Do you believe we are alone in the universe?

The universe is far, far, far too big and ancient a place to reasonably rule out life elsewhere. Even if the galaxy is currently lacking intelligent life other than our own (and I'm not convinced it is - our expectations of what intelligent life should be doing with itself is, obviously, prejudiced toward our own ideals), I don't think it was nor will be. I'm also much more optimistic about FTL.

 

[Istbor]

Lets say the Cardiac Surgeon was right and you did have a heart attack. Now he advises you to have a stent put in to open the blocked arteries.

Do you still listen to him?

Well what does Frank have to say on the issue?

 

[Maxperson]

It's not hubris at all, as a matter of fact, the negative mass paper from Oxford is a perfect example of other ideas being entertained. Best solution is best solution, it's the piece of the puzzle with the least gaps. Not entertaining, or giving equal weight to crank theories, is not hubris, nor is disregarding people who do not know what they are talking about.

You don't have to give equal weight to other theories. Here's a fact for you. The one and only way you can know that it's the best solution is if you are God. You literally have to know everything so that you can be sure this one is the best. Otherwise, it's just the best of what we know, which may or may not be the best. The hubris is in acting as you are omniscient and making the absolute claim that this is THE BEST.

The most simple solution being true (sometimes called Occam's Razor, or Scientific Parsimony); gravitational lensing by mass is the safest bet, rather than an "unknown property" of mass we can see. Because, that (unknown properties) doesn't even fit any theory.

That's not Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor says that the simplest solution is usually correct. That leaves lots of room for it not to be correct.

 

[Umbran]

Here's a fact for you. The one and only way you can know that it's the best solution is if you are God.

Uh, huh. And, if you yourself are not God, how do you have that "fact"? Beware that you not slip into solipsism.

Otherwise, it's just the best of what we know, which may or may not be the best.

Oh, please. Have you not ever heard of "colloquial use" before?

Everyone who studies enough science gets that point drilled in there - that what we know is the best we know at the time, and that science is always learning new things, and that we must be prepared to accept new information when it comes. It gets tiresome when you have to say, "....the best we know at the moment, which may not be the Eternal Truth" over and over. Every. Gorram. Other. Sentence. So, we tend to shorten it.

Just like in science, "Theory" means "something really well tested," and "hypothesis" means what most other people call "theory". The use is irregular, but getting on a high-horse about it does not make you some purveyor of amazing insight that nobody else is admitting to.

The hubris is in acting as you are omniscient and making the absolute claim that this is THE BEST.

Interesting - more hubris allegations. Is that a common approach for you, in general?

 

[dragoner]

You don't have to give equal weight to other theories. Here's a fact for you. The one and only way you can know that it's the best solution is if you are God. You literally have to know everything so that you can be sure this one is the best. Otherwise, it's just the best of what we know, which may or may not be the best. The hubris is in acting as you are omniscient and making the absolute claim that this is THE BEST.



That's not Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor says that the simplest solution is usually correct. That leaves lots of room for it not to be correct.

Semantics, not surprised it has devolved to this; however, being born in the Soviet Union, English is not my first language. /shrug

Let's look at your fact though, now having been raised a godless communist, I find little of import to the idea of "god"; nevertheless, your fact is in fact, non-factual. Because if all human knowledge is limited, that would include your knowledge of god's ability to know everything, thus recursively nullifying your own argument.

In science, we necessarily assume that nothing is known beyond 99%, so the argument of not know something to 100% certainty, is a pointless argument. New data can always change outcomes, that is an accepted fact. In writing "best" as a shortening of "most likely to be true", best is the best word there.

 

[Maxperson]

Uh, huh. And, if you yourself are not God, how do you have that "fact"?

We know that there are many things we don't know about the universe.

Oh, please. Have you not ever heard of "colloquial use" before?

Everyone who studies enough science gets that point drilled in there - that what we know is the best we know at the time, and that science is always learning new things, and that we must be prepared to accept new information when it comes. It gets tiresome when you have to say, "....the best we know at the moment, which may not be the Eternal Truth" over and over. Every. Gorram. Other. Sentence. So, we tend to shorten it.

He had the opportunity when I challenged him on that to say something along the lines of, "I'm shortening it, because I repeat it a lot." or "You're right, it is only the best based on or limited knowledge." Instead, he doubled down on it being the absolute best possible solution, eliminating "colloquial use" as an option for him.

Interesting - more hubris allegations. Is that a common approach for you, in general?

Mostly when people insist that what we "know" is absolutely correct, like [MENTION=6943731]dragoner[/MENTION] with the dark matter theory, and the guy that insisted that there was absolutely no possibility of aliens existing.

