When Consensus Group Thinking is Useless

[tas8831]

It´s all nothing but group thinking assumptions and biases. And it all lack natural and overall health thinking. Some scientist become sort of "nature-stupid" when having just ONE group thinking approach to global and universal problems.

Isn't it time to flip the burgers?

 

[tas8831]

Good luck getting the believers in "scientism" among us (and there are many, here) to recognize the failure of 'groupthink' inherent in their unwavering belief that consensus and repetition are the prime criteria for ascertaining the truth.

Can you define "consensus" in science?

 

[PureX]

Can you define "consensus" in science?

Performing the same experiment over and over, and getting the same results, is seen as being some sort of proof of truthfulness by the 'scientism' cult because of 'consensus'. Yet repeating the same biased experiment will generate the same biased results just as surely as repeating any other. But the idea that consensus eliminates bias seems to be a bylaw of the 'scientism' cult. They won't acknowledge that the experimental process is just as likely to be biased as the presumptions they intend to test.

 

[tas8831]

Performing the same experiment over and over, and getting the same results, is seen as being some sort of proof of truthfulness by the 'scientism' cult because of 'consensus'. Yet repeating the same biased experiment will generate the same biased results just as surely as repeating any other. But the idea that consensus eliminates bias seems to be a bylaw of the 'scientism' cult. They won't acknowledge that the experimental process is just as likely to be biased as the presumptions they intend to test.

You seem to know all about science and scientism and cults. How much scientific research have you done?
Can you expand on how 'the experimental process' can be biased, and provide some real examples?
Also, your definition of scientific consensus does not match any others I have seen. Is that your personal definition?

 

[PureX]

You seem to know all about science and scientism and cults. How much scientific research have you done?

There are plenty of the scientism cult members posting right here on RF. All you have to do is read, and reason. It's very easy to recognize.

Can you expand on how 'the experimental process' can be biased, and provide some real examples?

1. It's biased by the question (hypothesis) that's being chosen to investigate (test). Every question already contains a plethora of assumptions that we are intending to 'fit together' with our hypothesized theory. Try asking one that doesn't.
2. Because all those assumptions exist as part of the question, they will inevitably play a significant role in determining the process we choose to test our hypothesis.
3. And whatever results we get, we will be interpreting them through the paradigm of (quite possibly biased) presumptions that have structured the whole endeavor from the beginning. Leading us to even more elaborate ( and quite possibly biased) presumptions.

You want an example, so I'll make one up.

"Bob" looks around him and observes that the world appears to be flat. But because he can't see it all at the same time, he decides to use "science" to test his theory. So he gets a level, holds it up to the horizon and observes that as far as he can see, 360 degrees around, the horizon is indeed perpendicular to the pull of gravity. It is "level" in all directions, and therefor the Earth must be 'flat'. But to be sure, (maybe the Earth is a really big hill) he will have to test for level in as many 'far-flung' locations as he can. Which he does. And sure enough, no matter where he goes, or what direction he faces, the horizon remains perpendicular to the pull of gravity. So he reports to his fellow humans that the Earth is indeed, flat.

Whereupon his somewhat skeptical fellow scientists set out to repeat his experiment, and see if they get the same results. And sure enough, they all get the same results. So that now a consensus has been established, and they all can agree that the Earth is indeed, flat.

Also, your definition of scientific consensus does not match any others I have seen. Is that your personal definition?

All you have to do is read the posts, and you will easily see the faith these folks endow a "consensus of objective observation" with. It carries the weight of God, Himself, almost.

 

[cladking]

All you have to do is read the posts, and you will easily see the faith these folks endow a "consensus of objective observation" with. It carries the weight of God, Himself, almost.

I'd rather listen to any proselytizer than a poor but pious scientist.

 

[PureX]

I'd rather listen to any proselytizer than a poor but pious scientist.

I have no issue with scientists. They understand very well the limitations of science relative to 'the truth'. It's this new age cult of "scientism" that thinks empiricism and the scientific method the one and only possible means by which humankind can ever grasp 'the truth'. And as such all other attempted methodologies are just naive and foolish whimsy, that I find so absurd.

 

[cladking]

I have no issue with scientists. They understand very well the limitations of science relative to 'the truth'. It's this new age cult of "scientism" that thinks empiricism and the scientific method the one and only possible means by which humankind can ever grasp 'the truth'. And as such all other attempted methodologies are just naive and foolish whimsy, that I find so absurd.

