Question to the "science is constantly changing" fans

[MormonVideoGame]

On 3/8/2017 at 5:15 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You left plate tectonics out of your meaningless listing.  What a lot of people are discussing when they correctly assert that science is constantly in the throes of change is that many of the settled details do in fact change.  Presentism cannot deal with that fact.  Assumptions have been made historically which were blatantly false.  

Yes, you are talking about assumptions, even good assumption. I am talking about successful scientific theories. 

To my knowledge no powerful scientific theory (1 to 8 apply) has ever been overturned. 

I am not sure why everyone keeps insisting that my list is meaningless. Powerful scientific theories 1. make predictions 2. are falsifiable 3. used in multiple fields of science 4.survive scientific scrutiny. Do you disagree with that?  

Edited March 10, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Your bold text is a tautology since you're defining success by whether it's been overturned. i.e. it says nothing.

To my knowledge no successful powerful theory (like relativity for example) has ever been overturned. If I am wrong please tell me. I am defining powerful with my 1 to 8 points. 

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

theories that were considered successful get overturned all the time though in practice. Still happening. Even in physics. Most recently supersymmetry died.

but 1 to 8 applied to supersymmetry? did it make predictions? scientific consensus? used in multiple fields of science? confirmed by observation? Falsifiable? 

So say Evolution, you think there is a reasonable possibility the Evolution is ever going to die? That won't happen unless our world is a matrix or an illusion. 

You know, evolution is used in many fields of science, it is even used outside of natural science. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[thesometimesaint]

16 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

To my knowledge no successful powerful theory (like relativity for example) has ever been overturned. If I am wrong please tell me. I am defining powerful with my 1 to 8 points. 

but 1 to 8 applied to supersymmetry? did it make predictions? scientific consensus? used in multiple fields of science? confirmed by observation? Falsifiable? 

So say Evolution, you think there is a reasonable possibility the Evolution is ever going to die? That won't happen unless our world is a matrix or an illusion. 

You know, evolution is used in many fields of science, it is even used outside of natural science. 

I don't know what you mean by overturned. Any theory must be able to be overturned. The better ones have lots of evidence for them, but of necessity new evidence can overturn them.

SEE

As to Evolution all anyone has to do is dig up a fully modern human skeleton from a layer of previously undisturbed Precambrian dirt. Bye Bye Evolution. After 150 years of serious looking that isn't likely to happen, but we must allow for the possibility.

Edited March 10, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[MormonVideoGame]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't know what you mean by overturned. Any theory must be able to be overturned.

I agree, that is point 7. Falsifiable. 

Do you know a (former) powerful scientific theory that was replaced by another one? 

That is what I am trying to ask. I define powerful with 1 to 8 points. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[thesometimesaint]

Newton's laws of gravitation work well at the human scale. Laplace's Perturbation works well at the scale of our solar system.  Einstein's Relativity works well at the very large scale of the universe. Quantum Mechanics is starting to explain it at atomic scale. String Theory may or may not explain it at the sub-nuclear level. I can't say that any of these theories have been entirely overturned, but they have been seriously modified over the centuries. We still don't know exactly what gravity is.

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Newton's laws of gravitation work well at the human scale. Laplace's Perturbation works well at the scale of our solar system.  Einstein's Relativity works well at the very large scale of the universe. Quantum Mechanics is starting to explain it at atomic scale. String Theory may or may not explain it at the sub-nuclear level. I can't say that any of these theories have been entirely overturned, but they have been seriously modified over the centuries. We still don't know exactly what gravity is.

Except that it's not just at those scales. So for instance GPS calculations depend upon relativity. It appears that quantum mechanics has effects on biological systems like photosynthesis. So regular world phenomena (say the computer you're typing on) depend upon these non-Newtonian physics.

