Which Sciences Are the Most Useful?

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

LOL. You must have been a stellar scholar.

You guys are amusing....but this is like a homeless man telling someone he is broke. You guys are clearly not well educated yet drip with arrogance. Of course most of you are young and haven't had a chance to get a quality education so hopefully you folks will immature intellectually. Though arrogance and dogmatism tend to be brick walls to education....hard for professors to penetrate.

Actually, Jebus studied US History at college level. He is also probably significantly older than you.

[brimstoneSalad]

I already explained this, and it just demonstrates your general ignorance of the hard sciences that you do not understand it.

You didn't explain anything, you just claimed basically that its "different now". But there is no reason to believe that and the sciences aren't isolated to just the "hard sciences".

The low hanging fruit in physics, chemistry, etc. have largely been picked.

This explains it pretty well when it comes to most fields: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

Given the state of the field of psychology, it would not be as surprising if a novice made some discovery. Somebody with basic university level education in sciences (even outside psychology) might be able to set up a good experiment.

Even then, though, strong skepticism should be called for, and it's implausible for anybody without hard science education to manage it.

Its impossible to know what current works will unfold into important scientific advancements in the future.

Certain knowledge may not be possible, but that's not what's at issue. It's a matter of overwhelming probability. Somebody who doesn't understand the existing state of knowledge is extremely unlikely to be able to contribute anything of value to a field.

Also a large amount of "mainstream work" in the sciences ends up being a waste of time as well.

Discovering a dead end where there was once a potentially viable/competitive path forward isn't a waste of time, it redirects resources elsewhere.

But discovering something like "ghosts aren't real" would be a waste of time, because nobody in the sciences is taking that seriously as an explanation for anything.

You don't seem to understand anything about how scientific advancement works. Most progress is made by ruling out the plausible alternatives.

Naturally you're just trying to attack me again rather than address the topic. Of course I care about children that die of preventable diseases ,etc but I don't believe denying intellectual freedoms are a good way to address those issues.

We're not even talking about government intervention. We're talking about things that anti-vaxx having negative value.
Arguing against government intervention against speech is different from arguing that these kinds of speech are harmful (and yet should be allowed by the government because government imposition is a slippery slope).

Denying intellectual freedoms rather quickly leans to dogma which can have far more dire consequences.

Oh no, people might believe doctors without question when they say to get vaccinated!
The only way that has a reasonable chance of a bad effect is if there is a CONSPIRACY among doctors to do evil and harm people as anti-vaxxers believe (or that doctors are less educated than the average anti-vaxxer).

A certainty of killing hundreds or thousands of children from preventable illness, vs. an effectively mathematically impossible conspiracy of evil doctors set on doing us harm (or the equally implausible notion that anti-vaxxers just understand vaccines and doctors are all incredibly stupid).

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684

Again, your objection devolves into promoting conspiracy theories.

Either you don't really care much about these children dying, or you're every bit as insane as a Flat Earther and believe in a grand conspiracy that's out to get us.

[Lay Vegan]

You guys are amusing....but this is like a homeless man telling someone he is broke. You guys are clearly not well educated yet drip with arrogance. Of course most of you are young and haven't had a chance to get a quality education so hopefully you folks will immature intellectually.

Who said anything about what level of education members of this community have? It would be futile to flaunt our degrees anyway, since providing evidence of those necessarily means doxxing ourselves.

Arguments can be both valid and sound irrespective of one’s educational status. For example, you don’t have to have a fancy degree in psychology to know what operant conditioning is, and that plants to not respond to this stimulus. Sure, the higher the level of education one has (from high school degree, to an undergrad university degree to a graduate degree) the higher the likelihood that you know what you’re talking about, but it wouldn’t really matter as long as your claims lie within the larger consensus of trained professionals. Something that this community values greatly.

Though arrogance and dogmatism tend to be brick walls to education....hard for professors to penetrate.

Some of the arguments you’ve brought up would be laughed out of the building by philosophy professors. You just have a warped sense of what you think “dogma” is. You think that relying on professional consensus is a form of “dogmatic” majoritarian rule when in reality consensus is established the weight of consistent evidence. You're like one of those libertarians who give equal weight and credence to all ideas (even ones that are provably false and harmful) and when someone opts to either correct them or stop their proliferation you accuse them of being "anti-intellectual."

