Political Science Articel
Glenn
" The upshot of all this is that science, because of its essentially social
nature, can be and frequently is bent to political purposes, in spite of its
tendency to root out certain kinds of errors. "
Bobby D. Bryant
> http://iws.ccccd.edu/rcoltman/NTPA/Webb%20paper%20(1997).html
>
> " The upshot of all this is that science, because of its essentially
> social nature, can be and frequently is bent to political purposes
Thank the Invisible Pink Unicorn that religion can't be bent to nefarious
ends!
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Glenn
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.21....@mail.utexas.edu...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 07:16:26 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>
Now I'm really po'd.
Dogpile!
> > http://iws.ccccd.edu/rcoltman/NTPA/Webb%20paper%20(1997).html
> >
> > " The upshot of all this is that science, because of its essentially
> > social nature, can be and frequently is bent to political purposes
>
> Thank the Invisible Pink Unicorn that religion can't be bent to nefarious
> ends!
>
David Horn
[Personality attack snipped, return to topicality]
I wonder if Newbie will explain to us just what components there are to
life that he feels are evidenced?
David Horn
Was this a troll, or does Newbie have a point to make here?
Tracy Hamilton
A load of tosh, as can be expected from most philosophers. The article itself
is more of an illustration that "political science can be and is frequently
bent to political purposes" and stop right there! I would be happy to
discuss "bias" in science, both by practitioners and by laymen.
One example this fellow brought up was the material covered in
Gould's Mismeasure of Man. I have that book, so I can look things up
as required. Some people maintain that Gould himself was "biased",
and had an agenda.
Certainly Gould demonstrated that there was a bias in measurement
and analysis of data. All scientists know the problems, what
Gould showed was people so biased that they were blind to their
application to themselves. A real good example of pure
measurement bias is N-rays.
Experiments should be reproducible in principle.
However, if nobody actually takes the trouble to reproduce them, then
bad science can hang aroung a long time. However, there is nothing that
prevents a person without the bias from doing the experiments - nowadays
at least. Back then, it was wealthy upper class white males.
A person with a strong emotional investment in a particular
theory will not be able to see the errors or alternative explanations
for themselves, and many will not even after they are pointed out.
In the Mismeasure of Man, it was the belief that Western man was superior
to all others intellectually. In the case of N-rays, the discoverer
had the emotional investment of a discovery - but others most certainly
did not, so N-rays never went anywhere.
Now it is time to go to creationism vs evolution. Is there a strong
emotional motive for creationists? Yes - it is religious belief,
which is fundamental to how a person views the world - in this
case a *particular* religious belief. Is there one for the biologists?
Please do show what you can. You should keep in mind that about
half of scientists are Christian, so the bias is not religion
or even Christianity in general. I think what you will find is
an emotional investment in the *method* and not in any particular
theory. Don't get me wrong, this is a very strongly held
belief in the ability of science to give an understanding of
the world around us. This is the motivation to forsake worldly
wealth and pursue science. :)
But the scientific creationists have a problem. They can see
the appeal of science - it works! But the method gives results
that conflict with their religious beliefs. Questioning their
religious beliefs IS NOT AN OPTION. Their soul is literally
invested in those beliefs. So they try to "harmonize" science with
religion in much the same way as they resolve scriptural difficulties.
Proof texting primarily (how many experiments do creationists do?
How many actually test creationism?) hence the quote-mining.
They think that "true" science must support them, and that they
can find evidence here and there of it - admissions of difficulties
of evolution (since there is really no positive support
for creationism, but then they are blind to that deficiency).
Quite frankly, they don't understand scientists - what motivates
them, or what convinces them to accept one theory over another.
Therefore, they are incompetent failures. Creation science DOES NOT WORK
*as science*. That is why it is rejected by scientists.
Tracy P. Hamilton
AC
Bobby D. Bryant
Glenn's personal interpretation of Genesis I is correct, of course.
Glenn
"Tracy Hamilton" <t_p_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d85a1e9.03102...@posting.google.com...
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:<yc5lb.2793$8j5....@news.uswest.net>...
