Bill
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 17:43:21 -0500 Ed Brayton <cynic@net-link.net>
writes:
>Art, I'm really surprised to hear you say this. If the position it
>implies is
>really what you meant, my respect for you will drop quite a bit. There
>is no
>question that every scientist works within a theoretical framework and
>that
>evidence gets filtered through that paradigm. No one disputes that,
>but I have
>to disagree with the implications of the rest of this paragraph.
>First,
>Steve's position was that you and your colleagues are selectively
>reporting the
>evidence. You don't dispute that, and in fact you seem to admit that
>this is
>the case. Do you think that selectively reporting evidence, and
>ignoring
>evidence against your thesis, is A) honest and B) an effective way of
>discerning whether the thesis is correct? Does the fact that your
>thesis is a
>minority position free you from the burden of dealing with the
>totality of the
>evidence in an honest way?
>
>I also cannot accept the idea that two groups of scientists advancing
>their
>theses, without regard to an honest search within the two camps to
>determine
>whether their thesis is correct, helps science advance. The tone of
>your
>statement here reminds me very much of when I coached competitive high
>school
>and college debate. Because a person had to be both the affirmative
>and the
>negative during a tournament, he is forced to take positions he
>disagrees with.
>In the confines of that game, the only way to defend a position that
>you don't
>agree with is to quote selectively from the evidence and be
>disingenuous. But
>that was a game, and the goal was to win, not to discern which
>position is
>true. Is it really your position that two sides, both acting
>disingenuously and
>selectively reporting the evidence, somehow advances science? Who is
>to act as
>the judge in this contest?
>
>I would argue that not only can a person advocate a thesis without
>selectively
>reporting the evidence, but that if that person wants his thesis to be
>an
>accurate representation of reality, he or she MUST consider the
>totality of the
>evidence. What else are we left with? Do you consciously ignore
>contrary
>evidence and advance the thesis regardless of it? It seems to me that
>this is
>the reverse of how scientists should operate. Rather than picking a
>thesis to
>advance and then reporting whatever evidence can be made to seem as
>though it
>supports that thesis, one should look at the evidence and then develop
>a thesis
>that explains it. I'm not arguing for some sort of pure objectivity
>among
>scientists, of course, but I think there is a realistic middle ground
>between
>that and what you appear to be advocating, the notion that two
>opposing camps
>acting in a disingenuous manner somehow advances science toward the
>correct
>conclusion.
>
>Ed
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]