The basic issue is just that we assume all of our laws fit only where their assumptions hold. Typically (primarily due to events in the first half of the 20th century) we make the assumptions very clear so we know what to check. My point really is just that the very way of thinking of science as 'overturned' is itself a relic of 19th century views of science. That's just not the way people think about science anymore. We'll talk about different theories and see which works better. (Say the theory of dark matter vs. MOND or modified Newtonian gravity) But thinking in terms of established laws being overturned is perhaps a bit misleading unless we're very careful to explain what we mean. So take dark matter. If it turns out there's no unique type of matter called dark matter but just a mathematical artifact of the global laws of physics we might either say that dark matter was overturned or simply say that dark matter is this artifact. 

[clarkgoble]

27 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I agree, that is point 7. Falsifiable. 

Do you know a (former) powerful scientific theory that was replaced by another one? 

That is what I am trying to ask. I define powerful with 1 to 8 points. 

I already listed one, supersymmetry, which was overturned in 2012. Not sure what you mean by "powerful" but I assume you mean explanatory power. For that supersymmetry definitely fits. You might complain against it by arguing the evidence for supersymmetry wasn't strong despite it's explanatory power. But then that gets to the question of what you mean by power.

If you want other major theories, the "out of Asia" theory of human origins was replaced with the "out of Africa" theory in the mid-20th century. Some would argue that epigenetics overturned traditional genetic theories although one could easily quibble with that an call epigentics merely chemical markers outside of DNA and thus part of the environment. (This is an example of how 'overturn' often isn't clear due to fuzzy terms) The steady state theory of cosmology was replaced by expansion theory and the big bang although perhaps you'd call that part of the modern physics revolution (I wouldn't). The multiverse theory of cosmology has largely replaced the universe theory although one can debate why since there's no empirical evidence even if there is a lot of theoretic evidence. Continental drift was already brought up and that was fairly recent (1960's). I think most psychologists would say psychoanalysis was discredited and again that's just the middle of the 20th century. I think the blank slate theory of mind has been falsified in the 20th century although sadly far too many sociologists and others still adhere to it.

I think a lot of physicists expect the Standard Model to eventually get thrown out although to everyone's great disappointment it hasn't yet.

I should also add that Popper's notion of falsification is rather problematic for the same reasons Quine showed that positivist verification was problematic. It's because falsification/verification are themselves theory laden. That is you falsify relative to other theories but it might turn out that the falsified theory is right but the other theories are wrong. I'd add that Popper's use of falsification against the positivists (which was his main aim) was pretty misguided as well but that's probably a tangent we can ignore for now.

Speaking as a person whose degree is in physics, I honestly expect all our theories except perhaps the laws of thermodynamics to prove to be incomplete and non-universal. Even if thermodynamics I wouldn't be surprised to find out that energy conservation and increasing entropy isn't a characteristic of the full multiverse.

If you just want narrower majorly held theories that have been overturned there are tons of them. Most recently theories on the causes of alzheimer's disease was falsified. Theories about depression have been falsified. So falsification is pretty common in biology partially because we know so little. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Let me try one more time. Do you agree there are powerful scientific theories that won't be overturned, ever? 

My point is that some scientific theories are very successful and will never be  overturned. Controversial theories like Evolution, Global Warming, and others. No successful scientific theory has ever been overturned. It is not always fair to say that science is constantly changing.  

Oh my gosh.  Do you know what a tautology is?  Again, after making this point repeatedly,  THIS IS A VACUOUS TRUTH, a distinction without a difference.

Of course by definition if you define a theory as SUCCESSFUL only if it does not change,   of course all successful theories will not change.  THAT is precisely your definition of "SUCCESSFUL".

The form of your proposition is "All X theories are X theories"-  DUH!!!

But that is not even the point- even IF someone said "Science is constantly changing" (and who was that?  No evidence for anyone saying that has been given) The fact that only a FEW scientific theories did NOT change would NOT be justification for the denial of the statement "science is constantly changing"

The individual could well be referring to the majority of scientific theories which ARE constantly changing.  "Drug X is the best remedy for ailment B " is a perfect formula to assert that "science is always changing"

But I have said this all before in other ways- your comment is worthless and you have not even shown why such an idea is relevant to anything.

