Much Ado about Nothing?

[Physics Guy]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Predictive prophesies sure sound great when the prophecies are written after the event.  Matthew was likely written after 70 CE. 

Sure. But dating the text of Matthew's gospel after 70 CE doesn't necessarily mean rejecting prophecy, because the question remains: Did whatever earlier tradition on which Matthew was based include an intelligible prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem? If so, the account in Eusebius would be exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to have happened, no matter when Matthew was written. If not, Eusebius would have to be recounting a third century urban legend. Fake news is old.

Historical analysis of the kind that tries to date Matthew's gospel doesn't have to rest on disbelief in prophecy. It might potentially test prophecy, however, by looking for historical events in which prophecy actually made a difference.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Physics Guy said:

Sure. But dating the text of Matthew's gospel after 70 CE doesn't necessarily mean rejecting prophecy, because the question remains: Did whatever earlier tradition on which Matthew was based include an intelligible prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem? If so, the account in Eusebius would be exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to have happened, no matter when Matthew was written. If not, Eusebius would have to be recounting a third century urban legend. Fake news is old.

Historical analysis of the kind that tries to date Matthew's gospel doesn't have to rest on disbelief in prophecy. It might potentially test prophecy, however, by looking for historical events in which prophecy actually made a difference.

I very much agree.  I found your story of tracking down the prophecy from Matthew interesting, though.  Thanks for sharing. 

[juliann]

On 9/11/2017 at 2:16 PM, hope_for_things said:

Did you even read this article that you linked to?  It essentially supports what I said earlier, that this Newsweek article did not represent a consensus view of the science in the 1970s, that unfortunately climate change deniers are using this as support for their arguments, and that the author of the article and Newsweek regret how this is being spun as evidence that scientists have changed their minds about the climate so we should ignore the current consensus.  The key point is, there was no consensus in the 70s about a cooling climate, this is a myth.  

 

I take it you weren't of age in that time period. It wasn't just one article, it also came out in publications like National Geographic. You are engaging in presentism. At that time, there was no internet, these publications were highly respected, journalists were considered credible, and quoting a few scientists was adequate. And the author of that one article does still stand by it based on what was available to him. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

Quote

 

"It's part of the game, once you get from science to politics, that's the way it's played," he said. "I just hope people don't think I think that way."

And still, Gwynne notes of his story, "I stand by it. It was accurate at the time."

 

There is the science but there is mostly the politics. The minute the silencing term of "climate denier" is used in an article, it should be discarded. This is too important of a topic to be playing with. That so many are distrustful of the media/political take on this means that somebody is more concerned about name calling than explaining it successfully.  And that is where I put your attempt to rewrite history to those who were there. Just because it wasn't accurate and is now embarrassing doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

[Physics Guy]

Thanks for the link to the article by Bourgel about the "flight to Pella", Clark.

I can enjoy the puzzle of fitting obscure prophetic phrases to current or past events as much as the next person. It's like a cryptic crossword; hard at first but with practice you can get good at it. What I'm having trouble seeing now is whether prophesies could have had any other purpose than that, even if they were real. If they provided effective warnings, why don't we hear more about those warnings succeeding—even just in the Scriptures themselves? If they didn't provide effective warnings, then why bother making prophesies? Amusing later interpreters with the game of matching events to prophecies in hindsight doesn't really seem like a good enough goal.

[Physics Guy]

52 minutes ago, juliann said:

At that time, there was no internet, these publications were highly respected, journalists were considered credible, and quoting a few scientists was adequate.

But isn't that a point about the perception of scientific issues by the general public, rather than about what the actual scientific consensus was? I mean, science was still science in the 1970's. Scientists themselves weren't going by Newsweek and National Geographic.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Physics Guy

[juliann]

23 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

But isn't that a point about the perception of scientific issues by the general public, rather than about what the actual scientific consensus was? I mean, science was still science in the 1970's. Scientists themselves weren't going by Newsweek and National Geographic.

Our idea of scientific consensus was 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest. Again, don't try to force today's advancements back to a former century when women were still being told they should be secretaries, teachers, and nurses. It was a different world that even I find unbelievable today. But it happened. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

If they didn't provide effective warnings, then why bother making prophesies? Amusing later interpreters with the game of matching events to prophecies in hindsight doesn't really seem like a good enough goal.

I think the usual view is that there are warnings - more akin to what Jeremiah or Isaiah offered to the political environment of their times - but that the warnings could be dealt with if people repented. That seems perfectly fine.

While I'm skeptical of his position, there are theologians like Blake Ostler who embrace what is termed Open Theism. This is the idea that the future doesn't yet exist and thus is essentially knowable except to the degree things follow patterns. So say an orbit is knowable but only because nothing else interferes with its pattern. It's not truly knowable in that you can't know for sure nothing would interfere. For Blake this entails there's no divine foreknowledge only very good predictions. However since there is for Blake absolute free will this means God's knowledge is limited to the degree it depends upon free choices. I'd probably throw in some chaos theory such that any phenomena that doesn't converge when pertubated is unknowable as well - which given free will is probably most things about humans.

