Gallileo Gambit; somewhat justified?

[ArthurWilborn]

Miranda keeps bringing this up, and I can't quite dismiss this entirely.

It's certainly true that people with a vested interest in something being true, even a scientific theory, will defend that thing beyond the bounds of rationality. So, when this happens, how are we to detect that an unwarranted dismissal has taken place?

If she brings up scientists who were derided for a time and then vindicated, you can claim the system worked in the end. If she brings up people who are currently dismissed, you can claim that their dismissal is a priori proof that they are, in fact, wrong. This seems to indicate an underlying assumption that the scientific system of review will always produce correct results, which seems suspiciously close to faith.

 

[RichardMNixon]

If she brings up scientists who were derided for a time and then vindicated, you can claim the system worked in the end. If she brings up people who are currently dismissed, you can claim that their dismissal is a priori proof that they are, in fact, wrong. This seems to indicate an underlying assumption that the scientific system of review will always produce correct results, which seems suspiciously close to faith.

Not "in fact" wrong, just probably wrong. Science corrects itself eventually, that's what's so great about it. It's not like things are dismissed without reason either; an idea dismissed may just not have had enough convincing evidence. Try, try again. It might just need a few more experiments. More often than not, it was just a bad idea.

Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works.

It's not an assumption, it has a track record. No, science isn't right every time, all the time, always, immediately. But it works a lot more often than prayer or monkeys on typewriters.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

In my opinion, the Galileo Cambit does not even apply in this case. Comparing innovative scientific break through to an archaeological excavation is a non sequitur at best. Excavation and survey of a site are nothing new and nothing special, honestly. After you have discovered something is when you are able to start extrapolating about the site.

All the pseudo-archeologists Miranda points to have not produced any evidence, only pictures. None of them has conducted basic survey or excavation of the sites. This means the claims they are making about the sites are unfounded. They have recovered no artifacts and no radiometric dates for any of the sites.

She also keeps claiming that there is out of place knowledge, yet provides no evidence for that claim. We find evidence that the pyramids in Egypt and Mesoamerica for example were constructed using simple tools and materials. One would think that if aliens built or helped build the structures they would have used tools and materials that are far more advanced. Furthermore, we would have found some of those advanced tools and materials. We do not find Moses's DVD collection; we find artifacts that could have been created by people living at that time.

Something else Miranda does is claim that there is an orthodoxy in archaeology. That claim just goes to show how little she has researched into the field of archaeology. There is no orthodoxy besides having to provide evidence to support your claims. However, inside the field of archaeology many people hold wildly differing ideas. There is no homogenous orthodoxy in archaeology.

The fact remains, until the people making the claims about those sites can provide some evidence, there claims will remain ignored. Further more, RichardMNixon is correct.

Not "in fact" wrong, just probably wrong. Science corrects itself eventually, that's what's so great about it. It's not like things are dismissed without reason either; an idea dismissed may just not have had enough convincing evidence. Try, try again. It might just need a few more experiments. More often than not, it was just a bad idea.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

I think Carl Sagan said it best: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
* Broca's Brain (1979)

The fact that they're dismissed indicates that (obviously) they're not accepted by the larger scientific community - this in of its self does not mean they're wrong, but it does indicate they're more likely wrong than right. For every 1 "Galileo" on the fringes of science, there are legions of Nephys. - the only thing us lay-people can really do is watch the scientific method sort out the Galileos from the Bozos.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

the only thing us lay-people can really do is watch the scientific method sort out the Galileos from the Bozos.

How is this different from faith? We're simply trusting others to do our thinking for us.

 

[RichardMNixon]

the only thing us lay-people can really do is watch the scientific method sort out the Galileos from the Bozos.

How is this different from faith? We're simply trusting others to do our thinking for us.

If you really want to call it faith, fine, I have faith that the scientific method will continue to shine light on and better understand the natural world in the same way that I have faith that if I drop something denser than air, it will fall. I have these faiths because of their consistent track record. Gravity makes things fall, the scientific method yields accurate results. These things have happened time and time again. Faith in its broadest definition can be used to say I have faith that they will CONTINUE happening, but to conflate faith that things that have happened will continue to happen and faith in things for which there is no evidence is inherently dishonest and no more than a semantic word game.

 

[lrkun]

the only thing us lay-people can really do is watch the scientific method sort out the Galileos from the Bozos.

How is this different from faith? We're simply trusting others to do our thinking for us.

Dawkins says it best. (see video)

You can put your faith in something that has been demonstrated to work again and again and again, where we, even as layman can test it.

 

[quantumfireball2099]

"Faith" is a fine invention when Gentlemen can see,but Microscopes are prudent in an Emergency. --- Emily Dickinson

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

the only thing us lay-people can really do is watch the scientific method sort out the Galileos from the Bozos.

How is this different from faith? We're simply trusting others to do our thinking for us.

Is expecting someone to do their jobs really faith?

 

[SpaceCDT]

You can put your faith in something that has been demonstrated to work again and again and again, where we, even as layman can test it.

Absolutely, and I think that you needn't even call it faith, on the basis that it has been demonstrated again and again and again . . . unlike, for instance, the "power" of prayer

 

[ArthurWilborn]

You're mistaking me. I'm not questioning the underlying validity of science, but the institution of scientists. The "faith" is that they are using scientific methods instead of Aristotelian authority techniques.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

You're mistaking me. I'm not questioning the underlying validity of science, but the institution of scientists. The "faith" is that they are using scientific methods instead of Aristotelian authority techniques.

It's not a matter of faith if it demonstrably so.

 

[RichardMNixon]

You're mistaking me. I'm not questioning the underlying validity of science, but the institution of scientists. The "faith" is that they are using scientific methods instead of Aristotelian authority techniques.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, the first way I read it I didn't see anything different from the first time.