I can't believe this non-thread has even survived this long without a topic.  It appears no one still knows what your point is or why you started the thread.

This is a waste of time- I am out of here.

[MormonVideoGame]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.  Do you know what a tautology is?  Again, after making this point repeatedly,  THIS IS A VACUOUS TRUTH, a distinction without a difference.

Of course by definition if you define a theory as SUCCESSFUL only if it does not change,   of course all successful theories will not change.  THAT is precisely your definition of "SUCCESSFUL".

Oh my gosh! I am talking about theories that were successful at the time. There is probably no scientific theory that was very successful before getting overturned. Oh my gosh, I give up! 

Edited March 10, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I already listed one, supersymmetry, which was overturned in 2012. Not sure what you mean by "powerful" but I assume you mean explanatory power. For that supersymmetry definitely fits. You might complain against it by arguing the evidence for supersymmetry wasn't strong despite it's explanatory power. But then that gets to the question of what you mean by power.

Good! That is the best answer to my question, but I feel it is not good enough. Was supersymmetry used in many fields of science? I know Evolution and Global Warming are use in multiple fields. Same for plate tectonics. 

was super symmetry as successful as Evolution, plate tectonics, relativity, and global warming are right now?  

"The grand scheme, a stepping-stone to string theory, is still high on physicists' wish lists. But if no solid evidence surfaces soon, it could begin to have a serious PR problem" 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-supersymmetry-dead/

super symmetry seems to be more like a hypothesis, rather than a theory. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Yes, you are talking about assumptions, even good assumption. I am talking about successful scientific theories. 

To my knowledge no powerful scientific theory (1 to 8 apply) has ever been overturned. 

I am not sure why everyone keeps insisting that my list is meaningless. Powerful scientific theories 1. make predictions 2. are falsifiable 3. used in multiple fields of science 4.survive scientific scrutiny. Do you disagree with that?  

You are living in a synchronic wonderland, videogame.  Scientific theories have come and gone for thousands of years, in diachronic fashion  Perhaps you need to study science in order to understand that.  New data requires the regular reformulation of failed theories.  But science is not just about the formulation and testing of theories.  It also involves the constant discovery of new data, and it is precisely the new data points which are often so unexpected and revolutionary.  You seem not to understand that at all.

[MormonVideoGame]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  Scientific theories have come and gone for thousands of years, in diachronic fashion  Perhaps you need to study science in order to understand that.  New data requires the regular reformulation of failed theories.  

I agree. but a powerful scientific theory has never been completely overturned. You think Evolution is going to be overturned in the future? 

[mfbukowski]

This is exactly the problem- this post is not for you but for those who know the problems with the correspondence theory of truth-

Quote

 That won't happen unless our world is a matrix or an illusion. 

This is precisely where correspondence leads and why it cannot be "true"

We cannot get "outside" our perceptions to test this proposition he has made by fiat.  Here he makes a proposition which defies his own proposal 

His propositions cannot show that "The world is not a matrix or an illusion"

Of course I am not advocating that, but I would agree with the Rorty quote, below in my siggy.

OBSERVATIONS cannot show that the OBSERVATIONS themselves are not "illusions".   No one is arguing that- including me, but it does show that the belief that observations "correspond" to the world is a vacuous belief since we cannot get outside of observations to check if they correspond to "reality" or not.

Yet again

Quote

 

To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

The fact that scientific theories are in human language which cannot possibly "correspond to the world", per above, is the explanation for why "science is constantly changing"

As long as human language changes, the theories of humans will change.  The reason some theories do not change is that we have not defined them with a great enough degree of precision to show their nature in language

Evolution is a good example, as we define evolution further and further the definition of the terms.  Popper was one of the first I think, to point this out- evolution can be seen as a theory that says nothing more than "Organisms which survive, survive", itself a tautology.

