|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Show me the evidence for your claim. If it is a big claim, the evidence needs to be overwhelming. That is just fair. What is your problem with this outlook? |
The problem is not with the "outlook" as you stated.
The problem is with the way you (people in general including scientists) look at the world and organize it in your thought systems. Most people think the world is explained by the thought system, or even that the world is the system. Most people's thoughts stay within the system. They cannot even imagine anything beyond it. When a claim is made that does not fit with the organization of the system, the claim is, just about always, dismissed as <insert your choice of derision>.
Not all claims turn out to be true, of course. But the prevailing attitude that thinks itself enlightened and any contrary thought ridiculous opposes new thoughts and kills them when they become too threatening.
Yes, I am saying that this is exactly what is going on now in this world. And no, not in some other misguided people but in you right here right now.
And as I write here, you seem to read my words but understand nothing of what I try to point to.
I understand the exasperation behind the quotes (of the OP). |
This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
And as I write here, you seem to read my words but understand nothing of what I try to point to.
|
I haven't a clue what you're going on about now. Why not repeat it for the next ten pages, then, who knows, maybe everyone will agree with you, although probably still not understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Show me the evidence for your claim. If it is a big claim, the evidence needs to be overwhelming. That is just fair. What is your problem with this outlook? |
The problem is not with the "outlook" as you stated.
The problem is with the way you (people in general including scientists) look at the world and organize it in your thought systems. Most people think the world is explained by the thought system, or even that the world is the system. Most people's thoughts stay within the system. They cannot even imagine anything beyond it. When a claim is made that does not fit with the organization of the system, the claim is, just about always, dismissed as <insert your choice of derision>.
Not all claims turn out to be true, of course. But the prevailing attitude that thinks itself enlightened and any contrary thought ridiculous opposes new thoughts and kills them when they become too threatening.
Yes, I am saying that this is exactly what is going on now in this world. And no, not in some other misguided people but in you right here right now.
And as I write here, you seem to read my words but understand nothing of what I try to point to.
I understand the exasperation behind the quotes (of the OP). |
This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid. |
His question could not be answered satisfactorily in any other way.
I could have agreed with him, as I do with the statement on its face. Then what? He would go on his merry way, and I on mine. Nothing would have happened, and I would have wasted my time.
I am not particularly interested in an "argument" as you seem to understand it. Again it is a matter of perspective: You see what you see and I see what I see. When I point out what I see as critical to our understanding of the subject, you think I am talking about soemthing else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To the OP:
my mother always taught me.
people with low intelligence---->talk about other people
people with mid intelligence---->talk about events
people with high intelligence---->talk about ideas
I'd say most people fall in the bottom two, including most people who post on this board.
So don't be amazed, and I know won't, when no one understands what you are talking about, or ask you to reference real events, or just plain out flame you.
Although in the wrong forum, OP's thread is a breath of fresh air for those that understand how to talk about ideas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The problem is not with the "outlook" as you stated.
The problem is with the way you (people in general including scientists) look at the world and organize it in your thought systems. Most people think the world is explained by the thought system, or even that the world is the system. Most people's thoughts stay within the system. They cannot even imagine anything beyond it. When a claim is made that does not fit with the organization of the system, the claim is, just about always, dismissed as <insert your choice of derision>.
Not all claims turn out to be true, of course. But the prevailing attitude that thinks itself enlightened and any contrary thought ridiculous opposes new thoughts and kills them when they become too threatening. Yes, I am saying that this is exactly what is going on now in this world. And no, not in some other misguided people but in you right here right now.
And as I write here, you seem to read my words but understand nothing of what I try to point to.
I understand the exasperation behind the quotes (of the OP). |
Complete strawman bolded. All I said was that I require evidence for a claim. I didn't ridicule your claim. I just asked for evidence.
You said that creation is the point of the universe and that most discoveries are achieved without funding or recognition.
Now in my world view, you made a claim, you should back that up with evidence.
In your world view, you make a claim, fail to produce any reason for anyone else to buy it except 'we don't understand you fully'.
You can dance around the point all you want, but my world view gets things done. Make a claim, provide evidence.
There is no such thing as a ridiculous claim. You claim bigfoot exists(for example), show me a corpse, show me how experts classify that corpse as a previously unknown species. Hair, DNA..any sort of hard evidence.
