Scientism and Critiques of Science

[Mr. Perfect]

Get ready to be transported.

Maxwell's classical equations of electromagnetism [EM] cannot account for the photoelectric effect.
Classically the probability of electron emission would be proportional to the intensity of the incident wave, instead it was found to proportional to the quantum of frequency (equivalently 1 / the wavelength) of incident photons.

Maxwell's classical equations of EM also cannot account for pair production, photon-photon scattering, Delbrück scattering, and vacuum polarization which is required for, besides the former phenomena, the running of the EM coupling constant [the higher the energy of a collision between two electrons, the stronger the repulsion between them] to name four, offhand.

One may also add the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of leptons (electrons, muons, and taus).

A quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics [QED], in the case of EM is required to explain the above lab-based experimental observations which have been repeated and confirmed countless times with record setting precision.

The first version of a quantum field theory of EM was developed by Paul Dirac in 1927.

QED was completed in its final form by 1949 through the work of Tomonaga, Schwinger, Feynman, and Dyson.

To sum up, Maxwell's equations are a classical approximation that works well for many applications,
but are not able to describe numerous physical phenomena discovered in the 20th century.
A new theory was required and that theory is now known as quantum electrodynamics [QED].

Also, EM is only one of the four know forces of nature.
The other being gravity, the weak nuclear, and the strong nuclear forces. Each of which have their own equations.

QED is required for the predicted and observed unification of the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces, electroweak unification along with spontaneousy symmetry breaking via the recently observed Higgs mechanism at the LHC.

What we currently know:

The quantum field Langrangian of the Standard Model.

What does this have to do with anything I wrote.

[Mr. Perfect]

if we strike evolution from the list of legal biology classes we are still left with everything we know about life on earth, on a practical level - all the evidence, across all the fields, which so far has not found a deal breaking flaw in evolution and which backbones the need for a story to tie it all together.

There is of course a deal breaking flaw with evolution.

It doesn't happen.

Mutations don't turn into new species.

Biologists can't even define species.

It's all horse$#!t.

[Typhoon]

Get ready to be transported.

Maxwell's classical equations of electromagnetism [EM] cannot account for the photoelectric effect.
Classically the probability of electron emission would be proportional to the intensity of the incident wave, instead it was found to proportional to the quantum of frequency (equivalently 1 / the wavelength) of incident photons.

Maxwell's classical equations of EM also cannot account for pair production, photon-photon scattering, Delbrück scattering, and vacuum polarization which is required for, besides the former phenomena, the running of the EM coupling constant [the higher the energy of a collision between two electrons, the stronger the repulsion between them] to name four, offhand.

One may also add the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of leptons (electrons, muons, and taus).

A quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics [QED], in the case of EM is required to explain the above lab-based experimental observations which have been repeated and confirmed countless times with record setting precision.

The first version of a quantum field theory of EM was developed by Paul Dirac in 1927.

QED was completed in its final form by 1949 through the work of Tomonaga, Schwinger, Feynman, and Dyson.

To sum up, Maxwell's equations are a classical approximation that works well for many applications,
but are not able to describe numerous physical phenomena discovered in the 20th century.
A new theory was required and that theory is now known as quantum electrodynamics [QED].

Also, EM is only one of the four know forces of nature.
The other being gravity, the weak nuclear, and the strong nuclear forces. Each of which have their own equations.

QED is required for the predicted and observed unification of the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces, electroweak unification along with spontaneousy symmetry breaking via the recently observed Higgs mechanism at the LHC.

What we currently know:

The quantum field Langrangian of the Standard Model.

What does this have to do with anything I wrote.

Only that it explains why your claim re Maxwell's equations of EM are not even wrong.

[Mr. Perfect]

How so. Hint, examine my claims again, and then examine your rebuttal.

[Mr. Perfect]

what exactly does "stop teaching evolution" mean in the context of modern science.

It means stop teaching it, until you have some science to support it. Stop lying.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Evolution does an excellent job of explaining subspecies and varietal development and extinction. Explaining speciation requires turning 'species' into a waffleword.

Evolution isn't wrong, but it is overgeneralized in popular thought. If one is going to postulate on the development of life, the normal process of development must be considered exponentially more important than evolution.

Evolution is extrapolated into dogma by a public who ignore the essential developmental processes of normal growth and reproduction.