Now that's not formal Mormon theology. I'm agnostic on the issue myself - although I'll confess it's more because I'm convinced by general relativity as entailing a 4D view of the universe rather than any inherent theological problem. But it's something to keep in mind as an inherent theological limit on prophecy for many Mormons.

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

Our idea of scientific consensus was 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest. Again, don't try to force today's advancements back to a former century when women were still being told they should be secretaries, teachers, and nurses. It was a different world that even I find unbelievable today. But it happened. 

As I said science reporting was horrible then and remains horrible for the most part - particularly in cases of health. Whole established truths were made up out of thin air and became consensus with no data. Think how salt affected health, the effects of fat on diet, and a whole lot more. The problem is that even when news got the science right they often didn't get the empirical strength correct.

I'm not sure that says much about the science as such, but it did unfortunately lead to a lot of skepticism about science when fairly unscientific fields like psychology or diet (and even elements of medicine which weren't terribly evidence based) kept having consensus significantly overturned. That in turn led to skepticism by the public of scientific claims even when the evidence is strong.

Edited September 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Physics Guy]

8 hours ago, juliann said:

Our idea of scientific consensus was 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest. Again, don't try to force today's advancements back to a former century when women were still being told they should be secretaries, teachers, and nurses. It was a different world that even I find unbelievable today. But it happened. 

Sure, but hope_for_things and sheilauk were arguing about the actual scientific consensus in the 1970s, not about what the general public of the 1970s thought the scientific consensus was. Their discussion began with sheilauk saying, "In the 1970s and early 80s most scientists claimed the earth was cooling and an ice age was coming." Whether lay people in the 1970s had that impression because they put naive trust in National Geographic, or not, is an interesting side issue, but it's not what hope_for_things was addressing.

So I don't see how hope_for_things was guilty of presentism or anything like that.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Physics Guy

[Physics Guy]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the usual view is that there are warnings - more akin to what Jeremiah or Isaiah offered to the political environment of their times - but that the warnings could be dealt with if people repented.

If the purpose of prophecy is to get people to repent, then is accurately foretelling future events even important? The mysterious visions might just be  vivid imagery meant to convey, "Dire things will happen if you don't repent now!", without really specifying exactly what the dire things would be. Maybe the whole idea that prophecies were even supposed to foretell specific future events was just an effort to steady the Ark on the part of pious later writers who wrote in backdated predictions. I mean, you can pretty much date that passage in Daniel from the point at which its transparent allegory for actual history abruptly goes off the rails. The fundamentalist reading has the prophet's target time frame leap thousands of years into the future at that point, without any warning, but I can't see a real prophet pulling a dodge like that.

Reading that article to which you linked about the flight to Pella, it seems plausible (though not certain) that the Christian community in Jerusalem did indeed get out before the siege. The main reason to think that this happened seems to be that quite a lot of people got out of Jerusalem before things got really bad, because the Romans had a big policy of encouraging deserters and then resettling them in various cities around Palestine. Although this does make the flight to Pella more plausible, it reduces the role of prophecy in the event, because it makes clear that anyone with their wits about them was keen to get out of Jerusalem at that point, and that many people were able to do so. It becomes much less of a wonder if the Christians were part of this crowd.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Physics Guy

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, juliann said:

I take it you weren't of age in that time period. It wasn't just one article, it also came out in publications like National Geographic. You are engaging in presentism. At that time, there was no internet, these publications were highly respected, journalists were considered credible, and quoting a few scientists was adequate. And the author of that one article does still stand by it based on what was available to him. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

There is the science but there is mostly the politics. The minute the silencing term of "climate denier" is used in an article, it should be discarded. This is too important of a topic to be playing with. That so many are distrustful of the media/political take on this means that somebody is more concerned about name calling than explaining it successfully.  And that is where I put your attempt to rewrite history to those who were there. Just because it wasn't accurate and is now embarrassing doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

Take a look at these resources please, while there were a few media outlets reporting a cooling trend, the vast majority of scientists were predicting warming at the time.  One person, who interestingly enough even supports the idea of human caused climate change in the very link you sent, does not represent the vast majority of scientific thought on this issue.  

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

There is science and there is politics, I totally agree.  Science is shows that our climate is changing and that mankind is having a huge impact on that change.  Politics is people taking a few 70s articles out of context and trying to show that as proof against the climate change.  Politics is trying to say both sides are equal when that isn't even remotely true.  I'm not one to use the label "climate deniers", but I am tempted at times because the science is so strong, you just have to do a little research and its really clear.  

