When Consensus Group Thinking is Useless

[Native]

I might have thought that a mass incompetence would be difficult to achieve.

It´s not that difficult when for instants a group thinking medical science claim to have the only cure for a pandemic incidence. This is the very basics for every narrow minded general incompetence which spreads out because of a public exaggerated believe in "authorities" who have lost their natural way of thinking.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem of the discovery of the galactic rotation, is that Newtons ideas of gravitationally caused celestial motion was contradicted on the galactic scales, but this Newtonian gravy/orbital idea is STILL used all over in the universe and simply patched up by an idea of "dark matter". When being contradicted, it scientifically should have been revised and possibly abandoned. As it stands now, this once personal idea of Newton has become a collective about 300 years consensus group thinking idea which factually is useless since it needs an added unseen and unexplained force to work at all as a theory.

Sorry, but I still don't see a problem there. A problem is something scientists or others do that impedes the forward progress of science.

I am aware that Newton's vision was incomplete and modified later accordingly. But this is not a problem. It's the natural progression of good science as additional evidence is uncovered an the existing paradigm modified to account for it. Newton himself "patched over" his inability to account for the stability of the solar system with a religious answer that Laplace solved with new mathematics (perturbation theory, which accounted for why Jupiter and Saturn didn't fling the Earth into the Sun or out of the solar system as Newtons mathematics suggested they would) several generations later.

He had reached the perimeter of his knowledge, and so invoked a god, as Ptolemy had done centuries earlier for his cosmology when he reached the perimeter of his knowledge, and referenced the gods and ambrosia in his cosmology: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." So, Newton's work was modified to reflect this new knowledge. This is not a defect of science, but a feature. It's some of what makes it so powerful and intelligent. Then Einstein came along to modify it further centuries after Laplace.

When reading the medical history of "fighting vira", this has been going on for about 100 years and vira are still around and it never can be exterminated - also because of the continuous mutations. STILL the medical science and virologists group thinking claims the vaccines to work, and as most persons have this exaggerated believe in authorities, they swallow it all raw and accept all kinds of personal restrictions.

It doesn't matter that viruses cannot be exterminated. Neither can murder or wildfires, but we combat them when we encounter them nevertheless, even if that only provides partial protection.

The vaccines work, even if some provide incomplete protection. This is not a controversial issue in the scientific community. If your thesis is otherwise, well, your argument dies there. Some vaccines can eradicate a disease if the antiscientific are not present in excessively large numbers. Some can only reduce morbidity and mortality albeit incompletely, and only for a season until a new vaccine is needed.

When it comes to the development of the latest covid vaccines, one even cannot speak of a scientific method since the about 10 year process standard method of developing vaccines hasn´t been followed at all.

Sorry, but that just isn't a valid objection to taking the available vaccines during this pandemic. The proof is in the pudding. The hospital deaths are overwhelmingly occurring in the unvaccinated. If that isn't meaningful data to you regarding the efficacy of the virus, then we really don't have a sufficient basis to have a meaningful discussion on this matter.

And I would suggest once again that if you wish to critique the science, that you learn it first. I assume that you have no knowledge of what was done in the Obama years regarding mRNA vaccines for coronaviruses, since there is no evidence of that understanding in your words.

Anyway, if you choose to face this plague unvaccinated, good luck to you. At least your people will be able to say that you stood your ground and never had a complication from the vaccine. That should provide some consolation to those who love you. That's what counts, right? You stood your ground and refused protection, but at least you didn't get hurt by a vaccine. A virus, yes, but not a vaccine.

 

[anna.]

It´s not that difficult when for instants a group thinking medical science claim to have the only cure for a problem. This is the very basics for every narrow minded general incompetence which spreads out because of a public exaggerated believe in "authorities" who have lost their natural way of thinking.

Science doesn't claim to have to the only answer for anything, science tests hypotheses and replicates and reproduces results. One of the red flags for me is that science is open to correction, while pseudoscience ignores or refuses correction. As an example, pseudoscience and its adherents seem to see changing CDC Covid directives as failures rather than course corrections by scientists based on new information or findings, along with the difficulties of effecting population-wide approaches to reducing risk. We see how that turned out.

 

[Native]

Sorry, but I still don't see a problem there. A problem is something scientists or others do that impedes the forward progress of science.

The basic problem is that Newton initially assumed a (terrestrial) force which assumingly also should be the cause of the planetary orbital motion around the Sun. This assumption failed on the galactic scales, but STILL this terrestrial gravitational assumption is thought to govern both a cosmic formational process and its motions all over in the Universe.

I am aware that Newton's vision was incomplete and modified later accordingly. But this is not a problem. It's the natural progression of good science as additional evidence is uncovered an the existing paradigm modified to account for it. Newton himself "patched over" his inability to account for the stability of the solar system with a religious answer that Laplace solved with new mathematics (perturbation theory, which accounted for why Jupiter and Saturn didn't fling the Earth into the Sun or out of the solar system as Newtons mathematics suggested they would) several generations later.

