No, I clarified long ago that someone could be trying to further knowledge and still fail. You are just being obtuse.NOT fail. You said that he DID fail is the defining characteristic of the actions of somebody who is not trying to further knowledge.
He allowed a conflicting interest to prevent him from properly using the process for furthering knowledge. I am not speculating in what else he may have been "interested" in doing.*SIGH* Denying the Antecedent.
If P, then Q.
-Q therefore -P.
- If P (= If the researcher was interested in furthering knowledge,) then Q (= then he would not be "annoyed" at the idea of a reviewer finding a flaw in his pet theory.)
- -Q (= He was annoyed at the idea of a reviewer finding a flaw in his pet theory,) therefore -P (= The researcher was NOT interested in furthering knowledge.)
This whole train of thought remains irrelevant to the issue.
You are not phrasing my statements correctly. This is a strawman.Why should we both insist that each of us use well formed formula in shaping our arguments?
Once again the form of your argument is of a fallacious, invalid form, Denying the Antecedent different link.
- If P (= If someone does it right,) then Q (= they would have known to take into account that kind of correlation.)
- -Q (= He didn't know to take into account that kind of correlation) therefore -P (= He doesn't do it right.)
1. Doing it right requires taking into account such a statistical correlation
2. He didn't take the statistical correlation into account
3. He didn't do it right.
Not at all. You just failed to form my position into logical statements, hence your own inability to reach the same conclusion.It is irrational to infer so using forms of argument that do NOT guarantee true conclusions. A response has not the capability to imply or infer. You or I infer from the response that...
The links provide ample examples of correct forms of modus ponens and modus tollens to correct your arguments forms. I warn you though. Correcting the form WILL alter your vision about the truth of your previously ill formed inferences.
It was allowing for the possibility, though I am not aware of any counterexamples (and am skeptical any exist).Then I don't understand the inclusion of "generally."
What relationship? It depends on the data in question. Is this honestly something you don't know?What relationship is "consistent" defining?
It simply means it does not contradict past observation.
It is unintelligent to propose a guess you know has already been invalidated.What is consistent in this proposition relating intelligence to reason and past observation?
The introduction of new data. That theory was supported by intelligent guesses, because up to that point there was no conflicting observation. As we gather more data it may conflict. An intelligent guess can only take into account past observation. Obviously taking into account future, unknown observation is beyond our means.How is it that a theory accepted by 99% of scientists can be wrong if that theory was based on your concepts of intelligent guesses?
Easily. I type it out and there it is.How can you say a wrong guess is the result of knowledge of adequate reasoning and adequate observations and therefore intelligent or best?
I don't get what you are even asking. I have defined these terms for you. By definition that is how it is. It is like asking how you can say a mammal produces milk for its young.
If you disagree with the definition then just say so and explain what you mean instead.
New data. Future observation.How does intelligence, reason, and past observation fail if they are the product of intelligence, reason, and past observation?
I'll admit "reason" isn't easily measurable, but the others are very easily verifiable. "Reason" tends to just be common sense.I'll suggest that the three criteria are sufficiently vague that they can't be defined much less measured to satisfy a standard amount or quality of each.
No, I have not said anything to that effect.You want to say the standard is determined by the researchers record of producing grants by his success at generating new knowledge, then I'd accept that relative to other researchers in a field that is very close to how a standard is determined.
I suspect you are again intentionally being obtuse. The word "intelligent" is clearly an adjective describing the guess, not the guesser.I've told you that intelligence has no firm empirical meaning that I can find beyond IQ scores and those are suspect.
I have given you the meaning. What part is difficult for you? What are you slow to understand?It can be whatever you want it to be. That's good for you since then you can use it to confirm your positions without being able to show intelligence's meaning while pretending to not beg the question when asked for its meaning.
We can take it one piece at a time. Do you know the meaning of "consistent with past observation"?
No, but you have to be able to grasp basic concepts... understand obvious definitions... and have at least an elementary level of cumulative memory.Past observation of your insinuating the level of my intelligence indicates to me that in order to be judged intelligent I have but to start agreeing with you.
