Science and the Rest Day Discussions

That was a great interview! Great questions and great answers! The precision that is Crossfit is not lost on the mind!

One,
Denny

I really enjoyed this interview. I love to learn about things, all sorts of things and this helped me understand a few things about science and the scientific method. I'm not gonna lie, I'm still pretty much in the dark on a lot of things, but I atleast fell I have a grasp on those few terms that Jeff explained and how each supplaments the former.

Thanks a lot.

Mike Mathers, SrA, USAF

This is another example of the logical fallacy called "argument from authority." The set up of the interview implies that because he is a retired engineer, his point about the precise use of words is correct. In fact, this point of view is seriously limited. I love crossfit, but there is a lot of very poor reasoning on this board. "Argument from authority" is one of the most common fallacies I see. Examples are police and military arguing that their point of view about politics, life, the military etc. is correct because they are "experiencing it everyday."

Anyway, consider this: "The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science - i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy." Wittgenstein.

I think this is the premise Jeff started with. He failed to stick to it by forgetting two things: 1 "what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" and 2. politics/philosophy/law are ambiguous things that cannot be precisely defined the way natural science is defined. There is no precision in the language of politics etc.. If Jeff really wants to be precise, he should pass over these topics in silence from now on.

One last thought though. Wittgenstein also said, "my propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical." Now that’s funny.

I'm not sure that this is an authoritative argument. He makes it clear that what he says is not universally accepted; he speaks from his experiences, not from a position of authority.

Love the quotes though.

He's saying that his experience makes him an authority. It's a common problem on the board.

Agree to disagree (though I would absolutely agree that it's a common problem on almost any discussion board). He says, verbatim, "I'd like to give you a caveat to what I've written and what I'll say to you know, it doesn't have universal acceptance in the scientific community..." his discussion (here at least), is focused more on scientific jargon anyway, and surviving in a room filled with scientists. This preface, I believe, provides it with some immunity to being labeled as a fallacy.

Regardless, how is it then, that someone is supposed to acquire authority if not through experience or formal education? By the way, I think the term 'formal' education is bullocks. (I'm asking this as an honest question, because it's something that I've considered and never conclusively answered for myself).

In support of your argument though, it's obvious that he has failed to use precise enough language in the interview to dispel any ambiguity in interpretation, as is evidenced by the existence of this conversation...

The Gift,

He says no such thing. I listened to the video twice searching for that claim.

You've confused your interpretation for the reality of the conversation/interview.

The real "problem on the board" is people, luckily very few, making things up.

The claim that “Argument with authority” is a fallacy is startling and self-contradictory, and that is illogical, transcending mere fallacies. Contradiction is the fatal consequence of fallacies. The Gift relies on the authority of Wittgenstein to establish his authoritative skill to analyze arguments. Therefore, by his argument everything he says is fallacious. Not bad, come to think of it.

The Gift suggests the arguments of police and military about police and military matters are fallacious because they have relevant experience -- because they might know what they're talking about.

Wittgenstein was an engineer -- everyone's a philosopher.

The Gift is not far off the mark either, in at least one school of thought. He is supported by the writings of Paul Feyerabend. See especially his “Farewell to Reason” and “Against Method”, full cites on Wikipedia. Feyerabend is widely regarded as an irrationalist. Authority: Google the word “irrationalists” and just skim the paper by D. C. Stove, currently the first Google hit (philosopher vs. philosopher). Feyerabend infected the teaching of philosophy, especially at the University of California campuses. He is the darling of the anti-technologist branch of the left; he is against rational thought.

The fallacy of “argument with authority” would mean the argument fails because the arguer relied on experience, a witness, or a dictionary. This is deconstructionism: “a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text”. http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/decon-body.html. It is bizarre.

If The Gift meant instead, argument BY authority, I would agree. That is indeed a fallacy, and one against which I rail with great regularity - proof by credentials. It is the fallacy never more flagrantly advanced than in claim that anthropogenic global warming is to any extent proved by support from a consensus of scientists.

With vs. by -- what a difference lies within the tiniest word!

I took one premise into the interview with Tony, not the one surmised by The Gift, but the same one I use in argument and in science every day -- we first agree to be rational.

Dear Jeff,

Take a look at my post again. I wrote "Argument FROM authority," not "WITH authority." What a difference lies within the tiniest word indeed.

It may be somewhat embarrassing to you that you spent time trying to discredit my argument b/c I used the incorrect word when all the while you were misquoting me, but I will concede that "By authority" would have been a better choice.

I have to clarify another point that Jeff assumed from my post. I did not mean that police or military persons are not experts in daily police and military experience. I believe they are and respect them and the difficult things they do. But there is a difference between being an expert in military or police “life” and being an authority on whether the war in Iraq is the right thing to do or is going well. A soldier is an expert on military "life," not the latter. Though anyone may have an opinion. The fallacy of “argument BY authority” is not committed if you are an “expert” speaking about the thing you are an expert on. In other words, Jeff would be qualified to speak about engineering, but not the science of global warming.

