"Defend Science" Ad in New York Times!

[redwinter]

Defend Science Ad in NY Times!

The Defend Science Project will be running an ad in the special “Giving” section of the November 11 edition of the New York Times.

This ad will point out that the attack on science continues, point to the attacks on evolution, and call for a defense of science and scientific method. The battle to defend science and scientific thinking in many ways is even more important with the election of Obama.

Tell your friends about the upcoming ad, and encourage people to go to the Defend Science website and help spread the word.

Defend Science website: www.defendscience.org (http://www.defendscience.org/)

[MarxSchmarx]

The best defense is a good offense.

Scientists, and those who appreciate science, need to be unapologetic about their atheism and anti-capitalism, denounce their superstitious colleagues, and bury social prejudices. There is no middle ground, no coexistence, no detentes with the fanatics. this is the other side's mentality, and it's time we share it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Some of my favourite comments from the website:

Now is NOT the time for ANY timidity! The stakes are far too high!
'Science Lite' is NOT ACCEPTABLE!
--Robert Baldridge, Professor of Biology, Baylor University

It is important for people to take a moment and reflect on all the benefits to their life and the world around them that have come from scientific discoveries. If we restrict science, we will restrict important future gains in the quality of our lives.
--Simona Bartl, CSU Moss Landing Marine Labs

Skepticism is the essence of science: you don't believe something until there is satisfactory proof. In everyday life, this is how sensible and prudent
choices are made as well. If sufficient proof of weapons were demanded,
we would not be at war in Iraq. Believing without proof is dangerous- it certainly has been for the 2,000 troops that have died there.
--Christopher Deren, Research Center Director, University of Arkansas Rice Research Center

All human progress has been achieved by the our species' unique faculty of
reasoning and rationality. With these powers, we have gained knowledge
of our Universe which reveals its beauty and also its mysteries yet to be solved. Reason is the our most precious gift, and knowledge our most
treasured inheritance. If we scorn human progress and reject reason for the sake of political expedience, profit, or to assauge supersitious fears, we dishonor our ancestors and threaten our descendants.
--Jonathan Geller, Invertebrate Zoology and Marine Science, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

[mikelepore]

Skepticism is the essence of science: you don't believe something until there is satisfactory proof. In everyday life, this is how sensible and prudent choices are made as well. If sufficient proof of weapons were demanded, we would not be at war in Iraq.

Instead of attempting to prove that Iraq had WMD's, Bush demanded that the Iraqi government prove the nonexistence of WMD's there. As far as I know, not one broadcast or print news medium lived up to its responsibility to challenge the Bush administration in this way: Mr. President, it's a basic principle of science that you can never prove the nonexistence of something that is undetected. No one can prove that there are no such things as ghosts either. But now you say you will make war on Iraq unless they prove the nonexistence of any WMD's in the country. Why are you demanding that someone do something that is known in principle to be impossible?

[mikelepore]

The Defend Science statement http://www.defendscience.org/statement.html says in part:

"There are repeated efforts by government officials to over-rule scientists on such things as which plant and animal species to include on the "Endangered Species" list, which natural habitats are in critical need of preservation, how to set air and water quality standards, and so on...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE."

How valid is this? Science determines truths, not value judgements. Science can't determine that it's desirable to preserve all 200+ species of owls.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The Defend Science statement http://www.defendscience.org/statement.html says in part:

"There are repeated efforts by government officials to over-rule scientists on such things as which plant and animal species to include on the "Endangered Species" list, which natural habitats are in critical need of preservation, how to set air and water quality standards, and so on...THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE."

How valid is this? Science determines truths, not value judgements. Science can't determine that it's desirable to preserve all 200+ species of owls.

Placing species on the "Endangered Species" list, deciding which habitats to preserve and setting air and water quality standards are not, or rather should not be value judgements. The loss of certain species can cause sever damage to ecosystems and the best people to judge that are scientists, not politicians. Scientists know better than politicians the effects of habitat destruction, and the effects of air and water pollution upon the body.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mike:


Mr. President, it's a basic principle of science that you can never prove the nonexistence of something that is undetected.

This is supiciously like the addage: "You can't prove a negative", which is incorrect. It is relatively easy to prove a negative, so much so that most of us can do it without breaking into a sweat.

