|
|
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
 Posted - 01/15/2002 : 15:43:59
|
The thread on "evangelical skepticism" got me thinking about my own very visceral, very angry response to people who go beyond criticism and into denigration and mockery of science and scientists. Here are some things that seem, to me, significant.
---------------------
LIARS: From the website http://home1.gte.net/res02khr/crackpots/notorious.htm (Author: "Nemesis')
"Isn't it strange that Dr. Thorne, Dr. Wheeler, Dr. Deutsch, Sir Stephen [Hawking] and company were not aware that nothing can move in spacetime? Being the celebrated mathematicians that they are, one would suppose it would be their business to know and understand something so trivial that it can be explained to high school kids. After all, it is not as if there is not a single physicist in the world who knows about this. I know of many who do. Could not just one of them write a line to Dr. Thorne or Sir Stephen and alert them of their error? How did they get their time travel papers past peer review? How did they get so darn famous? Did I hear someone say fraud? Or is it just plain incompetence and crackpottery?"
....
"It's one thing to peddle snake oil to a sleeping public, it's another to imply that the public is too stupid to realize that it's being duped. Given the increased means of communication available, the public will suddenly wake up. People are not as stupid as the insufferably pompous physics community would have them believe. Soon they will no longer accept absurd dogma from an elitist group on the basis of authority. We, the people, are the authority on what will be done with our money. We will not stand by and allow a science funded with our money commandeered by a bunch of charlatans and crackpots, regardless of how secure they may feel."
---------------------
HEROES: Personal experience
Several months ago I was confused about some aspects of the Sagnac effect, so I emailed my questions to a physicist whose website details the work he was doing using the Sagnac effect in a ring-laser interferometer. (I won't mention his name.) A week or so later I got an email back from him.
It was very a odd message--there were grotesque misspellings and whole words were unintelligible. After several seconds of study I saw that the second line said (in translation): I'm sorry but I have recently suffered a massive stroke, and I must use speech-recognition software to answer my email.
With that in mind I was able to work out most of his message. He answered my questions quite well, and the sentences I could understand were cogent and concise. But I could also "hear" the impediments that the stroke had imposed on his speech--how difficult it seemed for him to enunciate some words, how he sometimes stammered, how careful he had to be to get his meaning across--and I'm still touched, when I think about it, that he took the time and trouble to answer the unsolicited questions of an absolute stranger.
A small heroism, a courtesy I suppose, but I was very moved. And of course I could do nothing in return but thank him and wish him well.
---------------------
ATTACK DOGS
When I read an arrogant, mocking attack like the one I quoted in the first section, or the one by Emperor John Reyes ("reyes" from the latin for "king") in which he referred to scientists as "little mice" and science as a swiss cheese which is full of holes and foul-smelling, my immediate response is to respond in kind. Like a dog I am willing to snarl in passing but if bitten I have found that I will, almost by reflex, bite back. Is that a valid response? Would the gentleman physicist who answered my questions about the Sagnac effect behave so pugnaciously?
Actually, that gentleman mentioned in his email that he had almost come to blows with a colleague over the question of whether special relativity could explain Sagnac. I got the impression that he was willing to defend his viewpoint with considerable vigor! Perhaps Einstein would not have bothered to attack arrogant idiocy, but others might: from what I have read Fritz Zwicky would have hit back, and probably in spades. Is the idea that debate about science must be (or should be) platonic and untainted by emotion always realistic?
I don't know. I'm not a scientist, I'm a blue-collar worker with a lifelong interest in things scientific. I do know that I will bite (and I have been, and will be, bitten in return) and I do not feel especially apologetic about it. (Nor do I seek to glorify it--*grin*!) But there are lies that should not stand, and truths and truthtellers (a few, perhaps) that should not be dragged down.
---------------------
So what are your personal lines on debate? Do you guys walk away when the debate hits the level of the gutter or do you grab some muck and have at it?
