Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[Hans Blaster]

It's all becomes a mixed bad somewhere along the way. Sometimes more so. Sometimes less.

This is just more vague non-response about your claimed "politics" in science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is just more vague non-response about your claimed "politics" in science.

What do you want me to say?

 

[SelfSim]

I think I might be a bit of an outlier, so in my case, you may want to raise your assumptive threshold.

Ok .. I'd tend to say go for it .. but I think, perhaps, I may be better off waiting for some other thread(?)

Right. And I'm attempting to stall an unnecessary pseudo-debate. I do hate debates, especially if I sense another person is not yet familiar with "what I'm about." Not that you need to know what "I'm about."

Ok .. I'm just curious to find out where you're coming from .. (and that's not so important that I can't wait ..)
I'll bow out for a while ..
Cheers

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do you want me to say?

You claimed or strongly implied that "politics" was part of the determination of what got published in science. You can clarify or withdraw.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok .. I'd tend to say go for it .. but I think, perhaps, I may be better off waiting for some other thread(?)

Ok .. I'm just curious to find out where you're coming from .. (and that's not so important that I can't wait ..)
I'll bow out for a while ..
Cheers

If you want to know my opinion/viewpoint on some topic, or you want to know which scholars have been influential in the development of my own thinking on some specific topic, then feel free to ask.

Otherwise, unlike some other posters here, I tend to veer away from the pretense of offering extended, erudite explanations. I feel that the plethora of full scholarly experts have already offered up what I'd attempt to say anyway.

Peace out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You claimed or strongly implied that "politics" was part of the determination of what got published in science. You can clarify or withdraw.

I guess I can withdraw that comment......for the time being. Mainly because I can't find the article that supported it.

 

[AV1611VET]

It has no effect on my life ...

You must not live in New Mexico then.

 

[BCP1928]

You must not live in New Mexico then.

I did, from 2015 to 2018 while my wife went to graduate school at New Mexico State, where Tombaugh is the home town hero. Nobody there seems to think that the reclassification of Pluto detracts frm the honor of his discovery.

 

[AV1611VET]

I did, from 2015 to 2018 while my wife went to graduate school at New Mexico State, where Tombaugh is the home town hero. Nobody there seems to think that the reclassification of Pluto detracts frm the honor of his discovery.

Did you celebrate Pluto Planet Day?

 

[River Jordan]

Their adherence to 'fundamental' formulations of religious ideals and concepts prevent them. And those fundamental ideas are at the core of more surface issues, like the question of the world and human origins. For them, The Bible in all of its literary literalness comes first and foremost in their emotional and ideological appraisal of reality. And this is why it's so difficult for folks like you or me to suggest to them otherwise.

That didn't really answer my question, but thanks for trying.

Some scientists have been liars, frauds or perpetrators of scandals, like any other human beings in any other occupation of life (like plumbers, pastors or apologists)

Again that's not a meaningful reply to what I posted.

Maybe I misunderstood your previous point? I know very well that their 'bad' praxis doesn't truly justify their accusation, at least not much of the time. But that's just the trick: society provides the levers of distrust that certain bad actors, wherever they be, whether in universities or churches, or governmental institutions, who discolor the views of science. Social psychology has a lot to explain about the interface between society on the outside and a person's conceptual and perceptual conditioning. We can identify this link in all sorts of ways, some of which are obviously pejorative or critical in nature.

So, no, I'm not saying that all fundamentalist Christians have life experience (or education) regarding how science is done. What I'm saying is that their respective acculturation overrides and prevents them from being willing to listen to or, most importantly, trust scientists at large, whether those scientists are Christian or not. I know this is a big 'hum-bug,' but it is what it is. And because it is what it is, it's one reason why biology teachers don't always find that it's easy to teach about Evolution in the public classroom. I think you know this.

So we agree they have no reasons based on praxis or lived experiences to claim scientists are frauds and liars, since they have no lived experiences with how science is done.

Right. But our knowing this doesn't mean it's a point we'll be able to get across to them due to .... all of what I've said above.

Ok.

Fortunately, not all of us who are Christian see science and the Bible as diametrically opposed ideologically. But some do, and we won't be able to disabuse many of them of that perceptual and interpretive disposition.

And as I said before, on some level, I think Basil Mitchell's explanation of "The Layman's Predicament" goes some way in offering both an explanation and a lower level justification for not expecting everyone across the board to accept science or anything and everything that the academic/scholarly world has thrown out upon the table.

Again it's not about convincing anyone to accept science. But I do thank you for your time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That didn't really answer my question, but thanks for trying.