But, even taken at its word, the quoted addage is incorrect, too. Just to take one example, it is possible (indeed, it has been done) to prove there can be no perpertual motion machines.

One of the best ways to defend science is to combat the arrogance of scientists, and to get them to admit they are often wrong. Indeed, the vast majority of scientific theories have been wrong -- but few scientists seem to be aware of that fact. So, based on that fact, there is a very high probability that every theory we hold true today is in fact false.

This is not to defend those who attack science, since their ideas are not just wrong, they are far too confused to make it that far.

At least science can be tested.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Mike:



This is supiciously like the addage: "You can't prove a negative", which is incorrect. It is relatively easy to prove a negative, so much so that most of us can do it without breaking into a sweat.

But, even taken at its word, the quoted addage is incorrect, too. Just to take one example, it is possible (indeed, it has been done) to prove there can be no perpertual motion machines.

One of the best ways to defend science is to combat the arrogance of scientists, and to get them to admit they are often wrong. Indeed, the vast majority of scientific theories have been wrong -- but few scientists seem to be aware of that fact. So, based on that fact, there is a very high probability that every theory we hold true today is in fact false.

This is not to defend those who attack science, since their ideas are not just wrong, they are far too confused to make it that far.

At least science can be tested.
Right. Science can be tested. Like string theory. Wah wah...

Does science need defending? Last time I checked it was kicking the shit out off its two closest competitors, mystical religion and global skepticism. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should let idiots ban teaching evolution or anything, I'm just saying religion has to go psuedo-science to have any traction now days. Give it a hundred years and I'm pretty sure science will be fine. Either that, or we will all be dead.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Reclaimed Something-Or-Other:


Like string theory. Wah wah...

Which is why many scientists do not regard it as a science.

http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/

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

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

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

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

[mikelepore]

Rosa: Of course, the common expression "you can't prove a negative" is incorrect. That's why I said it properly, "you can't prove the nonexistence of undetectable things", which is correct. We can't prove that there are no gods or ghosts or vampires, etc. (Try it.) Saddam couldn't prove the nonexistence of hidden weapons.

[Rascolnikova]

I'm a fan of science, but the statement "defend science" promotes pretends that there can be a practice of science without an ideological/political agenda; I don't find perpetuating that myth helpful.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I'm a fan of science, but the statement "defend science" promotes pretends that there can be a practice of science without an ideological/political agenda; I don't find perpetuating that myth helpful.

I agree with this. This is generally my point. There isn't one science. It's a collection of individuals engaged in various projects. The point about string theory was that since just as subject to dead ends and certain mistakes (like the Sokal Affair). We should be internal critical of science. However, as soon as some outside force begins assaulting its validity (creationism) we should rally behind it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mike:


Rosa: Of course, the common expression "you can't prove a negative" is incorrect. That's why I said it properly, "you can't prove the nonexistence of undetectable things", which is correct. We can't prove that there are no gods or ghosts or vampires, etc. (Try it.) Saddam couldn't prove the nonexistence of hidden weapons.

It is very easy to prove a negative.

In everyday terms, here is an example: someone claims that it's not raining. You look outside and see that it is as dry as a bone, with the Sun blazing out of a cloudless sky. In everyday terms you have just proved it is not raining.

In scientific terms, a scientist claims that the continents are not immobile. Along comes Plate Techtonics which proves the continents are not immobile.

In mathematics, it is possible to prove, say, that the primes do not form a finite set using proof by contradiction.

You probably meant that it is not possible to prove a falsehood, which would be correct.

[benhur]

Mike:



It is very easy to prove a negative.

In everyday terms, here is an example: someone claims that it's not raining. You look outside and see that it is as dry as a bone, with the Sun blazing out of a cloudless sky. In everyday terms you have just proved it is not raining.

In scientific terms, a scientist claims that the continents are not immobile. Along comes Plate Techtonics which proves the continents are not immobile.

In mathematics, it is possible to prove, say, that the primes do not form a finite set using proof by contradiction.

You probably meant that it is not possible to prove a falsehood, which would be correct.

