Expelled

[Sunstone]

A great many philosophers of science will disagree with that assessment.

I'm aware of that, but I'm not sure how many scientists disagree with it.

 

[Fluffy]

I'm aware of that, but I'm not sure how many scientists disagree with it.

That is true but I question the credentials of the scientists who support induction just as I question the credentials of the engineers, physicists and plastic surgeons who support creationism.

That scientists don't learn the philosophy of science is something that continues to mystify me.

 

[Autodidact]

They are asking for a radical shaking up of the basic principles of science and the way in which it operates. They are indeed attacking any and all science that is based upon induction and saying "Either justify your induction or get rid of it".

And wouldn't it be nice if they would just admit that, instead of whining about being discriminated against as if they were in fact doing science-as-we-know-it.

And the entire underpinnings of science are purely philosophical. Inductively justifying induction won't get you anywhere either.

And that is not hallowed ground on which we must not tread. If the philosophical mindset of the scientist is being criticised then the burden is on the scientist to justify their assumption. They can't just sweep it under the rug and claim "tu quoque" or "Its not science, its SCIENCE".

No, the burden is not on the scientist--it's on the philosopher of science. The burden on the scientist is to do science. If ID wants to claim that a serious challenge to the empirical method should be taught in philosophy classes, they are quite right. In fact, I believe it often is. High school biology teachers should not have to mount a defense against Hume's question--they should just get to teach Biology.

And the fact that, to justify their allegedly scientific program, they need to destroy and rebuild the whole structure of science itself, illustrates decisively that ID does not fit within the current parameters of science. That is, it's not science.

 

[Autodidact]

That is true but I question the credentials of the scientists who support induction just as I question the credentials of the engineers, physicists and plastic surgeons who support creationism.

Your analogy is a mile off.

That scientists don't learn the philosophy of science is something that continues to mystify me.

Who cares? The scientist's job is to do science. As soon as ID figures out how to do that, they can join the science club. Until they do, they should stop whining about how unreasonable it is to keep them out.

 

[Sunstone]

That is true but I question the credentials of the scientists who support induction just as I question the credentials of the engineers, physicists and plastic surgeons who support creationism.

That scientists don't learn the philosophy of science is something that continues to mystify me.

Wasn't it the Nobel physicist Stephen Weinberg who said the Philosophy of Science is as useful to scientists as bird watching is to birds?

At any rate, I'm not really taking sides in this -- just pointing out that some scientists find inductive logic useful.

 

[Fluffy]

And wouldn't it be nice if they would just admit that, instead of whining about being discriminated against as if they were in fact doing science-as-we-know-it.

Sorry I thought your question was in reference to the philosophy I mentioned in my post and not ID proponents.

No, the burden is not on the scientist--it's on the philosopher of science. The burden on the scientist is to do science. If ID wants to claim that a serious challenge to the empirical method should be taught in philosophy classes, they are quite right. In fact, I believe it often is. High school biology teachers should not have to mount a defense against Hume's question--they should just get to teach Biology.

The burden is on whoever is attempting to state that induction should be a part of science. Typically this is scientists and not philosophers of science. In this thread, it is you who have made that claim.

At the end of the day, a scientist cannot do science properly unless they are aware of what science is. If that is up to do the philosophers of science then they should be quiet and listen to those philosophers and do science according to how those philosophers decide they should do it.

On the other hand if they wish to enter the debate themselves, which I would consider to be much more ideal, then they need to justify their claim that induction is a valid form of inference and that it should be a part of science.

And the fact that, to justify their allegedly scientific program, they need to destroy and rebuild the whole structure of science itself, illustrates decisively that ID does not fit within the current parameters of science. That is, it's not science.

Science according to who? The scientists who should merely do science or the philosophers of science who get to determine what science actually is?

Your analogy is a mile off.

If the burden is on the philosopher of scientice then the scientists opinion of induction is as irrelevant as the engineers opinion of evolution.

Who cares? The scientist's job is to do science. As soon as ID figures out how to do that, they can join the science club. Until they do, they should stop whining about how unreasonable it is to keep them out.

The science club that is defined by the scientists who don't have the burden of justifying their definition? If that is the case then I fully agree with the proponents of ID who say that scientists are being unreasonable.