--Don Stahl, who calls himself Dog Ed for a reason.
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes"
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
 Posted - 01/15/2002 : 18:41:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
("reyes" from the latin for "king")
I thought that was rex, as in Tyranosaurus Rex, king of the lizards.
quote:
science...which is full of holes...
Here I gotta admit I do agree with him. Science is full of holes, but as time goes on, those holes will be filled.
quote:
Do you guys walk away when the debate hits the level of the gutter or do you grab some muck and have at it?
Depends on the argument and if I know I'll survive the firefight. I love a good argument as much as anyone else, especially when I'm in the mood for one , but I do know that sometimes it's just a waste of my time, energy, and bandwidth, to even respond to these assholes. But then, if you're in the mood for an argument, be my guest.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha |
 |
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2002 : 19:21:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
("reyes" from the latin for "king")
I thought that was rex, as in Tyranosaurus Rex, king of the lizards.
Rey is Spanish for king, and is in turn derived from Latin Rex.
quote:
quote:
science...which is full of holes...
Here I gotta admit I do agree with him. Science is full of holes, but as time goes on, those holes will be filled.
It's reasonably fair to say that science is in the business of finding more holes in our knowledge. Each new discovery pushes out the envelope of knowledge, but only in one direction; what's more, such new discoveries often make us aware of new mysteries. Every answer raises new questions.
Every once in a great while, someone like Newton or Einstein will notice a pattern in the then-current fabric of knowledge and mystery, and broaden our understanding in a fell swoop.
To invert the swiss cheese analogy, we live in a hole in the middle of a vast cheese of unknowns. Scientists nibble away at the edges of the hole, sending out feelers into the unknown. After awhile we end up with a kind of lacework, until some critical stage is reached, and a Newton can sweep away the remaining latticwork and widen our hole.
But, it seems, there are always a few denizens of the hole who like things better the way they are, or the way they were, or the way they think they used to be. Or, perhaps, they fancy themselves to be the next Newton. So they point out that the scientists are just little mice.
Today I was sitting in the endodontist's chair having a root canal on a cranky molar. I got to thinking how lucky I am to be alive today, when such problems can be treated safely and effectively. I still have my tooth, thanks to the nibblings of countless little mice, who learned about anesthesia, infection, dental anatomy, and who came up with effective treatments.
I say, hooray for the mice! May their hunger never fail.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2002 : 19:58:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I say, hooray for the mice!
What about rats?  
quote:
To invert the swiss cheese analogy, we live in a hole in the middle of a vast cheese of unknowns. Scientists nibble away at the edges of the hole, sending out feelers into the unknown. After awhile we end up with a kind of lacework, until some critical stage is reached, and a Newton can sweep away the remaining latticwork and widen our hole.
So, you might say that the cheese would be akin to knowledge and the way we humans eat at it would be like our hunger for knowledge?
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2002 : 05:36:34 [Permalink]
|
My comments in the Evangelical Skepticism thread might lead some to believe that I object to it or find it useless or whatever. I do not.
Nor do I object to occasional down-and-dirty argumentation or even attacks, just as I do not object to violence simply because it's violence. (Hmmmm....that needs qualifying, I think).
Those who say 'violence never solved anything' are mistaken and irk me to no end. Violence has solved quite a lot. The 'attack' form of argumentation has also solved things, as has ridicule. Logic and reason may more often lead to knowledge, but that does not necessarily make them effective tools in spreading that knowledge or in stopping the spread of idiocy.
We are rational creatures, at least some of us, and we are emotional creatures, and we are physical creatures, and we are irrational creatures, and we are every kind of creature you can think of.
There are no absolutes in debating, argumentation, or behavior. At times, pure reason may be called for, at others, vicious verbal dissection. Rarely, but still sometimes, physical intervention is appropriate (though I don't really recommend this in most debate forums...).
Short on time, and I want to comment on some other threads, so I'll leave this thought incomplete for now.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