Now, that doesn't mean I agree with every political recommendation on how to fix the problem, that is one thing we should debate, how to fix our climate problems, but we shouldn't be debating the science around what is happening because the evidence of what is happening is really really clear.  

[rongo]

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

If the purpose of prophecy is to get people to repent, then is accurately foretelling future events even important? 

While encouraging repentance is a major theme with prophecy, an awful lot of it looks forward to glorious future events. The Restoration takes up on this and then puts it on steroids (AoF 10;  D&C 133, etc. come to mind). 

The messianic/Millennial reign prophecies in Isaiah (regardless of single or multiple authorship), much in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, etc. also come to mind. Repentance is not the sole intent there. Where people differ in finding meaning is whether they represent poetic expression of hopes, or actual revealed things that will be.

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

If the purpose of prophecy is to get people to repent, then is accurately foretelling future events even important?

In one sense no. Although in an other sense warning of consequences is important. Think about when you are trying to teach your children. Telling them the consequences of their action is an important part of teaching and getting them to pay attention.

Quote

The mysterious visions might just be  vivid imagery meant to convey, "Dire things will happen if you don't repent now!", without really specifying exactly what the dire things would be.

That's certainly part of the apocalyptic literary style. Although in some cases (think Isaiah or Jeremiah) the warnings are pretty specific. We could argue that, much like Joseph's prophecy of the civil war during the nullification crisis, these prophecies were rather obvious warnings dealing with rationally determinable potential consequences. After all Joseph was hardly the only one warning of war over slavery. Likewise I rather suspect Isaiah and his contemporary prophets weren't the only ones warning of Assyria nor Jeremiah and Lehi the only ones warning of an Egyptian alliance against Babylon.

Quote

Maybe the whole idea that prophecies were even supposed to foretell specific future events was just an effort to steady the Ark on the part of pious later writers who wrote in backdated predictions.

I don't know about that. But I think there's a natural tendency to see confirmation and ignore the vagueness. 

Quote

Reading that article to which you linked about the flight to Pella, it seems plausible (though not certain) that the Christian community in Jerusalem did indeed get out before the siege. The main reason to think that this happened seems to be that quite a lot of people got out of Jerusalem before things got really bad, because the Romans had a big policy of encouraging deserters and then resettling them in various cities around Palestine. Although this does make the flight to Pella more plausible, it reduces the role of prophecy in the event, because it makes clear that anyone with their wits about them was keen to get out of Jerusalem at that point, and that many people were able to do so. It becomes much less of a wonder if the Christians were part of this crowd.

Also as I mentioned anyone reading Mark would be worried about staying in Jerusalem much like anyone reading Jeremiah could rationally fear staying in Jerusalem. So I think we have to be careful here. It doesn't just require Roman incentives. It just means taking the vague statements seriously in terms of the events of the day. Much like during the cold war people tended to interpret old apocalyptic texts in a fashion that shaped their reaction to China and the Soviet Union. It doesn't mean those texts were really referring to the cold war in a determinative fashion but it does mean people at that time would read them as doing so in various ways determining their actions. 

Of course if the prophecies were designed to shape behavior, then they did function the way they were intended to. To those reading who might get upset at this applied to Mark, Jeremiah or Isaiah, just think of all the extra-canonical apocalyptic texts around in the century or two before Christ through the first few centuries after Christ. I doubt most faithful readings think those are authentic, but the authors clearly had motives in writing them typically tied to the political tensions of first Hellenistic conquerers and then Roman ones.

In saying all this of course I'm not personally disputing that God might give much more specific warnings. While I'm terrified to sound like I'm agreeing with "Samuel the Lamanite" here, I personally suspect he's just taking a reasonable doctrine (the necessary hiddenness of proof for God) and then exaggerating it for effect. So he takes it as implying young earth creationism, nahom and other things are hidden so no one can prove that. That seems silly to me. But there is a true principle distantly behind it in that I think God won't make explicit prophecies so detailed that it'd constitute strong evidence for his existence. From a Mormon perspective that would undermine the balance between being enticed by God versus alternatives. (A big doctrine in the Book of Mormon) It would also undermine the doctrine that the plan of salvation and our fall to this world entails ignorance of God for some necessary step in our progressions. Thus given those key doctrines we'd not expect explicit public prophecies of the sort you asked about originally.

Even people who deny foreknowledge, like Blake Ostler or David Paulson, think God has things he can bring about and thus can prophesy about. Say the millennium or salvation. That's because he has the power to make sure such things happen. Anything else for them might be very high probability events (like predicting the effects of Zedekiah's alliance with Egypt against Babylon) but that the probabilities are high only in vaguer statements like war over slavery.

Edited September 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Stargazer]

On 9/13/2017 at 8:59 AM, hope_for_things said:

I haven't seen one relevant example yet, care to point something out?  Also, lets assume for a moment you can find one example that has relevance, does this make the whole enterprise of scientific peer review completely untrustworthy in your opinion?   