I don´t question the standing consensus mathematical calculations in the solar System. I question the causes of the celestial motion as well as Newtons gravitational ideas which are thought by consensus group thinkers to count all over in the Universe - which it doesn´t.

IMO "Good science is not to add something which isn´t directly observed, as with "dark matter".

So, Newton's work was modified to reflect this new knowledge. This is not a defect of science, but a feature. It's some of what makes it so powerful and intelligent. Then Einstein came along to modify it further centuries after Laplace.

In where Einstein also claimed Newton´s "gravitational force" not to be a force at all - to which I agree.

It doesn't matter that viruses cannot be exterminated. Neither can murder or wildfires, but we combat them when we encounter them nevertheless, even if that only provides partial protection.

The vaccines work, even if some provide incomplete protection. This is not a controversial issue in the scientific community. If your thesis is otherwise, well, your argument dies there. Some vaccines can eradicate a disease if the antiscientific are not present in excessively large numbers. Some can only reduce morbidity and mortality albeit incompletely, and only for a season until a new vaccine is needed.

You cannot make such concrete bulletproof statements before you know the long term affects of artificial fiddling with gene modifications on the human RNA genetics.

And I would suggest once again that if you wish to critique the science, that you learn it first.

I simply reject your besserwissen group thinking attitude here. I question the medical group thinking science because it very seldom include natural issues as causes of several deceases.

Anyway, if you choose to face this plague unvaccinated, good luck to you. At least your people will be able to say that you stood your ground and never had a complication from the vaccine. That should provide some consolation to those who love you. That's what counts, right? You stood your ground and refused protection, but at least you didn't get hurt by a vaccine. A virus, yes, but not a vaccine.

I´m not unprotected at all. I protect myself by sound food, motion and some natural additives as extra D-vitamin, zink and selen minerals. And THIS is the big answer to who become much affected, less affected or not affected at all from natural vira.

 

[Native]

Science doesn't claim to have to the only answer for anything, science tests hypotheses and replicates and reproduces results.

This isn´t what you can observe by looking at the global medical and political approaches to the standing pandemic. You even can observe how natural arguments and criticism are administratively removed or suppressed from different social media. The standing group thinking in medicine and virology has totally taken over the control over natural thinking.

 

[blü 2]

Abstract:
It should be clear to everyone who make their thorough research and analysis that there are UNSOLVED PROBLEMS and PARADOXES in several scientific, religious and philosophical branches.

Watch this video and make your contextual connections to all unsolved problems and standing hypothesis which have been a long time on the scientific stage and how these problems are being tackled.

"Why the majority is always wrong" by Paul Rulkens | TEDxMaastricht

An example of useless group thinking:
Once upon a time Newtons ideas of celestial motions around a gravitational center in our Solar System was thought to be universal, but this was contradicted by the later observation of stars orbiting the gravitational centers in galaxies. Instead of revising this idea by looking at alternate possibilities from other fundamental forces, the Newtonian consensus group thinking scientists hypothesized a "dark matter" to "hold the stars from flying away from the galaxies", i. e. to regulate the initial Newtonian celestial assumption.

It is one thing to assume something celestial matter for about 350 yeas ago and another thing to observe cosmos in later times by hugely developed telescopic instruments. One can excuse former scientists and natural philosophers for having assumed and concluded something without taking all possibilities into account, but modern science should not accept former initial assumptions which holds more assumptions in its hypothesis. This ad hoc adding biased method create more problems which becomes more and more unsolvable if continuing this methodic group thinking.

Out of the squared box individual and independent thinking is the method to solve long time standing scientific problems.

Extraordinary problems requires extraordinary thinking and when such thoughts are posted, they of course should be met with gratitude and curiosity instead of by automatic ridiculing group thinking comments.

Regards
Native

He's a reasonably entertaining speaker but I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests everyone in even an interested audience can join the 3% just by being told to beware of becoming or remaining conventional. Nor did he try to present any. As a how-to lecture it was essentially meaningless.

As for scientific problems, scientific method is based on empiricism and induction, not least on repeatable experiment. Answers to science problems are right because they work in practice. New ideas are welcome until they fail to work in practice.

As for your speaker's point about the brain minimizing hard thinking, that's correct. There's a fine book on the subject by Daniel Kahnemann called Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011) which addresses the phenomenon, the kinds of errors that can result, and the kinds of steps one can take to avoid them, especially in regard to some of the assumptions of the free market. Kahneman has a Nobel Prize for Economics (2002) and is an emeritus professor at Princeton U. He writes well and clearly.

 

[anna.]

This isn´t what you can observe by looking at the global medical and political approaches to the standing pandemic. You even can observe how natural arguments and criticism are administratively removed or suppressed from different social media. The standing group thinking in medicine and virology has totally taken over the control over natural thinking.

Scientists are busy being scientists.

This is separate and apart from people commenting on science (and pushing pseudoscience) on social media.

When people assign motive and insert emotion into the scientific inquiry, that's something other than science at work.

 

[PureX]

Science is empirical, meaning that it is inextricably tethered to the observation of physical reality, from which its statements of existential fact, its laws and its theories derive.