On several readings, are you suggesting that all scientists might just be making stuff up and lying to us, and we accept it unquestioningly because they're the authority?

I would whole-heartedly disagree, but I'll wait to see if that's in fact what you're arguing.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Yeah I've heard this tactic before from those who want to deny one aspect of science that they refuse to believe in (e.g. evolution, climate change) but know better than to deny science itself. So they choose to attack the scientists and characterize them as untrustworthy or just as dogmatic as any religious believer.

Fact is, that science is self correcting and the same goes for the scientific community. It's damn competitive so if someone makes a mistake or even lies or falsifies data, there will bound to be a dozen others to point it out. But of course, if you truly believe that the scientific community have somehow formed a conspiracy to lie to the public and to themselves, then none of this will matter to you.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

You're mistaking me. I'm not questioning the underlying validity of science, but the institution of scientists. The "faith" is that they are using scientific methods instead of Aristotelian authority techniques.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, the first way I read it I didn't see anything different from the first time.

On several readings, are you suggesting that all scientists might just be making stuff up and lying to us, and we accept it unquestioningly because they're the authority?

I would whole-heartedly disagree, but I'll wait to see if that's in fact what you're arguing.

Don't mistake me, I don't actually agree with Miranda or conspiracy theorists, I'm just trying to improve my own understanding of the process.

I'd remove some of the vitriol from that and suggest that scientists might be overly stodgy and resistant to change; but yes, that's basically what I'm wondering about. Do we have any option except to accept them as unquestionable authorities?

Yeah I've heard this tactic before from those who want to deny one aspect of science that they refuse to believe in (e.g. evolution, climate change) but know better than to deny science itself. So they choose to attack the scientists and characterize them as untrustworthy or just as dogmatic as any religious believer.

Again, this is more extreme then I would put it. I recall a story I heard about the functioning of the nose and how scent is processed. The most common explanation, as I understood it, related to the shape of the molecule causing its scent. One scientist was trying to raise a competing theory, that the nose was performing a chemical breakdown of the compounds within the tissue and that the sensation of smell was the result of that. He related that the response his theory got was "If you're right, that means we're all wrong." Sure, this is an anecdote, but it does seem an entirely plausible reaction. People have their own explanation and they don't want to hear anyone who disagrees.

Fact is, that science is self correcting and the same goes for the scientific community. It's damn competitive so if someone makes a mistake or even lies or falsifies data, there will bound to be a dozen others to point it out. But of course, if you truly believe that the scientific community have somehow formed a conspiracy to lie to the public and to themselves, then none of this will matter to you.

Strawman. I'm not alleging the falsification of facts, just a resistance to new interpretations of facts.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Fact is, that science is self correcting and the same goes for the scientific community. It's damn competitive so if someone makes a mistake or even lies or falsifies data, there will bound to be a dozen others to point it out. But of course, if you truly believe that the scientific community have somehow formed a conspiracy to lie to the public and to themselves, then none of this will matter to you.

Strawman. I'm not alleging the falsification of facts, just a resistance to new interpretations of facts.

Did you even read the post you're calling a strawman?

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Strawman. I'm not alleging the falsification of facts, just a resistance to new interpretations of facts.

Did you even read the post you're calling a strawman?

... What?

Fact is, that science is self correcting and the same goes for the scientific community. It's damn competitive so if someone makes a mistake or even lies or falsifies data, there will bound to be a dozen others to point it out. But of course, if you truly believe that the scientific community have somehow formed a conspiracy to lie to the public and to themselves, then none of this will matter to you.

Yes. Yes, I did.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Strawman. I'm not alleging the falsification of facts, just a resistance to new interpretations of facts.

Did you even read the post you're calling a strawman?

... What?

Fact is, that science is self correcting and the same goes for the scientific community. It's damn competitive so if someone makes a mistake or even lies or falsifies data, there will bound to be a dozen others to point it out. But of course, if you truly believe that the scientific community have somehow formed a conspiracy to lie to the public and to themselves, then none of this will matter to you.

Yes. Yes, I did.

Of course, it's not my place to say. But I don't think he was refering to you personally.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Strawman. I'm not alleging the falsification of facts, just a resistance to new interpretations of facts.

No, I would say you didn't read my post correctly. First of all, Anachronous Rex was right in that I was not referring to you specifically. Second, I was explaining how the scientific community is self policing and that includes weeding out false data fabricated or otherwise. I'm not sure how that's a strawman, especially given that you werent very clear what you were trying to explain in your prior posts and your subsequent posts are now suggesting that scientists are "too resistant to change".

I'm trying to explain that the scientific community isn't some sort of hive mind, it's the scientific process and peer review that keeps them honest. If anything scientists are very flexible to change. If you show them hard evidence they're wrong, they'll quickly change their minds. But if there's not enough evidence, then of course they're going to stick to established hypothesis and theories. If you consider them too rigid, then so be it, but there's no better tool to test reality than the scientific method.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I recall a story I heard about the functioning of the nose and how scent is processed. The most common explanation, as I understood it, related to the shape of the molecule causing its scent. One scientist was trying to raise a competing theory, that the nose was performing a chemical breakdown of the compounds within the tissue and that the sensation of smell was the result of that. He related that the response his theory got was "If you're right, that means we're all wrong." Sure, this is an anecdote, but it does seem an entirely plausible reaction. People have their own explanation and they don't want to hear anyone who disagrees.

1. Did you hear this story from the one scientist with the new idea or from an objective source?

2. I didn't hear the story so I can't know for sure, but one of my first thoughts is that you may be making it personal when it wasn't. "If you're right, that means we're all wrong," directly translates to "if your handful of data points are right, our thousands of data points are wrong," which is an entirely valid objection, at least in the short term.