Didn't say anything about peer review being completely untrustworthy, thanks for the straw man.

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Didn't say anything about peer review being completely untrustworthy, thanks for the straw man.

You also said plenty of relevant examples had been provided already, but you can't name a single one.  What you're doing is dodging the question.  

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You also said plenty of relevant examples had been provided already, but you can't name a single one.  What you're doing is dodging the question.  

I'm not dodging anything. Word usage, sir: it's not that I can't name a single one; I merely did not do so. If you don't recall the most detailed answer you've gotten in this thread, which you blew off with airy handwaving, then I don't see any point in adding anything. I'm dead certain that any examples I could come up with would be blown off with equal abandon. 

The bottom line with you is this: you trust the hand of man far more than the hand of man deserves to be trusted.

Consensus is not in itself science, and 50 million Frenchmen can be wrong.  Now it is probably true that those Frenchmen are not often wrong, and perhaps consensus gives us a place of security from which to approach other questions.  But allowing consensus (and peer review) to constitute the be-all and end-all of truth is actually anti-science. That's my opinion, which I believe you disagree with, and you're entitled to do so. It's a free universe, after all.

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Stargazer

[mfbukowski]

On 9/14/2017 at 2:21 PM, Physics Guy said:

Sure. But dating the text of Matthew's gospel after 70 CE doesn't necessarily mean rejecting prophecy, because the question remains: Did whatever earlier tradition on which Matthew was based include an intelligible prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem? If so, the account in Eusebius would be exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to have happened, no matter when Matthew was written. If not, Eusebius would have to be recounting a third century urban legend. Fake news is old.

Historical analysis of the kind that tries to date Matthew's gospel doesn't have to rest on disbelief in prophecy. It might potentially test prophecy, however, by looking for historical events in which prophecy actually made a difference.

Oh my gosh.

As if the question of if "it really happened" is even relevant.  You guys are more fundamentalist than the worst hard-core young earth creationists.  Parables teach us principles by which we can live and are time-proven by the human race to benefit us all.

Do I worry about Kant's philosophy being "real"?

No, the question is "What can I use here that helps me live better"?  That is the goal of science and religion and all philosophy- not to find some unknowable realm that is now "unknown"

Is any metaphysics considered "real" by anyone, even those who write it?

The whole question in physics, or even metaphysics if whether or not the theory works for its intended purpose.  The intended purpose for metaphysics is providing a coherent theory upon which an individual can base her life.

The intended purpose for physics is providing a coherent theory upon which one can perform further research for more refined theories.   

We will NEVER stop forming theories as if there is a final "answer" for any of it because EVERY theory implies human interaction with it.  Humans change so theories and explanations must change and keep advancing.  Theories are useless without humans who test them in their spheres of truth.  (DC 93- Alma 32 et al)

To me both views- that there is some "unchangeable" reality to be "discovered" in either physics OR metaphysics or theology is very naive. 

[Physics Guy]

If there are no facts, then what can it mean for a theory to "work"? Is it a fact that my theory "works"? Could there even be some kind of reason why my theory works? Or do I merely have a meta-theory which says that my first theory works, and my meta-theory just happens to "work" (lucky me)? If the latter, then is it a fact that my meta-theory works? Or is that only a meta-meta-theory?

It seems to me that all your statements about theories working are meaningless unless you bail out of the infinite regress at some point, and admit that there is some effective quasi-factuality at some level, such that whether a (meta)^n-theory works or not is something horribly like (deep breath) a fact. If you're never prepared to do that at any point, then pray what do you even mean by "theory" or "work"?

But if you're prepared to accept that one notion at any level might ever be even somewhat more truthful (oh dear) than another notion, then what are you really even doing but kicking down a ridiculous straw man of naive objectivity which nobody actually holds?

Edited September 17, 2017 by Physics Guy

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

If there are no facts, then what can it mean for a theory to "work"? Is it a fact that my theory "works"? Could there even be some kind of reason why my theory works? Or do I merely have a meta-theory which says that my first theory works, and my meta-theory just happens to "work" (lucky me)? If the latter, then is it a fact that my meta-theory works? Or is that only a meta-meta-theory?

It seems to me that all your statements about theories working are meaningless unless you bail out of the infinite regress at some point, and admit that there is some effective quasi-factuality at some level, such that whether a (meta)^n-theory works or not is something horribly like (deep breath) a fact. If you're never prepared to do that at any point, then pray what do you even mean by "theory" or "work"?

But if you're prepared to accept that one notion at any level might ever be even somewhat more truthful (oh dear) than another notion, then what are you really even doing but kicking down a ridiculous straw man of naive objectivity which nobody actually holds?

This is called the pragmatic theory of truth, and has been around for 150 years. If my theory says if I combine one chemical with another, x will happen, and it happens, then the theory works.

It is not about what is "true"it is about what works.

