on the atmosphere of this forum

[cnorman18]

Expanded from a comment on another thread:

For some of our newer members, anything less than a total rejection and denial of anything even vaguely "spiritual" or "religious" is evidence of mental defect, aka "irrationality" (as in "you don't know how to think") and worthy of only contempt and derision. In any other context, such an attitude would be called. "intolerant," "doctrinaire," and "disrespectful," but here on the forum of late, civility, tolerance and mutual respect seem to be taking a back seat to scorched-earth tactics and open contempt.

I would readily grant that there are some on the fundamentalist side, again some relative newbies in particular, who are equally guilty of such behavior; but the misdeeds of either side do not justify or make acceptable the incivility of the other, particular when that incivility is applied indiscriminately and not just to the other side's offenders.

I would like to see more moderator intervention, not less. It is one thing to say, "I respectfully disagree." It is quite another to add heavy doses of ridicule, contempt and derision, not to mention personal aspersions on one's ability to reason or one's personal morality and "spiritual vision" or "maturity."

I have been happy here for many months. DC&R has been a place where I could enjoy, as billed, "intelligent, civil, courteous and respectful debate among people of all persuasions." I have found it stimulating, fun, and thought-provoking.

Those days are largely gone. An authentic exchange of ideas is still possible here, but to find it one must wade through and filter out an ocean of spiritual pride, self-righteousness, intellectual arrogance, inflexibly doctrinaire definitions and pronouncements, and, worse than all of these, constant, unrelenting, personally offensive, and sneering contempt for oneself and one's opinions.

I have been posting here virtually every day since November of last year, and I think I have made some significant contributions.
But I no longer feel like I am coming to a friendly, welcoming place where I can quietly talk and compare ideas with friends who like, respect and accept me. I feel like I am going to a fistfight with people who have no regard for me as a human being, who dislike me personally on account of my beliefs, and who neither have nor express any respect whatever for either those views or me. Even some of our older members are beginning to be infected by this uncivil and disrespectful attitude. I think this is a tragedy.

This is becoming an unpleasant place to spend one's time. Some members have already left, including some fine new ones; and I think more will leave if this ugly and acrimonious atmosphere does not change. In fact, I think that is certain.

Early on, I myself threatened to leave this forum on account of what I perceived as unpoliced and unopposed antisemitism. That problem was resolved. This one may be more difficult to handle. It threatens the very reason for the existence of this forum--civil and respectful debate.

Let me make this clear: I DO NOT CARE if you think yourself to be on a righteous crusade to either win the world for Jesus or rid the world of the pernicious plague of religious superstition. Personal respect for the other members of this forum AND FOR THEIR OPINIONS is more important than your "vital mission." How will you argue for your point of view if everyone you would argue it TO leaves in disgust?

As I said on another thread: If you are about disrespecting and demeaning other people, claiming to be spiritually or intellectually superior to them, and sneering at those who do not think or believe as you do--well, as far as I'm concerned, you're full of crap no matter what you believe or how smart you are.

[Cephus]

It's clear some criteria is being used to evaluate inductive arguments. What are they?

Not really. Inductive reasoning's best use is as a front-end for deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning starts with an observation and ends with the formation of a theory. Deductive reasoning starts with a theory and ends with a rigorous testing of the theory to see if it is factually true. That's something that inductive reasoning simply does not do.

Are the principles which comprise the scientific method completely free from emotional influence? How do we know this?

The peer-review process and repeated testing certainly is set up to eliminate unwarranted assumptions and emotional bias, something that is completely missing in inductive reasoning. Once you introduce humans, however, there's no way to say that some emotion can't be introduced, but it's effect is dramatically lessened by the independent testing criteria.

[theleftone]

It's clear some criteria is being used to evaluate inductive arguments. What are they?

Not really. Inductive reasoning's best use is as a front-end for deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning starts with an observation and ends with the formation of a theory. Deductive reasoning starts with a theory and ends with a rigorous testing of the theory to see if it is factually true. That's something that inductive reasoning simply does not do.

This doesn't really address my question.