"The earth revolves around the sun" can be seen itself as a tautology as well, when we realize that "What we call "the earth" in human language, performs the action of "revolving", another definition in human language, around what, in human language, we call "the sun"

Based on the definitions of all those terms in language, the fact that the "earth revolves around the sun" can also be seen as a tautology.  That which we CALL "earth" does "revolve" around what we Call 'the sun".

These are truths about human language and our observations, not about the world

Quote

"The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."

How is this relevant to anything

Consider the proposition "Joseph saw God"  It also reports a human observation report which cannot be verified by others, since it was a personal experience of one person.

I do not think that it is exactly a shock to people of faith that Joseph's experience cannot be proven scientifically- in other words- by other's observations. THAT is one definition of "objective experience"- that which others may also experience, while "private experience" is something only I can experience.  Pain in my right big toe is real, but only I can experience it or tell you when I am experiencing it or that I am experiencing it, and even rate that pain on a 1-10 scale, knowing if it is improving or not.

We do not say that private experiences are not "real"- in fact the science of medicine requires reports of private experience all the time.  You take the drug- do you feel better or not?  The only test is by reports of private experience not verifiable to anyone but you.

But in kind, the fact that "Joseph saw God" can also be seen as "true by definition"   We know the story that the boy named Joseph IS the "person who saw God", using human language and human stories to describe the universe.   The statement "God exists" is also of the same kind, and that is why He is called "self-existent"- THAT he exists IS A CONDITION of even being "That which is described by the word "God"

It could be argued that the reality of God is like the reality of unicorns- unicorns also exist as the "name of that which is called unicorns".   We all know what a unicorn is, we can tell its attributes and what defines the word.

Of course personal direct experience of the presence of "God" is that which we call "testimony" and that is precisely why this is an important point.

Even to those who treasure logic, the personal direct of experience of God is at least as "real" as the basis for much of science.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I agree. but a powerful scientific theory has never been completely overturned. You think Evolution is going to be overturned in the future? 

In fact scientific theories have been overturned throughout history.  You need to go back to school and study science for awhile.

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are living in a synchronic wonderland, videogame.  Scientific theories have come and gone for thousands of years, in diachronic fashion  Perhaps you need to study science in order to understand that.  New data requires the regular reformulation of failed theories.  But science is not just about the formulation and testing of theories.  It also involves the constant discovery of new data, and it is precisely the new data points which are often so unexpected and revolutionary.  You seem not to understand that at all.

And what I find interesting is that what we call the "constant discovery of new data" is often at first a private experience.  Galileo first sees what has not been seen before- the rings of Saturn.  THAT was a private experience until other observations made it "objective"

The definition of objectivity is a social phenomenon as we build reality and communicate those experiences (observations) to others who use the same language to describe them.

Saturn did not have "rings" until that word was used to describe them.  They might have been "circles" or "ellipses" or "orbiting chunks of rock" from the get-go, but they were not yet described well enough through a collection of private experiences in language to have them be defined better, when by now "rings" seems a quite inadequate description 

Now we might hear 

Quote

 

The rings of Saturn are the most extensive planetary ring system of any planet in the Solar System. They consist of countless small particles, ranging from μm to m in size,^[1] that orbit about Saturn. The ring particles are made almost entirely of water ice, with a trace component of rocky material. There is still no consensus as to their mechanism of formation; some features of the rings suggest a relatively recent origin, but theoretical models indicate they are likely to have formed early in the Solar System's history.^[2]