[Mr. Perfect]

Evolution say hydrogen turned into human beings on accident. It's nonsensical.

[Parodite]

(moved here)

There is pretty solid evidence that reality is a process of change. Hardly, if only partially understood but change it is.

I have some minor issue with the word "evolution" because it suggests incremental change, or improvement of sorts which may be more in the eye of the beholder like "beauty" or "the hand of the creator". Or what is observed as "random configurations of particles and fields that tend towards entropy" - with the caveat that in open systems hills of energy can flow out into the lower energy valleys making the slopes "grow" interesting patterns and complexities during the process. But also these patterns growing on slopes are changing; emerging, evolving, disappearing again. At least for now and there for the moment.

This process of change can be seen as creation but also as destruction. Both are there simultaneously, in one word: change. I like the word change because it rings neutral. Science to me is the study of change. I'm fine using the word evolution in science when its meaning is identical with the general concept of change.

I'm skeptical that objective truth statements can be made about "complexity". There is this tendency to consider a pebble a much less complex thing than say a grasshopper. Or one molecule being less complex than an aggregate of those molecules. Most famously the human brain is considered one of the most complex structures known in the universe. I think much of those differences in complexity are in the eye of the beholder and not objectively (experience independent) true necessarily.

Side kick: as for the bible, the beginning is rather different from the end of the book. In between there are other evolving stories and it all ties together. So the contents of the book are evolving, changing! It begins with a story of creation and lo-and-behold... it ends with one of destruction which then becomes the beginning of a new creation yet to come! If that is not about change, evolution, then what is it?

Now that I'm at it, the bible is like the discovery of the single sinus wave. Something goes up and then goes down again. But it is not the end! Something will rise again; the next sinus wave. The discovery of change. Science was ready to take off.

The discovery of change happened also elsewhere.

Does JBPs Logos (consciouness+language) bring order into chaos? Doesn't look like it at all to me. Order and chaos are IMO not much different from other percepts that are in the eye of the beholder.

[Nonc Hilaire]

One objective truth statement about complexity is that it disproves a simple cause and effect explanation for almost any type of change. Concrete thinkers like to deconstruct everything, but then make the error that a reversal of the deconstruction process is how the thing was created.

Parodite's observation of the bible as sinus wave is profound. It is more an active means of communication with God than a mere book.

[Simple Minded]

One objective truth statement about complexity is that it disproves a simple cause and effect explanation for almost any type of change. Concrete thinkers like to deconstruct everything, but then make the error that a reversal of the deconstruction process is how the thing was created.

Parodite's observation of the bible as sinus wave is profound. It is more an active means of communication with God than a mere book.

Well put Nonc. Never confuse a source with how the source is interpreted. Or perhaps more accurately, how a source is interpreted or applied should never be considered as validity or invalidity of the source.

Like the old bromide "97% of lawyers give the rest of them a bad name."

"50% of the Christians I have met can convince one that Christianity is the best or the worst religion ever professed."

[Parodite]

One objective truth statement about complexity is that it disproves a simple cause and effect explanation for almost any type of change. Concrete thinkers like to deconstruct everything, but then make the error that a reversal of the deconstruction process is how the thing was created.

Also related to the apparent indivisibility of reality. You cannot fully divorce even a single particle from its surroundings/context. What creates/causes what? Seems to me it is neither bottom-up nor top-down causation, although for analytical purposes these causal models help and make doing scientific business and technology possible. Kind of a miracle we can use models to successfully manipulate magic stardust and stuff, do technology etc.

However if in the early evolution of this universe it was mostly hydrogen with gradually emerging more elements.. a case can be made for complexity increasing over time. But also these very early building blocks were not environment- / context-free. Nothing ex-nihilo and no free lunches either. Something out of nothing never hunts.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

"....you do not need science to survive (we’ve done it for several hundred million years) , but you need to survive to do science. As your grandmother would have said, better safe than sorry. This precedence is well understood by traders and people in the real world, as per Warren Buffet expression “to make money you must first survive” –skin in the game again; those of us who take risks have their priorities firmer than vague textbook notions such as “truth”. More technically, this brings us again to the ergodic property (I keep my promise to explain it in detail, but we are not ready yet): for the world to be “ergodic”, there needs to be no absorbing barrier, no substantial irreversibilities......"

https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-ra ... 2e96dd4d1a

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

if we strike evolution from the list of legal biology classes we are still left with everything we know about life on earth, on a practical level - all the evidence, across all the fields, which so far has not found a deal breaking flaw in evolution and which backbones the need for a story to tie it all together.