All this is verbal gymnastics. You can't prove a thing that isn't verifiable by perception or inference. It's that simple. The example about rain is flawed, because the person claiming that it's raining has to prove that it's raining. One doesn't have to prove that it isn't. And what of aliens? If one claims there are aliens, how can you prove that there aren't any? If you prove their absence, one can always say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


All this is verbal gymnastics. You can't prove a thing that isn't verifiable by perception or inference. It's that simple. The example about rain is flawed, because the person claiming that it's raining has to prove that it's raining. One doesn't have to prove that it isn't. And what of aliens? If one claims there are aliens, how can you prove that there aren't any? If you prove their absence, one can always say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not so; none of this is "verbal gymnastics". Indeed, scientists use this sort of reasoning all the time.

For example:


"In 2003, at team...[in] Moscow discovered two distant elliptical galaxies just a whisker apart. Detailed analysis of the twins known as CSL-1, suggested that they were images of the same galaxy.

"The team suggested that the duplicate images were being created by a "cosmic string".... If one of these cosmic strings were to pass between Earth and a giant galaxy, the warping of space-time by the string would create a gravitational lens and form two identical images of the galaxy -- exactly like CSL-1....

"Unfortunately for the proponents of cosmic strings, observations with Hubble on 12 January have revealed that CSL-1 is actually two different galaxies...." [New Scientist 189, 2537, 04/02/06, p.21.]

Here, scientists proved that these were not of the same gallaxy, but of two different ones.

Mathematicians like me use proof by contradiction all the time. In this case, the conclusion is the negation of one of the assumptions (as in the proof that the primes are not finite) -- or the Pythagorean proof that the square roots of 2 are not rational.


The example about rain is flawed, because the person claiming that it's raining has to prove that it's raining.

The question here was not "Can we disprove someone else's non-proof?", but "Is it possible to prove a negative", which I have shown is not only possible, it is boringly common.


And what of aliens? If one claims there are aliens, how can you prove that there aren't any? If you prove their absence, one can always say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Once more, the question isn't "Can we prove every negative?" but "Can we prove a negative". As I have shown, we can prove countless negatives. It is a different matter whether we can prove every neagtive, which I have not claimed we can.

Indeed, this thread proves you can't read; yet another negative!

[benhur]

Mathematicians like me use proof by contradiction all the time.

Well, that explains it, then.:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


Well, that explains it, then.

I take it that you do not know what 'Proof by Contradiction' (also called 'Indirect Proof' and 'Reductio ad Absurdam') means, then?

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

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.contradict.html

Scientists and mathematicians have been using this for over 2000 years.

[benhur]

BenHur:



I take it that you do not know what 'Proof by Contradiction' (also called 'Indirect Proof' and 'Reductio ad Absurdam') means, then?

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

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.contradict.html (http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/%7Elarryc/proofs/proofs.contradict.html)

Scientists and mathematicians have been using this for over 2000 years.

By your own admission, not every negative can be proved. And that's the whole point, isn't it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


By your own admission, not every negative can be proved. And that's the whole point, isn't it?

What "admission"?

Once more, can't you read?


the question isn't "Can we prove every negative?" but "Can we prove a negative". As I have shown, we can prove countless negatives. It is a different matter whether we can prove every neagtive, which I have not claimed we can.

[benhur]

Rosa,

Please don't dodge the issue by resorting to personal attacks. Answer the question: Can you or can you not prove every negative?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ben:


Please don't dodge the issue by resorting to personal attacks. Answer the question: Can you or can you not prove every negative?

That was no personal attack, just an observation that you can read too well.

And: I have already answered your question.

[Drace]

I don't like the tone used in 'The Statement".


"NO Mr. PRESIDENT, EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT!!" :laugh:

[Rascolnikova]

Rosa,

Please don't dodge the issue by resorting to personal attacks. Answer the question: Can you or can you not prove every negative?

That's silly. Can you prove every positive?

[benhur]

Ben:



That was no personal attack, just an observation that you can read too well.

And: I have already answered your question.

So you admit your mistake.;) Thank you.

[benhur]

That's silly. Can you prove every positive?

Or, you wouldn't call it 'the positive' to begin with. The evidence is implicit.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


So you admit your mistake.

What mistake?

[Rascolnikova]

Or, you wouldn't call it 'the positive' to begin with. The evidence is implicit.

We clearly have different concepts of "positive."