Science by and large will come around. It might take years of savage peer review but it will change to the evidence. Science embraces contrary thought as long as it can provide evidence and stand up to peer review. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| Neither you nor JMO understand what I was trying to say. Doubt by scientists such as Feynman or Einstein is qualitatively different from that of the likes of you. |
Why? We can all be victim of too strong skepticism as well as having a mind so open your brain falls out. Presumably you posted that list as some form of advice to your fellow Dave's users and not as an exercise in posting lists of quotes.
| Quote: |
| Who decides what claims are worthy? And who decides what should get funding? Most breakthroughs in science were achieved by scientists working alone without official (or much) funding or recognition. |
Really? While it's easy to cherry pick some examples, sure seems to me most breakthroughs in science come from the cooperative efforts of many scientists in well funded government and corporate labs. Let's look at winners of the Nobel prize (surely this is a representative list of breakthroughs in science, no?). Up to 3 people can share in a Nobel prize:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates
Check the list. Very few are won by individuals (save for peace and literature and maybe economics). And of the greatest controversies in this prize is deciding the third name when there are about 4 or more people who could take the third spot.
So how do you back your claim? Simply cherry picking examples (Einstein!) isn't valid. Newton himself likened science to "standing on the shoulders of giants". Your work is based work in the past.
And who decides what scientific claims are worthy and worthy of funding? Very easy. Grant committees. A scientist requests funding. He submits it to a committee of his peers. They review his claims and his evidence and decide if his research might be fruitful.
| Quote: |
| Did you even read some of the quotes? |
Yes. So what? Now if the list wasn't for our edification and learnin' I guess I wasted my time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i try to be 'stubbornly open-minded'
my beliefs are strong because i constantly question them... therefore, it takes a strong argument to persuade me... however, i am willing to entertain pretty much any crazy idea until the argument breaks down... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for your response, MM2.
If you would indulge me:
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| And who decides what scientific claims are worthy and worthy of funding? Very easy. Grant committees. A scientist requests funding. He submits it to a committee of his peers. They review his claims and his evidence and decide if his research might be fruitful. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
Thanks for your response, MM2.
If you would indulge me:
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| And who decides what scientific claims are worthy and worthy of funding? Very easy. Grant committees. A scientist requests funding. He submits it to a committee of his peers. They review his claims and his evidence and decide if his research might be fruitful. |
|
You're going to have to be a bit more clear what point you're trying to make.
(btw, quickly counting 48 out of 101 Nobels in physics have been won by individuals. The lone winners are highly tilted towards the start of the prize, although since the '70s there have only been 5 individual winners. I'm too lazy to run my analysis on the other science prizes. I will grant you in times past it was easier for lone scientists to make the big breakthroughs but the days of the double slit experiments is reasonably at the end. There's a Nobel waiting for discovery of the Higgs Boson but that's not going to come from a guy working in his backyard lab.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
| i try to be 'stubbornly open-minded' |
I phrase it "I look for the silver lining in every cloud but I know it's going to turn out to be lead." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
Thanks for your response, MM2.
If you would indulge me:
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| And who decides what scientific claims are worthy and worthy of funding? Very easy. Grant committees. A scientist requests funding. He submits it to a committee of his peers. They review his claims and his evidence and decide if his research might be fruitful. |
|
You're going to have to be a bit more clear what point you're trying to make.
(btw, quickly counting 48 out of 101 Nobels in physics have been won by individuals. The lone winners are highly tilted towards the start of the prize, although since the '70s there have only been 5 individual winners. I'm too lazy to run my analysis on the other science prizes. I will grant you in times past it was easier for lone scientists to make the big breakthroughs but the days of the double slit experiments is reasonably at the end. There's a Nobel waiting for discovery of the Higgs Boson but that's not going to come from a guy working in his backyard lab.) |
One minor example of the folly of "grant committees" is what the current winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine had to go through to achieve their breakthroughs. Capecchi was turned down by NIH on his first proposal to investigate gene targeting. Evans had the same experiences in the UK. These were pretty minor advances. A revolutionary proposal that shakes the fundamental beliefs of science is guaranteed to be rejected.
How long did it take scientists to take the idea of the jumping genes by McClintock seriously? She stopped talking about it because no one took it seriously, and she knew the power of ridicule could destroy her career.
Harry Noller of UCSC has been studying ribosomes for a long time. It is all but proven now that rRNA catalyzes the peptidyl transferase reaction. Do you think "grant committees" would have accepted such a proposal in the 1960's? He never even proposed such a thing because he knew he wouldn't get funding for such a heretical idea.
These are still minor advances, revolutions in small ways. And they get ignored and ridiculed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| rRNA catalyzes the peptidyl transferase reaction. |
In other words, RNA makes proteins, always. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well then this thread is mistitled. You havn't a problem with skepticism but closemindedness. They are different things.
Personally I think scientists are just human and as they get older they tend to reject new ideas, but that these ideas will get out there. As long as the scientific method is followed the discoveries will be made.
What would you do to solve the problem as you see it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| What would you do to solve the problem as you see it? |
When everyone sees the problem operating in himself clearly, things will begin to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| What would you do to solve the problem as you see it? |
When everyone sees the problem operating in himself clearly, things will begin to change. |
What is the problem again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
