[DJP]

LBird wrote:

If you didn't understand my analogy, why not ask questions, rather than make erroneous assumptions?

Sorry I only have a certain limited amount of time and energy to spend on this.Besides, there's nothing in post 292 that I would disagree with.What I disagree with is the epistimological leap you make from this to your criterion of truth. Which would entail that creationism, Thor and phlogiston where once true.

[DJP]

When was the last time we tried to get a stall there BTW?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I’ve already posted my ‘NHS Computer System building process’ in an attempt to explain the actual cognitive process that science takes, in my opinion. I’ll post it again, for any readers who have missed (or, indeed, forgotten!) that post:

I didn't reply to those post because I thought they where a bad anology. What you describing is how to fill a design brief. But a theory has to be able to make predictions of the future, an IT of the type you are describing does it system does not do that…Isn't the construction of theory more like map making.

Quote:

So, to return to ALB’s essential question:

ALB wrote:

But, in turn, I put a question to you: what in your view are the criteria by which to judge whether a theory or view is "knowledge" or just fantasy or wrong/inaccurate/inadequate?

Given my beliefs as a Communist and following the outlined theory of cognition of science, I’d argue that the only ‘criteria’ which can ever be acceptable for humans are those arrived at by the society that is doing the human social activity of science. The current ‘criteria’ of the bourgeoisie won’t be the future ‘criteria’ of the proletariat.

But in communism there will be no proletariat LOL.

LBird wrote:

Thus, I’d argue that, for Communist society, the ‘judgment’ between ‘knowledge’ and ‘fantasy’ should be a democratic one. Of course, this is predicated upon a society where all productive activity, including scientific research and development, is under democratic control, and every member of humanity has open to them a scientific education up to post-PhD research, where to be a ‘scientist’ is to be taught to have the ability to explain their work in terms understandable by those affected by that science, where all scientific research papers are openly available to all, and where all children and taught to think critically about all affairs that affect their society.

Well in that case I vote for Father Christmas and levitating slippers; who's with me?I think the story about the bees and pesticides highlights the point very well. Society can construct whatever (partial) truths it like, through whatever means it chooses. But if these "truths" are not in tune with the (absolute) truth of nature, there will be a price to pay; bees will die out, building collapse and planes fall out of the sky.Schaffs "critical realism" as far as I can make out is an attempt to square positivism with the kind of cognitive relativism that is prevelant in much of the social sciences today, and it suffers for it.

LBird wrote:

Or is there an arcane method, beyond the ken of ordinary folk, which can’t be explained by simple analogy, which must remain the concern of a scientific priesthood, which produces ‘Truth’, an eternal and socially-neutral truth?

I don't think anyone actually does hold this belief that science produces the eternal truth, none of the physical scientists I have heard speak on the subject and not in the popular science publications…

[DJP]

a racist scumbag wrote:

In a socialist society, communities could exist autonomously and this, I believe, would be the perfect environment for preserving strong racial identities.  Indeed I believe the preservation of strong identities of a racial kind would almost be a necessity.  I have developed my own system or theory that explains how this might work. 

Well come on then lets hear it.  How are you going to prevent people from mixing, mating and otherwise associating with others who are not in the same "racially pure" group?  Let us hear how your racist utopia would work.

[DJP]

There's an interactive graph here:http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/03/union-membership-and-inequality/Which does show a strong correlation. But then correlation is not causation but in this case there would be a good case to think so..

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Well, they'll collect 'facts' which accord with their ideological theories, so we'll have to sift and re-order their 'facts' according to our ideological theories, and then use our theories to accumulate more 'facts' from our perspective, and see how this mass of accumulated 'facts' from various sources seems to 'fit' together.

So what do you think we should do with facts that contradict our true faith, sorry ideology?

LBird wrote:

Science means ideology.

I appreciate the point you're trying to make but you're over egging it here.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

You do know that these are heavily ideological? You are taking the piss out of me, aren't you?

I was speaking with my tongue in my cheek, though no bad will was intended or taken I hope!But it seems to me to be evidence that empirical research does dissolve unwarranted claims. Behavioral economists and psychologists are doing the hard work for us!

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I presume that you meant to write 'fallibility' here, DJP?

LOL 'fallibility' yes 

LBird wrote:

And if so, I take it you now agree that the sun/earth relationship is 'knowledge' and is a fallible social construct based on an indirect or 'not full' observation? Of course, any new fallible theory would have to compete with this old fallible theory on the basis of the sun/earth as an external component of both theories, rather than as a objective 'referee'. The sun/earth will only tell us what we ask – they are infinite in their information. The 'object' is a component of 'knowledge', not an impartial judge of it.

The sun / earth relationship isn't knowledge, the sun / earth relationship is the sun / earth relationship. We can form theories relating to it which are called 'knowledge' when it is resonable to belief they are true – when the empirical evidence would seem to support it – or they are called 'false beliefs' when the empirical evidence suggests otherwise.The truth of a theory relating to something 'out there' is not testing by comparing it with other theories but by attempting to compare it with the thing we are refering to. But because our knowledge is not direct or complete, and because nature itself is in a permanent state of flux it would seem that the only eternal truths are those relating to a priori systems.

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I am not one for tarring whole sections of society with the same brush, but I have experience of off duty soldiers looking for trouble. I even knew a guy years ago who was stabbed while on holiday in Spain by a drunk off duty soldier. I am sure many others have had the delightful experience of drunk off duty soldiers.

Probably nothing like a good dose of PTSD to bring out violence in you…

[DJP]

jondwhite wrote:

This topic reminded me of the book I saw in Waterstones the other dayhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Irrationality-enemy-within-Ben-Goldacre/dp/1780660251/

It's a good book, I have it. The new cover made me think it was a new one, but it's been out for a long time. It's actually more relevant to our "cognition" discussion.

[DJP]

The "confirmation bias" is probably the biggest one. We pick out information that suits our existing beliefs or interpret new information in a way that is favorable to them. Though all we can do is be aware of it, we will still do so. Therefore that is why it is good to deliberately seek out information that contradicts our cherished beliefs, Darwin developed the theory of evolution in this manner. If the contradictions build up the belief has to be ditched.This is why scientific knowledge advances, because it has an inbuilt awareness of our infallibility and uses nature (with the knowledge that we cannot directly or fully observe it)  as the external referee when theories compete against each other.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

DJP, that video is a superb illustration of the theoretical preconceptions all humans have, and which necessarily determine selection. Thanks.There is no passive observation of the object. 'Theory determines what we observe'.

I don't think the video actually does illustrate that, but it is a good analogy and it does clearly demonstrate that our perception does not work like a video recorder. A selection bias is not the same thing as a theoretical preconception, "I better concentrate on the white players" isn't much of a theory after all.If you like that there's a book called the "Invisible Gorilla" which explains this and many other cognitive biases. Critical thinking should involve not only being aware of logical fallacies but also these kind of cognitive biases.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Just make sure you know which political ideology the organisers espouse, and get some basic definitions from them about what they mean by 'science', 'mind', 'rational', 'morality', etc., etc.

Well, I could do but that wouldn't affect the truth or falsity of any claims they make!Much of this will come from behavioural science and behavioural economics. Homo Economicus is dying out in the universities, that's the advancement of science for you!

[DJP]

A good illustration on how selective our perception is. Watch in full screen for best efffect:

[DJP]

The quotes are all well and good, but I don't know who your highlighted passages are aimed at since no-one on here has expressed any kind of dualist philosophy?

[Author]

Posts