After all, anti-vax claims are just as valid as the scientific consensus on vaccinations, right?

[Red]

I've taken plenty of courses in the sciences

LOL. You must have been a stellar scholar.

Come on Jebus, you can contribute more than that.

[carnap]

The low hanging fruit in physics, chemistry, etc. have largely been picked.

Not sure why you think outsiders can only address "low hanging fruit". Einstein revolutionized physics while developing thought-experiments when working in a patent office.

Revolutions in science tend to come outside of the "mainstream" because humans are biased. Scientists are people and they are motivated by money, power, etc like everyone else. Science doesn't work because scientists are supremely rational, it works because overtime our biases get washed out.

Even then, though, strong skepticism should be called for, and it's implausible for anybody without hard science education to manage it.

Your changing the topic, my comment wasn't about education about people outside the mainstream. Earlier you spoke of "lay people" but that term is vague with respect to education and today mostly implies that someone lacks credentials or is outside of the profession.

Discovering a dead end where there was once a potentially viable/competitive path forward isn't a waste of time, it redirects resources elsewhere.

The path was a waste of resources but that is just one of many examples. You seem to have this ideal in your head of how science should work but how science works in the real world is another story. Our academic system pushes people to publish research the minute you get into graduate school and the pressure just increases after graduation. There are many scientific journals of questionable value and even good journals publish crap at times.

You don't seem to understand anything about how scientific advancement works. Most progress is made by ruling out the plausible alternatives.

Based on what? I cannot think of a single revolutionary idea in science that came from "ruling out the plausible alternatives".
Scientific practice is far more messy than what you're implying.

We're not even talking about government intervention. We're talking about things that anti-vaxx having negative value.

Except politics was brought into the discussion and that is what I was discussing. Ideas that are baseless or wrong can have a variety of harmful impacts on society but there is no easy way to make such ideas go away. I'd argue that the best defense against such ideas is free-speech and intellectual freedoms because these allow people to address bad ideas without consequence.

Oh no, people might believe doctors without question when they say to get vaccinated!

Not sure why you think people believing things "without question" would be a good thing.

Again, your objection devolves into promoting conspiracy theories.

Funny....because you're the only one discussing conspiracy theories here. I haven't mentioned any.

And to say it again, of course I care about children dying. You suggesting I don't is just an attempt to poison the well. I just don't think trying to censor ideas is a good way to address baseless or erroneous ideas. In the case of conspiracy theories, censoring actually feeds into the conspiracy and often just hardens the beliefs of people.

[carnap]

Actually, Jebus studied US History at college level. He is also probably significantly older than you.

No idea but age matters only up to a point, a number of people here haven't even started college. As far as brain development goes you're pretty much done by your mid 20's. Though I'm not sure what relevance US History would have on this forum. But you're right in a sense, my comment wasn't well stated. What I meant to say is they are not well educated in the subjects being discussed.

[carnap]

Who said anything about what level of education members of this community have? It would be futile to flaunt our degrees anyway, since providing evidence of those necessarily means doxxing ourselves.

I believe I just did and the people that lack education know who they are and the point of my comment is that they should gain some humility. If not they risk not only remaining ignorant....but being miserable. Its a public service annoucement.

Arguments can be both valid and sound irrespective of one’s educational status.

Oh yes...the arguments but one's understanding of the argument hinges entirely on their knowledge base.

Some of the arguments you’ve brought up would be laughed out of the building by philosophy professors. You just have a warped sense of what you think “dogma” is.

You mean that is your belief.......the belief of a person that has spent zero time in those buildings. How many philosophers do you think are vegan or anything close to vegan?

You think that relying on professional consensus is a form of “dogmatic” majoritarian rule when in reality consensus is established the weight of consistent evidence.

No, that is just you distorting what I've said. Instead I disagreed that what was being cited represented a scientific consensus and I argued that referring to the position of a group while systematically avoiding discussing the research represents an appeal to authority when the claims being made are specifically about the lack of research.

Another issue here is that "scientific consensus" is a vague and hard to determine and the idea that one shouldn't disagree with the "scientific consensus" is inherently anti-scientific. Even on topics where some effort has been made to determine the "scientific consensus" (e.g., climate change) you still have some scientists on the fringe.

