who makes the claim to determine whether it is true is always logically fallacious. Logic must not be based on empiricism. Appealing to authority can be at best classified as a form of inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning is itself not logically correct. And before you start with that "The science itself is based on inductive reasoning.", it's not. The science is based on falsifiability, not on inductive reasoning.

So you haven't learned anything from this experience?

You're putting words into my mouth, and completely forgetting about humility and modesty.

The real knowledge is one that's independent of the experience.

What does that even mean? Whose experience?
Are you saying that true knowledge can't be experienced? Science is about observing things, which is a way of experiencing things. If you mean it in that sense, then yeah, you're wrong.

Can it be known that the American government is better than the Croatian government in a way that's independent of the experience? No? Then, it can't really be known.

Clarify what you mean.

How is that irrelevant nonsense? The truth is, the Mendelian genetics wasn't accepted by most of the biologists until the early 20th century. And, some biologists didn't accept it even until as late as the middle of the 20th century. And Stalin and Mao were misled by that.

It's completely irrelevant to the original point you were making. Have you forgotten what that was already?

I said there haven't been any scientific theories disproven in the past 100 or so years, you brought up Lysenkoism and how most biologists accepted it, I explained how it was not actually accepted by biologists who were forced to accept it at gunpoint, and how it was never considered a scientific theory by the community abroad. You did not address my point or my arguments at all. Go do that now.

You are trying to deny that because it doesn't fit your ridiculous idea that you can never end up being wrong because you are trying to figure out what is the mainstream science.

Don't patronize me, you're the one who's pathetic.

Finally that you admit that!

It's as if that was your goal this entire time. I've said that I support government censorship of pseudoscience in the past. I don't think I said so on this forum, but in real life and on Discord, I've made it vocal. What, do you think this is my darkest secret?

So, why do you think a government is able to accurately determine what is science and what is pseudoscience? Wouldn't they just arbitrarily censor people instead? You realize that Darwinism was considered to be pseudoscience both under Stalinism and under Nazism?

ANOTHER false equivalency. The regimes of Stalin and Hitler had different government systems than we do, you know.

I wouldn't rely on the government to decide what is pseudoscience, I'd rely on the scientific consensus to influence the government decisions accordingly. Of course, you wouldn't understand that even after it is explained to you, but, here it goes.

Government, I agree, is often incompetent. We need science to be involved in political and social affairs so we can have objective measures to do the most amount of good. Unfortunately, even in America, with the Republican party being filled with Creationists that keep managing to get voted in, scientific research and involvement in politics and social issues is extremely limited. Even our current administration (other than Trump, I'm like 99% sure he's an atheist, but he'd never say thay out loud, despite his big mouth) denies scientific fact like climate change and even evolution, and believe in the Genesis account and the Flood Fable (which is believed to be truth in your textbooks). Science in politics and social issues leads to increased scientific education and literacy, which would mean we could lessen the need censor pseudoscience that has made its way into mainstream thought.

How many children have died from anti-vaxxers? How many people will die due to climate change (and nuclear energy) denial? How many people will be discriminated against for their race or sexuality? If government shuts these people up, these ideas will eventually die out.

Read this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3760&p=37200

Either increase scientific literacy or censor pseudoscience. Either one is fine with me (especially combined), but the latter is probably more effective at getting rid of pseudoscience overall.

OK, let's say that the source you cite is more reliable than my textbook is about whether Darwin was aware of the Mendel's work.

Let's be honest, it probably is.

So what? You can discount Darwin as not being aware of his work, you cannot discount the countless scientists from his time who rejected the Mendel's work because it supposedly didn't follow the then-accepted scientific methods.

I'm not sure as to the validity of this, but so what? What point are you trying to prove? I already said how you were citing irrelevant nonsense earlier.

Plus, it doesn't really matter what people 150 years ago thought about Mendelian Genetics. Now that more advances have been made in Biology, which in and of itself has grown as a discipline, along with improved methods and resources (Mendel was not operating with modern techniques or equipment), it's easier to distinguish real biology from bullshit biology, and now, Mendel is celebrated as the father of Genetics and one of the greatest Biologists of all time.

Someone like Galileo was persecuted by the church (which at the time was pretty much the state) and some people such as Michael Servetus was burnt at the stake by John Calvin, along with his scientific works that would have revolutionized anatomy. These are examples of actual science being censored, no doubt retarding progress. Of course, this was in a time of religious domination without a speration of church and state and where excessive punishments were prevelant.

