How to not fool yourself

[essentialsaltes]

I'm not sure. Surely an authority on any given subject is a de facto expert in that subject.

I think Sagan's point is that we should accept the tentative consensus conclusions of scientific experts not because an authority says so, but because that's where evidence has led expert opinion.

I think it's a good list for s scientist. But for the guy in the street?

Obviously, there's only so much time in the day for both the man in the street and the scientific experts, but if the man asks "Why do you think life we see today evolved from earlier forms?" an expert should not respond "Because I say so," but should begin talking about homologies and fossils and DNA and...

And of course, any motivated man in the street can poke around Wikipedia or Evolution 101 or the Smithsonian or the NCSE or... and see the evidence and reasoning laid out.

 

[J_B_]

I think Sagan's point is that we should accept the tentative consensus conclusions of scientific experts not because an authority says so, but because that's where evidence has led expert opinion.

That's a proper distinction to make, but it all depends on the audience. The expert should maintain that principle, but also has to realize that he may be speaking to an audience who is only hearing Charlie Brown's teacher.

Obviously, there's only so much time in the day for both the man in the street and the scientific experts, but if the man asks "Why do you think life we see today evolved from earlier forms?" an expert should not respond "Because I say so," but should begin talking about homologies and fossils and DNA and...

And of course, any motivated man in the street can poke around Wikipedia or Evolution 101 or the Smithsonian or the NCSE or... and see the evidence and reasoning laid out.

'Motivated' is an important adjective here. I don't know what crowd you circulate amongst in your real life, but in mine very few people care diddly about any of this. As a result, they simply trust the opinion of the one in their peer group who best speaks to their situation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do understand that nothing about Pluto changed, right? It was just our definition. We weren't "wrong" about Pluto being a planet because at the time the definition of a planet included a body with Pluto's description. But then we changed that definition because we observed so many other bodies in our own solar system that would fit the definition too. It was determined that the definition was too broad and it was revised which recategorized Pluto. We're not necessarily "right" about that new definition today. It's just a definition.

You make it sound so neat and tidy.

But the fact of the matter is, to get Pluto plutoed, they had to:

1. Rig a vote.
2. Violate their own bylaws.
3. Reject any scientists' conclusions to the contrary.
4. Rewrite the dictionary.

Some top-notch chiseling and force-fitting and shenanigans were involved in getting Pluto downgraded.

You can shrug your shoulders and say it's "just a definition" and "no big deal."

But ...

1. The California State Assembly called it a "scientific heresy."
2. The New Mexico House o Representatives passed a resolution that, as long as Pluto is in their skies, it will be considered a planet.
3. The Illinois Senate passed a resolution that asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a dwarf planet by the IAU."

QV please:

Public reception to the IAU decision was mixed. A resolution introduced in the California State Assembly facetiously called the IAU decision a "scientific heresy". The New Mexico House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto and a longtime resident of that state, that declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007 was Pluto Planet Day. The Illinois Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009 on the basis that Tombaugh was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU." Some members of the public have also rejected the change, citing the disagreement within the scientific community on the issue, or for sentimental reasons, maintaining that they have always known Pluto as a planet and will continue to do so regardless of the IAU decision.

SOURCE

People can get on my case about my stance on Pluto, but the fact of the matter is that there are government bodies much higher than I that disagree with Pluto's demotion as well.

And all I do is rant & rave about it on the Internet, but these government bodies have done something about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wonder if the Quantum sciences will closer explain the spirit someday.

I doubt it.

But if they ever do, I'm almost positive they'd get it wrong.

They can't find evidence of two million Jews living in a desert for forty years, let alone quantify God.

I hear from researchers in nutrition science that some have personal biases when researching nutrition.

If you want to hear "personal biases" in any science -- not just nutrition science -- just put on your job application that you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and see where that [doesn't] get you.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

You make it sound so neat and tidy.

But the fact of the matter is, to get Pluto plutoed, they had to:

1. Rig a vote.
2. Violate their own bylaws.
3. Reject any scientists' conclusions to the contrary.
4. Rewrite the dictionary.

Some top-notch chiseling and force-fitting and shenanigans were involved in getting Pluto downgraded.

You can shrug your shoulders and say it's "just a definition" and "no big deal."

But ...

1. The California State Assembly called it a "scientific heresy."
2. The New Mexico House o Representatives passed a resolution that, as long as Pluto is in their skies, it will be considered a planet.
3. The Illinois Senate passed a resolution that asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a dwarf planet by the IAU."