For instance, when Jeff made the claim, “It is the fallacy never more flagrantly advanced than in claim that anthropogenic global warming is to any extent proved by support from a consensus of scientists” it would have been a fallacy of “Argument by authority” had he implied that this statement is true b/c he is an engineer. I don’t think he meant to imply that, so he is safe this time. I am using this to illustrate my point.

My apologies to The Gift for misquoting him. His phrase “argument from” is stronger and not so easily criticized as my erroneous replacement, “argument with”.

However, the point to be made remains. It is the distinction between argument and expert opinion.

Argument is resolved by logic, reason, and truth. Expert opinion is about trust, belief, and reliance. If you accept an argument as true because an expert proclaimed it, you have surrendered the intellectual field of objectivity for emotion and subjectivity. Sometimes that is a necessity, as in the jury box or from a hospital gurney. But Global warming, economics, product testing, and strategy are not validated by experts.

I do not put myself forward as an expert to justify any proposition or argument -- ever.

Any argument claiming validity because it has the support of a consensus is outside science. It is an argument by authority, and so fallacious. AGW is the current raging example.

I disagree with The Gift when he says that argument by authority is not a fallacy. An expert should be able to put forth the best argument in his field, even if it he were to do so anonymously.

Experts make as many errors as most anyone else, and appear even more foolish in the bargain. James E. Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are experts in climatology, and as wrong as novices about AGW for their lack of science literacy. They have become activists for a cause and a belief system. Science is not about belief systems.

Here are some additional, cross-field activist candidates, including Nobel laureates acting foolishly: William Shockley on human genetics; Linus Pauling on vitamins; Carl Sagan on nuclear winter from Kuwait oil fires; Bertrand Russell, Benjamin Spock, and Noam Chomsky on warfare and world politics. These recognized experts in science proved themselves unable to apply the objectivity of science to another field. Science is the objective branch of knowledge.

o.k. I can't resist sharing what I've found. Argument by authority, according to a website Jeff referenced i.e. Wikipedia, is also known as "argument from authority." Here's the link. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

I thought I was right about the name of the fallacy, but Jeff confused me when he misquoted me.

It is ironic that Jeff made this mistake because he argued that "One of the foundations of the scientific method . . . is precision in language. This is essential; ambiguity and unclear terms muddy the discussion and make rational process impossible." When Jeff was careless with words and misquoted me in his response to my post, he “muddied the conversation.”

Of course, that isn’t the reason he is wrong when he assumes that you can apply the precision of the scientific method to the discourses of philosophy, politics or law (I agree the scientific method can and should be applied to any discussion of fitness). It’s just funny that he made that mistake.

Jeff,

Just saw your new post. I agree with your comments about experts for the most part. I'll take you on your word that you don't put yourself forward as an expert to justify your position.

I'll try to explain again. I thought you implied it by starting the interview with the biographical information that you are/were an engineer and then proceeding to discuss the scientific method and its potential application to other, non-scientific discourses. As a listener, I assumed that you were speaking about something you knew a great deal about; you spent your career preparing and supervising the preparation of written documents that had to meet precise standards. I apologize for confusing your meaning. I see now that this biographical information was just for the listener's curiosity and wasn’t meant to assert that you know anything about the scientific method or how it can be applied in other fields. Again, it’s my misunderstanding.

Language is difficult to pin down and many meanings can result. This discussion is an example of my conclusion. There is a beauty in how precise language is in physics and mathematics. Sadly, it refuses to be so precise outside these fields.

Re-Gifting:

1. Quoting Wikipedia except in criticism of it is not advisable. As I said in the interview with Tony, Wikipedia is the Web organized. Wikipedia is descriptive, not proscriptive. It's a good starting point, but has too much unreliable data to settle anything. My use of Wikipedia, which The Gift underscored, was mechanical and not authoritative. It did no more than point the reader to convenient full citations for some articles.

2. Science is the objective branch of knowledge, distinguishable by application of the scientific method. Engineering and basic science are the two mutually exhaustive branches of science. Both apply the scientific method equally to objects and processes in the Real World. The difference is that engineering models manmade things, and basic science models natural things. Both have the job of adjusting their models to fit the Real World. The operative difference in the practice of the two is that engineers alone have the advantage of being able to revise their part of the Real World to fit the models. In the course of their practice, engineers often have to solve basic science problems.

3. Science is widely regarded as philosophy, especially among philosophers. Many universities offering doctorates in engineering refer to the degree as Doctor of Philosophy, and some with justification, as I learned from UCLA.