You're welcome. But in further answering your question, it's likely that their interpretations of bits and pieces of Scripture, like the commonly cited one of Colossians 2:8, play a large role in their refusal and dismissal of your refutation.

Again that's not a meaningful reply to what I posted.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

So we agree they have no reasons based on praxis or lived experiences to claim scientists are frauds and liars, since they have no lived experiences with how science is done.

No, I didn't agree with this. Rather, I see the issue on a spectrum of justification and unfortunate circumstances involved in the outcomes of social psychology. In other words, while most of their gripes may not be justified in the most robust sense, this isn't to say that they have no gripes that may be, at minimum, legitimate.

It's not an issue of "either/or." It's more along the lines of "more than/less than."

My central point, however, is that in addressing folks like AV, because of their already situated central epistemic and ideological values, you or I will have a very difficult time getting them to listen and fully engage what we have to say in admonition of their claims because...............they don't trust us or our praxis.

If you think you can get through to him, then by all academic means, attempt to do so. I've tried. And I typically don't like to have to admonish or instruct another fellow Christian more than three times when their unwillingness remains constant. My forehead can't take that much pounding.

Again it's not about convincing anyone to accept science. But I do thank you for your time.

What is it about, then?

 

[SelfSim]

That didn't really answer my question, but thanks for trying.


Again that's not a meaningful reply to what I posted.


So we agree they have no reasons based on praxis or lived experiences to claim scientists are frauds and liars, since they have no lived experiences with how science is done.


Ok.


Again it's not about convincing anyone to accept science. But I do thank you for your time.

FWIW: I consider myself forturnate to live in world where I can trust and respect people, whilst taking their claims onboard and cross check those.

My biggest concern arises from the growing numbers of people who seem to have lost the ability to assess the results of those tests for themselves. They remain vocal, and they seem to think others, (like me), are also incapable of conducting such tests whilst holding claims in obeyance.
Their respect for other humans is conditional upon their unwillingness to acquire the capability of performing simple tests that work .. for whatever reasons.

 

[SelfSim]

... My central point, however, is that in addressing folks like AV, because of their already situated central epistemic and ideological values, you or I will have a very difficult time getting them to listen to and fully engage what we have to say in admonition because...............they don't trust us or our praxis.

The lack of trust, (IMO), is based on their embracing a type of wilful ignorance.

I respect the various displays of wisdom in negotiating our world, as I move through my own life. I constantly search out such displays.
I also 'get' Christianity's wisdom offerings.

Its hard to respect wilful ignorance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The lack of trust, (IMO), is based on their embracing a type of wilful ignorance.

I respect the various displays of wisdom in negotiating our world, as I move through my own life.
I also 'get' Christianity's wisdom.

Its hard to respect wilful ignorance.

On some level, I don't blame them. I don't always trust so-called "mainstream scientists" either, at least not fully even if I do accept much if not most of what passes for "mainstream science."

For me, in accordance with all that Philosophy and Critical Thinking afford, I'm typically alleviated from remaining anyone's "tool" for any longer than I remain susceptible to possible misinformation or half-begotten interpretations of various evidences, of whatever sort.

It's the benefits of being educated. It's also the benefit of Christ's Advent into the World.

 

[SelfSim]

On some level, I don't blame them. I don't fully trust so-called "mainstream scientists" either, at least not fully even if I do accept much if not most of what passes for "mainstream science."

What scientists say, should always be held in obeyance and regarded with neutrality. This is a key part of how they, themselves, form their own conclusions and an essential part of putting what they say, back through their own test.

'Mainstream' is what becomes visible over time and with due consideration. Its hard to be viewed as 'mainstream' when one is engaged in the exploration on the known boundaries of the respective contextualities of various theories, hypotheses, (etc). The trust needed there, I think, is directly proportional to scientists' displays of honesty. (Eg: active considerations of falsification of one's own hypotheses earns trust, yes?)
Looking for displays of honesty is a handy tool to have when reviewing claims.

Deliberate attempts to steam-roller those displays of honesty because of personally held ideologies, by way of dismissive aphorisms, truisms, ditties, pub-talk and invocations of so-called 'common sense', is itself a display of dishonesty, (IMO).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What scientists say, should always be held in obeyance and regarded with neutrality. This is a key part of how they, themselves, form their own conclusions and an essential part of putting what they say, back through their own test.

'Mainstream' is what becomes visible over time and with due consideration. Its hard to be viewed as 'mainstream' when one is engaged in the exploration on the known boundaries of the respective contextualities of various theories, hypotheses, (etc). The trust needed there, I think, is directly proportional to scientists' displays of honesty. (Eg: active considerations of falsification of one's own hypotheses earns trust, yes?)
Looking for displays of honesty is a handy tool to have when reviewing claims.

