My Integrity Challenge

[The Barbarian]

Interesting how you equate "evidence" with "truth."

That's the funny thing about evidence. By definition, it's true.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's the funny thing about evidence. By definition, it's true.

Do those who interpret it know it's true?

 

[The Barbarian]

Do those who interpret it know it's true?

One doesn't interpret facts. They are just facts. The important things about hypotheses is, they have to be testable. When they are tested, and the evidence confirms their predictions, that's a fact. When this is done repeatedly, the hypothesis is regarded as true and is then a theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

One doesn't interpret facts. They are just facts. The important things about hypotheses is, they have to be testable. When they are tested, and the evidence confirms their predictions, that's a fact. When this is done repeatedly, the hypothesis is regarded as true and is then a theory.

That's a lot of work, just to replace something that is wrong with something that is wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's a lot of work, just to replace something that is wrong with something that is wrong.

Those who moved immunology from a hypothesis to a workable theory would disagree with you. So would the hundreds of millions of people whose lives were saved by their theory.

And that's just one of many. Perfection is the enemy of improvement.

 

[AV1611VET]

So would the hundreds of millions of people whose lives were saved by their theory.

For every life saved by science, how many have been taken?

 

[The Barbarian]

For every life saved by science, how many have been taken?

I can't think of a scientific theory that killed anyone.

 

[Fervent]

I can't think of a scientific theory that killed anyone.

To be fair, there have been theories that were held up as scientific at one point to justify murder on a number of scales. Eugenics, for example.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be fair, there have been theories that were held up as scientific at one point to justify murder on a number of scales. Eugenics, for example.

QV please:

The Science of Abortion Rights

SOURCE: Scientific American

 

[The Barbarian]

To be fair, there have been theories that were held up as scientific at one point to justify murder on a number of scales. Eugenics, for example.

As you probably know, Darwin wrote that even letting weaker people die amounted to an "overwhelming evil." (The Descent of Man) And later Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that eugenics was scientifically wrong, as well as being evil. Removing harmful recessives would require many generations of very strong controls on marriage.

It was never a theory, but a social campaign posing as science. Remember, a theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly verified by evidence. Nothing of the kind happened with eugenics. Moreover, many eugenicists were opposed to even forcible sterilization. Dr. William Tinkle, a founder of the Institute for Creation Research, was typical in suggesting that sterilization of people he assumed to be "inferior" should be voluntary, although he thought such people should not be allowed to marry.

By the time the Nazis picked up the idea, the entire subject had been debunked by science.

 

[The Barbarian]

QV please:

The Science of Abortion Rights

There is no scientific theory of abortion rights. How silly.

 

[Fervent]

As you probably know, Darwin wrote that even letting weaker people die amounted to an "overwhelming evil." (The Descent of Man) And later Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that eugenics was scientifically wrong, as well as being evil. Removing harmful recessives would require many generations of very strong controls on marriage.

I wasn't aware of Darwin's opinion on the matter.

It was never a theory, but a social campaign posing as science. Remember, a theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly verified by evidence. Nothing of the kind happened with eugenics. Moreover, many eugenicists were opposed to even forcible sterilization. Dr. William Tinkle, a founder of the Institute for Creation Research, was typical in suggesting that sterilization of people he assumed to be "inferior" should be voluntary, although he thought such people should not be allowed to marry.

This feels like you're splitting hairs, since it was accepted as a science alongside other similar "sciences" such as phrenology. So while it may be a discredited science, it at one time enjoyed scientific approval to a certain degree.

By the time the Nazis picked up the idea, the entire subject had been debunked by science.

The issue there is, once something has entered the public imagination as a "science" it takes on a certain authority. So while the nazi campaign relying on it may have been discredited within the scientific literature, that hadn't become a widespread understanding until much later. It still enjoyed acceptance among US and British academics and political figures. Though this all comes down to the demarcation problem, since there isn't always a hard defined line between science and psuedoscience.

 

[Fervent]

There is no scientific theory of abortion rights. How silly.

Seems a bit obvious, especially since any discussion of what is an isn't a "right" is outside the scope of science. Unfortunately, popular imagination seems to think "science" is a far broader field than it is rather than recognizing that it is all about limiting the scope of research to the testable.

 

[The Barbarian]

Seems a bit obvious, especially since any discussion of what is an isn't a "right" is outside the scope of science. Unfortunately, popular imagination seems to think "science" is a far broader field than it is rather than recognizing that it is all about limiting the scope of research to the testable.

Today's winner.

 

[The Barbarian]

This feels like you're splitting hairs, since it was accepted as a science alongside other similar "sciences" such as phrenology.

Actually, phrenology wasn't a recognized theory, either. It was a hypothesis, which made a good number of predictions. But none of them turned out to be verified when tested.

So while it may be a discredited science, it at one time enjoyed scientific approval to a certain degree.

That would be like saying slavery and segregation are Christian values, since some Christian groups asserted that these were God's will for some people.

We're talking about scientific theories here, not different people's idea of what science is.

The issue there is, once something has entered the public imagination as a "science" it takes on a certain authority.

Which is entirely apart from what qualifies as a scientific theory.

There certainly have been faulty scientific theories. Phlogiston, for example. The theory made a number of predictions, all of which were verified by evidence. But it turns out that oxidation was a better fit with the evidence. Even though phlogiston was a reasonably useful theory, it was replaced by oxidation.