4. I neither made nor implied the assumption Gifted to me: that the precision of the scientific method applies outside science. My book, Evolution in Science, shows how the scientific method may be organized in four parts: Foundations, Discovery, Creativity, and Validation, where Part I, Foundations, includes language, logic, and mathematics.

I contend that to the extent other fields involve language, precision is necessary if discourse, meaning the communication of thought, is to have meaning. Precision would stifle the sharing of mental images, emotions, or senses, as with impressions of nature, art, poetry, music, wine, the meaning of life, or whether the Real World or scientific method exists. None of these involve the precision the scientific method requires for observations and facts.

Everyday we experience discourse proceeding without definitions - sadly, as The Gift observes.

5. To be precise, my misquote was an error of accuracy, not, as The Gift suggests, of precision. A principle of the scientific method is that every measurement has an error. Scientists live with error, and thrive in spite of it. Lawyers, politicians, and activists thrive on it.

6. For those, like The Gift, who insist on relying on credentials over facts and logic, I offer the following few biographical amplifications. Evolution in Science was based on my experience at Hughes Aircraft Company, and it is about the scientific method. For a decade and a half of that employment, I occupied the highest technical position in company profit and loss centers: Division Chief Scientist. In that capacity, I regularly cross-trained engineers and basic scientists in one another's fields. The documents The Gift mentions and for which I was ultimately responsible, included Research & Development proposals and reports in the basic science fields of electromagnetic and acoustic propagation in gas, liquids, and solids, and thermal properties of solid state devices.

The Gift, I like your quotes. I have a certain interest in Wittgenstein. This coming fall I plan to begin my dissertation on the Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus. The last quote you provided is from the Tractatus. Wittgenstein is making a philosophical point about the limits of logic ( as well as the precision that certain sciences demand-especially those which privilege mathematical understanding) in the face of the ethical. This quote should probably not be broadly applied to his work.

As it pertains to the subject, I have an appreciation for Jeff Glassman's attention to logical argumentation. However, there are certain concepts he would do well to unpack in the #4 second paragraph of his last comment. "Precision" would need further clarification especially when J Glassman asserts, "I contend that to the extent other fields involve language, precision is necessary if discourse, meaning the communication of thought, is to have meaning." There are all sorts of problems with this statement. To wit, the notion that-given the premise-meaning is conferred because of precision suggests that language has no meaning without precision. I may be me inclined to agree if the term field denotes those disciplines that are a part of the western philosophical tradition which place primacy of truth on epistemological values (university culture). Otherwise, his assertion is simply too broad and would not bear out beyond those practices which share in the commitment to the legacy of the Enlightenment values and its very particular notion of rationality. In the end, Glassman would have to say.

#2 - The statement that "science is the objective branch of knowledge" is parasitic on the sense of objectivity supplied by science. I am not sure JG would disagree with my observation, but by the same turn one would have to admit that to make the original statement seems odd and rather circular. If, on the other hand, Glassman is suggesting that the sense of objectivity is prior science (and I would agree) then he would need to submit that the objectivity he speaks of (the scientific) is a peculiar and particular instantiation of objectivity, not part and parcel. As a result, science may not co-opt and fix the meaning of objectivity for all. Here I am thinking of the objectivity of the Ancient poets, the Presocratics, Pyrrhonian skeptics, Academic Skeptics, Plato, the Sophists, the Solipsist, Ciceor down through to contemporary philosophy, poets, writers, and various thinkers.

In the end, what frustrates discourse is the various senses at play in our language. To speak of "objectivity," "science," and "precision" as if there is one fixed sense to rule them all is to ignore context, specialization, technical uses, ordinary uses, etc. Perhaps among the greatest lessons Aquinas left us with is that words very rarely have a univocal meaning.

On number 3, I sadly AGREE. This is in fact the case in most graduate schools of philosophy, that is the conflating of science and philosophy, especially that of mathematically based philosophy. Anglo philosophy (the analytic tradition) has abandoned the contemplative as nonsense (Wittgenstein is rather germane here). The sense of non-sense is technical and has a place in semiotic and formal logic, nonetheless a mere place holder. As an philosopher, I hope the tide will turn.

Great discussion gentlemen, I would add that based on outside observation that, as I look at that this discussion I notice a couple of things. As a acting scientist and a Engineer(Dr. Glassman) and columnist(The Gift) trade cordial statements back and forth neither gave observation and evidence that would allow one to make a conclusion toward either point. Since the first thing that you learn and one of the first class taught to Engineers is a class in communication, I was looking for more evidence based on observation and evidence that could be used to determine what would benefit the reader. Not that a individual was mis-quoted or mis-stated another. Since most readers come to their own conclusion based on their life experiences and training/schooling. I would ask both to provide more in the area of evidence and observation to their points so that we the other readers may make a better decision about the information. I will say great reading from a philosophical point.