It us not about making up laws about the cosmos, it is about predictions and paradigms.

For most people truth never changes. Facts don't change.

In the pragmatic view, it changes all the time, there are no facts, just interpretations of data, which shift in paradigms which are always subject to interpretation.  A paradigm works and gives us satisfactory explanations for a while then new data comes and we must adjust the theory/paradigm.

But paradigms are not about unchanging truth- they are about temporary explanations of why phenomena appear to be x when suddenly we discover that x  no longer is an adequate explanation.

Here is a  a link to an article about Kuhn who revolutionized this way of thinking

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

Again, I am posting a link to the deflationary theory of truth which simplifies everything and disconnects language from the world.  We speak about phenomena and observations and appearances, not about "what is" because all we can see are appearances.  "Truth" becomes undefinable.

And here is why it's not an infinite regress:  You still want the illusion of "truth" tied to the world, when in fact there are no such moorings.  I know, it will take a while to get your sea legs but then you will be perfectly comfortable.   I learned all this 50 years ago!

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

And also here is a video most here are tired of seeing, but you have not seen it yet.  Richard Rorty was one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, and you should know about him if you agree or not.

Trust me, I am not making this stuff up- it is well established in the philosophy of science and has been for a hundred or more years.

In fact I would put this basic notion all the way back to Kant and his synthetic apriori, which is the idea that we humans contribute to creating reality AS WE KNOW IT.

Read my siggy below- it all says the same thing.

We cannot know something which has NOT been generated by a human brain.  Every word out of every mouth, every bit of scientific literature, every bit of philosophy or religion or theory on how to sweep a floor has come out of a human brain.

It seems so obvious to me.  We don't know the "world as it is" we only know the world as humans are capable of seeing it.

THAT is the difference between my paradigm and yours and the difference between pursuing "what works" as opposed to  unchanging "TRUTH" emblazoned in stone

It works for a while then something else works better.  Cars work better than the horse and buggy.  It's really that simple.  And now we have cars we don't even have to drive.  Theys' mo' bettah even!

Are electric self driving cars the "one true car"?  

Until something works better, sure, why not?

The old hippie in me still wants to quote Jefferson Airplane

 

"Crown Of Creation"
 

You are the crown of creation.
You are the crown of creation,
And you've got no place to go.

Soon you'll attain the stability you strive for,
In the only way that it's granted:
In a place among the fossils of our time.

In loyalty to their kind
They cannot tolerate our minds.
In loyalty to our kind
We cannot tolerate their obstruction!

Life is change.
How it differs from the rocks.
I've seen their ways too often for my liking.
New worlds to gain.
My life is to survive and be alive
for you.

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm not dodging anything. Word usage, sir: it's not that I can't name a single one; I merely did not do so. If you don't recall the most detailed answer you've gotten in this thread, which you blew off with airy handwaving, then I don't see any point in adding anything. I'm dead certain that any examples I could come up with would be blown off with equal abandon. 

The bottom line with you is this: you trust the hand of man far more than the hand of man deserves to be trusted.

Consensus is not in itself science, and 50 million Frenchmen can be wrong.  Now it is probably true that those Frenchmen are not often wrong, and perhaps consensus gives us a place of security from which to approach other questions.  But allowing consensus (and peer review) to constitute the be-all and end-all of truth is actually anti-science. That's my opinion, which I believe you disagree with, and you're entitled to do so. It's a free universe, after all.

 

What example are you talking about, the cooling in the 1970s myth that I provided scientific studies to refute and that is used  by political hacks who've done little to no research and yet they keep repeating myths to perpetuate their position as they assume the majority of their voters will never fact check these claims.  

Is this the great example shooting a hole in my argument?  

Or is your well reasoned argument now a perfect solution fallacy where if 50 million Frenchmen can be wrong (statistically speaking, yes) then we can reject the scientific method and peer review whenever we disagree with their findings because it runs contrary to our personal biases.  

How would you propose to selectively use science without falling prey to human logical fallacies and biases.  

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What example are you talking about, the cooling in the 1970s myth that I provided scientific studies to refute and that is used  by political hacks who've done little to no research and yet they keep repeating myths to perpetuate their position as they assume the majority of their voters will never fact check these claims.  

1

Nope

Quote

Is this the great example shooting a hole in my argument?  

 

Wasn't arguing with you.  So far all I've done is say I disagree and since you have airily blown off the most substantive argument made in the thread so far, I didn't see the point of engaging. 

Quote

Or is your well reasoned argument now a perfect solution fallacy where if 50 million Frenchmen can be wrong (statistically speaking, yes) then we can reject the scientific method and peer review whenever we disagree with their findings because it runs contrary to our personal biases.  

2

Ha ha. The 50 million Frenchmen thing was supposed to be an amusing literary reference, not a substantive argument, but if you want to take it as seriously as that, be my guest. 