Yes, and the problem here is that we are humans. Which means our observations are really extrapolations based on previous extrapolations and assumptions. We are constantly working to "fit" new information into the paradigm that we've created out of the previous information that we've gathered, and "fit" together. And like it or not, this is a gigantic bias that we are not able nor willing to overcome. And what that means is that empiricism is not a method of eliminating bias, because it already IS a biased method of existential cognition.

Consensus plays a role...

Consensus is just as biased as an individual opinion in that whether 1, or 100, or 10,000, the contributors are all still human. And the bias that effects humans because they are human, effects us all. And that bias is the above stated predetermine existential paradigm into which we humans will try to fit any and all incoming information.

You (and others) refer to some imagined cult of scientism...

We are referring to those who not only do not understand that science is innately biased, and therefor does not produce an understanding of 'truth', but that also wrongly presume that it overcome our innate bias, and thereby is our only valid pathway to understanding the 'truth'.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, and the problem here is that we are humans. Which means our observations are really extrapolations based on previous extrapolations and assumptions. We are constantly working to "fit" new information into the paradigm that we've created out of the previous information that we've gathered, and "fit" together. And like it or not, this is a gigantic bias that we are not able nor willing to overcome. And what that means is that empiricism is not a method of eliminating bias, because it already IS a biased method of existential cognition.

I don't know what your complaint is.

Bias is helpful when it is rational. I have a bias against drunk driving based on experience, based on comparing it to sober driving. Eliminating bias is not a goal. Eliminating irrational bias is.

Here's where I have trouble with the people criticizing science's methods. They can never demonstrate the problem that they imply exists. What is it exactly that you think science does that you say causes damage or is undesirable? I've posed the same question to the author of the OP. Where is the problem you keep implying is here and needs correcting. Not vague generalization that can be made without fact or evidence, but something concrete that you think can and need be fixed (rhetorical question - if you had such a thing, wouldn't we have seen it by now?).

I'd say that you are the one with the irrational bias. If you can't justify it with fact, it's irrational, based in fantasy. What's your answer to the claim that it is the anti-science crowd that is the cult? How is anti-scientism different from a religion? As best I can tell, it's yet another faith-based belief. If it were empirically supported, you'd be able to present facts that reveal what a problem science is, how defective it is, and why you think that it should be eschewed. But we never see that from any of that, just their unsupported opinions as we see here, which is why I call it a cult - the cult f anti-scientism..

We are referring to those who not only do not understand that science is innately biased, and therefor does not produce an understanding of 'truth', but that also wrongly presume that it overcome our innate bias, and thereby is our only valid pathway to understanding the 'truth'.

Sorry, but science works. I still don't know specifically what it is that you don't approve of. Use of the word bias and consensus repeatedly is not a argument, just a claim, in this case, an unsupported one.

Science gave us this vaccine. It's changed my life from shut-in to somebody that can go out again. It's saving lives. But I guess because of consensus and bias and not achieving truth according to you, you think that we should disesteem it like you do.

Here's the thing with empiricism - if the idea works, if the bulb glows, if the spacecraft does what was hoped and anticipated, the ideas that led to them are correct, if the word has any meaning.

This is how I see people raging against science, ignoring what science does just to attack it:

"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.

"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.

"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.​

 

[PureX]

I don't know what your complaint is.

Bias is helpful when it is rational.

It's the 'rationale' that's biased ... in favor of itself. Which is why once you've bought into it, you can't see it as biased, anymore. This is the failure of "believing in" things. What we're ultimately believing in is our own unquestioned righteousness. ... A massive, blinding, bias.

I have a bias against drunk driving based on experience, based on comparing it to sober driving. Eliminating bias is not a goal. Eliminating irrational bias is.

You have not eliminated any irrational bias. You have simply exchanged a bias that does not fit your rationale with one that does.

Here's where I have trouble with the people criticizing science's methods. They can never demonstrate the problem that they imply exists.

Of course they can ... every time science gets it wrong. It has to keep correcting itself because it keeps getting things wrong. Showing anyone that hasn't already drunk the "scientism" cool-aid that empiricism and the scientific process are NOT an ideal pathway to determining truth. Or any pathway at all beyond the accidental.

That doesn't mean that science is bad, or that it's useless to us, or that it doesn't help us determine truthfulness. Especially regarding physical functionality. It does mean that it is NOT the antidote to, the superior of, or the arbiter of intuition, fantasy, or faith as other viable methods through which we humans seek to determine truth.

You said you don't understand my "complaint". Well that is my complaint. That those who have fallen into this foolish cult of "scientism" (and there are many, here) keep presuming that the empiricism of scientific inquiry is somehow the only possible and viable pathway to truth, and that all others are mere fantastical imaginings of an unenlightened mind.

And that having dunk the cool-aid all the way down, they now cannot even imagine the possibility that they are wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's the 'rationale' that's biased ... in favor of itself. Which is why once you've bought into it, you can't see it a biased, anymore.

So you say. You're fond of making these kinds of claims without justifying why you believe them. You're basically attempting to disqualify all thought if these invisible biases can infect one without him knowing it and deform his thinking. And of course, none of that applies to you, right? Your anti-scientism can't be an irrational bias that you just can't see, correct?