> > http://iws.ccccd.edu/rcoltman/NTPA/Webb%20paper%20(1997).html
> >
> > " The upshot of all this is that science, because of its essentially social
> > nature, can be and frequently is bent to political purposes, in spite of its
> > tendency to root out certain kinds of errors. "
>
> A load of tosh, as can be expected from most philosophers. The article itself
> is more of an illustration that "political science can be and is frequently
> bent to political purposes" and stop right there!
>
evidence that?
>I would be happy to
> discuss "bias" in science, both by practitioners and by laymen.
That is what you have just done:
"A load of tosh, as can be expected from most philosophers."
snip
David Horn
>
> "Tracy Hamilton" <t_p_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d85a1e9.03102...@posting.google.com...
> > "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
> news:<yc5lb.2793$8j5....@news.uswest.net>...
> > > http://iws.ccccd.edu/rcoltman/NTPA/Webb%20paper%20(1997).html
> > >
> > > " The upshot of all this is that science, because of its essentially social
> > > nature, can be and frequently is bent to political purposes, in spite of its
> > > tendency to root out certain kinds of errors. "
> >
> > A load of tosh, as can be expected from most philosophers. The article itself
> > is more of an illustration that "political science can be and is frequently
> > bent to political purposes" and stop right there!
> >
> The article is more of an illustration of political science, huh. Why didn't you
> evidence that?
Perhaps while Tracy does that, Newbie will show that he is *not* a
hypocrite and provide that "evidence" that *he* claims shows that there
is more to life than chemical processes. Perhaps he will also "evidence
that" life does not obey certain "laws of matter." I don't expect any
of these things to happen, but until they do, Newbie has no business
demanding evidence from someone else.
[Snip]
C. Thompson
I would rather get the evidence for successful dowsing, myself.
But I would give up my request in a heartbeat if he would just quit using
"evidence" as a transitive verb.
Chris
David Horn
Come again?
> But I would give up my request in a heartbeat if he would just quit using
> "evidence" as a transitive verb.
You have to admit that it sounds impressive to hear "evidence that!"
It's rhetoric--nothing more. As soon as you "evidence" something as
Newbie demands, he attempts to redirect the discussion or he abandons it
altogether.
AC
Glenn don't play that game. He spouts off, but feels no need to justify
anything he says. He holds everyone to task, but yet obviously believes
himself immune.
--
Aaron Clausen
David Horn
No kidding! ;)
Richard Uhrich
Yeah, here's how the Bush admin. bends science:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/
--
Richard Uhrich
---
"so skeptical, I can hardly believe it" -- Penn Jillette quoting Chip Denman
Glenn
news:<yc5lb.2793$8j5....@news.uswest.net>...
> > http://iws.ccccd.edu/rcoltman/NTPA/Webb%20paper%20(1997).html
> >
> > " The upshot of all this is that science, because of its essentially social
> > nature, can be and frequently is bent to political purposes, in spite of its
> > tendency to root out certain kinds of errors. "
>
> A load of tosh, as can be expected from most philosophers. The article itself
> is more of an illustration that "political science can be and is frequently
> bent to political purposes" and stop right there! I would be happy to
> discuss "bias" in science, both by practitioners and by laymen.
>
snip
Glenn
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html
"In this essay, I have cited a wealth of evidence that biased research
interpretation is a common phenomenon..."
http://www.paedosexualitaet.de/science/bias.html
"The ideal of science are, of course, unbiased scientists. In reality,
scientists are humans, therefore biased. Usually they are biased in favour of
their own pet theories. Usually that's not a problem, as long as other
scientists have other biases."
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/79bias.html
The writers of these papers are shown to 'push their arguments' in various ways,
such as through their technical assumptions. Dr Martin argues that the
particular orientations of the authors of the papers can best be explained in
terms of 'presuppositions' about what the scientists are trying to prove.
Evidence that the existence of such presuppositions is a common and expected
feature of science leads to analyses of other scientific papers, to surveys of
the sociology and epistemology of science and the psychology of scientists, and
to a comparison of communication of scientific ideas in scientific papers and
newspapers."
Tracy Hamilton
> "Tracy Hamilton" <t_p_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d85a1e9.03102...@posting.google.com...
