Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, a clear example of bad science would be throwing mice off a tower and reading their entrails to predict the weather (myomancy). I think we can both agree that that is bad science now (although, I'd happily accept that taking a handful of mushrooms, staring at a river and deciding that river spirits moved it was once good science). Then our capabilities changed, and previous accounts became unsupportable. Since there is a real world out there that filters out inaccurate statements, what we have left is degrees of wrongness. The latest "truth" is the best we can do (and we can make a value judgement between the quality of efforts to understand the world, according to CR).
I'm not sure what to get, other than that four or five paragraphs in a journal article seemed to explain CR more clearly than you have over a couple of months.
A bit more:
Quote:Having established the intransitive objects of knowledge, we must recognize that the production of knowledge is very much the work of humans, and occurs in what we could call the transitive dimension (Bhaskar 1989, p. 18). Acknowledging the work of sociologists, the practice of science is a social process drawing on existing theories, results, anomalies, and conjectures (the transitive objects of knowledge) to generate improved knowledge of science’s intransitive objects. This distinction allows us to admit the epistemic relativity of science, the fact that knowledge is always historically and socially located, without losing the ontological dimension. We should also note that such epistemic relativity does not imply a corresponding judgmental relativity (i.e., that all views are equally valid and that there are no rational grounds for choosing between them).(Ibid., My bold) I think this is what set off alarm bells when Lbird began, but as we can see from the above, really, this isn't much different from what Asimov said about degrees of wrongness. The sun didn't go round the Earth, it was just good science to say it did. This was wrong, and has been disproved, and no good science can make it right again.
OK, so a Janet & John descxription of Criticial Realism can be found at:CRITICAL REALISM IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH. MIS Quarterly. Sep2013, Vol. 37 Issue 3, p795-802. 8p.
Quote:We can now describe the critical realist scientific methodology, what Bhaskar calls retroduction (this is essentially the same as “abduction,” as developed by C. S. Peirce (1931– 1958, ss. 5.145) in contrast to induction and deduction). We take some unexplained phenomenon that is of interest to us and propose hypothetical mechanisms that, if they existed,would generate or cause that which is to be explained. So, we move from experiences in the empirical domain to possible structures or mechanisms in the real domain. This is the essential methodological step in CR studies: to move from descriptions of empirical events or regularities to potential causal mechanisms, of a variety of kinds, some of which may be nonphysical and nonobservable, the interaction of which could potentially have generated the events. Such hypotheses do not, of course, prove that the mechanisms do in fact exist. And, we may have competing explanations proposed, so there is then a further stage within the methodology in which more research has to be carried out to try and eliminate some of the explanations and perhaps support others.This strikes me as being different from what LBird has espoused, beginning with theory, and then delving in. Here we start with observations and retroduce a workable model. In rpactice, though, it doesn't, as I've noted before, seem to change anything about how science is performed, since it still requires data, experiement and evidence to reject variant explanations.Anyway, they also state:
Quote:• CR defends a strongly realist ontology that there is an existing, causally efficacious, world independent of our knowledge. It defends this against both classical positivism that would reduce the world to that which can be empirically observed and measured, and the various forms of constructivism that would reduce the world to our human knowledge of it. Hence it is realist.• CR recognizes that our access to this world is in fact limited and always mediated by our perceptual and theoretical lenses. It accepts epistemic relativity (that knowledge is always local and historical), but not judgmental relativity (that all viewpoints must be equally valid). Hence it is critical in a Kantian sense.• CR accepts the existence of different types of objects of knowledge—physical, social, and conceptual—which have different ontological and epistemological characteristics. They therefore require a range of different research methods and methodologies to access them. Since a particular object of research may well have different characteristics, it is likely that a mixed-method research strategy (i.e., a variety of methods in the same research study) will be necessary and CR supports this.At heart is the old 6th Form saw: "If a democratic society voted democratically to execute you, what would you do?" To which the obvious answer is to dodge the question, and point out that if an overwhelming majority of people want you dead, you will be killed, whether you submit or fight. However, that dodge isn't as weak as it first sounds, since it brings up the essential point that democracy is also about power. We cannot vote to hold back the tide, and we cannot vote the moon out of the sky. If we deny a democratic society a means of enforcing its views, then the vote doesn't really matter, its what boots on the ground say (I can think of at least one or two resolutions of Party conference that have been ignored into the long grass). Votes have to be useful to those that are effectved by them. If society has no means of compelling labour, then it can vote till it's blue in the face if people simply refuse to enforce them. It becomes much like Wikipedia (despite it's protest that Wikipedia isn't a democracy (they actively discourage voting) because the free consensus that rules there is the self=-organisation of editors. Now, of course, there are admins, who have extra power becuase they control the code (much as our beloved moderators have power).So, the limit of democracy is our capacity to carry out the results of a vote (including willingness) and the utility to us of holding such votes in rder toc o-ordinate action. Democracy is about more than nose counting, it is about the open ended debate, and the capacity of people to join in that debate (thus, it means decisions should be made in a way in which they are readily revocable, but compatible with actual decisions being made).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracyAlso known as Liquid Democracy (aka Delegable Proxy Voting) is sueful to look at, with people opting into and out of various layers of decision making, i.e. while things are running smoothly, we leave well enough alone, and when things go wrong, we intervene. So, while the bins are being collected, all well and good, when they start exploding, we vote together. This is the same as any manager/CEO does now, delegate what you can and leave it alone until you have to intervene. the difference is that society as a whole will be the CEO.