You have not eliminated any irrational bias. You have simply exchanged a bias that does not fit your rationale with one that does.

Again, so you say without evidence.

We have another person here on RF who posts like you do. He likes to tell skeptical empiricists that their not as reasonable as they think, never seeing his own arguments in that light. He will tell you that whatever your opinion, it is invalid because because you don't know how badly people really think, never seeing that he disqualifies his own opinions. I assume that he thinks that he is above the illusion that the rest of us allegedly suffer from that we can come to sound conclusions applying reason to evidence, and that this is a superior method for deciding what is true about the world. This is you as well - others are blinded by cognitive biases, which you see clearly and without bias.

He also never offers evidence, just pronouncements.

Of course they can ... every time science gets it wrong. It has to keep correcting itself because it keeps getting things wrong. Showing anyone that hasn't already drunk the "scientism" cool-aid that empiricism and the scientific process is NOT an ideal pathway to determining truth.

That was in response to, "Here's where I have trouble with the people criticizing science's methods. They can never demonstrate the problem that they imply exists."

Modification of a scientific position is not a problem, as I explained. That's a feature. That's what makes the dicta of science more reliable than those of religion - science can modify its narrative to reflect the present state of knowledge, and modify it again if new evidence suggests that the old narrative is incomplete or wrong.

We see this in the evolution of the understanding of and recommendations for COVID. Initially, a three to four week interval between jabs was chosen for study, and the studies showed the vaccine effective, so the recommendation was to follow the studied protocol. Since then, many people who had an interval of 8-12 weeks between jabs have been looked at, and it has been determined that the longer interval produces a more robust response. And so, the narrative has been modified to reflect that new knowledge. The scientifically unsophisticated point to things like that and say, "Make up you mind, will you? Can you people be trusted to get anything right?"

Isn't this the kind of thing that you are calling a problem with science? I said that I didn't see a problem, which is why I wrote the comment in italics above, which elicited your reaction. Once again, I don't see a problem there, and at this point, I don't believe that you can name one better than that science "keep correcting itself because it keeps getting things wrong." Sorry, but that's not a problem of science.

You said you don't understand my "complaint". Well that is my complaint. That those who have fallen into this foolish cult of "scientism" (and there are many, here) keep presuming that the empiricism of scientific inquiry is somehow the only possible and viable pathway to truth, and that all others are mere fantastical imaginings of an unenlightened mind.

Straw man. We say that empiricism is the only path to understanding the physical world. It's also the path to understanding one's private inner world, but I haven't broached that subject before now. It's how you and I decide what gives us pleasure, what we will consider beautiful or ethical or delicious. I doubt that you can offer a better way to learn anything that will be reliably useful information, such as choosing a restaurant. We test them (empiricism) and see how much we like the experience, and on that basis, make decisions in the future that we hope will lead to the desired outcome, in this case, a good meal.

How else will you discover both common (external reality) and personal (inner reality) truths, meaning ideas that accurately map one's reality and allow him to navigate it optimally. You imply that there is other useful knowledge that cannot be discovered by empirical investigation as so many others do, also never providing a single example of what the "truths" they discover by whatever other method they employ.

We simply never see any useful ideas coming from other methods - not from astrology, not from theology, and not from any other method of inquiry not rooted in empiricism. I'm assuming that you are reacting to the implication by empiricists that religious beliefs arrived at by faith aren't valid to them nor valuable, as I would say. Just look at the vaccination debate: one side is based in empiricism (the results of the vaccination effort). What "truths" can the faith-based thinkers offer not arrived at empirically?

 

[PureX]

So you say. You're fond of making these kinds of claims without justifying why you believe them.

How do I justify stating the fact that we are innately biased by our chosen concept of 'reality'? How could we possibly NOT be?

You're basically attempting to disqualify all thought if these invisible biases can infect one without him knowing it and deform his thinking.

How does our being innately biased "disqualify all thought"? How does it disqualify my pointing it out?

And of course, none of that applies to you, right? Your anti-scientism can't be an irrational bias that you just can't see, correct?

What applies or does not apply to the person making a statement does not validate or invalidate the statement.

See #1 on the chart below ...

Again, so you say without evidence.

What evidence do you need beyond your own fallible cognitive capabilities? AND your own denial of them!

We have another person here on RF who posts like you do. He likes to tell skeptical empiricists that their not as reasonable as they think ...

Well, they aren't. That's a fact.

... never seeing his own arguments in that light.

That not only doesn't make him wrong, it actually exemplifies his point.

He will tell you that whatever your opinion, it is invalid because because you don't know how badly people really think, never seeing that he disqualifies his own opinions.

No, actually he doesn't. And it's poor thinking (and bias) on your part that is causing you to think that it does. (Just as he points out.) It's like saying that a thief cannot legitimately accuse anyone else of stealing because he also steals. When in fact, who better would know what stealing is and who's doing it but another thief?

I assume that he thinks that he is above the illusion that the rest of us allegedly suffer from ...

Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't. But neither condition invalidates his statement. While your assuming the worst of him does ted to validate it.

- others are blinded by cognitive biases, which you see clearly and without bias.

I don't have to see them clearly or without bias to know that they exist. In fact, my not being able to see them clearly or without bias only helps to validate the fact that they exist. This is what you aren't getting, because you're auto-defending your own bias, instead of trying to understand an opposing point of view.

He also never offers evidence, just pronouncements.

Perhaps he knows you will only struggle mightily to dismiss any evidence he could provide. So why bother? It'd be a big waste of time and energy. I see people demanding evidence around here all the time that they have no intention of ever actually considering. They just want to derail the discussion and send it down the rabbit-hole of endless evidential demand. Basically, they're trying to make it their opponent's responsibility to overcome their own willful ignorance and bias. Which, of course, no one else can ever do.

Modification of a scientific position is not a problem, as I explained.

It is if one is assuming that empiricism and the scientific method are only valid method of gaining and undrstanding truth. Because if one is making that assumption (and many here do make that assumption) then science is failing at that, miserably, and obviously. ... And often.

That's what makes the dicta of science more reliable than those of religion - science can modify its narrative to reflect the present state of knowledge, and modify it again if new evidence suggests that the old narrative is incomplete or wrong.

So the "dicta of science" being consistently wrong is how it shows itself to be more reliable that faith, intuition, fantasy, etc.,? Science constantly has to "modify it's narrative" because it's consistently wrong. Yet somehow you imagine that this makes it less wrong than any other method we humans use to try and gain some understanding of truth. And even as you write this lunacy, you still can't see that it is lunacy! It's amazing!

We say that empiricism is the only path to understanding the physical world.

Sure, while assuming, believing, and saying that the only world that "truly exists", is the physical world.

It's also the path to understanding one's private inner world, but I haven't broached that subject before now. It's how you and I decide what gives us pleasure, what we will consider beautiful or ethical or delicious. I doubt that you can offer a better way to learn anything that will be reliably useful information, such as choosing a restaurant. We test them (empiricism) and see how much we like the experience, and on that basis, make decisions in the future that we hope will lead to the desired outcome, in this case, a good meal.

Yep, and this method fails here, too, time and time again. Because what we like today we may not lie tomorrow. We may even dislike it BECAUSE we liked it yesterday. In which case intuition might have been a far more reliable means of gaining some understanding of the "truth of us".

We simply never see any useful ideas coming from other methods ...

Who's "we" Kemosabe? A great many humans find all kinds of useful concepts of truth using those other methods.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and the problem here is that we are humans. Which means our observations are really extrapolations based on previous extrapolations and assumptions.

Yes, extrapolations into new situations. And yes, that is how we learn: by extrapolating what we know into new situations.

We are constantly working to "fit" new information into the paradigm that we've created out of the previous information that we've gathered, and "fit" together.

Absolutely. We have to be able to explain *all* the information we have accumulated. So we *want* to fit the new and old information together into a common explanation. if we can do that based on the previous paradigm, that is a good thing.

If not, then we change the paradigm. Which is also a good thing.

And like it or not, this is a gigantic bias that we are not able nor willing to overcome. And what that means is that empiricism is not a method of eliminating bias, because it already IS a biased method of existential cognition.

I'm not seeing the bias. We learn by adding on new information to what we previously had. If the new information is consistent with the previous theory, there is no need to update it. If the new information is NOT consistent with the previous theory, the theory needs to be updated.

What you seem to miss is that the 'paradigm' changes when the information forces us to do so and to the extent that it forces us to do so.

How is that a bias?

Consensus is just as biased as an individual opinion in that whether 1, or 100, or 10,000, the contributors are all still human. And the bias that effects humans because they are human, effects us all. And that bias is the above stated predetermine existential paradigm into which we humans will try to fit any and all incoming information.

Huh? What in the world do you mean by an 'existential paradigm'? if all you mean is some previous working theory, you are correct: we try to fit new information into the currently working theory.

But, there have been many cases where the theory fails for one reason or another. At such times, we change the theory (paradigm?).

We are referring to those who not only do not understand that science is innately biased, and therefor does not produce an understanding of 'truth', but that also wrongly presume that it overcome our innate bias, and thereby is our only valid pathway to understanding the 'truth'.

What do you mean by the term 'truth'? Seriously. Doesn't it ultimately mean 'fits with all the observations'? And isn't that precisely what science is built to find?

I see there as being a big difference between 'truth' and 'fantasy'. The former agrees with observations and is testable. The latter doesn't even try to be testable or care about whether it agrees with observations.

And that means that if you aren't subjecting you ideas to strict tests for validity and meaningfulness, you are not pursuing 'truth', but rather pursuing 'fantasy'.

 

[Polymath257]

How do I justify stating the fact that we are innately biased by our chosen concept of 'reality'? How could we possibly NOT be?

Well, by presenting an alternative concept of reality and showing it is a better concept that the chosen one.

How does our being innately biased "disqualify all thought"? How does it disqualify my pointing it out?
What applies or does not apply to the person making a statement does not validate or invalidate the statement.

it does bring up the credibility of the argument, however.