There are lots of real scientists and all real scientists understand (most of) the limitations of science. The problem I have with "scientists" are the numerous individuals in many fields that have no clue what they know or how they came to know it. I use "Egyptology" as an example of the worst but actually there are other fields as well that are as bad or even worse. Dr Hawass has been withholding data from Peers for six years now but not one peer or one Egyptologist has spoken out against it.

Even Egyptologists though aren't universally poor scientists merely mostly poor scientists.

Of course many areas are called "science" now days that really aren't science at all. I wouldn't call "meteorology" "science" so much as it is a field derived from computer modeling which was created by scientific technology. If I use a computer to model astrological signs it doesn't magically create a new "science". It's not that there's no science in weather prediction, just that it will never be predictable beyond a certain time frame.

Almost all of the "science" and "scientists" that appear in the newspapers are not.

 

[cladking]

More than anything it's the piety and the holier than thou I don't like. And nobody is holier than those practicing "scientism".

 

[PureX]

There are lots of real scientists and all real scientists understand (most of) the limitations of science. The problem I have with "scientists" are the numerous individuals in many fields that have no clue what they know or how they came to know it. I use "Egyptology" as an example of the worst but actually there are other fields as well that are as bad or even worse. Dr Hawass has been withholding data from Peers for six years now but not one peer or one Egyptologist has spoken out against it.

Even Egyptologists though aren't universally poor scientists merely mostly poor scientists.

Of course many areas are called "science" now days that really aren't science at all. I wouldn't call "meteorology" "science" so much as it is a field derived from computer modeling which was created by scientific technology. If I use a computer to model astrological signs it doesn't magically create a new "science". It's not that there's no science in weather prediction, just that it will never be predictable beyond a certain time frame.

Almost all of the "science" and "scientists" that appear in the newspapers are not.

Well, it's a big umbrella word. like 'art'. As an artist I take issue with many of the ways that term is being used and things to which it is being applied, because to me, those are not art, at all. And I am sure the same thing happens with the term "science". I trust that most of those who engage in the endeavor know what it is, and what it is not. It's those who don't but somehow imagine that they know all about it that misapply the terms and misunderstand the limitations.

 

[PureX]

More than anything it's the piety and the holier than thou I don't like. And nobody is holier than those practicing "scientism".

They are very similar to religious fundamentalists: in that they are obsessed with upholding the idea of their own unquestionable righteousness.

 

[cladking]

Well, it's a big umbrella word. like 'art'. As an artist I take issue with many of the ways that term is being used and things to which it is being applied, because to me, those are not art, at all. And I am sure the same thing happens with the term "science". I trust that most of those who engage in the endeavor know what it is, and what it is not. It's those who don't but somehow imagine that they know all about it that misapply the terms and misunderstand the limitations.

I hate taking issue with this because we are on the same page. Hell, I could have written the post myself.

But somehow I feel compelled to point out that everything exists on a continuum. Even the finest scientists can have mystical beliefs and not notice and even crackpots can get something right.

By the same token just as some things are "almost art" or "barely art at all" science can be the same.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You want an example, so I'll make one up.

Funny. What's wrong? Couldn't find a real world example after several centuries of ongoing scientific research carried out by thousands upon thousands upon thousands of scientists all over the world?

"Bob" looks around him and observes that the world appears to be flat. But because he can't see it all at the same time, he decides to use "science" to test his theory. So he gets a level, holds it up to the horizon and observes that as far as he can see, 360 degrees around, the horizon is indeed perpendicular to the pull of gravity. It is "level" in all directions, and therefor the Earth must be 'flat'. But to be sure, (maybe the Earth is a really big hill) he will have to test for level in as many 'far-flung' locations as he can. Which he does. And sure enough, no matter where he goes, or what direction he faces, the horizon remains perpendicular to the pull of gravity. So he reports to his fellow humans that the Earth is indeed, flat.

Whereupon his somewhat skeptical fellow scientists set out to repeat his experiment, and see if they get the same results. And sure enough, they all get the same results. So that now a consensus has been established, and they all can agree that the Earth is indeed, flat.

That's a strange example, considering his skeptical fellow scientists come up with different tests, which involved the sun also, and came up with with a different conclusion and disagreed that the earth was flat but spherical instead.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene even came up with a nifty method using the sun to calculate the circumference of the earth with pretty good accuracy.


Funny how your own example actually exposes the nonsense you are are spouting.