Not when you clearly define the terms as I have.Is it really such a stretch of your imagination that I balk at thinking you've some clear idea of what it is you speak of when you talk about intelligence? It's a mine field, a can of worms and not just with us but anywhere it is debated.
Ha! You think "consistent with past observation" and "consistent with logic or reason" is mythical? Well, this might explain a great deal about your posts if you think logic and reason are mythical!I don't know how to judge whether any guess meets the standard that is contained in the meaning of the global absolute "best." I think this "best" concept as you've explained it, is approaching being as mythical as an intelligent one.
...okay? More irrelevant anecdotes. Why bother?Rarely. Like I've said, coin flip, short straw, defer to authority, and such are used too. Somebody will have the big nuts and make the decision. New federal examiner came in just after we sat down for milk and cookies before heading to the face. He'd seen a violation on our mantrip before as quick as he got out of his vehicle, he came up to the picnic table. He asked, "Who's got the big nuts." We all pointed to Dolly Monty, our female boss. The look on his face. He didn't make too big a deal of the violation, she had the drop on him for possible harassment as leverage, the dumb shit.
Something doesn't have to have a "unit of measurement" in order to be known.Too bad. Looking in the bin of guesses and knowing what an intelligent, reasonable, based on past observations, able to replace or having to do with existing theory looked like I sure thought would of been handy.
The sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. This bit of knowledge doesn't have a unit of measurement. Would you similarly deny it?
Ha. So now I clarify your position for you, is what you mean.So now you distinguish correctly.
You avoid the subjective as much as possible. The attitude is irrelevant. You follow the process, and resist anything that would conflict with the process. That is how you maximize the ability to further knowledge.Why is that? What is the correct attitude to maximize the ability to further knowledge? There is not enough consistency in how the Work progresses to be so precise, especially about something subjective like emotional investment.
Not at all. Of course it is human driven. That doesn't mean that every human factor is part of the process. Those human factors that work against the furthering of knowledge are simply not a part. It is not a necessary aspect of its operation.Have you dropped the position that pure science is human driven?
No, I definitely mean "haven't". If I am testing whether ants count their steps, I don't need to say "I believe ants count their steps". I just say "ants may count their steps, and here is a way I can build confidence in that assertion". I don't need to say "ants probably count their steps". I just say "after running this test, I will have some data to judge the probability of ants counting their steps as an explanation".Don't you mean you HAVE already made claims of probability or belief because it is they which are being tested?
Sorry. If you suggest a causal relationship between sunspot frequency and ant steps I'm going to stick with the "bat-shit insane" descriptor.Not per se, no. But the whole point of TOE is the interrelationships defined by abstract algorithms of whatever can be measured. Sufficiently detailed analysis of each ants steps might reveal a record of past sunspots thru proxies as ice cores reveal past temperature and CO2 levels from proxy relationships varying in the ice as the temp and CO2 varied in the environment over time.
Name one.Experiments can be done with total disregard for filtering.
"Guess" has the connotation of randomness, or lack of forethought.I've never said that such data derived would have any consistency in meaning. Until the Feynman video you balked at using the term guess at all. Only after the vid did you accept it and modify it, though the essence of the term is embodied in the literal meaning of the word "guess." Not known if right or wrong.
I had been using the term hypothesis for quite some time. I greatly prefer it over "guess" and "assumption", which you seem to like forcing into the conversation (until apparently now?).Instead of intelligent, why not think of the filtering as a science that requires a series of tests, failures, feedbacks, adaptations, retesting until a guess is shown to have been proved false more than not and then test it as an assumed best guess, eh, excuse me, ...then test it as the hypothesis? Get rid of all that terminological junk we've been hanging on the theory to be tested and call it THE HYPOTHESIS? The form that these tests take will be contained in its name: Gedankenexperiments. Thought experiments.
Because I lack relevant data to make such a judgement.Why do you conclude so?