What evidence do you need beyond your own fallible cognitive capabilities? AND your own denial of them!

Nobody denies that the human cognitive abilities are limited and often fallible. Do you have an alternative?

Well, they aren't. That's a fact.
That not only doesn't make him wrong, it actually exemplifies his point.
No, actually he doesn't. And it's poor thinking (and bias) on your part that is causing you to think that it does. (Just as he points out.) It's like saying that a thief cannot legitimately accuse anyone else of stealing because he also steals. When in fact, who better would know what stealing is and who's doing it but another thief?

Except that this thief isn't acknowledging that he *is* a thief. Someone who admits that their conclusions are tentative and subject to change if new evidence arises is very different than someone who thinks they are tapping into some esoteric truth and have no way to test their ideas.

Guess which way the scientific method uses?

Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't. But neither condition invalidates his statement. While your assuming the worst of him does ted to validate it.
I don't have to see them clearly or without bias to know that they exist. In fact, my not being able to see them clearly or without bias only helps to validate the fact that they exist. This is what you aren't getting, because you're auto-defending your own bias, instead of trying to understand an opposing point of view.

Not true. I have considered the opposing viewpoints, and have asked what evidence supports them and how their ideas can be tested. No sufficient response was ever offered, which led me to discount those ideas.

I've even proposed specific tests based on the ideas and asked what the prediction would be for those cases. Instead of making a deduction from the premises of the ideas, the question was ignored and avoided.

Perhaps he knows you will only struggle mightily to dismiss any evidence he could provide. So why bother? It'd be a big waste of time and energy. I see people demanding evidence around here all the time that they have no intention of ever actually considering.

Oh, I have considered it. And I have suggested other tests of the ideas. I have considered the ideas based on the evidence I *know* has already been established.

They just want to derail the discussion and send it down the rabbit-hole of endless evidential demand. Basically, they're trying to make it their opponent's responsibility to overcome their own willful ignorance and bias.

Nope. I simply expect just as much from any opposing viewpoint as I do from the consensus one. I want specific, numerical evidence. I want specific claims that can be tested. Added points if the claims differ from the consensus viewpoint and turn out to be actually correct when tested.

Which, of course, no one else can ever do.
It is if one is assuming that empiricism and the scientific method are only valid method of gaining and undrstanding truth. Because if one is making that assumption (and many here do make that assumption) then science is failing at that, miserably, and obviously. ... And often.

ALL measurements have error bars. There is *always* some uncertainty in any measurement made. So, an explanation that works well for one level of accuracy may need to be modified for a tighter level of accuracy.

That science progresses in the level of its accuracy (which is demonstrable over time) is what justifies the claims made.

So the "dicta of science" being consistently wrong is how it shows itself to be more reliable that faith, intuition, fantasy, etc.

Being able to modify ideas and obtain more accuracy over time is what shows itself to be reliable, yes.

Science constantly has to "modify it's narrative" because it's consistently wrong. Yet somehow you imagine that this makes it less wrong than any other method we humans use to try and gain some understanding of truth. And even as you write this lunacy, you still can't see that it is lunacy! It's amazing!

Yes, absolutely, it is *less wrong*. Newton's ideas were less wrong than Ptolemy's. Einstein's ideas were less wrong than Newton's. Quantum Chromodynamics is less wrong than classical quantum theory, which was less wrong than Newtonian dynamics, which was less wrong than Aristotelian physics.

So, yes, it is *less wrong* over time.

Sure, while assuming, believing, and saying that the only world that "truly exists", is the physical world.
Yep, and this method fails here, too, time and time again. Because what we like today we may not lie tomorrow. We may even dislike it BECAUSE we liked it yesterday. In which case intuition might have been a far more reliable means of gaining some understanding of the "truth of us".
Who's "we" Kemosabe? A great many humans find all kinds of useful concepts of truth using those other methods.

How many people find it 'useful' to believe in a delusion? Does that make the delusion 'true'? of course not.

 

[PureX]

I'm not seeing the bias.

Of course not. That which comports with our bias will not appear to be a bias. It will simply appear to be 'the truth'.

We learn by adding on new information to what we previously had. If the new information is consistent with the previous theory, there is no need to update it. If the new information is NOT consistent with the previous theory, the theory needs to be updated.

What you seem to miss is that the 'paradigm' changes when the information forces us to do so and to the extent that it forces us to do so.

How is that a bias?

I am truly stunned that you can't see it. To create a paradigm in our minds in which "X" experience and "Y" experience can be combined into a single cohesive "XY" experience, we have to 1., assume that they are separate parts of a single experience, and 2., seeks ways in which "X" can be made to "fit into" that "XY" experience that we presume to be so, and are now actively working to discover/make it so. THAT is the bias. It is our blind presumption that the phenomena we experience and the cognitive paradigm that we have created in our minds to assimilate those experiences into a cohesive "reality" are mostly equivalent. And it's very important to us that these are "mostly equivalent" because this ability to generate an imagined reality in our minds that we can then use to negotiate the actual circumstances of our existence is crucial to our survival. It's why we developed egos that maintain and protect those existential paradigms (realities of the mind), and why we fight to hold onto them as being true to the actuality of existence apart from and beyond us. Yet in our so doing, our egos also tend to blind us to the fact that those realities of the mind are NOT actual, and are NOT equivalent, at all. They are completely biased by the limitations of our mental abilities and by our senses, and by our need for them to FUNCTION, rather than for them to recognize truth.