And the straw man is saying that I reject the scientific method and peer review whenever I disagree with the findings thereof. Didn't say that, don't do it, and don't believe in it. 

And it was Smac who provided the examples of the problems in connection with peer review that you blew off. See below for extensions of what he brought up.

Quote

How would you propose to selectively use science without falling prey to human logical fallacies and biases.  

Not being a scientist, per se, I don't claim to have the expertise to fix the problems that have been raised. 

But allow me to provide you with a few links discussing the problem.  

Problems with Peer Review:

• National Institutes of Health (UK): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
• TheBMJ: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1409
• Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763
• arsTechnica: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/can-we-trust-peer-review-new-study-highlights-some-problems/
• Phys.org: https://phys.org/news/2014-11-peer-fraught-problems.html
• American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/the_peer_review_problem.html
• Kevin MD: http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/12/problem-peer-review-scientific-publishing.html
• Vox: https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems
• Wired: https://www.wired.com/2014/12/pubpeer-fights-for-anonymity/
• Academe Blog: https://academeblog.org/2014/12/19/peer-review-problems-to-watch/
• Univ of North Carolina (quoting British Medical Journal): https://ils.unc.edu/courses/2015_fall/inls700_001/Readings/Smith1998-ProblemsWithPeerReview.pdf

Science is a human activity. Humans can be emotional and illogical, even scientists are not immune. 

One example of how human scientific jealousy and acceptance of current research at the expense of new information can halt scientific progress for years, I give you Ales Hrdlicka .  A very prominent and successful anthropologist, he founded and edited the American Journal of Physical Anthropology for 24 years.  During that time he singlehandedly held at bay all progress in research on the presence of ancient American Indians before 3,000 years BP.  "So thoroughly did he discredit all purported findings of ancient Indians that a later director of the Bureau of American Ethnology admitted that for decades it was a career-killer for an archaeologist to claim to have 'discovered indications of a respectable antiquity for the Indian'." [from the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann]. Eventually, the evidence for ancient man in the Americas became overwhelming, and Hrlicka's influence was overcome sufficiently to permit advancement -- but his authority and influence hampered progress in the field for literally decades.  This is not ancient history, by the way. Hrdlicka died in 1943.  Hrdlicka is far from the only modern or fairly modern example of this kind of human failing in science.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Stargazer

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And the straw man is saying that I reject the scientific method and peer review whenever I disagree with the findings thereof. Didn't say that, don't do it, and don't believe in it. 

 

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Science is a human activity. Humans can be emotional and illogical, even scientists are not immune. 

One example of how human scientific jealousy and acceptance of current research at the expense of new information can halt scientific progress for years, I give you Ales Hrdlicka .  A very prominent and successful anthropologist, he founded and edited the American Journal of Physical Anthropology for 24 years.  During that time he singlehandedly held at bay all progress in research on the presence of ancient American Indians before 3,000 years BP.  "So thoroughly did he discredit all purported findings of ancient Indians that a later director of the Bureau of American Ethnology admitted that for decades it was a career-killer for an archaeologist to claim to have 'discovered indications of a respectable antiquity for the Indian'." [from the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann]. Eventually, the evidence for ancient man in the Americas became overwhelming, and Hrlicka's influence was overcome sufficiently to permit advancement -- but his authority and influence hampered progress in the field for literally decades.  This is not ancient history, by the way. Hrdlicka died in 1943.  Hrdlicka is far from the only modern or fairly modern example of this kind of human failing in science.

Thanks for providing those links, I read a couple of them, and I think they bring out some really important points.  I didn't want to give the impression that I believe the peer review process is flawless or immune from bias.  Is it possible for a powerful individual or institution to hold back progress in a field of study like your example shows from the early 20th century, yes its possible.  I think its less likely today with the way information is shared in a communication age, but there are still degrees of possibility and degrees of this happening as human nature, subjectivity and bias can't be eliminated from the equations.  Some really good thoughts about how the peer review process could be improved, I found in one of your links from the NIH. 

Quote

The most important question with peer review is not whether to abandon it, but how to improve it. Many ideas have been advanced to do so, and an increasing number have been tested experimentally. The options include: standardizing procedures; opening up the process; blinding reviewers to the identity of authors; reviewing protocols; training reviewers; being more rigorous in selecting and deselecting reviewers; using electronic review; rewarding reviewers; providing detailed feedback to reviewers; using more checklists; or creating professional review agencies. It might be, however, that the best response would be to adopt a very quick and light form of peer review—and then let the broader world critique the paper or even perhaps rank it in the way that Amazon asks users to rank books and CDs.

However, I still would be hesitant to claim that any particular scientific consensus is obviously wrong, especially as an untrained individual.  The reality of how most people conduct their lives when it comes to these highly specialized fields of scientific study is to just accept the prevailing wisdom of the experts and the science.  Now that doesn't mean that the science is always 100% right, many consensus have changed and will continue to evolve over time and through following the process, as flawed as that process is, there isn't an obviously better alternative out there.  