Also I intentionally shifted to discussing "scientific" rather than "professional" consensus because the latter is far less meaningful.

[Lay Vegan]

I believe I just did and the people that lack education know who they are and the point of my comment is that they should gain some humility. If not they risk not only remaining ignorant....but being miserable. Its a public service annoucement.

You should practice what you preach, and quit challenging the consensus of trained professionals who have been properly trained to draw from hard science. Your flippant dismissal of legitimate dietetic organization position papers (based on hard data) is probably the most arrogant behavior on this forum. You’re really fucking pathetic.

Oh yes...the arguments but one's understanding of the argument hinges entirely on their knowledge base.

The ability to understand an argument as valid and sound isn’t contingent one’s educational status. Neither is the ability to make both valid and sound arguments. If one doesn’t have an extensive educational background in whatever topic they’re discussing, or really isn’t capable of understanding their opponents arguments, then the rational thing to do would be to defer to the experts.

How many philosophers do you think are vegan or anything close to vegan?

Many philosophers may or may not be vegan due to practical concerns, but that’s really besides the point. Animal ethics has historically been, and continues to be an important subject of philosophical inquiry. There has been enormous progress in all aspects of moral philosophy, and most people (including professional philosophers) subscribe to some form of animal ethics.

Instead I disagreed that what was being cited represented a scientific consensus and I argued that referring to the position of a group while systematically avoiding discussing the research represents an appeal to authority when the claims being made are specifically about the lack of research.

Another issue here is that "scientific consensus" is a vague and hard to determine and the idea that one shouldn't disagree with the "scientific consensus" is inherently anti-scientific. Even on topics where some effort has been made to determine the "scientific consensus" (e.g., climate change) you still have some scientists on the fringe.

The more you discuss this clearer your ignorance becomes. Consensus in science isn’t necessarily unanimity, nor is it reached by an arbitrary collective “vote” of scientists. Rather it’s the general agreement of scientists based on the weight of empirical evidence. There will always be outliers who contradict mainstream scientific thought, and if the evidence appears to be both valid and consistent, it will eventually become the new consensus (hence the self-correcting nature of science). The fact that there exists a handful of nutty climate science deniers does not negate the fact that climate change is not disputed by the larger scientific community. The overwhelming evidence shows that anthropogenic climate change is real, that there is a disturbing warming of the climactic system, and that it is primarily caused by humans releasing greenhouses gases into the atmosphere faster than they can be broken down the Earth’s geological processes. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

A dismissal of scientific consensus is an assertion that either you have access to knowledge that the vast majority experts aren't privy to, or that they are lying (conspiracy).

Also, you don’t understand what “appeal to authority” is. Please read this exchange @Red had with another moron in this thread.

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.

It's "appeal to unqualified authority" and is used in a cogent form when the “source” cited in the argument is actually a reliable authority on the given topic. Deferring to scientific experts who understand and study the research for a living is actually the rational thing to do. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

At this point, it’s rather insulting to keep stringing me along with your daft comments.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Actually, Jebus studied US History at college level. He is also probably significantly older than you.

No idea but age matters only up to a point, a number of people here haven't even started college. As far as brain development goes you're pretty much done by your mid 20's. Though I'm not sure what relevance US History would have on this forum. But you're right in a sense, my comment wasn't well stated. What I meant to say is they are not well educated in the subjects being discussed.

Have you started college, and are you well educated in the subjects being discussed?

[brimstoneSalad]

The low hanging fruit in physics, chemistry, etc. have largely been picked.

Not sure why you think outsiders can only address "low hanging fruit". Einstein revolutionized physics while developing thought-experiments when working in a patent office.

You probably think he failed math too.

He happened to be working in a patent office, but his formal education provided him the background he needed. He already had a teaching diploma, he started work in a patent office because he couldn't find a teaching position.

We wasn't an "outsider" as you suggest. He was an academic who was currently out of work in academics. Big difference.

Also, he wasn't just some average patent clerk. He evaluated the most sophisticated technological patents of the time.

Scientists are people and they are motivated by money, power, etc like everyone else.

More conspiratorial nonsense, it seems. You have a very twisted outlook on human nature.
Interestingly you seem to believe yourself immune.

Scientists are not a hive mind. A formally educated person can challenge that knowledge, but you need that formal education to do it.