> > "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
> news:<yc5lb.2793$8j5....@news.uswest.net>...
> > > http://iws.ccccd.edu/rcoltman/NTPA/Webb%20paper%20(1997).html
> > >
> > > " The upshot of all this is that science, because of its essentially social
> > > nature, can be and frequently is bent to political purposes, in spite of its
> > > tendency to root out certain kinds of errors. "
> >
> > A load of tosh, as can be expected from most philosophers. The article itself
> > is more of an illustration that "political science can be and is frequently
> > bent to political purposes" and stop right there!
> >
> The article is more of an illustration of political science, huh. Why didn't you
> evidence that?
OK, political science would not be the appropriate term, but I did not
want
to insult any philosophers around here.
> >I would be happy to
> > discuss "bias" in science, both by practitioners and by laymen.
>
> That is what you have just done:
> "A load of tosh, as can be expected from most philosophers."
Hmm, you say something, but don't really say anything. How unusual!
Oh well, a one sided discussion it must be then...
The biggest problem for "The upshot of all this is that science,
because of
its essentially social nature, can be and frequently is bent to
political
purposes, in spite of its tendency to root out certain kinds of
errors."
is that the bending to political purpose is done primarily by laymen
or individuals with agendas - it is not a problem with science itself.
Examples:
Ozone depletion - NO question that we understand it fairly
well, in that Cl and Br atoms (especially on aerosols) catalyze the
decomposition of ozone, primarily in Antartica. Yet to hear
some tell it, it was "unproven" that man caused ozone depletion
long after we knew these facts.
The following addresses a common argument that any chemist
could have addressed immediately (FYI the CON is the correct
answer) - Rush Limbaugh spread this one.
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/rush_volcanoe_ozone.HTM
Another current one? Global warming. Again the main problem
is not the science - in that it all agrees that the increased CO2
levels
have warmed the earth *some*. The debate is about how much, and
the rest attributed to secular trends mostly from Milankovitch cycles.
I really can't see a climate scientist taking one end or the other
based
on his political leaning, or investments in Exxon stock in his 403b.
I am at a loss to think of a serious case where the ultimate
*decision* between two competing theories was influenced by
social or economic impact.
Another problem I have: "People in science for the sake of
technological application and profit will tend to accept and pursue
the first theory, while people who see the role of science as one of
improving quality of life for people will tend to accept the second
theory." Who are these people?
People go into science because they want to understand how the
physical
world really is.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Tracy Hamilton
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
> news:31qlb.2644$Yp5....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > "Tracy Hamilton" <t_p_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:d85a1e9.03102...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
> news:<yc5lb.2793$8j5....@news.uswest.net>...
> > > > http://iws.ccccd.edu/rcoltman/NTPA/Webb%20paper%20(1997).html
> > > >
> > > > " The upshot of all this is that science, because of its essentially
> social
> > > > nature, can be and frequently is bent to political purposes, in spite of
> its
> > > > tendency to root out certain kinds of errors. "
> > >
> > > A load of tosh, as can be expected from most philosophers. The article
> itself
> > > is more of an illustration that "political science can be and is frequently
> > > bent to political purposes" and stop right there! I would be happy to
> > > discuss "bias" in science, both by practitioners and by laymen.
> > >
> > You just did.
> >
> >
> > snip
> >
> Just more loads of tosh I suppose:
>
> http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~maccoun/ar_bias.html
> "In this essay, I have cited a wealth of evidence that biased research
> interpretation is a common phenomenon..."
In psychology - I agree with the above article.
> http://www.paedosexualitaet.de/science/bias.html
> "The ideal of science are, of course, unbiased scientists. In reality,
> scientists are humans, therefore biased. Usually they are biased in favour of
> their own pet theories. Usually that's not a problem, as long as other
> scientists have other biases."
I agree with the above. Did you read what I posted?
> http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/79bias.html
> The writers of these papers are shown to 'push their arguments' in various ways,
> such as through their technical assumptions. Dr Martin argues that the
> particular orientations of the authors of the papers can best be explained in
> terms of 'presuppositions' about what the scientists are trying to prove.
