On 8 April 2014 13:19, chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > *>> Hence, people who claim that scientists agree because of some reason > other than looking at the instruments and using their best theories to > interpret the readings - e.g. people who claim that they agree for some > psychological reason, e.g. because they all adhere to some "paradigm" - are > talking bollocks.* > > I still don't understand what you're getting at Liz. What 'psychological > paradigm' is who claiming scientists agree because of? >
It wasn't a psychological paradigm - I'm talking about Thomas Kuhn when I refer to paradigms. But anyway, maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, I tend to post in haste and regret it later. So I'm happy to drop that discussion if you are. > > I mean I don't particularly like the suggestion that scientists are in > some sense superhuman and impervious to the flaws the rest of us mortals > succumb to, but we'ld just fly off on another tangent if we discussed that. > As I'm sure you know, the point of the scientific method is to make the scientific enterprise as far as possible proof against these flaws. Of course it can be subverted, but most scientists subscribe to it - or attempt to - most of the time. > > my point is just that 'agree with this because lots of scientists say so' > isn't a terribly convincing argument, yet its one I see lots of climate > acceptors promote. Relativity isn't a good theory because Einstein said it > was. Nor is it a good theory because a bunch of Einsteins say it is. How > many science lessons start like: > You're misconstruing what is meant here. "97% of climate scientists agree that AGM is a fact" is shorthand for "we looked at all the available peer-reviewed publications in the field of climatology over the period in question, and in 97% of them there was a consensus on the truth of these facts." I've seen the publication where that survey is quoted, and I'm sure I can find it again if I spend enough of my nonexistent time looking for it. You shouldn't assume that people are saying "we should accept this *just* because they say so" - that is a straw man. What they're actually saying is "this is the result that came from all the research described in all the published papers". I agree that as good Popperians we have to realise that these results are provisional and falsifiable, but insofar as we can take anything as evidence in favour of some hypothesis, published, peer-reviewed research should be what we take. (IMHO) > > 'Right children, please shut your text books. Now lots of people agree > with relativity so you should too. Now on evolution, lots of scientists > think we evolved via natural selection, so you should too. Good. that about > wraps it up for your science class this week. Lets move on to home > economics...' > > Im actually stunned this is under debate. > > So would I be if it was. But it comes down to a misunderstanding. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