(barring some contrarians who dont like it (tm))

do we also need to ban some of the more problematic ones like Paleontology and Biochemistry ?

how do we explain how the asian, middle eastern and african universities, which also study all these fields and who harbour zero good will towards colonial era english theories , have yet to come up with a explanation of how its wrong ?

what exactly does "stop teaching evolution" mean in the context of modern science.

*list of science departments*

I think the colonialist angle (for shorthand) is a really good rhetorical question which can't be hand-waved away. The typical argument would be either a gross one of some type of inferiority, implicitly or explicitly stated, on behalf of non-Europeans; or, maybe a slightly better one [but poisonous to any sort of debate or conversation,] would be to assert bad faith from the beginning- which does no one any good.

But it isn't wholly without merit in this regard: while no one should assert bad faith but how about arguing for misplaced interest?

Is it in anyone's interest, in any university system to dismantle their field, their profession...their livelihood? Sure it happens, but very painfully and contentiously. Would we [us non-specialists] hear about it and how would we hear about it? If a professor in Tehran falls out of love with natural selection, does he or she make a sound? Does anyone end up citing their work? Do they get invited to reputable conferences? We could probably go down the list and roughly guesstimate how many of those disciplines and fields and departments exist on certain dogmas of complex facts that require their premises in order to exist- psychobiology anyone? No one there is going back to the blackboard to figure things out. (Not that I blame them or, for that matter, that they have a compelling reason that they should.)

We know what "stop teaching evolution" looks like because we have the intelligent designers hanging about- when they aren't treated with contempt [well deserved or not,] they are handled as curiosities. And they are curiosities in the same class as those academics who wildly question large swaths of historical knowledge.

What we have are a set of facts we've made about how one biochemical system produces another- in so far as that's a rolling out like a scroll, it's something of which we can make sense. Then we have a theory about how this process can explain creatures across the philosophical species line. To counter it would require historical evidence for why it isn't so (or around the right ballpark/down the right alleyway/however you want to put it.) Or a very clever argument about why it isn't historical knowledge (the facts foremost), and it has to be so clever as to preserve our ability to grasp "history". Outside of that, you cannot put it to the test of mathematics or logic, aesthetics or ethics or religion- it's a waste.

At the same time, there is no reason to concede the whole enchilada, because mixed in under the umbrella of "evolution" is a whole series of language-games from the social enterprises which make up our daily life. For something with no practical application for the quotidian meaning of the man on the street, there is a tremendous amount of pressure expended to ensure everyone is on board with the speculations of the specialized-wise.

The whole thing reeks of passive-aggressive combat over philosophy, and it's mostly a western-man battle in this whole scientism debate. Western obsession with epistemology and its primacy is cultural-specific and obviously not shared cross-borders. Let's hope it stays that way.

[noddy]

under the umbrella of "evolution" is a whole series of language-games from the social enterprises which make up our daily life. For something with no practical application for the quotidian meaning of the man on the street, there is a tremendous amount of pressure expended to ensure everyone is on board with the speculations of the specialized-wise.

The whole thing reeks of passive-aggressive combat over philosophy, and it's mostly a western-man battle in this whole scientism debate. Western obsession with epistemology and its primacy is cultural-specific and obviously not shared cross-borders. Let's hope it stays that way.

this is only a merkin thing - it does not happen in australia and this is why im so caught up in the strawmen of it all, some might argue the conservatives who do believe in creationism are in the closet here but ive not personally met any who think its a big issue.

their is a real danger in "scientism" and its ability to ruin our lives and thats the use of statistical results based on non reproducable studies by agenda laden types.

i acknowledge its impossible for the intelligent design folk to be taken seriously by the secularists but its not like it doesnt go both ways, so what are we left with ?


it wasnt me who turned our countries into multicultural globalised social experiments - we have the modern christians doing triple backflip reverse landing twist 1080's in an attempt to reconcile jesus with colonialism and slavery to blame for that

[noddy]