Earlier you spoke of "lay people" but that term is vague with respect to education and today mostly implies that someone lacks credentials or is outside of the profession.

Education is a credential. That was my concern.
If somebody has a PhD in physics and is working in a car wash, I'd still take seriously any research that person did. Not so much for somebody with a degree in art or something.

Discovering a dead end where there was once a potentially viable/competitive path forward isn't a waste of time, it redirects resources elsewhere.

The path was a waste of resources but that is just one of many examples.

No it wasn't, not if it was plausible. There was no way to predict that before studying it, and it let us focus more on other paths.

Now for a non-plausible path like "ghosts" as the explanation, that would be a waste of resources because we can already predict that isn't the answer.

Our academic system pushes people to publish research the minute you get into graduate school and the pressure just increases after graduation.

I'm aware, which also introduces an anti-mainstream bias. If there's anything to attack, they can and will, but they need the education to do it. That hunger helps prevent any loyalty to the status quo.

Based on what? I cannot think of a single revolutionary idea in science that came from "ruling out the plausible alternatives".

It narrows the focus of research. Basically everything comes from that to some degree.

Ideas that are baseless or wrong can have a variety of harmful impacts on society but there is no easy way to make such ideas go away.

Private forums do not need to platform them. That's not government intervention.

I'd argue that the best defense against such ideas is free-speech and intellectual freedoms because these allow people to address bad ideas without consequence.

I know, and that makes you a fool. It is perhaps our principle difference here and why you mistakenly accuse us of being dogmatic for discouraging the proliferation of such ideas.

A lie can catch on much more easily than reality, because reality is often more nuanced and complicated, less enticing, and requires formal education to understand well.
It's a very slow battle against pseudoscience.

The only way anti-vaxx will at all likely go away is not by argument, but by people experiencing their children dying of preventable diseases. Your ideas will die too, but only when we're all suffering from the effects of global warming.

In theory if you had enough people arguing against it in the right way you could make a dent and the truth may eventually win, but that just expends very valuable time... time we don't have. Kind of how every hour we have to spend arguing against your conspiratorial nonsense expends our time.

We're no more dogmatic in excluding you from spamming your conspiratorial claims than a parenting forum would be from excluding conspiratorial anti-vaxx claims. Maybe you think they're dogmatic too -- why don't you go rant against them with the same fervor? Oh, wait, but it's VEGANS you hate. That's the only reason you're here, you hate us. You're nothing but dogmatic, irrational, hate.

People on an evidence based parenting forum don't have time to fight that fear mongering from all angles. It's not that they can not do it in limited quantities, but it's going up against a Gish gallop, and most of them (like most of us) are not doctors or vaccine researchers. It takes much longer to debunk a lie than to spread it, it's not a fair playing field.

When a claim goes clearly against professional consensus, it's fair to leave that to professionals and deny the proliferation of those bad claims on PRIVATE platforms.

It's very generous to allow for users arguing their contra-mainstream anti-vegan positions in one thread. We don't need them spread everywhere where we can't even follow them.

Oh no, people might believe doctors without question when they say to get vaccinated!

Not sure why you think people believing things "without question" would be a good thing.

It's a good thing if it has net good consequences, like children not dying from easily preventable diseases.

I just don't think trying to censor ideas is a good way to address baseless or erroneous ideas. In the case of conspiracy theories, censoring actually feeds into the conspiracy and often just hardens the beliefs of people.

So you're just very, very naive, and willing to risk children's lives based on your faith in discourse.
How has discourse on the internet been working out for you so far?

Censoring conspiracy theories helps prevent them from spreading. They're going to claim they're being censored whether they are or not; the early Nazi party claimed they were being, despite not being, and the same with the alt-right today. However if they are actually censored then at least fewer people hear it. The Streisand effect is not inevitable. Censorship can be very effective. And if it's not from the government, simple non-platforming by private forums is even better.

I understand being against GOVERNMENT censorship. It's arguably a slippery slope. But opposing PRIVATE forums from being able to decide what content they discuss and demanding to be platformed with your crazy ideas is asinine. That doesn't make a group dogmatic. Particularly when they explicitly encourage you to MAKE A THREAD ON IT, and have opted not to ban you despite repeated toxic diatribes against them.