What I see people arguing for in this thread is that untrained individuals are able to completely dismiss the scholarship on a subject because they have done a surface assessment of the scholarship and they find it doesn't line up with their perspective.  This approach is very risky.  A person wants to point out flaws in peer review as justification for dismissing the current scientific consensus.  The reality is that the scientific peer reviewed system is light-years more reliable than the untrained individually biased personal assessment method they are using. 

If the strawman argument I made earlier does not properly characterize your approach to things, perhaps you can explain how you would approach a topic that you aren't a trained expert in, and when you would feel confident enough in your personal assessment to dismiss the work of scholars in favor or your personal research.  

[stemelbow]

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 8:08 AM, mfbukowski said:

This is called the pragmatic theory of truth, and has been around for 150 years. If my theory says if I combine one chemical with another, x will happen, and it happens, then the theory works.

It is not about what is "true"it is about what works.

It us not about making up laws about the cosmos, it is about predictions and paradigms.

For most people truth never changes. Facts don't change.

In the pragmatic view, it changes all the time, there are no facts, just interpretations of data, which shift in paradigms which are always subject to interpretation.  A paradigm works and gives us satisfactory explanations for a while then new data comes and we must adjust the theory/paradigm.

But paradigms are not about unchanging truth- they are about temporary explanations of why phenomena appear to be x when suddenly we discover that x  no longer is an adequate explanation.

Here is a  a link to an article about Kuhn who revolutionized this way of thinking

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

Again, I am posting a link to the deflationary theory of truth which simplifies everything and disconnects language from the world.  We speak about phenomena and observations and appearances, not about "what is" because all we can see are appearances.  "Truth" becomes undefinable.

And here is why it's not an infinite regress:  You still want the illusion of "truth" tied to the world, when in fact there are no such moorings.  I know, it will take a while to get your sea legs but then you will be perfectly comfortable.   I learned all this 50 years ago!

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

And also here is a video most here are tired of seeing, but you have not seen it yet.  Richard Rorty was one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, and you should know about him if you agree or not.

Trust me, I am not making this stuff up- it is well established in the philosophy of science and has been for a hundred or more years.

In fact I would put this basic notion all the way back to Kant and his synthetic apriori, which is the idea that we humans contribute to creating reality AS WE KNOW IT.

Read my siggy below- it all says the same thing.

We cannot know something which has NOT been generated by a human brain.  Every word out of every mouth, every bit of scientific literature, every bit of philosophy or religion or theory on how to sweep a floor has come out of a human brain.

It seems so obvious to me.  We don't know the "world as it is" we only know the world as humans are capable of seeing it.

THAT is the difference between my paradigm and yours and the difference between pursuing "what works" as opposed to  unchanging "TRUTH" emblazoned in stone

It works for a while then something else works better.  Cars work better than the horse and buggy.  It's really that simple.  And now we have cars we don't even have to drive.  Theys' mo' bettah even!

Are electric self driving cars the "one true car"?  

Until something works better, sure, why not?

The old hippie in me still wants to quote Jefferson Airplane

 

"Crown Of Creation"
 

You are the crown of creation.
You are the crown of creation,
And you've got no place to go.

Soon you'll attain the stability you strive for,
In the only way that it's granted:
In a place among the fossils of our time.

In loyalty to their kind
They cannot tolerate our minds.
In loyalty to our kind
We cannot tolerate their obstruction!

Life is change.
How it differs from the rocks.
I've seen their ways too often for my liking.
New worlds to gain.
My life is to survive and be alive
for you.

 

This theory, this line of reasoning, I think, works well with the Church.  The problem is the Church in official proclamations rejects it for the most part.  It makes it very difficult, if not dead end-filled, to even discuss truth in this way with members. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This theory, this line of reasoning, I think, works well with the Church.  The problem is the Church in official proclamations rejects it for the most part.  It makes it very difficult, if not dead end-filled, to even discuss truth in this way with members. 

I don't think "the church" rejects it at all.  I would like evidence of that- I don't think you will find it.  You will find GA's who do not understand it condemn "relativism" but they are not infallible and if they would think a bit about the idea that God has much more to reveal that they in their wisdom do not yet understand I think they would be open to the idea that every word spoken by every leader is not perfect.

There have been many statements to that effect.   Blind obedience leads to Jonestown and I think they are very aware of that NOW as opposed to say the 1950's so I would not say that.

I mean guys like Givens and Mason are still very much Mormons.

These ideas are still new to the ordinary man- as was the Copernican revolution.

I think there are a few factors are in favor for the members to support such a view

1- There is no rational justification available anymore for putting science at odds with religion.  Religion is dying because it does NOT accept such views.

