Is saying "...so I know how science works." likely to convince people?

[Mister Agenda]

Even in the 'historical sciences' experiments can be done by making predictions on what will be found based on what we already know, supporting the hypothesis. We predicted where tiktaalik would be found, we can predict the likely number of novel species on an island based on its size, how far it is from the nearest continent, and if it was part of a continent previously, how long it has been separated.

[Abaddon_ire]

<snip for brevity>

OK. When it comes to knowledge about anything Croatian I am quite happy to state up front that my knowledge in that area is vanishingly small. I know a little of the story of covert Russian bases in the region. I know a little of historic monuments in the region. But I would flat out refuse to claim to be any kind of expert. And that is the the very core of what you are getting at.

I am an expert in my own subject. But a large part of being so is the recognition that this does not magically make me an expert in everything else. An actual subject matter expert will also realise that they are NOT an expert in ALL matters.

And there is the rub. In the crankiverse, not only is expertise in one area assumed to somehow confer expertise in all other areas, the expertise is assumed by the crank to flow into everywhere else.

To put a solid example on it, I demolished the Fake Obama Birth Cert nonsense with ease. Why? Because It fell within my domain of expertise and long experience.

But carpenters are still wizards to me. Ask me to cut a log and I guarantee you I will cock it up somehow. Me and wood simply do not get along.

You could ask me to ethernet up your house, provide USB ports all over or anything of that nature. I could do such without a thought.

Ask me to cut a plank and you will recieve no more than splinters.

Expertise is not only about knowing what you can do. It is also about realising what you cannot.

[toreason]

2 forms of human thinkers.  One is rational and logical.  For we live as one human, one self.

And every one of us is just one.  If you just say imagine no one else existed and only one human did....as the precept and concept ONE, which historically is the basis of all science belief today, then you would not be doing science.

A simple matter of self, one in observation of said , one self.

The egotist however, as a group coercive condition against one says I know everything.  Yet you only own one life that lives for about 100 years.  Sperm and an ovary is where we personally come from.  For the 2 Creators of our life are our parents.

And that status is not science it is observation.

Many conditions are self owned before science and science just ought to stop being the only one condition that they gave life......its destruction and attack and sacrifice.

Which takes us to the concepts of God in science, being numbers and mass, and machines taken out of the physical matter of the stone with science saying my machine is the Creator.

Once a long time ago science used to say God was the creator.  And today with an irradiated destroyed machine mind AI....they now say that the Creator is their machine.

Science, THE DESTROYER.

[Belacqua]

Boy, you're going to get it in the neck for this one. Prepare for attack! Incoming!

2 forms of human thinkers.  One is rational and logical.  For we live as one human, one self.

And every one of us is just one.

Well, I'd rather say there are two ways of approaching problems. One is rational and logical. (And I'm not sure those two are the same, but leave that aside for the moment.) The other maybe is emotional. But these both exist in every individual. As much as some people may claim to be rational, it's not possible or desirable to be only rational. 

  If you just say imagine no one else existed and only one human did....as the precept and concept ONE, which historically is the basis of all science belief today, then you would not be doing science.

I think I don't get what you're saying here. 

Normally I think of science as trying (or pretending) to be a view that isn't individual. Science is the opposite of only one person existing. It is, as Nagel put it, the "view from nowhere" -- the attempt to find the truth independent of anyone's perspective. 


But I may not be understanding you here.

The egotist however, as a group coercive condition against one says I know everything.  Yet you only own one life that lives for about 100 years.  Sperm and an ovary is where we personally come from.  For the 2 Creators of our life are our parents.

And that status is not science it is observation.

Certainly it would be egotistical to assume that one knows everything. We are finite and limited. Recently I read one philosopher's view that the really big questions are unanswerable by humans in the same way that his cat can't understand what that clattering at his typewriter is all about. We evolved for survival and not truth, and we just can't expect to do much better. (Which is not a reason to stop trying.) 

Many conditions are self owned before science and science just ought to stop being the only one condition that they gave life......its destruction and attack and sacrifice.

Which takes us to the concepts of God in science, being numbers and mass, and machines taken out of the physical matter of the stone with science saying my machine is the Creator.

Once a long time ago science used to say God was the creator.  And today with an irradiated destroyed machine mind AI....they now say that the Creator is their machine.

Science, THE DESTROYER.

Here you are waxing poetic and I'm not sure of your meaning. 

If you're saying that science can't do everything, and there's more to life than scientific knowledge, I agree with you. And if we attempt to discard or downplay the non-scientific parts of life, then we will be unbalanced. 

Whether that makes science the "destroyer" would kind of depend on how we used it. The key is surely to balance the benefits of science with the rest of life.....?

[Ranjr]

2 forms of human thinkers.  One is rational and logical.  For we live as one human, one self.

And every one of us is just one.  If you just say imagine no one else existed and only one human did....as the precept and concept ONE, which historically is the basis of all science belief today, then you would not be doing science.

A simple matter of self, one in observation of said , one self.

