Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Anti-knowledge from the obscurantists - examples

Discovery Institute "Wedge Document."

Their stated object is to defeat "scientific materialism."

What they do not understand, of course, is that without materialism (methodological materialism, not philosophical materialism), without materialism - it isn't science.

Of course the author of this document was a lawyer and not a scientist. Scientists are often getting advice on how to do science from people who think they know about it, but are manifestly and grotesquely ignorant

Congratulations to Phillip E. Johnson for illustrating this so clearly.

I needed to google "Discovery Institute "Wedge Document.""
to understand your comments.

I have not read the rebuttal, but speaking as an atheist I would say that the ID/creationists cannot be dismissed by any appeal to straight "logic", nor do most "scientists" understand the nature of "belief" which they unconsciously apply to their axioms.

Reference to Wittgenstein, Kuhn and Capra would perhaps more usefully lead to an inderstanding of "what science is" and implications of terms like "materialism". IMO, "purposeful creationism" of any flavour is merely an attempt at psychological closure against the the void of an ontological infinite regress.

Wittgenstein is on my reading list (won't get around to it for years) and Capra isn't and probably won't be. Kuhn was interesting, but though I read his structure of scientific revolution 3 times, I don't feel like I gained much understanding about science. I got better understanding from my first and particularly my second reading of Popper's "Objective Knowledge."

I'm not concerned about "creationism" in some philosophical sense, but only from the perspective of science. Science doesn't require a lot of assumptions, but it does require some.

If you get round to Wittgenstein you will find his demonstration of the "blind alleys" which philosophical language (language on holiday) evokes by coining terms like "materialism", "idealism" etc. His contextually based "language games" are similar to Kuhn's "paradigms" in which "meaning" or "reality" involves a complex web of social activities. Capra pointed out that the pre-occupation of human cognition with "prediction and control" was the basis for what we have hitherto called "science". The fact that such control is necessarily short-term and limited has given rise to a more recent paradigm involving ecological concerns.

eccles wrote:
'I would say that the ID/creationists cannot be dismissed by any appeal to straight "logic", nor do most "scientists" understand the nature of "belief" which they unconsciously apply to their axioms.'

Does this imply that "creationists' unconsciously apply the term 'belief' to atheists, (as in- you believe there is no god), when in fact atheism manifests as a lack of belief--- or do you mean atheists unconsciously 'believe' without realising it? And surely scientists can be either- atheism is not compulsory for Science 101.

I may be accused of splitting hairs here, but I think that it is the key difference between atheists and believers. The religious have belief and faith in the existence of the divine, the 'supernatural', the 'whatever it is that appeals', whereas the atheists have no such understanding! At all! Not even a little bit-- unconsciously!

PS- I couldn't find Wedge Document, but I thought my comment broad enough to stand alone.

Ellis,
There is one reason why creationists (including ID creationists) attack methodological materialism. They want to circumvent physical evidence and physical explanations. When that happens, real science no longer exists and everything is reduced to philosophy / theology / apologetics.

I cannot see how scientists could ever bypass physical evidence and explanations because that is what science is. Scientific research exists to help us understand the physical world in which we live, -and we need that.

Maybe the creationists are worried that one day scientists will find a credible explanation repudiating of the existence of god. Personally I can't see why this should be a worry. If you believe in an Invisible Friend then why should it matter that I do not. Surely a true believer would just not believe the discovery was correct.

Others of us need to discover the rules that govern the universe, and the research should not be conducted just through prayer but also through provable scientific hypotheses, (and that would surely have to include methodological materialism).

Ellis,

FF is correct about the the believer's "bypass". For them all "scientific knowledge" is "by the grace of God". "Evidence" is "in eye of the beholder". Even if the fundamentalists can be dismissed as a bunch of cranks, there are stll the intellectual believers to deal with who position the bible as allegory. Try looking up Johm Polkinghorne for example (eminent particle physicist turned Anglican priest at Cambridge).

Science is not capable of proving or disproving the existence of God. That's not good enough for the obscurantists. What they lack is physical evidence - any at all - in favor of their beliefs.