> Evidence that the existence of such presuppositions is a common and expected
> feature of science leads to analyses of other scientific papers, to surveys of
> the sociology and epistemology of science and the psychology of scientists, and
> to a comparison of communication of scientific ideas in scientific papers and
> newspapers."
Unfortunately, this is a blurb from a book jacket, so no arguments are
given.
Tracy P. Hamilton
David Horn
Would Newbie claim to have no bias?
Glenn
"David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3F96C595...@cox.net...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0ebc42036161980CPIMSSMTPE01%40msn.com
Nelson, G., and N. Platnick, "Systematics and biogeography: cladistics and
vicariance." New York: Columbia University, 1981.
ReMine quotes Nelson and Platnik as writing, "...biogeography (or
geographical distribution of organisms) _has not been shown to be evidence
for or against evolution in any sense_. [emphasis by ReMine]
ReMine prefaces this quote with:
"Some evolutionists flatly reject its [biogeography's] relevance to the
_origins_ [emphasis mine] debate."
Of course, origins and evolution are not the same thing, so "origins" is not
what Nelson and Platnik said even in the very quote that ReMine provided.
And I will argue that biogeography can be a significant class of evidence
for evolution and thoroughly falsfies creationism.
I do not have Nelson and Platnik, so that I can't verify quotes used from
it, but I intend to look into this a bit further, since Walter's own actions
of the last 36 hours or so have prompted me to go a bit beyond a simple book
review submitted to local newspapers. No, I think what I would like to do
now is delve a bit deeper into "The Biotic Message" and dissect both it and
ReMine.
***********end partial post
Perhaps Horn can give a satisfactory answer of *what evidence he had
that made his conclusion* here possible, and *why* he said:
"so "origins" is not what Nelson and Platnik said"
The word origins and evolution may not mean the same thing to Horn,
and may not mean the same thing to ReMine.
Horn was allegedly in the process here of "dissecting" ReMine, and "it",
which I assume is "Walter's own actions."
Does Horn have evidence that ReMine believes the _origins debate_
is a misleading statement and that he was referring directly
to _evolution_? Horn doesn't say.
What Horn does claim is that Nelson and Platnik did not (of course, he claims)
say "origins", although he admits that he does not know.
Perhaps Nelson and Platnik was quoted correctly as saying that
biogeography has not been shown to be evidence for or against evolution??
Horn said he didn't know.
But Horn made an issue of ReMine's comments about the *origins debate*.
But the subject is biogeography, not "origins". Curious.
Why, if not for the purposes of manipulation, did Horn make these statements?
Glenn
snip rant
Perhaps Horn will provide the answer to why he claimed
that the subject of biogeography was not discussed "at all"
allegedly in a published review in a newspaper of ReMine's book?
"No, it's true. There is no discussion of the details of biogeography.."
but at another time, says:
"ReMine dismisses biogeography almost entirely with respect to the discussion.."
Why would he have dismissed the subject of biogeography as not being
discussed in the book, but *only* specifically claim that biogeography was
not discussed at all in the chapter "biogeography"?
Why did Horn, when ReMine made attempts to show that the
book did discuss biogeography, dismiss this as:
"Here, Walter simply repeats what's in the book."
Remine:
>"In those previous chapters
> most of the keywords are defined, the concepts developed, the various
> systematic methods discussed, and the historical trends in Darwinian
> science described. The previous chapters cover the distinction
> between Darwinian Systematics versus cladistics -- which parallels the
> distinction between Darwinian biogeography versus vicariance
> biogeography. The previous chapters also cover the Darwinian scenarios
> -- just-so stories -- and the difficulties these caused in various
> fields. These stories had a parallel in Darwinian biogeography, which
> commonly employed just-so stories about how various organisms could,
> or couldn't cross certain geographical barriers; about WHO the
> ancestors were, and WHERE they came from."
and why would Horn then say immediately after that:
"I am aware of this, and will describe the errors that I found as time
passes."
If there was no "discussion", what would these "errors" be?
Why did Horn not say then, that what ReMine said was not
a description of "discussion" of biogeography...
ReMine was responding to Horn's accusation that there was
NO discussion.