Deliberate attempts to steam-roller those displays of honesty because of personally held ideologies, by way of dismissive aphorisms, truisms, ditties, pub-talk and invocations of so-called 'common sense', is itself a display of dishonesty, (IMO).

I generally agree. But is there some sort of "honest-a-meter" we can use to measure any one scientist's actual level of honesty?

I think it takes more than simply a citation of the idealization about the Nature of Science to evidence any specimen of apparent scientific honesty (or of genuine aloofness from direct political influence).

But even so, I can still say that it's always good and useful to give mainstream scientists the benefit of the doubt and not discount their possible honesty off the cuff, just like I'd give an initial benefit of the doubt to any professional Philosophers, of whatever sort.

 

[Hans Blaster]

'Mainstream' is what becomes visible over time and with due consideration. Its hard to be viewed as 'mainstream' when one is engaged in the exploration on the known boundaries of the respective contextualities of various theories, hypotheses, (etc). The trust needed there, I think, is directly proportional to scientists' displays of honesty. (Eg: active considerations of falsification of one's own hypotheses earns trust, yes?)
Looking for displays of honesty is a handy tool to have when reviewing claims.

'Mainstream' in terms of results may take time for a result to be confirmed and integrated, but 'mainstream' in terms of study area is quite broad. The specific project or method might be cutting edge, but that doesn't make it 'mainstream science'.

Targeted searches for sea-to-land tetrapods was a perfectly mainstream scientific project in paleontology before Shubin et al. found Tiktaalik. The search for the Higgs (and before it, top quark, etc.) was perfectly mainstream particle physics before it was finally discovered. (Non-mainstream stuff isn't going to get millions or billions of dollars of expediture). The same thing with the search for gravitational waves, exoplanets, or the study of the origin of life.

Something about your work should be "cutting edge" for most mainstream scientists, or they are just retreading old ground.

What are now lab experiments in college classes were once cutting edge, but generally "mainstream" science.

 

[SelfSim]

'Mainstream' in terms of results may take time for a result to be confirmed and integrated, but 'mainstream' in terms of study area is quite broad. The specific project or method might be cutting edge, but that doesn't make it 'mainstream science'.

Targeted searches for sea-to-land tetrapods was a perfectly mainstream scientific project in paleontology before Shubin et al. found Tiktaalik. The search for the Higgs (and before it, top quark, etc.) was perfectly mainstream particle physics before it was finally discovered. (Non-mainstream stuff isn't going to get millions or billions of dollars of expediture). The same thing with the search for gravitational waves, exoplanets, or the study of the origin of life.

Something about your work should be "cutting edge" for most mainstream scientists, or they are just retreading old ground.

What are now lab experiments in college classes were once cutting edge, but generally "mainstream" science.

Yes.

I guess the phrase: 'mainstream study area' there, becomes apparent when it can be seen as addressing questions emerging from last, best-tested theory/hypotheses, enabled by technology advancements and next feasibly achievable goals, therein(?)

Ie: The Higgs and top quark searches were stimulated by theoretical predictions from the emerging Standard Model symmetry and the acknowledgement that higher energy regimes, in testing, were feasible. Gravitational wave searches had similar foundations.
'Origins of life' is really about extending existing knowledge of bio-chemistry behaviours, based on known classes of organic chemistries exhibiting auto-catalysis and feasible information processing technologies becoming available to model reaction products over extended timelines.

 

[SelfSim]

I generally agree. But is there some sort of "honest-a-meter" we can use to measure any one scientist's actual level of honesty?

Yep .. its called the scientific method.

I think it takes more than simply a citation of the idealization about the Nature of Science to evidence any specimen of apparent scientific honesty (or of genuine aloofness from direct political influence).

So put what the citation says to the test .. Even thought experiments can be designed with the goal of demonstraitng consistency with the method.

But even so, I can still say that it's always good and useful to give mainstream scientists the benefit of the doubt and not discount their possible honesty off the cuff, just like I'd give an initial benefit of the doubt to any professional Philosophers, of whatever sort.

Professional Philosophers. eh?
What are their guard-rails?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep .. its called the scientific method.

That's a lark.

That's why no university or college has to teach Bio-medical Ethics classes along with the various Bio-medical technical proficiencies, right?

So put what the citation says to the test .. Even thought experiments can be designed with the goal of demonstraitng consistency with the method.

Professional Philosophers. eh?
What are their guard-rails?

The usual ones; and those who know, know what those are.

If only the "scientific method"..............however it parades itself in some mythical singular fashion..................was indeed that linear.

Or that honest.