 

[Maxperson]

Semantics, not surprised it has devolved to this; however, being born in the Soviet Union, English is not my first language. /shrug

Er, it's not semantics to say that "always correct" is different from "Correct most of the time." The difference between the two is rather profound.

 

[dragoner]

Er, it's not semantics to say that "always correct" is different from "Correct most of the time." The difference between the two is rather profound.

Good, because I never said such. Now maybe you should get back to disputing dark matter, yes?

 

[Umbran]

Lets say the Cardiac Surgeon was right and you did have a heart attack. Now he advises you to have a stent put in to open the blocked arteries.

Do you still listen to him?

Thank you for asking that. It allows me the proper context to point things out.

The logical fallacy points out to us that being or having authority, in and of itself does not make one technically correct. Stephen Hawking could not go to a conference and say, "You are incorrect. I am Stephen Hawking, and therefore I you know this to be true." Even Hawking had to explain himself to his fellow physicists.

But *something* gives us technical correctness, doesn't it? It isn't like technical correctness is randomly assigned, and we are all just as likely as each other to blunder onto it. No, technical correctness is gained through application of knowledge and expertise. It is not *guaranteed* by those, but it does stem from them.

Now, note that in my example, the surgeon does not *actually* speak from authority. He speaks from knowledge. He has the learning to listen to heart, and assess the risk that you are having a heart attack. Even if you gave the stethoscope to Frank, and he listened to your heart, he doesn't have the expertise to interpret what he hears.

This is the point - this wasn't about authority. It was about having enough expertise and understanding to have an informed opinion. Having expertise does not mean you are correct, but *NOT* having expertise pretty much assures you are correct only by accident, or by parroting someone else who does have expertise.

***

So, this brings us to the stent question. In my example, the surgeon had a particular reason for recommending a course of action. Yours does not have one stated.

Also, there's another piece of information implicit in the stent example - in the real world, *other doctors* have noted that use of stents is not without risk. We presume that is also the case in our hypothetical. So, instead of a cardiac surgeon and Frank, we have cardiac surgeons and other doctors. They all have expertise to have informed opinion. When we have conflicting thoughts from multiple people who know enough to have an informed opinion, accepted authority or not, then we have a different kind of conversation.

 

[Maxperson]

Good, because I never said such.

This is you saying "Always correct.": "The most simple solution being true (sometimes called Occam's Razor..."

Me correcting you by saying "Correct most of the time.": "That's not Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor says that the simplest solution is usually correct."

You calling it semantics: "Semantics, not surprised it has devolved to this"

And the quote above is you denying what you said.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Okay, first off, this is incorrect. Very incorrect. I mean, we are on the edge of "not even wrong" territory.

We are observing anomalous motion of stars in galaxies, and we are observing acceleration of expansion of space as a whole - these two things happen on two different scales. Different like, "your left leg," and, "the continent," different scales. We observe these things separately, and do not have a specific reason to believe they are related.

I do have to ask - are you a licensed electrician or plumber? Pick one that you are not. When you need some of this work done, you hire the best one you can, right? The one with the most experience and understanding? When you do hire one of these trained professionals to do their job, do you look over their shoulders and nitpick the way they do things? Do you hang over then and tell them how to do their job? Do you question the entire approach of home plumbing or electrical work, despite having only small amounts of understanding and experience in the field?

When it comes down to it, can you actually do better than the professional? Are you willing to bet your house burning down or sewage backing up into your sink on that assessment?

Why do you, who cannot seem to differentiate between phenomena on a galactic scale and a universal scale, feel that somehow you have appropriate understanding to critique how these phenomena are investigated and explained by people who have made it their life's work and study?

And you are accusing *others* of hubris?

Please, please, someone call this an appeal to authority. I'm ready for you.

Einstein was a patent clerk. Sure, he had a degree, barely eked out through copying notes, but couldn't get a job even teaching physics. Certainly not the best, right?

The idea of the highly trained being immune to the critique of the lesser, or even untrained is badly misplaced, most especially in science. Science should care about the argument, not the source. The veneration of scientists is something we, as Western society, do too much. You see this in uncritical science reporting, or on the replication crisis in fields that have too long resisted common sense. In the growth of citizen science in blogs that is questioning long standing beliefs.

So, yeah, I'll call your argument out, as a scientist (small s) myself. Not that Max's argument wasn't valid -- it isn't, at all -- but that Scientists should had some immunity from criticism from the hoi polloi. Saying that while the social science and nutrition fields are having major collapses is a bit tone deaf.