And what would it take you to believe somebody you know has discovered something new? Nothing would convince you, as far as I see.

You're projecting. No buddy, that's you. You're the one who thinks that most people haven't actually discovered something new when they say they have.

What would convince me is evidence. I'm not sure if I can say the same thing about you.

I don't know much about the science itself, and I, as a layman, know that I know nothing about science. I suggest you gain some humility and do the same. It's our responsibility as members of the laity to defer to people who know more than us.

If somebody claims they have discovered something new about physics, they are wrong because most of the physicists (the vast of which, of course, don't work on anything related to the field, and haven't even heard of their theory) don't agree with them.

No, that's not remotely how it works. It isn't automatically labeled correct or incorrect by fellow scientists, it is either labeled as correct or incorrect when rigorously peer reviewed. Could it be wrong when considered true and vice versa? Absolutely. But with modern methodology, this is very, very unlikely to happen, especially in the hard sciences.

If somebody claims to have discovered something new in an understudied field such as the Croatian toponyms (where the chance of actually discovering something new is by orders of magnitude greater), they is wrong because they is making a statement about something not many people have studied, even if a significant proportion of the people who have studied it agrees with them.

I never said that they were automatically wrong. Stop strawmanning.
I am saying that the science might not be very reliable for the reasons I outlined.

Sounds like a perfect double standard to me.

I'm not sure if you know what that is.

What do you even mean by "soft science"? Speakers of languages unconsciously follow many laws that are, for all practical purposes, without exceptions. See the table which I used to explain why I think most of the proposed Latin etymologies of the Croatian toponyms are to be rejected, just to get a general idea.

You really should go back in this thread and read the debate I had with Z about this.

You're amusing me Mr. teo, but I don't have time for nonsense debates like this with you. I honestly thought you learned a thing or two after the flat earth debacle, but in terms of character, you're pretty much the same.

Put up or shut up.

@brimstoneSalad Am I getting into a debate like the one you did with teo a few years ago? Should I quit while I'm ahead?

[teo123]

I'll not try to respond to all you wrote, just a portion of it. Even that takes too much of my time.

importance in the ability and knowledge sense

I don't think I've heard anyone use the word "importance" that way.

Can you see what I'm trying to get at now?

I think I do. So, you are basically trying to deny that appeal to authority is a fallacy, right? That because I've been wrong in the past, that I should not think of myself as being able to think logically.
Well, guess what, that's not how logic works. Logic must not be based on empiricism.

You have to find examples of major discoveries that were accidental

I am not really that much into history of science, but here are a few examples. Oersted discovered the fact that electricity causes magnetic fields (which is perhaps one of the most important discoveries in physics) accidentally. And Newton himself often told the story of him coming to the idea of the theory of gravity when apple fell on his foot.

You should still make an attempt to discover something new, even if you don't end up finding anything, since it's possible that someone else will come along, look at your progress, build upon it, and actually do find the answer.

Yes, that's approximately what I was saying.

Why not?

Because you shouldn't ascribe superpowers to the scientists.

Science is about observing things, which is a way of experiencing things. If you mean it in that sense, then yeah, you're wrong.

Why? All science being wrong is unlikely, yes, but it's conceivable.

Clarify what you mean.

My point is that I can't determine how corrupt some government is. In order to do that, I need to trust some other source of knowledge, which may, as far as I know, also be just as unreliable as the government is.

it was never considered a scientific theory by the community abroad

It was, but not under the name Lysenkoism, but under the name of Lamarckism.

The regimes of Stalin and Hitler had different government systems than we do, you know.

OK, I get it, there are people who say "Stalin just didn't do Communism the right way. If I were in his shoes, I would have done it better.", and there are people, including you, who say "Stalin and Hitler just didn't do censorship the right way. If I were in their shoes, I would have done it better.".

Read this thread:

I don't have the time to watch the hour-and-a-half long debate between people I've never heard of that was discussed in that thread.

What point are you trying to prove?

That what's considered to abide the scientific method changes over time.

it's easier to distinguish real biology from bullshit biology

I doubt it. It's often said that, had you invented penicillin these days, it wouldn't pass the FDA's safety tests because it is poisonous to hamsters and some other rodents they do animal testing on.

I don't know much about the science itself, and I, as a layman, know that I know nothing about science.