Wasn't it the Nobel physicist Stephen Weinberg who said the Philosophy of Science is as useful to scientists as bird watching is to birds?

At any rate, I'm not really taking sides in this -- just pointing out that some scientists find inductive logic useful.

Thanks for the name drop, I'll have to check him out at some point. He sounds interesting!

I agree that scientists find inductive logic useful. However, given that there is widespread controversy over the validity of such reasoning, given that there is a massively influential system developed by Popper that rejects induction entirely and given that the usefulness of a thing is not indicative of its validity, my current position is that induction should have no part in science.

 

[Random]

That scientists don't learn the philosophy of science is something that continues to mystify me.

Quite. The philosophy of science should be mandatory study for aspirants, a prerequisite . It is far too easy these days to become a scientist. Sad fact is, unquestioning aquiessence to dogmatic scientific orthodoxy and consensus thinking makes the joining scientific "community" not unlike joining the priesthood.

 

[Sunstone]

Sad fact is, unquestioning aquiessence to dogmatic scientific orthodoxy and consensus thinking makes the joining scientific "community" not unlike joining the priesthood.

Read Thomas Kuhn's, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

 

[robtex]

I noticed this thread is up to 168 posts. I gotta ask--how much can we banter and debate a movie that hasn't come out yet?

 

[Autodidact]

Quite. The philosophy of science should be mandatory study for aspirants, a prerequisite . It is far too easy these days to become a scientist. Sad fact is, unquestioning aquiessence to dogmatic scientific orthodoxy and consensus thinking makes the joining scientific "community" not unlike joining the priesthood.

Far too easy to acquire a Ph.d in a scientific field? I don't know about you, but it's far too difficult for me. Why should philosophy of science be a prerequisite to becoming a practicing scientist? Would it make them any better at it? Your last sentence demonstrates your utter ignorance of how actual science works. Nothing guarantees success in any scientific field as well as overturning the currently predominant view. The thing is, you have to do it with good, solid, science. ID's problem is not the prejudice of the so-called scientific community, it is that they don't have that necessary qualification: scientific rigor.

 

[Popeyesays]

. . .D's problem is not the prejudice of the so-called scientific community, it is that they don't have that necessary qualification: scientific rigor.

i agree, but I would note that weighing the qualification of scientific rigor might lean more to ethics and philosophy of religion than formulating a law of thermodynamics, for instance.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rojse]

i agree, but I would note that weighing the qualification of scientific rigor might lean more to ethics and philosophy of religion than formulating a law of thermodynamics, for instance.

Regards,
Scott

If you wish for ID to gain scientific credibility, it needs to have repeatable, verifiable experiments that help to prove it's hypothesis. Seeing as though you believe that it does have scientific credibility, please present this evidence for us, so that we have the chance to make up our own minds.

 

[Smoke]

If you wish for ID to gain scientific credibility, it needs to have repeatable, verifiable experiments that help to prove it's hypothesis. Seeing as though you believe that it does have scientific credibility, please present this evidence for us, so that we have the chance to make up our own minds.

That will never happen, as ID proponents don't even try to do the science. They're strictly a propaganda movement. A science teacher who promotes ID is on a level with a science teacher who teaches that the lakes of Minnesota were created by Paul Bunyan, or that the earth rests on the back of a great turtle. They deserve to be driven out of their jobs; in fact, it's imperative that they be driven out of their jobs, because they're not only not doing their jobs, they're doing the opposite of what they were hired to do.

 

[Popeyesays]

If you wish for ID to gain scientific credibility, it needs to have repeatable, verifiable experiments that help to prove it's hypothesis. Seeing as though you believe that it does have scientific credibility, please present this evidence for us, so that we have the chance to make up our own minds.

Rojse,

You got me wrong. I think it's pointless for ID to try to substantiate its claims scientifically--it isn't science. I think that is your point of view as well, is it not?

Regards,
Scott

 

[Captain Civic]

ID = philosphy
Science = science

However, that does not rule out ID being correct. It only means it isn't science. Whoop-de-doo.

