Debunking the debunkers

[Piggy]

Are you saying the scientific community did not regard Gould as an authority on the geological evidence for evolution?

No. I'm saying that (1) he's regarded as an authority because he gets results, and (2) his status as an authority means zip when it comes to how a new idea from him will fare in the peer review process.

Or are you saying, okok, he was an authority, but he wasn't selected for, say, peer-reviews because he was an authority. It was because of his reputation for being knowledgeable about the subject matter.

Which sounds like another way to say: he was selected because he was an authority.

To make the short-cut to "authority" is to be dishonest.

A paper by an unknown will be run through the peer-review process if it has merit.

A paper by a "name" will not see the light of day if it does not have merit.

Gould is considered an authority for the same reason that he gets published -- his work is solid. There is no causal relationship between the 2.

 

[blutoski]

I see. An appeal to authority. Sorry, but I'm going to judge you by what you're saying here, not by who you work with.

Wouldn't it depend? I mean: there's that great scene in Annie Hall where they're debating the intention of a play, and Woody Allen's character is able to back up his claim by producing the playwright in person.

So, if the question is: "what are organized skepticism's intentions?" wouldn't "I just talked to Barry Beyerstein and he's just come back from the CSICOP annual meeting with the year's agenda" mean something?

 

[blutoski]

No. I'm saying that (1) he's regarded as an authority because he gets results, and (2) his status as an authority means zip when it comes to how a new idea from him will fare in the peer review process.

I never said it would.

To make the short-cut to "authority" is to be dishonest.

A paper by an unknown will be run through the peer-review process if it has merit.

A paper by a "name" will not see the light of day if it does not have merit.

Gould is considered an authority for the same reason that he gets published -- his work is solid. There is no causal relationship between the 2.

Sure. So? How did the peer-reviewers get selected?

 

[Piggy]

No, I can assure you, that as an immunologist, if one of my peers said he had discovered that water has memory, I would immediately know he was not doing immunology.

It sounds like inorganic chemistry to me. Maybe physics.

You still cannot know that he stepped into Randi's domain until after the fact.

Only from your authoritarian point of view does it matter that an immunologist had done the experiment, btw.

 

[blutoski]

You said you had found an error in something Randi had written. Something to do with chemistry. Did you decide he was wrong because he has no qualifications in chemistry, or because he wrote something that was not true?

OK. It was with physics, actually, and I did address this above. I decided it was wrong because it conflicted with something I learned in highschool physics. (that mass is not the same thing as weight). Randi thought that mass and weight were the same property. This is not the case.

This is what started the discussion about whether we know this because we have done experiments, or read it in publications, and then went onto textbooks, vetting experts, Bill Bennetta &c.

 

[Piggy]

You said Randi is respected because he's an authority. That is wrong. He's an authority and he's respected for the same reason -- because he does things right and gets valid results.

A does not cause B here. C causes A and B.

That would make them synonymous I guess. Sounds like word-play to me.

If you think that's word-play, then you need to learn basic logic.

If C causes A and C causes B, then it is a logical error to claim "B because A".

 

[blutoski]

You still cannot know that he stepped into Randi's domain until after the fact.

I guess. Is this relevant? My point was that when I read Randi's review, I knew Randi was qualified to have an informed opinion. Is this a problem?

Sometimes there is no expert. You pointed this out above in another post. There are fields within which there is no agreement among the participants. Such a field has no authorities. I would say that the field of water memory has no authorities right now.

Only from your authoritarian point of view does it matter that an immunologist had done the experiment, btw.

I'm not sure I even said that it was important. Where's this coming from?

 

[Piggy]

Regarding post 117: Those posts should be attributed to Richard, not me.

 

[Piggy]

So, if the question is: "what are organized skepticism's intentions?" wouldn't "I just talked to Barry Beyerstein and he's just come back from the CSICOP annual meeting with the year's agenda" mean something?

It would mean something, if that were the question, and if CSICOP could be said to represent a thing called "organized skepticism".

 

[blutoski]

If you think that's word-play, then you need to learn basic logic.

If C causes A and C causes B, then it is a logical error to claim "B because A".

I never said that. I said it looks like A and B tell you the same thing, and could be synonymous. ie: they both imply C.

The question is whether C->>A ("iff C then A") or just C->A ("if C then A"). (iff means "If, and only if") In the former case, A=B, which is 100% synonymous.

As I said, I'm not here for wordplay.

 

[Piggy]

Sure. So? How did the peer-reviewers get selected?