Here's the part that you seem to be missing: the peer review process, exists primarily because out of principle, you (as a scientist) do not trust the results of your peers. This is why you repeat the experiments, double and triple check the methods used (including evaluation of the assumptions, which -btw- the original author is expected to clearly formulate in his paper in full disclosure) and double check the results.

This is also why next to repeating the experiments, you also design new experiments to test the conclusion even further.

In your own example, that is what was done. Bob in your example uses rather inadequate methods. If the earth is a giant sphere, his method wouldn't detect that. The results would be the same. So really, his experiment is poorly designed, as it could potentially yield false positives.

So new tests are done which are more sophisticated. Like the position of the sun and the angle of the sunrays (and shadows) are brought into it and that from various different locations.

So more data is gathered, more rigorous tests are done and Bob's conclusion is overturned in the process, to be replaced with a more accurate one.

All you have to do is read the posts, and you will easily see the faith these folks endow a "consensus of objective observation" with. It carries the weight of God, Himself, almost.

So far, you haven't given a real-world example of this.
The one example you gave was made up, as per your own admission, and you even managed to screw that one up.

 

[PureX]

Funny. What's wrong? Couldn't find a real world example after several centuries of ongoing scientific research carried out by thousands upon thousands upon thousands of scientists all over the world?

It's sad watching someone work so hard at avoiding an obvious point about bias, just to maintain their own bias. You have a nice day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's sad watching someone work so hard at avoiding an obvious point about bias, just to maintain their own bias. You have a nice day.

It's even sadder to see someone so hard at work to convince people that bias is an actual problem in the scientific community and then when asked is only able to give one example, which doesn't even make any sense and which, by his own acknowledgement, is simply made up.

 

[PureX]

I have explained how the bias happens. You have not explained how it doesn't.

Simple.

But let's 'flip the script'. YOU offer me some ways in which empiricism and the scientific process could be biased. Can you even consider such a scenario? If not, welcome to the cult of "scientism".

 

[cladking]

It's even sadder to see someone so hard at work to convince people that bias is an actual problem in the scientific community and then when asked is only able to give one example, which doesn't even make any sense and which, by his own acknowledgement, is simply made up.

I've delineated many ways in which bias has adversely affected current theory but bias can be a lot easier to see in retrospect. In the 1850's surgeons believed it was a waste of time to wash their hands before attending to critically sick or wounded individuals. Often they saved their lives only long enough for them to die of the infections. Like all changes in life these deaths each occurred suddenly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have explained how the bias happens.

And you did it with a made up example which didn't even make any sense.
Because in reality, the very example you gave plays out in the exact opposite way and shows you how your explanation is not accurate.


Please give a real world example. If you can, that is. I don't think you can. If you could, you would have done that the first time instead of making one up.

You have not explained how it doesn't

I don't have to. There is nothing to refute. By your own admission, your example is made up.
You haven't explained anything.

Instead, you just made a claim and when asked to provide evidence for it, you made it up.

So you are still at square one.

But let's 'flip the script'. YOU offer me some ways in which empiricism and the scientific process could be biased. Can you even consider such a scenario? If not, welcome to the cult of "scientism".

Humans are biased by nature.
Empiricism and the scientific process were developed precisely to avoid this bias.

Also, this "flipping the script" here, is literally you trying to shift the burden of proof.
You made the claim. You support your claim. And try to do it with actual evidence instead of evidence that you just made up, like you did previously.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've delineated many ways in which bias has adversely affected current theory but bias can be a lot easier to see in retrospect. In the 1850's surgeons believed it was a waste of time to wash their hands before attending to critically sick or wounded individuals. Often they saved their lives only long enough for them to die of the infections. Like all changes in life these deaths each occurred suddenly.

Sounds like you are confusing "bias" with mere ignorance.

 

[PureX]

And you did it with a made up example which didn't even make any sense.

You didn't want it to make sense. And is a fictional story about someone stealing an egg less valid to you in explaining people stealing eggs than a non-fictional story? If so, I don't think you understand what fiction is for.

Humans are biased by nature.
Empiricism and the scientific process were developed precisely to avoid this bias.

How does either manage that? Do they make us something other than human? Because as long as we remain human, we remain biased by our human limitations and the by the errant preconceptions we generate as a result. Like your biased and errant preconception that a fictional example is invalid because it's fictional.

Also, this "flipping the script" here, is literally you trying to shift the burden of proof.

All it is, is me trying to get you to think around your bias, and just consider how you might be wrong about this. But, clearly, you have no intention of doing that.