Yes.Especially after doing all the filtering you'd have us do. Why, after being done with thought experiments, is assuming non-agency irrational?
It has not been eliminated by any filters. It is not contrary to reason or past observation.Even though you've eliminated it in your best guess filters it remains irrational after all?
Then I fail to see why you even have been arguing this whole time. You do not hold my point in contention... and the details seem to just be arguing semantics.And there, I would agree, it is irrational to assume non-agency.
...again depending on your definition of "assume".During the thought experiments stage it can be rational to assume no agency or agency as the experiments demands, especially in the thought experiment stage.
Strawman. I never said that an experiment proves a hypothesis true. I have said from the very beginning this is impossible.You made an either/or statement where one option was already established as being the case. No either/or statement is required. You are wrong that the purpose of an experiment is NOT to prove a hypothesis false. It must in order to be science. Do you think the experiment proves it true still? I thought we had risen above that myth.
That this whole tangential, irrelevant anecdote of yours does NOT show how one messes up by trying to "find truth" with the scientific process.Your point?
Not at all. The process was designed to spit out such a candidate by their own definition of "most qualified".Assuming the process spits out the most qualified candidate is irrational isn't that your assessment?
The form of my arguments does not rely on motive in the least. You are reading that into my statements when it is not there.No. The form of your arguments demand their relevance. The form is fallacious, that is it does not guarantee true conclusions from true premises. You are even unable to parse them correctly since they are not well formed. What you say may not be what you intended to say but the form you use belies your intent, IMO. Straighten out the forms to get validity, and the true premises will make your inferences sound. First the form. You leave yourself open without the well formed formula.It is difficult for any to take you seriously, as respecting reason and logic, when you don't respect them in your own expositions.
Review is part of the process. He followed the process in part, but not perfectly since he did not catch the correlation in review.Failing to catch bad data or interpretation of data is NOT failing to follow the process. Catching all errors is not a mandate of the process, while attempting to do so is. Failing to catch the errors does not mean the process was not done.
I am not saying it is a rare occurrence.
The "demand" that it be found? It is part of the process that the conclusions drawn be supported by the data. In this case they were not because of his error in properly analyzing the data.Does the process call on a reviewer to duplicate an experiment? If he doesn't has he failed to follow the process? A reviewer is doing the process by looking for error. Where in the heck is the demand that it be found? Are you saying a reviewer is not following the process of science unless errors are found? I'd look to the form of your arguments for errors.
Duplicating the experiment would not have been necessary at all, so I do not see why you bring it up.
If you fail to construct an experiment that tests your hypothesis, that is a failing to properly follow the process.If reviewers look for errors but don't see them they are not following the scientific process, only seeing errors warrants it being said of them, "They followed the scientific process." Really? What balderdash!!
Irrational assumption. Lying rules political campaigning.
If you fail to draw conclusions that are supported by your data, that is a failing to properly follow the process.
...as distinct as any parts of reality? Your questions continue to be meaningless.But they are not distinct parts of reality, eh?
You are making a logically invalid statement. What of it?I am incapable of telling the truth. Am I lying?
More irrelevance. That is not the presentation of idols as defined in the Bible. Your introduction of definitions completely contrary to those used in the Bible does not make a comparison in the argument possible.Abstract reasoning from specifics to general, induction, can only support propositions, but not guarantee them. This is science's forte. But logical demands on perfection, deity, require guarantees. There is no deity. What is taken for deity's prophets success is, absent myth, the workings of science that require less than certitude, faith, from the mythical deity's followers. Anything less than observation by an individual that it is raining drops the chances of saying, "It is raining." being found true. Hearsay introduces agency which can lie or err. This is the false god, the graven image.
I say so because Jesus specifically said those that don't doubt are more blessed. He was rebuked.Why do you say there was very little doubt regarding his approach being judged negative? Do you not think he would be the more trustworthy witness of any for his doubtings being erased thru experience? Aren't you concerned with truth? There is no truth greater than the lie, IMO.