But that didn't kill anyone, either. So the question remains; have there ever been a scientific theory that actually killed anyone? As you see, there are quite a number of them that have saved hundreds of millions of lives.

 

[Fervent]

Actually, phrenology wasn't a recognized theory, either. It was a hypothesis, which made a good number of predictions. But none of them turned out to be verified when tested.


That would be like saying slavery and segregation are Christian values, since some Christian groups asserted that these were God's will for some people.

We're talking about scientific theories here, not different people's idea of what science is.

That's why I brought up the demarcation problem, because realistically science consists of what people believe science to be. There are no hard, clearly defined lines that say "this is science" and "this isn't science." There's often a blurring at the edges, and if something enjoys broad acceptance as a science then whether or not it fits however you're defining science it must be considered within the realm of science.

Which is entirely apart from what qualifies as a scientific theory.

Which depends on who we ask, though it seems to me that if something enjoys widespread acceptance as a science for any period of time even if it doesn't fit our modern understanding of what science consists of it was scientific.

There certainly have been faulty scientific theories. Phlogiston, for example. The theory made a number of predictions, all of which were verified by evidence. But it turns out that oxidation was a better fit with the evidence. Even though phlogiston was a reasonably useful theory, it was replaced by oxidation.

But that didn't kill anyone, either. So the question remains; have there ever been a scientific theory that actually killed anyone? As you see, there are quite a number of them that have saved hundreds of millions of lives.

Yes, and I'm certainly not pointing at things accepted as science being used as justification for murder as a criticism of science per se. Rather, I'm pointing it out because there is often an idealized picture of science as if it isn't just as ripe for abuse as any other human system of thought. It produces extremely useful information, but idealizing it is dangerous. That is of course completely ignoring the large pink elephant in the room of just how terribly effective science has made warfare in the 20th/21st century and instead purely focusing on how purported sciences have been used to justify evil.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no scientific theory of abortion rights.

Science doesn't need theories to maim and kill.

How silly.

Yes.

How silly ...

... of you to slip that T-word in there, thinking I wouldn't notice.

AV1611VET: For every life saved by science, how many have been taken?
BARBARIAN: I can't think of a scientific theory that killed anyone.

I saw that a mile away.

 

[The Barbarian]

Science doesn't need theories to maim and kill.

Technology can do that. But theories do not. You're confusing the two. Theory makes technology possible, but it doesn't kill.

Earlier:
So would the hundreds of millions of people whose lives were saved by their theory.

AV1611VET: For every life saved by science, how many have been taken?
BARBARIAN: I can't think of a scientific theory that killed anyone.
Very silly of you to delete "theory." Did you think no one noticed?
We saw that a mile away.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's why I brought up the demarcation problem, because realistically science consists of what people believe science to be.

No. Science is a method of learning about the physical universe. It's not a matter of opinion.

There are no hard, clearly defined lines that say "this is science" and "this isn't science."

For example, kinetic theory is science. Phrenology was never science.

There's often a blurring at the edges, and if something enjoys broad acceptance as a science then whether or not it fits however you're defining science it must be considered within the realm of science.

No, that's not how it works. You don't have elections to decide what science is.

Which depends on who we ask, though it seems to me that if something enjoys widespread acceptance as a science for any period of time even if it doesn't fit our modern understanding of what science consists of it was scientific.

You're talking about something entirely different than science.

Rather, I'm pointing it out because there is often an idealized picture of science as if it isn't just as ripe for abuse as any other human system of thought.

There's nothing idealized in the notion that we can systematically learn about the world. It's just a method. The problem is that for many laymen, science is visualized as something like a religion. It's not like that at all.

That is of course completely ignoring the large pink elephant in the room of just how terribly effective science has made warfare in the 20th/21st century and instead purely focusing on how purported sciences have been used to justify evil.

You're talking about technology. Science is finding out. Technology is application. It's true, of course that technology has made immunizations much more effective than the primitive vaccine Pasteur used. But the theory has saved hundreds of millions of lives.

Can the same scientific knowledge that saves lives be used to take them? Sure. But of course, that's not science or scientific theory.

 

[Fervent]

No. Science is a method of learning about the physical universe. It's not a matter of opinion.

Oh? Sure seems that way when looking at the philosophy of science.

For example, kinetic theory is science. Phrenology was never science.

According to whom?

No, that's not how it works. You don't have elections to decide what science is.

No, there aren't elections. But it's not as if Moses came down from the mountain with clearly spelled out boundaries of what is and isn't science.

You're talking about something entirely different than science.

On whose definition?

There's nothing idealized in the notion that we can systematically learn about the world. It's just a method. The problem is that for many laymen, science is visualized as something like a religion. It's not like that at all.

That's an idealization of how science is supposed to work, but in fact there's a mix of philosophy and systematic research involved. And exactly where one crosses the line from "science" into "not science" is a major question of epistemology.

You're talking about technology. Science is finding out. Technology is application. It's true, of course that technology has made immunizations much more effective than the primitive vaccine Pasteur used. But the theory has saved hundreds of millions of lives.

I don't think we can neatly separate out science and technology, especially with the role of scientific research in the development of new technologies.

Can the same scientific knowledge that saves lives be used to take them? Sure. But of course, that's not science or scientific theory.

Arguable, though I can understand where you're coming from.