They look at the advances that science has made and the respect that many people give science and they feel many things, but one above all others - envy. They want their inane ravings to be treated with the same respect. After all, they deserve, because they, like, you know, exist and all.

The road of physical evidence has not worked out so well and so they need another plan - change the game. Enter "the wedge document." They insist that science has been hijacked by materialists who have caused the great ills of modern society. In fact, modern science didn't exist UNTIL its practitioners figured out they had to stick to physical explanation for actual physical evidence.

Another example of anti-knowledge :


"Science and scientific facts are true only as long as they agree with the Qur'an and the authentic Hadith."

Another example of anti-knowledge - this one straight from Pravda, so we know it must be true!

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/11797_phenomenon.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Demkina

"Psychic abilities" tend to vaporize in controlled environments.

Just try to explain it ...

Hand is touching the globe from behind, but just barely. As his fingers pull backward, his palm clips the back of the globe. At first this is a small effect, but he gets in the rhythm - same principle that makes small pushes on a swing eventually send Sally high in the air. Geez. It's staggering how gullible people are.

Many people tends to propose rational explanation obstinatelly, although it's evident, they have none. To move sphere in such speed the motion of finger would be visible, too. Such explanation could work at the beginning of experiment - but at the end it's clearly visible, sphere is the fastest object at scene. BTW watch the space between finger shadows and shadow of sphere - it's evident, this hand isn't touching sphere all the time.

Yea, this is a highly controlled experiment and there's no possible explanation, so it must be "psychic powers." That's logic.

Why do you mean? I didn't said something like that.

I mean it would be a little more impressive if either the moving hand were further back from the sphere or the camera were situated in such a way as to confirm that the offending hand never actually touches it.

Anti-knowledge: http://www.shroud.com/


http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html

Video was reversed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRscUcBydlY

Well done FF!

Thanks, Ellis, but I didn't do anything.

Did I tell you that when my family lived in AK, I had two jobs?

1. I was a babysitter.

2. I picked up dog poop. People will pay you big money so they don't have to deal with it.

I've always loved dogs. Nowadays I spend about 4-6 hours every Sat or Sun at the dog park with our JRT. Everyone is expected to pick up their own dog crap - and most do. But many don't and so I always pick up extra crap. Seriously, I get some bags and just walk around the park picking up random piles. I have four hours - at least - just to think and love on my kids' ugly beast.
http://thefalliblefiend.blogspot.com/2006/10/i-like-jack-russell-terriers-my-kids.html

So that's my life, I guess. Just wandering around inside the fence line, bagging the occasional pile of excrement.

FF wrote

"Just wandering around inside the fence line, bagging the occasional pile of excrement."

....And doesn't that just about describe most of us!

More obscurantism:

http://www.sheldrake.org/B&R/booksusa/

Profiteering while promulgating anti-knowledge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADb18aEfczA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu64Bq9456k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4dDEpB8LmE&feature=related

Anti-knowledge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up5jmbSjWkw&feature=PlayList&p=1DCF7497D9A88746&index=0

Amazing thing about this is that soon after it was first posted to the net, there were LOTS of "expert" videographers who gave testimony that faking this sort of thing was far beyond the current technology and they just had to therefore be legitimate!

Anti-knowledge:

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-04.htm

Noah's Ark found!

By the same guy who has found the ark of the convenant!
wow!

The "wedge document" was authored by the Discovery Institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Purpose is to overthrow materialism in science, i.e. methodological materialism (as opposed to philosophical materialism).

What does that mean?

When you think "materialism" think "physical evidence" and "physical explanations."

What their ultimate goal is that want to be able to downplay the importance of actual physical evidence in science - why? Because they don't have an awful lot to support their position. Actually, they have none.

I'm not interested about these findings very much - but can you refute his finding in scientific way?

If yes, your opinion is greatly welcommed here.

If not, why don't you simply shut up? It's just you, who is adding noise into research, after then.

P.S. The same applies to another comments of yours (concerning Morphic Resonance, etc...)

Well, then, Zeph, we've determined that you're about as interested in my posts as I am in any of the stupid crap that you have generated.