The egotist however, as a group coercive condition against one says I know everything.  Yet you only own one life that lives for about 100 years.  Sperm and an ovary is where we personally come from.  For the 2 Creators of our life are our parents.

And that status is not science it is observation.

Many conditions are self owned before science and science just ought to stop being the only one condition that they gave life......its destruction and attack and sacrifice.

Which takes us to the concepts of God in science, being numbers and mass, and machines taken out of the physical matter of the stone with science saying my machine is the Creator.

Once a long time ago science used to say God was the creator.  And today with an irradiated destroyed machine mind AI....they now say that the Creator is their machine.

Science, THE DESTROYER.

It must feel better to get that off your chest.  With all the machines and their irradiating.  It can be a bit much.  Time for a deep breath and a warm cup of chamomile.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

2 forms of human thinkers.  One is rational and logical.  For we live as one human, one self.

And every one of us is just one.  If you just say imagine no one else existed and only one human did....as the precept and concept ONE, which historically is the basis of all science belief today, then you would not be doing science.

A simple matter of self, one in observation of said , one self.

The egotist however, as a group coercive condition against one says I know everything.  Yet you only own one life that lives for about 100 years.  Sperm and an ovary is where we personally come from.  For the 2 Creators of our life are our parents.

And that status is not science it is observation.

Many conditions are self owned before science and science just ought to stop being the only one condition that they gave life......its destruction and attack and sacrifice.

Which takes us to the concepts of God in science, being numbers and mass, and machines taken out of the physical matter of the stone with science saying my machine is the Creator.

Once a long time ago science used to say God was the creator.  And today with an irradiated destroyed machine mind AI....they now say that the Creator is their machine.

Science, THE DESTROYER.

Be sure to take all the meds you're given, and do what the nice people in the white coats tell you to do.  You'll be out of that institution in no time.

Boru

[Nay_Sayer]

2 forms of human thinkers.  One is rational and logical.  For we live as one human, one self.

And every one of us is just one.  If you just say imagine no one else existed and only one human did....as the precept and concept ONE, which historically is the basis of all science belief today, then you would not be doing science.

A simple matter of self, one in observation of said , one self.

The egotist however, as a group coercive condition against one says I know everything.  Yet you only own one life that lives for about 100 years.  Sperm and an ovary is where we personally come from.  For the 2 Creators of our life are our parents.

And that status is not science it is observation.

Many conditions are self owned before science and science just ought to stop being the only one condition that they gave life......its destruction and attack and sacrifice.

Which takes us to the concepts of God in science, being numbers and mass, and machines taken out of the physical matter of the stone with science saying my machine is the Creator.

Once a long time ago science used to say God was the creator.  And today with an irradiated destroyed machine mind AI....they now say that the Creator is their machine.

Science, THE DESTROYER.

Hmmm, Just a stab in the dark here. What are your thoughts on the word betwixt?

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

I agree with you that the current government is bad. However, there could be a government based on science that implements only the policies that are scientifically proven to be effective!

A government based on science is not necessarily going to implement only the policies that are scientifically proven to be effective. A government based on science is going to properly review the reasoning of policy and issue reports of opinions and whatever else may be appropriate.

However, many people on the Internet forums seem to have this idea of the hierarchy of sciences and that linguistics and other social sciences are "soft sciences" or somehow not real sciences. The logic is that, if you study natural sciences (the "hard sciences"), it's relatively easy to know if you are wrong, since you can see whether the predictions you've made are right very soon. And that, if you study social sciences, it's very easy get something wrong and end up never knowing that, because it's very hard or impossible to do controlled experiments and/or systematic observation.

I agree.

If you ask me that notion is very problematic, if not outright self-contradictory. So, when you talk about things that are harder to properly study, you have, by that logic, less credibility.

And the hierarchy of sciences is the hardest thing to properly study . . .

I can affirm that for you - it is a very difficult task. There are very few attempts in the past hundred and fifty years, or so; but they have been earnest. I am very confident that I have deliberated a valid formula for constructing the hierarchy, and I have commenced the general hierarchy, but it will require the cooperation of scholars to review and correct my generalities, and construct the specific areas of the hierarchy.

It took about nine months of dedicated concentration to deliberate the formula, and then another nine months of challenging it, until I allowed myself to be dedicated to the formula for constructing the hierarchy that I have developed, so far. The hierarchy is called an ontology, and I am really surprised that you have not tried to deliberate the solution to the problem that you recognized - the hierarchy of sciences is the hardest thing to properly study.
How do you know that it is hard to study?

So, what do you think, is saying "I've published three papers about linguistics in peer-reviewed journals (about...), so I can safely tell you that's not how science works." more likely to be productive or counter-productive?

You are pretty much wasting your sincerity with people at Internet forums, especially, those who use the arguments that you provided.

[The Grand Nudger]

You should probably go publish your work.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

I am working on that - I have a copyright for the formula and the general documentation.

It is difficult stuff, and I believe that the government chartering system that is a derivative of the system needs to be at the ready as it is essentially a second proof of the formula.

---

I am past the 30/30 rule, i think.

Moderator Notice
You’re not.