2- In the natural course of affairs, it takes a few hundred years for philosophical ideas to filter down to the general public level- for those who are totally untrained in philosophy- to accept new ideas as the "normal" paradigm.  These ideas on this form have only been around 150 years or so.

3- Atheists are beginning to understand their own views can be understood as "religious".  There are more and more books about secular religions coming out every month.  Unfortunately those who choose the atheist path tend to be more sophisticated than those who do not think about these things- simply because the DO think about it even if their logic is untutored.   "God does not exist because I cannot see Him".  Duh.  Not very sophisticated- but that is what you see hereabouts.  But at least the idea has crossed their minds that what is "real" or "exists" should have certain characteristics.  They are trying to define "reality" though they do not have the theories available to do so.

This has nothing to do with intelligence- simply education.   If you never have had a college level philosophy class chances are these ideas have never crossed your mind until someone asks you about God.

5- It will become a case of natural selection.  If religious thought does not make itself relevant in  secular age, it will die.

Simple as that.

But because humans NEED purpose in their life and an explanation of the unspeakable it will revive.   It is in our genes.  Again we have the two paradigms: "God put it there" vs "Faith has survival value in itself".  I believe both, including the idea that God is us.   There is no way to determine if any of these other views is "correct"- indeed there IS no "correct" then.

I choose to affirm and trust in the church and the Lord.  Partially it is because I KNOW there is nothing better out there, and the critics have no clue in thinking there IS!

THAT belief allows me to experience the spirit without guessing in total freedom to follow whatever that voice inside me tells me.  I have no doubts that there are no better paradigms to explain those feelings within myself, so I can let them go unfettered by doubt.

It is a wonderful feeling!

I just wish that others could experience what it is like to give up "TRUTH" to learn truth.

But until they do, I will keep trying as long as God allows me to do so.  The idea that God is human and within us-  and that we are his children and have that spark of divinity within us is the most powerful force for good on the earth- I am totally convinced.

I just wish God would teach the Mormons that!

Oh wait.

He's trying!

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't think "the church" rejects it at all.  I would like evidence of that- I don't think you will find it.  You will find GA's who do not understand it condemn "relativism" but they are not infallible and if they would think a bit about the idea that God has much more to reveal that they in their wisdom do not yet understand I think they would be open to the idea that every word spoken by every leader is not perfect.

Well.  Ok.  But the condemnation of relativism is the type of thing I had in mind when I said what I said.  The GA's are as much the Church as anyone, I'd say. 

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There have been many statements to that effect.   Blind obedience leads to Jonestown and I think they are very aware of that NOW as opposed to say the 1950's so I would not say that.

I mean guys like Givens and Mason are still very much Mormons.

These ideas are still new to the ordinary man- as was the Copernican revolution.

I think there are a few factors are in favor for the members to support such a view

1- There is no rational justification available anymore for putting science at odds with religion.  Religion is dying because it does NOT accept such views.

2- In the natural course of affairs, it takes a few hundred years for philosophical ideas to filter down to the general public level- for those who are totally untrained in philosophy- to accept new ideas as the "normal" paradigm.  These ideas on this form have only been around 150 years or so.

3- Atheists are beginning to understand their own views can be understood as "religious".  There are more and more books about secular religions coming out every month.  Unfortunately those who choose the atheist path tend to be more sophisticated than those who do not think about these things- simply because the DO think about it even if their logic is untutored.   "God does not exist because I cannot see Him".  Duh.  Not very sophisticated- but that is what you see hereabouts.  But at least the idea has crossed their minds that what is "real" or "exists" should have certain characteristics.  They are trying to define "reality" though they do not have the theories available to do so.

This has nothing to do with intelligence- simply education.   If you never have had a college level philosophy class chances are these ideas have never crossed your mind until someone asks you about God.

5- It will become a case of natural selection.  If religious thought does not make itself relevant in  secular age, it will die.

Simple as that.

But because humans NEED purpose in their life and an explanation of the unspeakable it will revive.   It is in our genes.  Again we have the two paradigms: "God put it there" vs "Faith has survival value in itself".  I believe both, including the idea that God is us.   There is no way to determine if any of these other views is "correct"- indeed there IS no "correct" then.

I choose to affirm and trust in the church and the Lord.  Partially it is because I KNOW there is nothing better out there, and the critics have no clue in thinking there IS!

THAT belief allows me to experience the spirit without guessing in total freedom to follow whatever that voice inside me tells me.  I have no doubts that there are no better paradigms to explain those feelings within myself, so I can let them go unfettered by doubt.

It is a wonderful feeling!

I just wish that others could experience what it is like to give up "TRUTH" to learn truth.

But until they do, I will keep trying as long as God allows me to do so.  The idea that God is human and within us-  and that we are his children and have that spark of divinity within us is the most powerful force for good on the earth- I am totally convinced.

I just wish God would teach the Mormons that!

Oh wait.

He's trying!

 

Very good.  I agree with all of this.