Also, *you* don't determine what's welcomed *here*.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH503.html

Here's pretty good site that differentiates science from pseudoscience.

http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html

Well done, TFF. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks, Rose,

Back to the topic: Exposing Obscurantism

A while back I commented on the cheerleader Desiree Jennings. I'm not sure who posted the original message - it might have been me, or I might have just commented on that posting. Anyway, at that time, someone corrected me or at least informed me that it wasn't at all clear that the cheerleader's condition was caused by the vaccine. I can't recall the exact conversation.

In any case, it looks like it might have been caused by the vaccine, but probably not for the reasons imputed by innumerable web sites. It's looking like this was probably psychogenic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiree_jennings

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/desiree_jennings_cured.php

None of the experts on dystonia who saw the video thought it was actually dystonia. They all believed it was psychogenic. "Psychogenic" does not mean the problem is not real. What it means is that brain is playing tricks on the body.

As usual, the obscurantists are having a field day.

Origin of the term "obscurantism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism


And here are definitions from M-W:

"1 : opposition to the spread of knowledge : a policy of withholding knowledge from the general public
2 a : a style (as in literature or art) characterized by deliberate vagueness or abstruseness b : an act or instance of obscurantism"

"obscurantism." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.
Merriam-Webster Online. 25 November 2009
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscurantism>

Here's pretty good site that differentiates skepticism from pseudoskepticism :

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Pathological_skepticism

The following are typical characteristics of pseudoskepticism :

Characteristics of Pseudoskepticism

• The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
• Double standards in the application of criticism
• The making of judgments without full inquiry
• Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
• Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks
• Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
• Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudo-scientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
• Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
• Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
• Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
• Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
• Tendency to dismiss all evidence
• Resorting to logical fallacies in order to justify rejecting the position or argument of another.
• Claim that science already knows everything, and since it doesn't include the evidence od subject, subject can't exist. Such stance is often referred to as scientism.
• Assuming unverified or incorrect facts to justify a predetermined skeptical conclusion.
• Obfuscating easily verifiable facts to justify a predetermined skeptical conclusion.
• Instituting hurdles against new theories by "moving the goalposts".
• Displaying a reactionary, hostile and intolerant stance regarding new ideas.
• Judging a hypothesis or theory without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details thereafter
• Organized Skepticism tends to become automatically pathological

"Obfuscating easily verifiable facts to justify a predetermined skeptical conclusion. "

The irony meter just broke the scale.

Interestingly, the page links to an article titled, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" The link provided doesn't work, so here's a good one:

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

This is quite common stance of many skeptics. For example, they're unable to distinguish between longitudinal and transversal wave spreading in particle environment - but they're still claiming, ligth cannot spread in vacuum formed by particles in a way, which general relativity predicts.

Yes. That's a very common problem among the physicists of the world - their inability to distinguish longitudinal and transverse waves. It's like, you know, a big mystery.

Check out the "fake moon landing" thread in this forum for a good example of obscurantist "thinking."

One of the "evidences" for hoax is the flag that moves when the astronaut walks past.

Here's a reconstruction showing how utterly stupid the argument is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbJvgqoeFSU


For a better understanding of the moon hoax, I once again refer you to:

"How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

For example, scientists know, energy is spreading in particle environment in both transversal, both longitudinal waves. It means, to refuse Aether concept, we should always check, if spreading of light through vacuum doesn't follow BOTH these variants.

Mainstream physics ignorants simply ignored one of these variants, which has lead them to bold statements about Aether nonexistence.

Facilitated Communication:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34212528/ns/health-mental_health

The true believers insist they've proven it works. A controlled study showed it to be an abysmal failure. And yet ...

For example, do you know, cold fusion researchers have published ~3,500 papers, including ~1,200 in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. You can find the bibliography and ~1,000 full full text papers at http://lenr-canr.org. Comparing cold fusion to plasma fusion: cold has produced 300 MJ in a single run; plasma fusion 6 MJ. Cold fusion has achieved fully ignited, self sustaining reactions that continue for days; plasma fusion has never produced more output than input. Cold fusion is far closer to becoming a practical source of energy.

