Keepers

Keepers The C4 standard

New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search | Help/Rules | Smileys/Notes | Log In

Re: Blowing terminology

Author: mrn
Date: 2008-10-01 17:57

Actually science is all about the experiential, John. That's why scientists conduct experiments. The thing that makes science different than mere anecdotal observations is in the rigorous methodology applied to setting up the experiments and interpreting the results.

Notice I didn't say anything about sources or authority or authentication. To be sure, those are important in the context of certain dialectics (especially the legal kind), but they are less important to science, per se. The primary activity in science consists of methodically verifying things yourself without blind reliance on authority. The whole point of science lies in establishing truths that can be verified by anyone with sufficient resources and that don't merely rely on the authority of some legendary teacher like Aristotle or Plato.

Simplification can be a good thing, but it can also distort truth. Oftentimes, simplified explanations create more misunderstandings than they eliminate. I noticed a few posts back that you weren't happy with my giving you an extended explanation (or analogy, rather) when you thought a yes-no answer would suffice. The problem with simply giving a yes-no answer to such a question is that it might be misleading because it doesn't give you a complete picture to allow you to make reasoned judgments for yourself. If you understand my analogy of a "tug-of-war," you can see that it not only answers your earlier question I responded to, but several others as well.

Do you know what profession always seeks very simplified explanations and expects yes-no questions to be answered only yes or no? Trial lawyers, that's who. Do you know why? It's because their job is not to establish truth, but to influence the decisionmaking of a judge or jury. Trial lawyers don't usually want judges or juries to have all the facts, because that would enable them exercise independent judgment about the grey areas of the case. Independent judgment is unpredictable. So trial lawyers carefully control (or try to control) what the judge or jury hears so as to replace complex reasoning with simple clear-cut choices. For similar reasons, they also try to exclude evidence based on whether or not it is "authenticated" or whether or not it is "hearsay"--neither of which have any bearing on whether something is actually true in real life (they only somewhat reflect how easily something can be believed--a subtle, but enormously important difference). And while I'm not a *trial* lawyer, per se, I've tried a few cases myself as a lawyer, so I know from firsthand experience that this is what happens. Politicians do the same sort of thing to win votes--perhaps that's one reason so many politicians are lawyers. (and why a lot of people dislike them both)

Discussions about the real state of the world don't benefit much from the sort of adversarial approach that goes on in a courtroom, because, as I said, that approach generates as much misinformation as information. A better approach is to do as they say in that famous Russian proverb, "Trust but verify." If a scientist has doubts about the truth of an otherwise plausible-sounding assertion, he looks for his own demonstrable refutation of the statement itself (or at least he should, since that's what scientists are in the business of doing).

But attacking the manner in which the statement was made says nothing about the validity of the statement itself. It may work in a courtroom or some other kind of credibility contest, where the objective is to determine who's going to be the winner and who's going to be the loser, but it's not very productive in a scientific or educational sense.

OK. End of lecture.

The only other thing I want to say is that after reading this thread I seriously envy anyone who has had the opportunity to actually take lessons from Tony. Given the degree of thought, effort, and care he put into answering John's questions and how much I've learned from his posts, I can only imagine what a great teacher he must be in person!

Thank you, Tony!

Post Edited (2008-10-01 18:47)

Avail. Forums | Flat View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Topics

Author

Date

Blowing terminology new

Arnoldstang

2008-09-18 15:10