Re: Which Sciences Are the Most Useful?
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:51 pm
Philosophical Vegan Forum
The irony is too immense in this statement.
You obviously don't know much about logic or fallacies.teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 amA 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.
Focus on that last part there.Wikipedia wrote:An argument from authority, (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.
Do you understand now? (I doubt it)Wikipedia wrote:It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.
Answer my question.
We can discuss this at length, but I don't know enough about it (and neither do you) to make a solid case. It honestly isn't important or relevant to what we're even talking about. We have to agree on definitions, and even if we take the latter definition, you still need to provide evidence of your argument.Red wrote: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.
No, only some concepts that would be adapted, utilized, and expanded upon in Calculus. I was (obviously) referring to it in a modern sense.
That's not what I was saying.
So you're admitting you were wrong when you said:
Teo wrote:Why? All science being wrong is unlikely, yes, but it's conceivable.
Yes, I know. Especially in Biology and the soft sciences (though some mathematics can be applied).
No, you were just wrong.
Nothing I guess, though if you are one, you can never say you know for sure. If you are going to advocate for Solipsism, just know that it's a bit of a moral issue.
How familiar are you with some of the most basic history?
I'm not equating corrupt politicians with incompetent politicians.
I know that.
Clearly not, he was a quack promoting pseudoscience in favor of actual science.
You keep making the same mistakes, and have seemingly forgotten the point of this particular argument. AND also, you keep ignoring what I'm writing.
Right, a lot of people can be misled into thinking scientists believe something they don't. What's your point? People believing the scientists say something does not make it a theory.teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 amHow 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?
Then your studies have failed you. It seems as though your English is too poor to participate in this forum, given this conversation and past ones. I suggest you go and study it more, then come back.
No, I don't think so. Everyone else reading this thread, did you interpret my statement as Teo described?
That isn't how it works. This is discussed in the thread I linked that you didn't bother to read. You don't even have to read the entire thing; Can't you do a simple CTRL + F search?teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 amAlso, 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?
I honestly find this rude and insulting. You're accusing me of something I didn't even say or imply, and you're making me look to be the bad guy. You haven't changed at all in the past 3 years, unfortunately.
You would've known that had you even skimmed the thread.
And yet you accuse me of an appeal to authority?teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 amOK, now, I though this was something everyone on a forum called Philosophical Vegan would be familiar with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotatio ... Fx3vHOkHRE
Because the answer isn't very difficult to find, especially when I pointed you in the direction to go.
It wouldn't take much longer than 10 minutes.
What are you talking about? I am not brimstone. That's someone else.
You would've known my rebuttal if you were to read the first few pages of this thread.teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:08 amYou 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.
The history of science is filled with people outside of the scientific community making significant contributions to science and there are numerous cases of what was once viewed as "established science" harming people. Dissension and questioning are a critical component to scientific progress. Science isn't a dogma upheld by some unquestioned authority, its an intellectual process.
Not sure what magic you have in mind but you're right...but I support intellectual freedoms 100%. Not just for the intellectual community but for the general population as well.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:10 pmOr you're of the magical thinking mindset that if you just give people information they'll be able to reason what's right. Let them hear both sides! Evolution AND creation! Civil rights AND white nationalism! No way that can go wrong...
It hasn't been rare, in fact, most significant scientific advancements have been made by people outside of the mainstream.
So, as I said, established by yourself and as usual without any evidence.
I already explained this, and it just demonstrates your general ignorance of the hard sciences that you do not understand it.carnap wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:28 amThe history of science is filled with people outside of the scientific community making significant contributions to science and there are numerous cases of what was once viewed as "established science" harming people. Dissension and questioning are a critical component to scientific progress. Science isn't a dogma upheld by some unquestioned authority, its an intellectual process.
Try taking a few classes in a hard science like physics or chemistry, then look a the quality of non-mainstream "work" available. It's a waste of time. Very unlikely to see any innovations among the flat earth and electric sun advocates. Possible? Maybe. But it goes against parsimony.
Well that's not surprising. Of course you're one of those.
He might be one of those 'It's not the government's job' type of people.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:35 amWell that's not surprising. Of course you're one of those.
And you don't care much about all of the children who have to die of preventable disease, or the domestic terrorism these radical groups create, do you? Proliferation of bad ideas is more important than human life to you.
But this isn't about government intervention, it's about recognizing that it's wrong to proliferate these beliefs which have such a high chance of doing harm and such a low chance of containing any credible grain of actual knowledge or wisdom.
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".
I've taken plenty of courses in the sciences and your comment is rooted in a hind-sight bias. Its impossible to know what current works will unfold into important scientific advancements in the future. Also a large amount of "mainstream work" in the sciences ends up being a waste of time as well.
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.
Right, I don't think its the governments job to censor what people can say and think. Censorship rather quickly turns to dogmatism because its a rather powerful political tool and this is why free speech/expression is widely supported by human rights groups etc.
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.