This is the innate bias that as humans, we cannot and will not let go of. But that we could and should learn to acknowledge if we ever want to get better at this cognition, thing.

Huh? What in the world do you mean by an 'existential paradigm'? if all you mean is some previous working theory, you are correct: we try to fit new information into the currently working theory.

It never stops being the "previous working theory", because it's constantly being found 'wrong'. And yet we refuse to acknowledge this constant failure for what it is: our eternal and profound ignorance of the truth.

But, there have been many cases where the theory fails for one reason or another. At such times, we change the theory (paradigm?).

We fight it tooth and nail, first. And then only grudgingly change our reality paradigm when we cannot find any possible way to make the new information fit the old paradigm. This is BIASED behavior, in spades. And yet the people engaged in it swear up and down that they are engaged in a process that will eliminate their bias. ... Not hardly!

What do you mean by the term 'truth'? Seriously. Doesn't it ultimately mean 'fits with all the observations'? And isn't that precisely what science is built to find?

Simply put, the truth is 'what is'. Which means that whatever of it we do possess, we can't verify beyond the limitations of our own very human bias. So that from our perspective, the truth is just 'our truth'; in the moment and under the current circumstances.

Like infinity, and perfection, truth is basically an idea that as humans we can use to live, but cannot actually validate.

I see there as being a big difference between 'truth' and 'fantasy'. The former agrees with observations and is testable. The latter doesn't even try to be testable or care about whether it agrees with observations.

Yes, I know, and that is an unfortunate and somewhat dangerous bias. Because truth IS a fantasy. Just as infinity and perfection (and God) are fantasies. Yet they are useful fantasies, and they help us to live better lives. And even though they are fantasies to us, this does not mean that they are not truth apart from us.

 

[cladking]

Is there a criticism here of the way that science is done? If so, I don't see it. Are you suggesting that the scientists are engaging in some form of defective thinking that is harmful to the progress of science, or that generates ideas that hold man back or make the scientific method less helpful? Maybe you could give an example of this ad hoc adding biased method create in practice creating "more problems that becomes more and more unsolvable."

Everybody always assumes the conclusion. The trick to discovery and invention is to start with good assumptions.

The only way there is consensus is when a group shares the same assumptions and they are always wrong.

What people never seem to understand is that every idea and every thought that ever came into existence was by an individual and never a group. No group of scientists will ever have an idea.

Egyptologists are buried in their beliefs that ancient people 4500 years ago who were highly superstitious and wholly ignorant of modern science banded together in their savagery to drag stones into huge piles as tombs. It simply doesn't matter that no evidence supports an hypothesis because every conclusion derives from assumptions and the interpretation of empirical data and experiment. Every change in theory has been founded more on a succession of funerals for the status quo than on experiment or knowns. Cosmology is as much founded on definitions and axioms as it is on mathematics or experiment. It is very difficult to see the role of language, definitions, axioms, and assumptions on prevailing theory but it is still very real. Newton was able to show a relationship between reality and mathematics but we are simply misinterpreting the nature of this relationship. It is neither cause nor effect but aspects of the exact same thing. Modern humans are the only creatures who don't understand this on some level.

Committees and Peers are simply unqualified to judge any hypothesis that doesn't include every single one of their assumptions.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course not. That which comports with our bias will not appear to be a bias. It will simply appear to be 'the truth'.
I am truly stunned that you can't see it. To create a paradigm in our minds in which "X" experience and "Y" experience can be combined into a single cohesive "XY" experience, we have to 1., assume that they are separate parts of a single experience, and 2., seeks ways in which "X" can be made to "fit into" that "XY" experience that we presume to be so, and are now actively working to discover/make it so. THAT is the bias.

Not if there are *also* competing views where X and Y are NOT part of the same experience, but are independent. We get to *test* which view works best.

It is our blind presumption that the phenomena we experience and the cognitive paradigm that we have created in our minds to assimilate those experiences into a cohesive "reality" are mostly equivalent. And it's very important to us that these are "mostly equivalent" because this ability to generate an imagined reality in our minds that we can then use to negotiate the actual circumstances of our existence is crucial to our survival.

And we *know* that we only experience a small part of the reality and that our senses don't capture many aspects of reality. So, NO, this is NOT an assumption made by scientists.

It's why we developed egos that maintain and protect those existential paradigms (realities of the mind), and why we fight to hold onto them as being true to the actuality of existence apart from and beyond us. Yet in our so doing, our egos also tend to blind us to the fact that those realities of the mind are NOT actual, and are NOT equivalent, at all. They are completely biased by the limitations of our mental abilities and by our senses, and by our need for them to FUNCTION, rather than for them to recognize truth.