Is it in anyone's interest, in any university system to dismantle their field, their profession...their livelihood? Sure it happens, but very painfully and contentiously. Would we [us non-specialists] hear about it and how would we hear about it? If a professor in Tehran falls out of love with natural selection, does he or she make a sound? Does anyone end up citing their work? Do they get invited to reputable conferences? We could probably go down the list and roughly guesstimate how many of those disciplines and fields and departments exist on certain dogmas of complex facts that require their premises in order to exist- psychobiology anyone? No one there is going back to the blackboard to figure things out. (Not that I blame them or, for that matter, that they have a compelling reason that they should.)

things dont happen in realtime thats for sure - it took darwin alot of time to get people to accept evolution against the backdrop of creationism

we need to seperate the folks that specialise in evolution theory from the folks that work in the list of biology disciplines who just collect facts - this is why i thought that a relevant topic.

the latter discover things which inform the theory - if they discover something that makes a mockery of the entire premise, it wont be their jobs at stake.

paleontology, bio chemistry and dna analysis (for example) all stand on their own frameworks of practical science with actual stuff you can put on the table.

[Mr. Perfect]

(moved here)
There is pretty solid evidence that reality is a process of change. Hardly, if only partially understood but change it is.

This is a platitude and ultimately a dodge. There are specific claims, that cows turned into whales, which is nonsensical.

This simply never happened.

8cn0kf8mhS4

[Parodite]

(moved here)
There is pretty solid evidence that reality is a process of change. Hardly, if only partially understood but change it is.

This is a platitude and ultimately a dodge.

In the eye of this beholder change is the bedrock of reality, universal law.

There are specific claims, that cows turned into whales, which is nonsensical.

I think the claim of evolution theory is that everything that exists in this universe, organic life forms on this planet included, somehow evolved and keeps evolving i.e. changing as part of the wider natural processes observed and studied by the natural sciences. I agree there is a problem with how replicating dna organisms emerged in a pre-mordial an-organic soup (if indeed it did), how speciation works (if indeed it works) and so on. In my highschool exams year I made a paper for biology contrasting evolution theory and creation theory with all the known claims and counter claims. Old hat sorry.

The fact remains that once we were not here... yet now we are, and most likely will not be here forever either. Change and how we got here is not my biggest worry however. I kinda trust there were and are some legit reasons for it. I'm more interested in the question of individual consciousness (my own in particular uhuh) which "even" JBP didn't start to address other than in vague terminologies that are always from a 3rd person view point and "in general" so never addressing it.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Darwin’s claim was that the species most adaptable to change, and not the fittest, would survive. Pretty much all about why species go extinct.

[Mr. Perfect]

This is the title of the book as first published.

" On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Now Darwin is about speciation. Very specific claims have been made about speciation and they are utterly false. We should not be teaching falsehood in science books with taxpayer money.

The gaslighting tactics used by evolutionists is cosmic.

[Mr. Perfect]

Critical. The death cult lives on. Anyone know why this is a problem?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/beware-those ... 36076.html

Beware those scientific studies -- most are wrong, researcher warns

A few years ago, two researchers took the 50 most-used ingredients in a cook book and studied how many had been linked with a cancer risk or benefit, based on a variety of studies published in scientific journals.

The result? Forty out of 50, including salt, flour, parsley and sugar. "Is everything we eat associated with cancer?" the researchers wondered in a 2013 article based on their findings.

Their investigation touched on a known but persistent problem in the research world: too few studies have large enough samples to support generalized conclusions.

But pressure on researchers, competition between journals and the media's insatiable appetite for new studies announcing revolutionary breakthroughs has meant such articles continue to be published.

"The majority of papers that get published, even in serious journals, are pretty sloppy," said John Ioannidis, professor of medicine at Stanford University, who specializes in the study of scientific studies.

This sworn enemy of bad research published a widely cited article in 2005 entitled: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False."

Since then, he says, only limited progress has been made.

[Typhoon]

Critical. The death cult lives on. Anyone know why this is a problem?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/beware-those ... 36076.html

Beware those scientific studies -- most are wrong, researcher warns

A few years ago, two researchers took the 50 most-used ingredients in a cook book and studied how many had been linked with a cancer risk or benefit, based on a variety of studies published in scientific journals.

The result? Forty out of 50, including salt, flour, parsley and sugar. "Is everything we eat associated with cancer?" the researchers wondered in a 2013 article based on their findings.