So much for theory and practice, and the architect who unlike bees sees his vision whole in his mind before he commits it to paper. Labird cannot even, in theory, explain how voting relates to knowledge and the scientific process, beyond a mere fetish for voting. Lbird demonstrates a misunderstanding of democracy: democracy is the organisation of the people by the people themselves. Now, ISTR is was Neurath who distinguished between democracy between enemies (where you count up how many guns each side has, and declare the numerically superior team to be the winners) and democracy between friends, the process, say, whereby since you are agreed to go to the cinema together, you negotiate and all go to see the same film, despite it not being the first preference of some of the gang. Now, in the context of a socialist community, obviously, sometimes we're going to need to make such calls. We'll need to decide whether to act if AGW is true, because that is something that connects us in our ongoing communal existence. Whether 1 kilo is a litre of water at 4C at sea level is something we will have to agree, in order to have authoritative weights for our industry. Whether pulsars are made of dark matter or string is something we can agree to disagree on and still be friends.
Yes, in my memory we convened an online Special Party Meeting to discuss attacks on Party members in Africa, that'll be about twelve years ago.
I note that Lbird declines to explain the consequence of voting in any practical manner. We have some movement here, the vote establishes the socially objective truth: but what does that mean in practice? And how does that differ from Asimov's degrees of wrongness?. Yes it was 'true' to say the Sun went round the Earth: for all practical applications and with the observation available, that was good science. But we now know that to be wrong, because we extended both the range of our practical needs and our ability to sense the universe.Anyway, the problem of selection is well known, as Schopenhaeur tells us in the Art of Being Right:
Quote:Dialectic, on the other hand, would treat of the intercourse between two rational beings who, because they are rational, ought to think in common, but who, as soon as they cease to agree like two clocks keeping exactly the same time, create a disputation, or intellectual contest. Regarded as purely rational beings, the individuals would, I say, necessarily be in agreement, and their variation springs from the difference essential to individuality; in other words, it is drawn from experience.{…} For human nature is such that if A. and B. are engaged in thinking in common, and are communicating their opinions to one another on any subject, so long as it is not a mere fact of history, and A. perceives that B.'s thoughts on one end the same subject are not the same as his own, he does not begin by revising his own process of thinking, so as to discover any mistake which he may have made, but he assumes that the mistake has occurred in B.'s. In other words, man is naturally obstinate; and this quality in him is attended with certain results, treated of in the branch of knowledge which I should like to call Dialectic, but which, in order to avoid misunderstanding, I shall call Controversial or Eristical Dialectic. Accordingly, it is the branch of knowledge which treats of the obstinacy natural to man.But it is Lbird who is here putting forward their case, and the onus is on Lbird to say how it would work in practice, and on Lbird to rebut my case that voting would be undemocratic in the context of science, as it would close down the ongoing dialogue, raher than open it.
I think the onus is on Lbird to ellucidate on what happens after the vote.Lets take an absurd example. Suppose the Bedford level experiments were apparently refuted (link), and socialist society voted that the world is flat. What next? Would all textbooks have to state the world is flat? Teachers? Professors? Would Air traffic controllers have to produce flat earth flight plans? What about geologists and researchers: would they get resources for experiments that looked at the round earth theory (or presupposed it)? Would we all be expected to make public professions of adherance to the result of the vote? Would a Round Earth Society get premises and resources to disseminate their views, even a journal? Would libraries stop stocking Round earth Books in Geology and move it to the 100 section?What would be the conditions that call for a revote?I've put forward a relatively detailed model of how I think science in a genuinely collectivist and democratic society of common ownership would work, which AFAICS Lbird hasn't engaged with. A vote is a device that brings debate to a resolution, this sems to me antithetical to the notion of science as an open ended debate, and it is this that Lbird needs to refute.
Science will be controlled by everyone, in as much as science if a free and open debate that people can choose to join or to leave. We will listen to authorities in so much as it is rational to do so. We can ignore them if we feel their wrong. People would associate freely, if they don't want to abide by the rules of a given association, they'll be free to go practice elsewhere. I can't predict (and wouldn't want to) how every association would work, but in general that's how it would go. As I suggested before, we would seek, as a community to allow the flat Earth society to have resources to research and propagate its views. The right of a minority to try and become a majority demands that.
No, I'm saying the only person whose opinion counts is me! me, you hear! The fools, I'll show them all!!!!!!!That, or, as I've repeatedly said, that information needs to be openly available, learned societies/organisations need to be democratically organised internally and within the framework of a democratic society. Access to knowledge and information resources needs to be free, and people need the time and education to access and process them adquately, and thereafter form their own conclusions, and any member of society needs to have the opportunity to practice science and pursue their research interests, within available resources and the democraticaly decided priorities of the community.Peopl should have the opportunity to contribute to the discussions and ebates around scientific questions. We should have a much fuller and rounder knowledge fo the state of the debate than how many bums were on the seats.So, I am totally opposed to democracy in all its forms.
I think need to reclarify a point: voting on scientific questions is pointless, not voting in general. I fear I have been quoted out of context. I continue to counterpose my democratic methods to your nose counting.
As I've also indicated, democracy is more than voting. It is an ongoping debate regarding self organisation, nose counting is just one means to that end. So here I'm actually arguing against you, in favour of democracy.
I've already stated my probhlem with voting: it's pointless. The winners will win, the losers won't change their mind. We can't "forbid" research into the losing proposition, because majorities have the right to try and become majorities, that includes collecting sufficient evidence. What I prefer is the democratic method of everyone making up their own mind. People can choose to rely on the rational authority of experts, or they can challenge it as thy please/ What is important is that information and education are widely available, and there are multiple fora for debate and discussion.Democratically we can set research priorities, allocate resources to research and support the administration of research. We can set up expectations of the democratic organisation of learned societies. As I've already set out. I just don't need to see why we need to vote on the results.