Y'know, you're right. It's not results, it's authority. There's a Book of Names which is held in the sacred Cathedral of Science, where aspirants are schooled in the catechism and after kissing the sacred relic of Isaac Newton they are at last cannonized into the holy order of Peer Review.

 

[blutoski]

It would mean something, if that were the question, and if CSICOP could be said to represent a thing called "organized skepticism".

That was the question, and my opinion is that CSICOP does represent something called "organized skepicism." Yes, that's my crazy assertion.

 

[RichardR]

OK. It was with physics, actually, and I did address this above. I decided it was wrong because it conflicted with something I learned in highschool physics. (that mass is not the same thing as weight). Randi thought that mass and weight were the same property. This is not the case.

So you realized he was wrong because he erroneously thought mass and weight were the same property. What he wrote - his "data" - was wrong. Not because he is not an authority in physics.

Haven't you just proved it is the data, not the authority, that counts?

 

[Piggy]

My point was that when I read Randi's review, I knew Randi was qualified to have an informed opinion. Is this a problem?

But did you really believe what he said on that basis? Or did you consider his claim and evaluate it yourself, knowing he could be wrong?

If you did the former, you're not a skeptic.

If you did the latter, you're not acting the way you say "science works".

I'm not sure I even said that it was important. Where's this coming from?

You seem to think it significant that Benveniste was working outside his field.

But it's not.

If he designed the experiment properly, his results would be accurate. THAT is science.

 

[blutoski]

Y'know, you're right. It's not results, it's authority. There's a Book of Names which is held in the sacred Cathedral of Science, where aspirants are schooled in the catechism and after kissing the sacred relic of Isaac Newton they are at last cannonized into the holy order of Peer Review.

Several Books of Names, actually, and they're in the offices of JAMA, NEJM, Nature, &c. These names change.

My experience as somebody who has gone through peer review is that the field just knows who their experts and authorities are, and select among them. When the journals don't know, I'll wager they pick up the phone and call around.

 

[Piggy]

I never said that. I said it looks like A and B tell you the same thing, and could be synonymous. ie: they both imply C.

The question is whether C->>A ("iff C then A") or just C->A ("if C then A"). (iff means "If, and only if") In the former case, A=B, which is 100% synonymous.

As I said, I'm not here for wordplay.

You're obviously not here for logic and intellectual honesty either.

You said Randi is respected because he's an authority.

Not so.

Randi is respected because of his body of work, and he's considered an authority because of his body of work.

When I point out your error -- which, in the context of this thread, is significant -- you brush it off as a "word game".

You either don't understand basic logic, or you're being dishonest.

 

[blutoski]

But did you really believe what he said on that basis? Or did you consider his claim and evaluate it yourself, knowing he could be wrong?

If you did the former, you're not a skeptic.

If you did the latter, you're not acting the way you say "science works".

You're just repeating your claim. You know I disagree.

You seem to think it significant that Benveniste was working outside his field.

But it's not.

If he designed the experiment properly, his results would be accurate. THAT is science.

The reason I pointed out that he was working outside his field was that another poster brought it up as an example of somebody who was wrong while working in his field. I simply pointed out that he wasn't. I don't think it's important, no. Just pointing out a small error in another post. Not intended to support any of my claims.

 

[Piggy]

Several Books of Names, actually, and they're in the offices of JAMA, NEJM, Nature, &c. These names change.

My experience as somebody who has gone through peer review is that the field just knows who their experts and authorities are, and select among them. When the journals don't know, I'll wager they pick up the phone and call around.

Yet you continue to blatantly ignore the real reason why people are selected.

 

[Piggy]

But did you really believe what he said on that basis? Or did you consider his claim and evaluate it yourself, knowing he could be wrong?

If you did the former, you're not a skeptic.

If you did the latter, you're not acting the way you say "science works".

You're just repeating your claim. You know I disagree.

And your basis for disagreement is totally without merit.

Why don't you engage my point?

If you accepted Randi's assertions because Randi is Randi, then you're not a skeptic.

If you accepted that Randi could be wrong, and you weighed his argument and considered it yourself, then you're not acting the way you say "science works".

Pretty simple.

 

[blutoski]

Yet you continue to blatantly ignore the real reason why people are selected.

I don't think so. You mean I'm ignoring that their work has stood the test of time, was innovative, &c?

It's not important to my claim, so I'm not roping it into the discussion. But sure: there's all sorts of things that brought to the position of being regarded as an authority.

This doesn't prove they're not authorities after all. It just explains it.