Debating: Who Can Be Considered A Scientist?

[avakrael]

Activate this text; it is a youtube video containing the debate.

What do you all think about the content of this debate?

[DavidOdden]

First a small correction, this is not a debate, it is a position statement.

 

I am not satisfied with the definition of science as being the nature of a subject for a couple of reasons. First, it is based on what turns out to be a problematic concept, namely “a subject”. Second, the bar is set too low, at “study the nature of…”. There is one subject, and the possibility of selective focus thereunder – the universe. The action of studying is not what defines science, science is defined in terms of a goal, which is to gain conceptual knowledge of the subject. “Studying” is one way of talking about the actions that are part of science, but however you define science, it should be in terms of the ultimate goal, and not the means of reaching the goal.

I also disagree with the statement that truth is impervious to denunciations or false praise. Why? Because truth is the grasping of the relationship between a proposition and reality, and a consciousness must choose to grasp that relation. Denunciations impede truth, i.e. the grasping of reality. Now, reality is not affected by denunciations and ignorance, and does not depend on there being any consciousness.

One view of science is the social majority view: “scientist” is defined according to the criteria set by the majority of scientists. I won’t bother to discuss this since it is patently circular. The second is via analogy and ostensive definition, classically by pointing to chemists and physicists, and saying “and those who are similar”. The third, and I would say best approach, is via integration and differentiation – what specific actions do you want too include, and what do you want to exclude? Some classic problem cases are: mathematics, history, psychology, engineering.

Social Justice Warriors and literary critics purport to be seeking the truth, but I would not call them scientists. A very large proportion (probably a majority) of actual scientists do not purport to be seeking the truth, thay are ___ (some other expression, for example “developing a model”, “contributing to knowledge”).

In fact, I do not find it useful to focus on criteria for applying the label “scientist”, instead, I would focus on two things. First, the truth of a particular claim. Second, the reasons for accepting the claim. A scientist worth his salt should be not just able to discover a true proposition, they should be able to show that it is true, and superior to alternative propositions.

[avakrael]

23 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

First a small correction, this is not a debate, it is a position statement.

The clashing of the fundamental state ø positions on an issue is in-itself a debate.

 

I am not satisfied with the definition of science as being the nature of a subject for a couple of reasons. First, it is based on what turns out to be a problematic concept, namely “a subject”.

The endeavor of sussing a subject = trying & therefore progressing towards being able to dust your hands off, and say [OKAY] to a Whole.

In other words: a subject is the goal which [comprehension] scores.

For example, to be comprehensive is to extract the data of a subject until you have orderly arranged-it into an idea.

Ayn Rand mentioned before that she thought "existentialism" could have been a good name for a philosophy, it is a shame it was taken by nihilists. So 'subjective' neednot mean solely the nonsensical view purported in society; if this is what your intent was in saying problematic then its unjustified.

Second, the bar is set too low, at “study the nature of…”. There is one subject, and the possibility of selective focus thereunder – the universe. The action of studying is not what defines science, science is defined in terms of a goal, which is to gain conceptual knowledge of the subject. “Studying” is one way of talking about the actions that are part of science, but however you define science, it should be in terms of the ultimate goal, and not the means of reaching the goal.

The [universe] is not strictly efficient when talking about the hierarchical priorities of deriving knowledge through experimentation. The concept of yourself [your name here] is actually the source of all goal-orientation which extends outward into the universe, existence, reality, nature, truth, allwhichis. So on the basis of hierarchy, that is also a relevant standard of concentration. However, wherever the bar is set (low or high_here or there) is in-itself the place that defines what the science involved exists-like; I'm saying its the Standard that contains & prescribes what the science you are dealing with is- at any time! The category of the particular subject you are sussing is SCIENCE, the category of everything which exists across all worlds is not SCIENCE, but PHILOSOPHY.

I also disagree with the statement that truth is impervious to denunciations or false praise. Why? Because truth is the grasping of the relationship between a proposition and reality, and a consciousness must choose to grasp that relation. Denunciations impede truth, i.e. the grasping of reality. Now, reality is not affected by denunciations and ignorance, and does not depend on there being any consciousness.

Denunciations impeding truth implies that certainty can be lost at the whim of any attack against it.

The journey of truth can be impeded by challenges, but the nuggets o gold mined by defeating those obstacles are truly imperverious to any impact; a true hero (ideal man) is indomitable: their acquired truth (completed truth) is the sole genuine [truth], not wishywashy uncertainty & doubt (not-completed truth).

One view of science is the social majority view: “scientist” is defined according to the criteria set by the majority of scientists. I won’t bother to discuss this since it is patently circular. The second is via analogy and ostensive definition, classically by pointing to chemists and physicists, and saying “and those who are similar”. The third, and I would say best approach, is via integration and differentiation – what specific actions do you want too include, and what do you want to exclude? Some classic problem cases are: mathematics, history, psychology, engineering.

Including or excluding specific actions is patently circular: if science is whatever you say it is, then I can just say "no it is not" with equal validity.

Everybody must arrange their psyche according to the clear & orderly distinct laws of existence, while the way you treat those exact laws is the original path that defines the spine holding-up your own EGO.

Such are the "differences" between each perspective's 'integration'.

Differential Integration relates to science merely insofar as you integrate via scientific labor different tracks around the existential laws than others.

Social Justice Warriors and literary critics purport to be seeking the truth, but I would not call them scientists. A very large proportion (probably a majority) of actual scientists do not purport to be seeking the truth, thay are ___ (some other expression, for example “developing a model”, “contributing to knowledge”).

"Purport to be seeking" and 'actually seeking' are obviously quite anathema, yeah? Who gives a fuck about what anybody [purports] to be doing, what matters is what they literally ARE DOING!

In fact, I do not find it useful to focus on criteria for applying the label “scientist”, instead, I would focus on two things. First, the truth of a particular claim. Second, the reasons for accepting the claim. A scientist worth his salt should be not just able to discover a true proposition, they should be able to show that it is true, and superior to alternative propositions.

Criteria for applying a label is the definition of [definition]. That isn't useful..........? Are you sure?

The truth of a particular claim is exactly the study of it's subject; studying gleans scientific realities; exclusifying studying to a subject results in The Science Of That Subject. The nature of Science is investigating a particular nature. STUDYING A SUBJECT.

Reasoning behind the acceptance of a claim is just your own scientific history, scirnce refers to any and all scientific histories. Science [anything] is science.

Showing that reality is true is inrvitably possible for literally anybody who acquires knowledge (GAINS CERTAINTY) —its just a matter of time.

Lastly, how do you figure that indicating reality-being-superior-to-any-other-alternative is anything but self-evident?

{My cussing and anger come from zeal, not evasion.}