The peer-review process and repeated testing certainly is set up to eliminate unwarranted assumptions and emotional bias, something that is completely missing in inductive reasoning.

This makes no sense to me. How does deduction include peer-review and repeated testing?

[Thought Criminal]

It's clear some criteria is being used to evaluate inductive arguments. What are they?

Not really. Inductive reasoning's best use is as a front-end for deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning starts with an observation and ends with the formation of a theory. Deductive reasoning starts with a theory and ends with a rigorous testing of the theory to see if it is factually true. That's something that inductive reasoning simply does not do.

This doesn't really address my question.

The peer-review process and repeated testing certainly is set up to eliminate unwarranted assumptions and emotional bias, something that is completely missing in inductive reasoning.

This makes no sense to me. How does deduction include peer-review and repeated testing?

That's because science is neither purely deductive nor inductive.

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

TC

[Cephus]

It's clear some criteria is being used to evaluate inductive arguments. What are they?

Not really. Inductive reasoning's best use is as a front-end for deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning starts with an observation and ends with the formation of a theory. Deductive reasoning starts with a theory and ends with a rigorous testing of the theory to see if it is factually true. That's something that inductive reasoning simply does not do.

This doesn't really address my question.

Yes it does, you said it was clear that there is some criteria, I disagreed. There seems to be no set criteria, at least not as a part of the inductive process, for verifying claims. That is why it is vastly inferior to deductive reasoning.

The peer-review process and repeated testing certainly is set up to eliminate unwarranted assumptions and emotional bias, something that is completely missing in inductive reasoning.

This makes no sense to me. How does deduction include peer-review and repeated testing?[/quote]

You asked about the scientific method, which includes peer-review and repeated testing.

[theleftone]

Yes it does, you said it was clear that there is some criteria, I disagreed. There seems to be no set criteria, at least not as a part of the inductive process, for verifying claims.

My statement and question have been misunderstood. There is some criteria being used. We all use some kind of criteria to evaluate arguments. Though, such criteria appears to be subjective.

The peer-review process and repeated testing certainly is set up to eliminate unwarranted assumptions and emotional bias, something that is completely missing in inductive reasoning.

This makes no sense to me. How does deduction include peer-review and repeated testing?[/quote]
You asked about the scientific method, which includes peer-review and repeated testing.[/quote]
That's not what I found confusing. Though, I'll simply return to my previous questions with some elucidation.

There are numerous principles which comprise and underlie the scientific method as used today. These include falsifiability, consistency in nature, and so on. How do we know these rest on an objective foundation? How do we know these concepts are wholly free from emotional biases or poor thinking?

[Cephus]

My statement and question have been misunderstood. There is some criteria being used. We all use some kind of criteria to evaluate arguments. Though, such criteria appears to be subjective.

While I'm sure everyone uses some sort of criteria, there certainly is no integral criteria that is used within inductive reasoning. Everyone has their own standards of evaluation, thus making it part of the individual, not the method.

There are numerous principles which comprise and underlie the scientific method as used today. These include falsifiability, consistency in nature, and so on. How do we know these rest on an objective foundation? How do we know these concepts are wholly free from emotional biases or poor thinking?

Mostly because of the wide range of people evaluating the claims and the competitive nature of science itself. Finding flaws, either emotional, evidentiary or critical, is paramount in the peer-review process, you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist out there that wouldn't delight in pointing out any and all flaws in a new idea. If there are biases, they will be found and published. Questioning everything regarding scientific ideas is an established and expected procedure.

[Zzyzx]

.

Questioning everything regarding scientific ideas is an established and expected procedure.

That questioning the strength of scientific study. It results in rigorous testing of ideas put forth -- discovery of weaknesses -- and modification with new information.

Emotion based "knowledge" systems are typically not as concerned about questioning and testing ideas. Therefore, thoughts that prevailed hundreds or thousands of years ago are accepted as "truth" without asking for evidence that they are true.

Ideas put forth based upon "visions" and "intuition" and "feelings" and conjecture or opinion cannot be verified. However, they are often accepted and passed on as true based upon "faith" in the tellers.