Although reflection from the rings increases Saturn's brightness, they are not visible from Earth with unaided vision. In 1610, the year after Galileo Galilei first turned a telescope to the sky, he became the first person to observe Saturn's rings, though he could not see them well enough to discern their true nature. In 1655, Christiaan Huygens was the first person to describe them as a disk surrounding Saturn.^[3] Although many people think of Saturn's rings as being made up of a series of tiny ringlets (a concept that goes back to Laplace),^[3] true gaps are few. It is more correct to think of the rings as an annular disk with concentric local maxima and minima in density and brightness.^[2] On the scale of the clumps within the rings there is much empty space.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn

But we still see terms like their "true nature" as if they HAD "true nature" while we have no clue what their "true nature" is

Even a description in the most sophisticated terms using the most modern physical theories would not reveal their "true nature" but just what the scientific hive believed of them.

Which is fine as long as you know that.  Yes, theories work and predict and allow us to possibly get there, but that is still not what the words "true nature" implies.

There IS no "true nature", only descriptions in language.

Edited March 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

On 3/7/2017 at 4:04 PM, mfbukowski said:

What is "knowledge"?

I would like to see some epistemology for your position - perhaps we would have something to discuss then

It's a trap! 

 

[ERMD]

Here are 2 from the world of medicine, which were accepted as fact for many years but have been proven false:

Beta blockers reduce mortality after myocardial infarction.

Antibiotics for group A beta-hemolytic strep reduce the incidence of rheumatic heart disease.

 

I have many others.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

To my knowledge no successful powerful theory (like relativity for example) has ever been overturned. If I am wrong please tell me.

I was thinking about it and even though I hadn't replied to this line I feel like it perfectly encapsulates the misunderstanding at play. You realize that relativity has been overturned exactly the way Newtonian mechanics has, right? Fairly early on it was shown that QM and GR are incompatible. That's why for the last 80 years physicists have been seeking a grand unified theory with string theory being their best attempt thus far. So the very premise that nothing like relativity has been overturned since relativity is wrong. Very early on physicists knew the problems with relativity.

We can say that relativity is correct for the area where its assumptions hold but then that is of course just as true of Newtonian mechanics.

Quote

So say Evolution, you think there is a reasonable possibility the Evolution is ever going to die? That won't happen unless our world is a matrix or an illusion. 

Again I hadn't replied to this but probably should have. Again I think it illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science and an ignorance of the history of science. The evolution of today is not the evolution of Darwin. They are different theories when looked at broadly. They have a lot of similarities, much like the Hamiltonian form of Newtonian mechanics and the Dirac equation in quantum mechanics are extremely similar. But they aren't the same. Likewise the history of evolution while broadly similar was revolutionized by the ability to sequence DNA. How we think of evolution at the molecular level changed.

So again, the basic premise you're thinking about the problem with is itself very problematic.

Edited March 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[ERMD]

What the heck, it's slow at work, so here are some more:

Contrast media induce nephrotoxicity

Gastric decontamination improves survival in toxic ingestions

Eating seeds/nuts/popcorn increases the risk of acute diverticulitis

Magnesium infusion improves survival in acute myocardial infarction

Aggressive fluid resuscitation improves survivability of major trauma

Hyperventilation to reduce intracranial pressure improves outcomes in intracranial hemorrhage

Asymptomatic hypertension (>180/100) requires urgent treatment to reduce mortality

 

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by ERMD

[MormonVideoGame]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In fact scientific theories have been overturned throughout history.  You need to go back to school and study science for awhile.

you need to go back to the OP, and read it carefully. 

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I hadn't replied to this but probably should have. Again I think it illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science and an ignorance of the history of science. The evolution of today is not the evolution of Darwin.

"basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence"

I am not talking about modification or improvements. I told you "Do you agree there are solid scientific theories that are very unlikely to be completely overturned by new evidence in the future?"

So I will ask one more time. As there ever been a powerful theory (1 to 8 apply) that was completely overturned by new evidence? I said completely overturned many times. 