And, if you have a different view and can give evidence it works better, go for it. it is NOT an 'assumption'. it is a *conclusion* based on evidence and our attempts to understand what we experience.

This is the innate bias that as humans, we cannot and will not let go of. But that we could and should learn to acknowledge if we ever want to get better at this cognition, thing.

A very good reason to study some science: you can learn where your biases go wrong and show ways to *test* when they do so.

It never stops being the "previous working theory", because it's constantly being found 'wrong'. And yet we refuse to acknowledge this constant failure for what it is: our eternal and profound ignorance of the truth.

And how do you define 'the truth'? What do you mean when you talk about it?

I tend, in the first approximation, to the correspondence theory of truth: something is true if it holds up to observation and testing.

We fight it tooth and nail, first. And then only grudgingly change our reality paradigm when we cannot find any possible way to make the new information fit the old paradigm. This is BIASED behavior, in spades. And yet the people engaged in it swear up and down that they are engaged in a process that will eliminate their bias. ... Not hardly!

On the contrary, it is *precisely* what should be done. We should not give up previously working ideas simply because one thing doesn't fit *if* we can understand how to make it fit with a small change. But, if many things fail to fit, we change our perspective. This has happened many times in the history of science.

That is a *strength* not a failure.

Simply put, the truth is 'what is'. Which means that whatever of it we do possess, we can't verify beyond the limitations of our own very human bias. So that from our perspective, the truth is just 'our truth'; in the moment and under the current circumstances.

Which is *what works* with the evidence we have on hand and the testing we can do.

Like infinity, and perfection, truth is basically an idea that as humans we can use to live, but cannot actually validate.

Maybe you need to change your metaphysics.

Yes, I know, and that is an unfortunate and somewhat dangerous bias. Because truth IS a fantasy. Just as infinity and perfection (and God) are fantasies. Yet they are useful fantasies, and they help us to live better lives. And even though they are fantasies to us, this does not mean that they are not truth apart from us.

Fantasy is not truth. By definition.

Yes, we only have access to a small part of what is around us. But we manage to extend the very limited information from our senses to learn about what our senses naturally cannot detect. We test ideas and try to make them *break*.

And maybe this is what you don't appreciate: part of the method of science is to try to find the limits of where our ideas work: we actually try to make them fail. We try to push every edge to see if it gives. We test to see if the next decimal place is off from reality as determined by our observations. We learn when the old approximations work and when they fail.

When you *actively* try to show where your ideas go wrong, that is when you start doing science.

 

[rational experiences]

Science as science the group said all changes evolution occur in space the state.

O earth no longer is in space.

The basic body to begin science as a practice. Which is not science as a theory.

Two applied conditions is science as. Status

Discussing a theory is not a human journey.

And first origin to be a scientist is the human self.

Science theories first without human inferred presence.

Hence as they theory mass equations in reactions their theory never equates self presence in the journey back to self.

Ignored. Self relevance. Self presence the only origin form is always first

Human bio origin form first is not first anywhere else.

Biology was therefore introduced into theoretical science.

It's status said one whole lesser being was a living Monkey.

Observed consciousness no scientific capability as consciousness. Body type no human present

Observation where you exist is also first.

Totally informed conscious scientific expression does not exist in a preformed expressed biology. The monkey.

The monkey science said had sex. Not the creator but was creating by using their body types.

Men said where a human baby came from.

Human babies grew into adults had sex owned human life.

The baby began holy human life from human parents

Is not linked anywhere as sex is the creator in biology.

The first two humans deceased ended the theory from a monkey body to a human body. Ignored.

As babies human are direct from human parents.

If a creator is sex in biology then sex is the only creator.

 

[Native]

OBS: For some unknown reasons I´ve not been notified on several of the latest post in my OP!

He's a reasonably entertaining speaker but I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests everyone in even an interested audience can join the 3% just by being told to beware of becoming or remaining conventional. Nor did he try to present any. As a how-to lecture it was essentially meaningless.

Apparently you didn´t get the basic message: To think outside the squared black box in order to prosper in general. I took this message also to count for long time standing problematic theories in modern astrophysics and cosmology.

As for scientific problems, scientific method is based on empiricism and induction, not least on repeatable experiment. Answers to science problems are right because they work in practice. New ideas are welcome until they fail to work in practice.

Regarding cosmology, I think you have to differ between direct cosmological observations and indirect cosmological assumptions of which much, for instants, are ascribed to "dark cosmological issues" which mostly/only fits the theoretical thoughts in hypothesis and not are confirmed by direct observations.

 

[Native]

Yes, and the problem here is that we are humans. Which means our observations are really extrapolations based on previous extrapolations and assumptions. We are constantly working to "fit" new information into the paradigm that we've created out of the previous information that we've gathered, and "fit" together. And like it or not, this is a gigantic bias that we are not able nor willing to overcome. And what that means is that empiricism is not a method of eliminating bias, because it already IS a biased method of existential cognition.

Spot on IMO. Just take Newtons about 300 year gravitational bias which haunts modern cosmology today despite he was contradicted directly in the galactic scales for some100 years ago.