Category Archives: scientifical
Daily Pundit has the story about Lord Monckton’s lecture in Schenectady to a bunch of enviromental activists, professors and students.
Lord Monckton puts the correct words to the techniques the agitators have been using: argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam.
“That, Madame, is intellectual baby-talk,” replied Lord Monckton. Had she not heard of Aristotle’s codification of the commonest logical fallacies in human discourse, including that which the medieval schoolmen would later describe as the argumentum ad populum, the headcount fallacy? From her reddening face and baffled expression, it was possible to deduce that she had not. Nor had she heard of the argumentum ad verecundiam, the fallacy of appealing to the reputation of those in authority.
Although I had sensed the wrongness of their arguments, I had not known the names of what they where doing.
Now I do.
Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam.
Vox has a post on the crumbled global warming scam. This paragraph rung a bell with me; he writes,
What people often tend to forget is that scientists are people. And while one may not have the wherewithal to examine the actual scientific experiments or assess the relevant facts, one always has the ability to observe the behavior of the individuals citing them as evidence. There are a plethora of indications that an individual is not telling the straightforward truth, be it in person or in print. An ability to read those signs is all that is required to recognize when scientists are attempting to skate on their perceived authority rather than on any actual science, in which case one can always safely conclude that their claims are false. Observing the behavioral patterns was how I was able to correctly conclude that Man is not causing global warming because there is no global warming.
I will let my mind ruminate on examples of the things that have tipped me towards not believing the global warming scam as I thinking actively about other things right now. I will try to post them here as I remember them.
Here we go:
- The lack of eagerness–as expressed by Feynmamn–to bend over backwards to have ones work actively critiqued*
- a dismissive condescension
More as I think of them…
*Here is an excerpt from Feynmann’s talk
But there is one
feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.
That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
Read the whole thing, his take on education scams is fantastic.
“theory of evolution by (probably) natural selection, beneficial mutation, genetic drift and gene flow.” Of course, the acronym’s originator omitted HGT, genetic “draft” (hitchhiking), and a number of other mechanisms.
That is the first time I have seen the term “Artificial Selection”.
I like to keep current over debates that interest me–intelligent design, climate change, economics. Much of my time is spent understanding the nature of the debate, which leads, often, to understanding the motives of those who aren’t interested in the truth, so much as an agenda, vs those who are merely unread (like me, often) to those who are butt stupid (like me, often)
via Ramon Lull’s Ars Magna
“If controversies were to arise,” said Leibniz, “there would be no more need of disputation between two philosophers than between two accountants. For it would suffice to take their pencils in their hands, and say to each other: Let us calculate.”
It won’t happen (imho) but the hope of the scientific method is to produce exactly that result.
Derb is Quixote.