So, you know absolutely nothing about the field of the Croatian toponyms, yet you dare to say it's somehow a "soft science"? You realize how absurd that is, right?

[Red]

It's hard to keep correcting you when almost everything you say is filled with so much wrong.

I don't think I've heard anyone use the word "importance" that way.

Deductive reasoning. Critical thought. Use them.
Look at the context, and you'll see how it'd be applicable to our conversation.

I think I do. So, you are basically trying to deny that appeal to authority is a fallacy, right? That because I've been wrong in the past, that I should not think of myself as being able to think logically.
Well, guess what, that's not how logic works. Logic must not be based on empiricism.

You've been over this like 50 times.
This is not an 'appeal to authority,' it's only a fallacy when that authority is unqualified. How can you know who is more qualified? Simple. Look at their credentials. See what they majored in and what level they majored it at (bachelor's, master's, etc). Now I'm sure you're gonna ask "but but but how do I know who to trust????"

Find whoever is supporting the mainstream scientific consensus, since that is least prone to errors and bias. Of course, I'm not denying that consensus can have errors, but as I've said in my previous post, with modern techniques and equipment, this almost never happens, so if you advocate scientific consensus, you'll almost always have a 90% chance of being right.

I am not really that much into history of science, but here are a few examples.

If you don't know the history of science and only know a few examples, how can you make such a bold claim as "many, if not most of the important discoveries were by accident (or something along those lines)."? You're basically admitting you were pulling this statement out of your ass, with weak evidence to point to it.

Oersted discovered the fact that electricity causes magnetic fields (which is perhaps one of the most important discoveries in physics) accidentally.

Oersted didn't discover this just by a random whim. He noticed a phenomenon and decided to try finding the answer.

Same with this example:

And Newton himself often told the story of him coming to the idea of the theory of gravity when apple fell on his foot.

What, do you think that when the apple fell on Newton's foot he all of a sudden conceived of calculus?

You have to define what you mean by 'accident.' Do you mean that the discoveries themselves were accidental, or what sparked interest in their discovery were accidental? I'm assuming you mean the latter with these examples you gave.

Again, you might be right, but you have to provide evidence of this claim.

Yes, that's approximately what I was saying.

No it was not, it was precisely the opposite.

Because you shouldn't ascribe superpowers to the scientists.

I don't. I recognize scientists as intelligent but still fallible human beings. That's why we have communities of them to check on their biases when they occur.

Why? All science being wrong is unlikely, yes, but it's conceivable.

Wrong.
Many things in science are as true as 2 + 2 = 4. It may not seem that way to the laity, but when it's understood after rigorous study, it becomes an 'Oh, that makes sense' moment.

What, are you going to advocate for solipsism now?

My point is that I can't determine how corrupt some government is. In order to do that, I need to trust some other source of knowledge, which may, as far as I know, also be just as unreliable as the government is.

Yeah, because it's a social science which is less reliable than natural sciences. But you don't have to be an expert in government to see corruption when it happens. Any moron can see how leaders and rulers throughout history let power go to their heads.

It was, but not under the name Lysenkoism, but under the name of Lamarckism.

Then why did you refer to it as Lysenkoism? That would have made for a stronger case for your argument.

Even then, you're still not entirely right. Lamarckism was met with criticism even in the 1860s, a few years after Darwin published his masterwork 'On the Origin of Species,' and while it definitely was more widely believed among biologists back in the day, this scientific idea was disproved when Mendel's work started becoming appreciated in the early 1900's. So, you're still basically wrong.

Oh yeah, and Lysenkoism is not Lamarckism, it's more of a variation of it. The way you're putting it is misleading.

OK, I get it, there are people who say "Stalin just didn't do Communism the right way. If I were in his shoes, I would have done it better.", and there are people, including you, who say "Stalin and Hitler just didn't do censorship the right way. If I were in their shoes, I would have done it better.".

I am not saying that. At all.

I don't have the time to watch the hour-and-a-half long debate between people I've never heard of that was discussed in that thread.

Stop being lazy, I said read the thread, not watch the video. Your lack of ability to follow basic instructions baffles me.
But, if the video was about freedom of speech in relation to pseudoscience, I'm pretty sure you'd be too lazy to watch that too.

That what's considered to abide the scientific method changes over time.

It doesn't. The methods and techniques used to conduct it might change, but the method itself remains stagnant.

I doubt it. It's often said that, had you invented penicillin these days, it wouldn't pass the FDA's safety tests because it is poisonous to hamsters and some other rodents they do animal testing on.