So the "basic components" of Evolution overturned? 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I was thinking about it and even though I hadn't replied to this line I feel like it perfectly encapsulates the misunderstanding at play. You realize that relativity has been overturned exactly the way Newtonian mechanics has, right? Fairly early on it was shown that QM and GR are incompatible.

You realize it is called an expansion or improvements. Universities teach Newtonian mechanics to freshmen. Newtonian mechanics has not been overturned, otherwise they wound't teach it.  physicists are looking for a Grand Unified Theory.  

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

"basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence"I am not talking about modification or improvements. I told you "Do you agree there are solid scientific theories that are very unlikely to be completely overturned by new evidence in the future?"

But by that definition no science has been overturned. All wrong theories usually explained something. Usually succeeding theory just explains more by making a slight change.  I just don't think you can really define your thoughts in a fashion they work here. Either you put your claims in a form that they're tautologist or else you define them so broadly they'd cover geocentric astronomy. (Which of course worked to describe the positions of the stars and planets) After all the only difference between Copernicus and Ptolemy was where the center was. That's just a slight modification. 

Further you keep adding new epicenters - in this case the idea of 'basic components.' But what on earth does that mean? The only difference between quantum mechanics and traditional mechanics is the recognition that mechanics doesn't commute. i.e. AB - BA != 0. Does that mean Newtonian physics hasn't been overturned even though that the usual example of something that was overturned.

The problem is, any example I give you'll redefine your terms and say, "the basic components haven't changed." You've made your position unfalsifiable. 

It's really very hard to figure out just what you're claiming. With no malice I'd strongly suggest a basic reader in philosophy of science as I think it'd really help you a lot. It'd also probably be something you'd find very interesting. I'd also suggest Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, not because I fully agree with his model. (I don't - in particular he equivocates over paradigm horribly) But as a nice reader on some issues in the history of science it's a fantastic introduction.

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[MormonVideoGame]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Further you keep adding new epicenters - in this case the idea of 'basic components.' But what on earth does that mean? 

The problem is, any example I give you'll redefine your terms and say, "the basic components haven't changed." You've made your position unfalsifiable. 

ask the NAS http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's really very hard to figure out just what you're claiming. 

There are many scientific theories that turned out to be wrong, but has there ever been a powerful theory (1 to 8 apply) that turned out to be wrong years later? You know, I asked the same question to a group of friends, the question is simple.  

 

[MormonVideoGame]

So the question one more time. Point to a scientific theory that turned out to be wrong, but 1 - 8 applied to the theory at the time. 

In other words, a theory that was once accepted, but now abandoned.  

Edited March 10, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

So the question one more time. Point to a scientific theory that turned out to be wrong, but 1 - 8 applied to the theory at the time. 

In other words, a theory that was once accepted, but now abandoned.  

Newtonian physics.

Yes, I know, it's still taught and it still "works" but it only works because the errors in it only appear measurable enough in cases that we don't normally encounter.  It's foundational ideas of absolute space and time are demonstrably false.  Yet it was thought to be true for almost 300 years.  I think it satisfies all of your criteria.  It was freakin' successful and it turned out to be wrong (or, at least, not the whole story).

Another one: Euclidean geometry.

Like Newtonian physics, it is still taught and it still "works" but it only works because the errors in it only appear measurable enough in cases that we don't normally encounter (yes, word for word from above).  But this one was accepted for 2000 years (!!!!) before the non-Euclidean varieties came on the scene.

Sheesh, dude, you've got an ax to grind and it's kinda lame. I dare you to walk into a philosophy department, ask to speak to the philosophy of science lead professor, and ask your questions with the air of superiority that you have done here.

ETA: Perhaps you should read some Feyerabend. Your absolute faith in "1 - 8" could benefit from his cranky gadfly style philosophy of science.  Maybe start with "How to Defend Society Against Science."  It'll probably irritate you, but if you're intellectually honest you'll ask why it irritates you and try to figure out if his style is a means to his ends.

Edited March 11, 2017 by MiserereNobis