Now the best one: most of mainstream physicists are believing, could fusion cannot become viable source of energy. As such they're ignoring, if not blocking cold fusion research for more then twenty years.

Conformists may kill civilizations Lack of original ideas leaves societies vulnerable to environmental upheaval, model suggests.

So the implication is that if conformism is bad, that one is obligated to treat all stupid ideas as if they are equal to brilliant ideas? Excellent example of obscurantist thinking!

Richard Feynman, the brilliant physicist, in his commencement address at CalTech related a story of a famous scientist whose published result turned out to be a little bit off. As he says,

"It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher. Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that."

Feynman knew that learning not to fool yourself was one of the hardest parts of becoming a scientist. Conformism is completelly symmetric to voluntaristic behavior from this perspective.

It's interesting you bring up Feynman. Among his many brilliant writings is an essay titled "Cargo Cult Science."

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

Excellent reading for those who are interested in understanding obscurantism.

There is a lotta interesting stuff on this site anyway...

"I thought of how we teach physics: We have so many techniques -- so many mathematical methods -- that we never stop telling the students how to do things. On the other hand, the drawing teacher is afraid to tell you anything. If your lines are very heavy, the teacher can't say, "Your lines are too heavy," because some artist has figured out a way of making great pictures using heavy lines. The teacher doesn't want to push you in some particular direction. So the drawing teacher has this problem of communicating how to draw by osmosis and not by instruction, while the physics teacher has the problem of always teaching techniques, rather than the spirit, of how to go about solving physical problems."

[Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (1985)]

It's clear enough Feynman does not mean to imply that "teaching the spirit" includes parapsychology and other forms of obscurantism as science.

More anti-knowledge:

Quite possibly the stupidest person on the Internet (starting at about t=5:20):
http://www.youtube.com/nephilimfree#p/u/133/XCEpnfIDeE

That's what happens when people with poor science (and math) backgrounds try to interpret stuff they don't understand - see the "Unskilled an Unaware" reference mentioned earlier.

A few rough order magnitude checks should clarify a few things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnbUd2C59x8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ibEDukaafE

The other guy is not alone!
http://redskynews.com/?page_id=300/

And here's a response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X1isrPVtlo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNTwNhzvPO4

But wait! There's more!
http://www.fixedearth.com/

It never ends.

TFF,
I keep getting a message of "an error occurred; please try again later" on your links. I was not able to follow all but the last link because of this. Do you have other links, or is it just my computer that is being flaky?

Thanks for keeping up the good work.

But you cannot serve as an arbiter of what parapsychology is and what is not. For example placebo or near death experiences can serve as a good and well tested application of parapsychology. Regarding mainstream science we're facing the same bias like at the case of cold fusion research, for example: at the moment, when results aren't completely reproducible AND THEY DOESN'T PLAY WELL WITH MAINSTREAM THEORIES, mainstream science is losing interest about phenomena.

But we can ask why, if many other phenomena studied well by science have probabilistic character. For example the yield during microprocessor production is lower, then 5% - and such microprocessors are still widely used. Many particle collisions occurs with even much more lower yields - despite of it they're studied on accelerators extensively.

Try to imagine, what would happen, if some psychophysical experiment would yield in 5% success - such results would be considered a pseudoscience by mainstream scientists immediately. Not saying about crowds of anonymous Internet crackpots, like you.

Rose,
They worked for me just now. YT has this extremely irritating habit of being unusable for hours at a time - particularly at night. If you try again, they may work.

Thanks, TFF. I tried them now and they are working. I never knew how much false science was out there until I started following your links. Craziness takes many forms.

You're welcome. Of course, obscurantism is not limited to science.

http://strongcity.info/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Our_Righteousness_Church

But the science is what is pertinent to this forum.

Interestingly, Strong City cult predicted the end of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a brilliant writer. He created the character Sherlock Holmes who gave the illusion of being a careful observer and a meticulous logician. His skill at writing exceeded his skill at logic. I love the stories and have read them to my children (and many of them to my wife as well), but he really doesn't display much logic in them. Like most people, he found it much easier to talk about logic than to employ it.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm