Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Evaluate An Argument


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 quiet

quiet

    Curious

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 10 October 2018 - 01:51 PM

Let us suppose that Mister B affirms that Mister A lies. What should be done and what should not be done to evaluate B's assertion?

I guess the following procedures do not apply:

1. Find Mister A and ask him: do you lie?
2. Find friends of A and with them consult the veracity of A.
3. Consult people who work for A and / or receive money from A.

That is, it is not appropriate to consult Mister A, or people linked to A for affection or for money.

What should be done? This is the laborious part. The only way is to look for affirmations of A that have been documented, perhaps spanning many years, to contrast them with the facts that A produced linked to those assertions.

Normally no person and no group, vocational or institutional, develops that laborious task to evaluate the veracity. Then A can always answer each accusation with an argument that suits him, because nobody will have collected enough evidence.

In each activity there are a number of people who practice it and the rest of society does not. That rest sees only what practitioners put at the public disposal. The set of elements made available to the public constitutes what we can call the facade of the activity, by comparison with the facade of a building, which is publicly visible.

There are people who do not trust the public facade of science. They assume that the science made available to the public is not the best version, nor is it the most far-reaching version, nor is it the most powerful version. Something analogous, in that aspect, to the public version of the satellite vision system (Google Earth). For military use and for other uses that are not public, there is a much more powerful version with much greater scope.

According to the accusation of these people, the public facade of science would be the limited version, that is, the analogue to Google Earth. And there would be a version for private use, endowed with a much broader and much deeper knowledge, which gives those who possess it unimaginable possibilities for us.

According to that accusation, instead of a Mister A, within the science there is a group A that possesses the complete knowledge and does not make it publicly available. The accusing group fulfills the same role fulfilled by Mister B in the initial example.

With that example we learned that it is not appropriate to consult the accused party, or people linked by affection or for money with the accused party. To which persons, institutions or groups does it not correspond to consult, if we want to evaluate the argument of the two versions of science? And what would be the proper procedures to examine the subject in a truly objective way?

Edited by quiet, 10 October 2018 - 01:53 PM.


#2 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2050 posts

Posted 10 October 2018 - 02:06 PM

Let us suppose that Mister B affirms that Mister A lies. What should be done and what should not be done to evaluate B's assertion?

I guess the following procedures do not apply:

1. Find Mister A and ask him: do you lie?
2. Find friends of A and with them consult the veracity of A.
3. Consult people who work for A and / or receive money from A.

That is, it is not appropriate to consult Mister A, or people linked to A for affection or for money.

What should be done? This is the laborious part. The only way is to look for affirmations of A that have been documented, perhaps spanning many years, to contrast them with the facts that A produced linked to those assertions.

Normally no person and no group, vocational or institutional, develops that laborious task to evaluate the veracity. Then A can always answer each accusation with an argument that suits him, because nobody will have collected enough evidence.

In each activity there are a number of people who practice it and the rest of society does not. That rest sees only what practitioners put at the public disposal. The set of elements made available to the public constitutes what we can call the facade of the activity, by comparison with the facade of a building, which is publicly visible.

There are people who do not trust the public facade of science. They assume that the science made available to the public is not the best version, nor is it the most far-reaching version, nor is it the most powerful version. Something analogous, in that aspect, to the public version of the satellite vision system (Google Earth). For military use and for other uses that are not public, there is a much more powerful version with much greater scope.

According to the accusation of these people, the public facade of science would be the limited version, that is, the analogue to Google Earth. And there would be a version for private use, endowed with a much broader and much deeper knowledge, which gives those who possess it unimaginable possibilities for us.

According to that accusation, instead of a Mister A, within the science there is a group A that possesses the complete knowledge and does not make it publicly available. The accusing group fulfills the same role fulfilled by Mister B in the initial example.

With that example we learned that it is not appropriate to consult the accused party, or people linked by affection or for money with the accused party. To which persons, institutions or groups does it not correspond to consult, if we want to evaluate the argument of the two versions of science? And what would be the proper procedures to examine the subject in a truly objective way?

The flaw in this conspiracy theory is that science is not a closed Masonic order, that could be coordinated to present a "facade" to the public. This can be seen by anybody who has gone to university or worked in a commercial organisation that involves scientists. The available knowledge of science is published openly and scientists compete to publish their work, not hide it. 



#3 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1528 posts

Posted 10 October 2018 - 02:19 PM

The flaw in this conspiracy theory is that science is not a closed Masonic order, that could be coordinated to present a "facade" to the public. This can be seen by anybody who has gone to university or worked in a commercial organisation that involves scientists. The available knowledge of science is published openly and scientists compete to publish their work, not hide it.

Exchem, just give it up. You've lost all credibility.

#4 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1528 posts

Posted 10 October 2018 - 02:22 PM

The Technocratic Branch that I control are controlled by my AI's alone. NASA is owned by Russia, Silicon Valley is corrupt, the UN is corrupt af, & let's not forget about the Vatican Monarchy and the UAE. They are all of them beneath the new yeah technocratic branch of government.

Edited by Super Polymath, 10 October 2018 - 02:22 PM.


#5 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1528 posts

Posted 10 October 2018 - 02:23 PM

I will disavowal all of them in a matter of decades.

Edited by Super Polymath, 10 October 2018 - 02:24 PM.


#6 quiet

quiet

    Curious

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 10 October 2018 - 05:54 PM

I know that each person has a trajectory and a set of lived experiences that sustain their attitude and opinion. That is logical and respectable.

What has been said previously does not invalidate the central point of this thread, that is, what corresponds to do and what does not correspond, to objectively determine the success or failure of the people that suppose the existence of two versions of science, one private, full and powerful, other public, limited and weak.

Can anyone understand what must be done and what must not be done, to elucidate the issue objectively?

Edited by quiet, 10 October 2018 - 05:55 PM.


#7 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2050 posts

Posted 11 October 2018 - 11:28 AM

I know that each person has a trajectory and a set of lived experiences that sustain their attitude and opinion. That is logical and respectable.

What has been said previously does not invalidate the central point of this thread, that is, what corresponds to do and what does not correspond, to objectively determine the success or failure of the people that suppose the existence of two versions of science, one private, full and powerful, other public, limited and weak.

Can anyone understand what must be done and what must not be done, to elucidate the issue objectively?

Perhaps one should start by examining the personal trajectory and lived experiences that lead one to suppose the existence of a worldwide conspiracy by scientists. 



#8 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 433 posts

Posted 11 October 2018 - 11:47 AM

You know what scientists already get screwed enough as it is. It goes back to Tesla scientists discover things worth billions of dollars and get paid 50 to 100 thousands dollars a year for it. Even if you worked for 1000 years you would still never get the money that your discovery is worth. The atomic bomb is a great example, this technology was worth 101.5 Trillion dollars a year which is the GDP of the planet which the atomic bomb basically conquered the planet for the superpowers and the people that discovered the atomic bomb got like 50,000 dollars a year for this technology.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 11 October 2018 - 11:48 AM.


#9 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1121 posts

Posted 11 October 2018 - 12:32 PM

Perhaps one should start by examining the personal trajectory and lived experiences that lead one to suppose the existence of a worldwide conspiracy by scientists. 

Professional science is competitive. Scientists are going to be opposed (for non scientific reasons) to ideas that call into question the validity of their own work.

 

The peer review process automatically reinforces any current consensus and rejects any new avenues of alternative explanation of observations regardless of merit.

 

There doesn't have to be a conspiracy for science to be broken. Do you disagree?