Bullshit. Source?

Even if this is true, you're ignoring my point (again). Why the fuck are you bringing up the FDA when we're talking about scientific consensus regarding biology?

So, you know absolutely nothing about the field of the Croatian toponyms, yet you dare to say it's somehow a "soft science"? You realize how absurd that is, right?

I told you to go back and read this thread and read the debate I had with Z.

You didn't even bother to do that, did you? If you keep up this habit of laziness and incompotence, I'll ask to be getting the ban hammer out.

[teo123]

It's hard to keep correcting you when almost everything you say is filled with so much wrong.

Or, equivalently, you could be very wrong and refuse to trust me because my ideas seem alien to you.

it's only a fallacy when that authority is unqualified

Er, no, it's always a fallacy. A logical fallacy is whenever there is a plausible situation in which the premisses are true but the conclusion is false. Looking for a qualified authority decreases your chances of being wrong (assuming you are looking for the right credentials, which is often not trivial, as many people, for example, think doctors are qualified to talk about nutrition, which they aren't), but that doesn't make it not a fallacy.

Oersted didn't discover this just by a random whim. He noticed a phenomenon and decided to try finding the answer.

And what's the difference?

What, do you think that when the apple fell on Newton's foot he all of a sudden conceived of calculus?

Calculus goes way back to the Ancient Greece.

No it was not, it was precisely the opposite.

Do we agree that there is a difference between "The risk is high and hard to estimate." and "It's certainly not worth the risk."?

Many things in science are as true as 2 + 2 = 4.

Some things are. Most things aren't. Science doesn't make things purely mathematical, it makes them more abstract. If science were purely mathematical, my math showing airplanes contradicted the Torricelli's law would have been absolute proof airplanes didn't exist.

What, are you going to advocate for solipsism now?

Well, yes. What's wrong with that?

But you don't have to be an expert in government to see corruption when it happens.

How exactly? For all I know, it seems that the Croatian politicians are doing their best to work for the interests of people in a system that's deeply flawed (they don't have even remotely enough time to thoroughly research the effects of the laws they are passing).

this scientific idea was disproved when Mendel's work started becoming appreciated in the early 1900's.

But not every biologist since the early 1900's believed in Mendelian genetics. Lysenko was a qualified biologist, he didn't believe that and he was quite vocal about that. So, Stalin and Mao were misled by that, thinking it was the majority of biologists who rejected Mendelian genetics.
For crying out loud, Lamarckism/Lysenkoism is not the only example of people being misled into thinking most scientists believe something they don't. How many people think most psychologists believe polygraph is reliable, when almost no qualified psychologist (but the most vocal ones) believes that? How many people think most of the psychologists admire the Freud's psychoanalysis, when most psychologists (but the most vocal ones) believe it to be pseudoscience?

I am not saying that. At all.

Then what are you saying? I guarantee you, having studied English for 12 years, that's how most English speakers would have understood you. Also, why do you think pseudosciences would disappear if they are being censored? For all we know, they might end up being even more widespread because of that. If saying "Marihuana can cure lung cancer" wasn't illegal to say, don't you think people would end up hearing both sides of the story and that fewer people would believe that nonsense? And how come Christianity survived hundreds of years of censorship in the Roman Empire?
Let me guess, they just didn't do censorship the right way, you know how to do it better.

But, if the video was about freedom of speech in relation to pseudoscience, I'm pretty sure you'd be too lazy to watch that too.

So, what's that video about? What is it that the thread actually end up being about? I thought it was about censorship of pseudoscience.

Bullshit. Source?

OK, now, I though this was something everyone on a forum called Philosophical Vegan would be familiar with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotatio ... Fx3vHOkHRE

Why the fuck are you bringing up the FDA when we're talking about scientific consensus regarding biology?

What exactly would it take to change your mind?

You didn't even bother to do that, did you?

No, why would I? If there was something useful there, you could have summarized it in a few sentences. You are doing what's called homework fallacy. You are doing the same error I was doing in the Flat Earth thread when I asked you to read the thread in which I supposedly explained my arguments for believing the Earth is flat.
You likely have a wrong conception of what is social science, thinking that it's always something about politics. Social sciences rarely have anything to do with politics. Ones that have something to do with politics are indeed often unreliable (politics corrupts everything). But what does the field of the Croatian toponyms have to do with politics? Very little, if anything.