Their investigation touched on a known but persistent problem in the research world: too few studies have large enough samples to support generalized conclusions.

But pressure on researchers, competition between journals and the media's insatiable appetite for new studies announcing revolutionary breakthroughs has meant such articles continue to be published.

"The majority of papers that get published, even in serious journals, are pretty sloppy," said John Ioannidis, professor of medicine at Stanford University, who specializes in the study of scientific studies.

This sworn enemy of bad research published a widely cited article in 2005 entitled: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False."

Since then, he says, only limited progress has been made.

This varies greatly depending upon the specific field of science. For example, most of physics is fine. Chemistry is also doing well.
In physics, the one problematic area is theoretical high energy particle physics [HEP] where experimental evidence for new physics beyond the Standard Model has not shown up. With the notable exception of neutrino oscillations.
Lacking such experimental data, a small subset of HEP theorists, those working on strings, supersymmetry, etc., have convinced themselves that they don't need it.
Flawed, but understandable, given that many of them have now spent their entire careers working on models that probably don't exist in nature.

The pressure to "publish or perish" has become surreal. Publication leads to the ability to bring in funding and that is all that the university admins care about.
This is especially the case in biomedical research.

Observational studies, such as the effects of salt intake in human populations, are especially problematic as it difficult to isolate a single factor, salt, from the many other confounding variables. Almost all such studies can be safely ignored as long as one eats balanced meals and does not consume anything to excess.

[Mr. Perfect]

many of them have now spent their entire careers working on models that probably don't exist in nature.

I chuckled.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

[quote="noddy"][/quote]

Found some African dissent.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

things dont happen in realtime thats for sure - it took darwin alot of time to get people to accept evolution against the backdrop of creationism

I don't know how true that is. If there were ever a theory primed by the zeitgeist, it was Chuck Darwin's. That it almost hit the scrapheap if not for genetics is like a professional basketball player missing an easy lay-up- not a good look.

[the latter discover things which inform the theory - if they discover something that makes a mockery of the entire premise, it wont be their jobs at stake.

I can't think of many suppliers who like it when their supply lines get cut....

paleontology, bio chemistry and dna analysis (for example) all stand on their own frameworks of practical science with actual stuff you can put on the table.

...and cladistics have led to (some) fruitful products in statistical and information-theory. And we can go down the list.

The question is what do we do when a form of knowledge that we categorize under science [more so the qualitative variety than the quantitative] breaks or goes bad?

I don't know.

The storybook telling is that a group of scientists don their lab coats and set the truth much like Hercules killing the Hydra.
But a whole host of people have gotten fat by disputing that, and some of them have made good arguments.

Furthermore, we have evidence of sociological corruption within soft sciences and have seen how they've been dealt with [with the Wizard of Oz, "Don't look behind the curtain" trick- with no end in sight, mind you]. I believe it unfair to tar biology because a hash has been made elsewhere in psychology/anthropology/etc domains; but it doesn't inspire confidence that the ship can be righted if before it capsizes.

And it hits on your what/chaff question:

we need to seperate the folks that specialise in evolution theory from the folks that work in the list of biology disciplines who just collect facts - this is why i thought that a relevant topic.

I see your point, I just don't think I'm the one to speculate that far. It's arrogant enough to argue against a whole scientific domain without also dictating an alternative. An alternative in which I'm not all that invested. And the present alternative- the intelligent design crowd- I'm not all that familiar with, and obviously not in that camp.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Psychology is the major one here. How is it possible that it amounts to anything more than superstition and inertia that we pay it any heed, after what the 20th century did to the category?

When I heard that the Stamford prison experiment was a lie, I dismissed it as more mis-representative journalism.

And if the article's proof relied merely on the testimony of one of the guys who came forward, I would've chalked it up to possibly being changed rationalizations and memories over time, or a very slight chance of a more cynical motive.

But it's awfully hard to argue with recorded transcripts that have been conveniently locked up by Stamford University for half a century.

As one of the most famous experiments, how embedded are its lessons? How many theories, assumptions, public policies have been built off of it? It's effected millions of people.

The good thing is that it's never been beyond criticism. And a lot of people did question it, however effectively.

The whole story reaffirms my belief that people generally get to the bottom of things. Not that everything is wrapped up in a neat little bow, or that the majority opinion is the right one but no avenue of criticism ever dies off or is suppressed completely, if it holds any merit.