Mod+ 269. DR. MICHAEL SHERMER, SKEPTICAL SCIENCE REPORTING

[fls]

I'm not so sure, Linda. It sort of seems to me like maybe the problem isn't the "being unconvinced" bit so much as the "being derogatory" bit. Reasonable caution is being unconvinced. Cognitive dissonance is being derogatory.

Oh. I was talking about the being convinced part. You were the one who came up with "crackpot". I don't think derision or name-calling is useful in any case (hence my mod+ designation).

However, one of the surest ways to avoid derision is to do what I suggested n the OP - persuade your critics by providing evidence. If anyone was deriding Marshall beforehand, it sure worked in this case,

You seem to lean towards a positivist epistemology. Would that be fair to say?

I'm not into philosophy. I had a look at the Wikipedia article and I doubt it - I'm not a reductionist, for one thing (which seems to be part of it?). I describe my perspective as "methodological naturalism is useful". But that's not meant as an exclusive statement.

Linda

 

[David]

Oh. I was talking about the being convinced part. You were the one who came up with "crackpot". I don't think derision or name-calling is useful in any case (hence my mod+ designation).

However, one of the surest ways to avoid derision is to do what I suggested n the OP - persuade your critics by providing evidence. If anyone was deriding Marshall beforehand, it sure worked in this case,



Linda

First of all, that's not how cognitive dissonance works. That's the point. Cognitive dissonance makes people hallucinate away or ignore evidence, even when it is rock solid. That's the point. The surest way to avoid derision in this context is to fire scientists who are derisive and to surround oneself with scientists who understand that rigorous intellectual agnosticism, and a process of conjecture and refutation, are the key ingredients to successful advancement of knowledge. That's the point.

Secondly, you're backpedalling. Since the original context of this disagreement is that I related the Barry Marshall story, including and even emphasizing the point that he was derided, and you then replied that you found it to be a good illustration of your original point, and defended the implied behavior of Marshall's colleagues as appropriate scientific caution, you're the one who inferred that derision and name-calling is within the bounds of acceptible scientific language. It's not.

Third, find me one ethical committee at a University anywhere in North America that considers it good science to drink petri dishes full of goop. It's not. But you seem to be saying that it is. If that's what you're saying, you're really wrong on this point.

I'm not insisting you take anything away from the Barry Marshall story in particular, especially if you're not of philosophical bent. I am questioning whether it's really a good example to back up the points made in the OP as you claim.

 

[fls]

First of all, that's not how cognitive dissonance works. That's the point. Cognitive dissonance makes people hallucinate away or ignore evidence, even when it is rock solid.

I don't think it's relevant when you're talking about his colleagues, though. It's more of a lay-person thing.

That's the point. The surest way to avoid derision in this context is to fire scientists who are derisive and to surround oneself with scientists who understand that rigorous intellectual agnosticism, and a process of conjecture and refutation, are the key ingredients to successful advancement of knowledge. That's the point.

I doubt that picking scientists on the basis of pleasant personality, rather than creativity and smarts, will get you very far.

Secondly, you're backpedalling. Since the original context of this disagreement is that I related the Barry Marshall story, including and even emphasizing the point that he was derided, and you then replied that you found it to be a good illustration of your original point, and defended the implied behavior of Marshall's colleagues as appropriate scientific caution, you're the one who inferred that derision and name-calling is within the bounds of acceptible scientific language. It's not.

I was ignoring your claim that Marshall was generally regarded as a crackpot. I don't think that was true. Do we have some evidence this was actually the case?

Third, find me one ethical committee at a University anywhere in North America that considers it good science to drink petri dishes full of goop. It's not. But you seem to be saying that it is. If that's what you're saying, you're really wrong on this point.

I don't see how an ethical committee is relevant to stuff one chooses to do to oneself. My point was more about doing more definitive research.

I'm not insisting you take anything away from the Barry Marshall story in particular, especially if you're not of philosophical bent. I am questioning whether it's really a good example to back up the points made in the OP as you claim.

If we go along with the story you presented, before his idea was proven, he was derided and after it was proven he got a Nobel prize. The power of a definitive test of your idea doesn't get much more obvious than that. Nothing else changed in that time.

Linda

 

[David]

I don't think it's relevant when you're talking about his colleagues, though. It's more of a lay-person thing.



I doubt that picking scientists on the basis of pleasant personality, rather than creativity and smarts, will get you very far.



I was ignoring your claim that Marshall was generally regarded as a crackpot. I don't think that was true. Do we have some evidence this was actually the case?



I don't see how an ethical committee is relevant to stuff one chooses to do to oneself. My point was more about doing more definitive research.



If we go along with the story you presented, before his idea was proven, he was derided and after it was proven he got a Nobel prize. The power of a definitive test of your idea doesn't get much more obvious than that. Nothing else changed in that time.

Linda

Oh dear, this IS sort of a black hole of silliness after all.

Well, your position is unassailable Linda. You already knew that though, right?

Best of luck!

 

[fls]

Oh dear, this IS sort of a black hole of silliness after all.

Bad analogy. I'm pretty sure you intend to suggest that I am exuding silliness, whereas a black hole of silliness would decrease the visible silliness. Unless that is what you meant, in which case...thanks!

Well, your position is unassailable Linda. You already knew that though, right?

I don't think it is. I ask questions because I'm interested in the answers. Are you sure you're not just saying that because you don't have a valid response? If you think I'm wrong, I'd be interested in an example of someone who wasn't believed (or was derided) after they performed the experiments which proved their idea valid (preferably a modern example).

Linda