 

[Sunstone]

That will never happen, as ID proponents don't even try to do the science. They're strictly a propaganda movement. A science teacher who promotes ID is on a level with a science teacher who teaches that the lakes of Minnesota were created by Paul Bunyan, or that the earth rests on the back of a great turtle. They deserve to be driven out of their jobs; in fact, it's imperative that they be driven out of their jobs, because they're not only not doing their jobs, they're doing the opposite of what they were hired to do.

I agree. A science teacher who promotes ID as science has an incompetent understanding of science. They should not be teaching science.

 

[rojse]

ID = philosphy
Science = science

However, that does not rule out ID being correct. It only means it isn't science. Whoop-de-doo.

If you want to prove ID as being correct, you need to use the scientific method.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hope,

There is a very real phenomenon of prejudice within the scientific community towards ID. However, some prejudices are well founded. I think this prejudice comes from a number of traits prevalent in the ID movement:

1) Insistence on being taken seriously, despite a complete lack of quantitative predictions, proposals for how to test those predictions, or a single point of experimental data
2) A long history of distorting or misunderstanding the theory and supporting facts behind evolution
3) An admitted and documented political agenda

You specifically refer to scientists who simply say that the existence of an intelligent designer is possible. The problem is that most people who support ID are going far beyond that simple statement.

I agree with you that scientists who merely suggest the possibility of a designer should not be shunned, lose their jobs, etc. But if all you are saying is that an intelligent designer is possible, then as a scientist, I smile and say "That's nice". When a guy hands me a pamphlet about the "intrinsic gravity" of organisms which is full of newly-invented jargon and totally lacking in equations or experimental data, I smile and say "That's nice". The conversation is over. You don't need a symposium or an article in the journal Nature to say that something is possible; that's a waste of time. And you certainly don't need to be paid $90K a year at a university to say it; that's a waste of money, especially when your colleagues are using evolutionary "theory" to, for example, breed bacterial mutants that can be used to detect trace amounts of hazardous materials.

Science is tough. I was at a biophysics conference this weekend and there were many people there who worried that their research would not be taken seriously. These people had well-documented experiments, and mathematical models on their side. They explained in great detail what the outcome of an experiment should be if their hypothesis were true, and how this result compares to the predictions of alternative hypotheses. They drew conservative conclusions, usually making caveats like "it's not yet conclusive..." or "we haven't yet measured it this way..."

Yet, they were worried that their case (e.g., about the binding mechanism of some protein) just wasn't convincing enough. Scientists are very, very critical. If you can't make your ideas crystal clear, or if you don't address all the possible objections to your research, people walk out of your lecture and they don't even glance at your poster. After every single lecture, there was at least one question from the audience that called into question an assumption made, a method used, or a conclusion drawn. A great number of the people there were post-docs ultimately seeking a professorship with full funding and tenure. The vast majority of them will never get it.

If your work isn't clear, rigorous, relevant, or supported by the data, you don't get funded, you don't get promoted, and you don't get tenure. If you spend much of your time touting unsupported or unsupportable ideas, people ridicule those ideas, whether it's ID or anything else.

My advice to ID proponents: quit whining just because you haven't been able to produce anything scientifically rigorous. If what you're doing is science, then show me an equation. Show me a schematic of a novel detector or experiment. Show me some data. You can believe and talk about whatever you want as a private individual, but as a scientist, you either put up or shut up.

 

[Autodidact]

ID = philosphy
Science = science

However, that does not rule out ID being correct. It only means it isn't science.

Exactly.

Whoop-de-doo.

Oh, but it is a big whoop-de-doo, when the ID movement itself insists that it is science and demands to be accepted and taught as science, which would of course be destructive to science and science education. After all, the OP is about a movie that is complaining because ID is beind excluded from science! Horrors! The scientists are excluding non-science from science!
Call the EEOC!

 

[Captain Civic]

If you want to prove ID as being correct, you need to use the scientific method.

If it's philosophical, it doesn't necessarily have to be proven by science. Check my signature quote. I believe that it's true, but it can't be proven scientifically.

Oh, but it is a big whoop-de-doo, when the ID movement itself insists that it is science and demands to be accepted and taught as science, which would of course be destructive to science and science education. After all, the OP is about a movie that is complaining because ID is beind excluded from science! Horrors! The scientists are excluding non-science from science!
Call the EEOC!

Yeah, I agree. I think there's just a slight misunderstanding on the OP's part.