[theleftone]

My statement and question have been misunderstood. There is some criteria being used. We all use some kind of criteria to evaluate arguments. Though, such criteria appears to be subjective.

While I'm sure everyone uses some sort of criteria, there certainly is no integral criteria that is used within inductive reasoning. Everyone has their own standards of evaluation, thus making it part of the individual, not the method.

The criteria used by people to evaluate the quality of a given inductive argument seems to be largely subjective. Would it be fair to assume we both agree with this statement?

There are numerous principles which comprise and underlie the scientific method as used today. These include falsifiability, consistency in nature, and so on. How do we know these rest on an objective foundation? How do we know these concepts are wholly free from emotional biases or poor thinking?

Mostly because of the wide range of people evaluating the claims and the competitive nature of science itself. Finding flaws, either emotional, evidentiary or critical, is paramount in the peer-review process, you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist out there that wouldn't delight in pointing out any and all flaws in a new idea. If there are biases, they will be found and published. Questioning everything regarding scientific ideas is an established and expected procedure.

These are few potential flaws in this reasoning.

(i) More eyes are generally better, but not always.
(ii) Competition often breeds emotion.
(iii) The critiques of ideas claiming flaws can include flaws itself.
(iv) The desire, an emotion, to find flaws can be a double-edged sword.
(v) Group think can prevent biases from being found.
(vi) The majority-view can be highly influential.
(vii) There doesn't seem to be much debate about the principles of science within science itself. It seems to be limited mainly to philosophers of science.

To summarize my perspective: People are often too confident in 'science.' That is, they perceive their chosen theories, scientists, and so on much the same way a Christian fundamentalist views the Bible. Each has reasons for their acceptance, whether they are good or not can be debated. Though, such debates return us to the problem of induction. And they both seem to equally have a difficult time accepting there might be a flaw within their system of thought.

This is not an attack on science. It's an understanding that humans are limited. It's an understanding that science is a human activity. Thus, science will never be a 'completed' activity. Human learning will never be a completed activity. We, as individuals, can never fully grasp the whole of existence. The best we can do is moderate our confidence, continue learning, help others in learning, and try to make some sense of it all.

[Cephus]

by people to evaluate the quality of a given inductive argument seems to be largely subjective. Would it be fair to assume we both agree with this statement?

I'll go one better and say it's completely subjective. There simply is no proscribed criteria for determining if a given argument is valid or invalid.

Also, I'm not going to fall into the trap you're setting up. Because you've completely failed to support inductive reasoning as a valid form of rational evaluation, you're now trying to attack deductive reasoning so you can do a "aha! You've got problems too!" This is the same kind of nonsense that creationists try when they desperately try to poke holes in evolution, as though doing so will, in any way, prove that creationism is valid. It doesn't work that way.

Inductive reasoning stands or falls on it's own merits. Trying to claim that the scientific method, even though it's set up specifically to minimize the effects of ego and emotional bias, isn't perfect, doesn't do a damn thing toward proving the validity of inductive reasoning.

Please stick to the claims at hand.

[theleftone]

you're now trying to attack deductive reasoning so you can do a "aha! You've got problems too!"

I am not attack deductive reasoning. I am attacking the notion that conclusions drawn from deductive reasoning are necessarily true or perfectly reflective of reality.

All other forms of reasoning take place within the context of what we know -- as individuals and a collective. And since our knowledge is incomplete (and always will be), we cannot know with complete certainty regarding our conclusions drawn from arguments. (This is called fallibilism.) Thus, I don't reject deductive, inductive, or other forms of reasoning. I simply believe we should temper our statements because our confidence is often stronger than the evidence for our perspectives.

Inductive reasoning stands or falls on it's own merits. Trying to claim that the scientific method, even though it's set up specifically to minimize the effects of ego and emotional bias, isn't perfect, doesn't do a damn thing toward proving the validity of inductive reasoning.

This misunderstands my point. Inductive reasoning is not 'valid' or 'invalid.' Inductive reasoning is. We all accept it. We all use it. How can we determine which arguments are reasonable and not reasonable?