QV please:

Public reception to the IAU decision was mixed. A resolution introduced in the California State Assembly facetiously called the IAU decision a "scientific heresy". The New Mexico House of Representatives passed a resolution in honor of Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto and a longtime resident of that state, that declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies and that March 13, 2007 was Pluto Planet Day. The Illinois Senate passed a similar resolution in 2009 on the basis that Tombaugh was born in Illinois. The resolution asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a 'dwarf' planet" by the IAU." Some members of the public have also rejected the change, citing the disagreement within the scientific community on the issue, or for sentimental reasons, maintaining that they have always known Pluto as a planet and will continue to do so regardless of the IAU decision.

SOURCE

People can get on my case about my stance on Pluto, but the fact of the matter is that there are government bodies much higher than I that disagree with Pluto's demotion as well.

And all I do is rant & rave about it on the Internet, but these government bodies have done something about it.

But none of that is a failure of science. ??

The important part of it is that nothing about Pluto changed. It's still there. It's still orbiting the Sun and we still haven't observed it make a full orbit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Obviously, there's only so much time in the day for both the man in the street and the scientific experts, but if the man asks "Why do you think life we see today evolved from earlier forms?" an expert should not respond "Because I say so," but should begin talking about homologies and fossils and DNA and...

I'd love a man on the street to stop me and ask me that.

Of course, I'd have to speak extra peritia (outside of expertise) on it.

 

[AV1611VET]

But none of that is a failure of science. ??

You don't consider rigged votes or violations of bylaws as failures of science?

That's your prerogative.

Would you at least consider it "disrespectful"?

 

[essentialsaltes]

'Motivated' is an important adjective here.

Absolutely. And the time factor applies to all of us. We rely on experts all the time. We don't interrogate our airline pilots or meteorologists (though we may trust the former a little more than the latter).

As a result, they simply trust the opinion of the one in their peer group who best speaks to their situation.

I'd rather they relied on experts than peers, because (as you see in #26) AV is itching to answer such questions. But I understand your point.

 

[J_B_]

Absolutely. And the time factor applies to all of us. We rely on experts all the time. We don't interrogate our airline pilots or meteorologists (though we may trust the former a little more than the latter).

I'd rather they relied on experts than peers, because (as you see in #26) AV is itching to answer such questions. But I understand your point.

Mmm. We engineers may carry a chip on our shoulders with respect to "expertise". We're constantly told we don't do science, just implement it. But stories abound of science handing something to engineers that doesn't work and needs a lot more research and development.

IMHO it's because science (At least the science I work with) often relies on idealized systems rather than real systems.

The result is, I'd trust the airline pilot as the expert more than the aerospace engineer and much more than the physicist. Granted the airline pilot won't have anything to fly without the engineer and the physicist, but still, when physicists become media talking heads, again it's like Charlie Brown's teacher.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't interrogate our airline pilots or meteorologists (though we may trust the former a little more than the latter).

Oh, yes we do!

Split Rock once made this thread for Dad and I:

Two Creationists take a Commercial Flight

AV1611VET: How do we know that the flight crew knows how to fly this plane?

Flight Attendant: They are trained experts and have been doing this for many years.

Dad: All because they are so-called experts doesn't mean they can ignore God's Word.

Flight Attendant: What does God's Word have to do with flying an airplane?

AV1611VET: I use my Boolean Standards to show that flying is against The Inerrant Word of God and The Documentation.

Flight Attendant: Are you talking about The Bible? Where does The Bible say that?

AV1611VET: "Thinking themselves to be wise they became fools."

Flight Attendant: What does that have to do with flying?

AV1611VET: Homo sapiens means "Wise Man,"; doesn't it? Since the flight crew are Wise Men they are really fools and God will show them they are fools by crashing the plane.

Flight Attendant: What???

Dad: How do these Ivory Tower so-called experts know they can fly this plane between here and the destination? What if the atmosphere between here and the destination is in a different state?

Flight Attendant: Different State?? What do you mean??

Dad: A different state. Like it was before "The Split."

Flight Attendant: What "Split?"

Dad: During the time of Peleg. To think differently, is anti-Bible hogwash and a fantasy!

Flight Attendant: What are you talking about?

Dad: You cannot prove that the space-time state between here and there is not different can you?

Flight Attendant: No, but we have never had any problem flying this route before..

Dad: Ha! You just ASSUME there is no difference now, because you assume the past is the key to the present. That is an Anti-God Lie, and thinking only within the box.. I refuse to accept it!!!

Flight Attendant Please, both of you take your seats!

AV1611VET: You just can't wait to ridicule me, even though I accept 95% of your "science!"

Dad: I just discovered that human flight is impossible! Amazing!!

Flight Attendant: Please, take your seats so we can take off! I promise it is safe!

AV1611VET: Oh yeah.. just like Thalidomide was a Wonder Drug before it was Plutoed!

Flight Attendant: Thalidomide?

AV1611VET: Sure, Thaldomide proves that your "science" changes with the flavor of the week!

Dad: Prove with your so called science that the state between here and there is the same! You can't!!!! Human flight is an anti-Bible lie! Amazing!

Flight Attendant: Get off this plane!!!

 

[Laodicean60]

literal interpretation of Genesis

I don't. How can we accurately translate an ancient language passed on verbally for generations. "God created" is all I'm concerned with by faith. And no one can prove or disprove it.

 

[AV1611VET]

How can we accurately translate an ancient language passed on verbally for generations.

God took care of that for us in 1611.

But, of course, it wasn't good enough for academia, and they want their own translations.

Now look what we got.

A Heinz-57 variety of versions.

 

[jayem]

But ...

1. The California State Assembly called it a "scientific heresy."
2. The New Mexico House o Representatives passed a resolution that, as long as Pluto is in their skies, it will be considered a planet.
3. The Illinois Senate passed a resolution that asserted that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded to a dwarf planet by the IAU."

That's ridiculous. Don't elected state representatives have better things to do than squabble over a name? Heck, a lot of outdated medical names for diseases have changed:

Consumption > tuberculosis
Grippe > influenza
Leprosy > Hansen's disease
Blood poisoning > septicemia
Apoplexy > stroke
Quinsy > tonsillitis
Blue baby syndrome > infant methemoglobinemia

And there are many more.

From planet to dwarf planet is nothing more than a name change to reflect a more accurate astronomical understanding.

 

[The Barbarian]

I will argue anyone who disagrees that science is myopic.

And as such, can't be trusted to meddle in areas of spiritual Truths.

Neither science nor religion are "myopic." There might be a few scientists who claim that science can address the supernatural, and a few religious people who think religion is a way to do science.

But they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's ridiculous. Don't elected state representatives have better things to do than squabble over a name? Heck, a lot of outdated medical names for diseases have changed:

...

From planet to dwarf planet is nothing more than a name change to reflect a more accurate astronomical understanding.

If it was that simple, why the rigged vote in violation of their own bylaws?

QV please:

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused. Why would they refuse to reopen a debate unless they were insecure about their stand? Meanwhile, this issue continues to be debated in other venues, such as the 2008 Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008 (which I personally attended), the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geophysical Union.

FROM THIS THREAD

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither science nor religion are "myopic."

Science is either myopic, blind, or omniscient.

Take your pick.

If you want to argue that it's not myopic ... fine.

I'm sure you'll agree it's not omniscient.

That leaves only one left:

Blind.

So go ahead and argue it's not myopic.

You'll just make it worse.

 

[sjastro]

​

...


If it was that simple, why the rigged vote in violation of their own bylaws?

QV please:

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused. Why would they refuse to reopen a debate unless they were insecure about their stand? Meanwhile, this issue continues to be debated in other venues, such as the 2008 Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008 (which I personally attended), the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geophysical Union.

FROM THIS THREAD

 

[jayem]

...


If it was that simple, why the rigged vote in violation of their own bylaws?

QV please:

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused. Why would they refuse to reopen a debate unless they were insecure about their stand? Meanwhile, this issue continues to be debated in other venues, such as the 2008 Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008 (which I personally attended), the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geophysical Union.

FROM THIS THREAD

This is a tempest not just in a teapot, but a thimble—and a tiny thimble at that. I’d suggest that if astronomers offended by Pluto’s demotion can’t get a re-vote, then they should consider forming their own astronomical union and vote to restore Pluto’s previous status. I’d never pay dues to any organization that I thought was wrong-headed.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a tempest not just in a teapot, but a thimble—and a tiny thimble at that.

Wow -- just wow.

If you can't see crooks in your own backyard, I'm done.

 

[jayem]

Science is either myopic, blind, or omniscient.

Science is a way of learning about how the universe, and life on our planet, came to exist and how they operate. It does this from a purely naturalistic standpoint. If you think that’s myopic, fine. It’s your prerogative. For sure, science isn’t perfect, but what human endeavor is? To me, it’s as obvious as the sun in the sky that a scientific outlook is infinitely more accurate, more reliable, and more useful than any ancient religious scriptures or beliefs have ever been.