And more curiously, in the same paragraph, Horn said:
"What this spin ignores is the simple challenge regarding the
claim that "no modern book" allegedly "surveys" the field of
biogeography "for or against evolution."
What "spin"? ReMine is refuting Horn's accusation that there
is no discussion of biogeography!
Instead of Horn rebutting ReMine here about whether
there was any discussion of biogeography, Horn claims that
ReMine is "ignoring" the disagreement of whether
any modern books surveys the field of biogeography.
Amazing "spin" by Horn!
Horn refuses to be accountable for his accusation that
biogeography was not discussed in the book,
does not respond to specific claims to the contrary,
and issues a "challenge" about a particular claim in the book!
How is it, Horn, that you came to the conclusion that
ReMine's book did not discuss biogeography?
Horn's references:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0ebc42036161980CPIMSSMTPE01%40msn.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8oj941%24i1p%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
David Horn
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F96C595...@cox.net...
> > Glenn wrote:
[Snip]
> > > > bent to political purposes" and stop right there! I would be happy to
> > > > discuss "bias" in science, both by practitioners and by laymen.
> > > >
> > > You just did.
> >
> > Would Newbie claim to have no bias?
Newbie doesn't even acknowledge the question. He simply moves directly
to misdirection:
Note that Newbie did not answer the question about his own bias.
Relying on a tried (and not particularly effective) tactic, Newbie tries
to misdirect from debates and confrontations currently underway and
wants to cloud the group with multiple references to past articles and
then presume to ask questions about them. While I am normally not at
all adverse to answering honest questions about such things, I do think
the time would be wasted here. This is obviously a ploy by Newbie to
avoid honestly dealing with what has been asked of him *prior* to his
questions above, but there is also one other factor. This article of
Newbie's was posted on the 22nd, yet just a half an hour or so before he
posted this article, Newbie posted this:
"Horn is not satisfied with my answer that I wouldn't believe him on a
stack of bibles, and if he said the sun would rise tomorrow, my
impression would be that he was lying."
Effectively, it doesn't matter how I answer, Newbie will not believe the
answer. That is what we are seeing above, yet just about half an hour
*after* posting that in an article in which he again avoids the
responsibility for his statements and unanswered questions, Newbie
decides to ask a series of questions without any reference to the fact
that he will not accept the answers.
The difference is this: While I have said quite freely and honestly
that I would view any response by Newbie with skepticism, I don't recall
ever saying that I'd never believe what he might say about a given
issue. Again, one may be sincerely wrong, but that person is wrong
*and* sincere. I accept that Newbie might actually and honestly answer
a question sooner or later. It could happen. But Newbie has told us
that he will *never* believe anything I have to say. So, as we can see,
if Newbie is true to his word and consistent, he really had no point in
asking the questions we see above, except to divert attention from the
fact that there are many such questions waiting for him.
However, if Newbie is willing to retract, we can answer the questions we
have posed to each other--in chronological order.
David Horn
comprehension.
Glenn wrote:
>
> "David Horn" <askifyoureal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F96C595...@cox.net...
> > Glenn wrote:
[Snip]
[Newbie quoting me from a previous article:]
> I do not have Nelson and Platnik, so that I can't verify quotes used from
> it, but I intend to look into this a bit further, since Walter's own actions
> of the last 36 hours or so have prompted me to go a bit beyond a simple book
> review submitted to local newspapers. No, I think what I would like to do
> now is delve a bit deeper into "The Biotic Message" and dissect both it and
> ReMine.
> ***********end partial post
[Snip]
> Horn was allegedly in the process here of "dissecting" ReMine, and "it",
> which I assume is "Walter's own actions."
I wrote, "no, I think what I would like to do now is delve a bit deeper
into "The Biotic Message" and dissect both it and ReMine." Does anyone
else fail to see that the "it" here is clearly "The Biotic Message?"
Obviously, Newbie couldn't keep it straight or read it properly. We all
make little mistakes like this, but Newbie seems to make them
regularly. Depending on the situation, we can either have an attempt at
misrepresentation or misdirection, or we have a problem understanding
what was clearly written. Either way, Newbie has some serious problems
reading and representing what others are writing, and no one should take
for granted that Newbie ever accurately represents the intent of
another.