Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

The more we learn how dogs REALLY think, the better we will be able to communicate with them.  So, none of us should be afraid to be wrong, rather we should remain inquisitive.  I want to know more about dogs, and be able to enhance my relationships with them.   But then, I'm an information junkie, and want to know more about a lot of things.  What I don't want is for people to blindly follow, or refuse to let go of, theories in favor of evidence.

Right on.  I think listening to a scientist like Gopnick on infant behavior and further synthesis with other's new neuroscience findings, as well as seeing how what we understood before still has causal explicability -- that is the stuff of creative learning.

I highlighted your last sentence, SD, as I would also note that we always have to be aware that for any 'theory', evidence can be posited as confirmation, yet be wrong due to bias.  The upshot is we should ALWAYS speak in a qualified manner rather than with assertive certainty (this is the stuff of opinion, not fact).  This is how we talk with one another and keep a conversation alive for novelty and creative advance.

The upshot is we should ALWAYS speak in a qualified manner rather than with assertive certainty (this is the stuff of opinion, not fact).

I see the contradiction in what I said, yet it still seems right, IMO.

What you consider parsimonious, is fraught with innumerable assumptions and articles of faith. Whereas if  someone objectively deconstructs their experience of stumbling in a public place, even when completely alone, they can vividly remember the uncomfortable sense of being the object of attention, and hence the negative experience. No pontification can obscure what anyone can apprehend for themselves and other explanations are hopelessly complex and full of internal contradictions.

 Right, you are making a logical argument referenced with some science, (albeit one which lacks a definition of emotion) and which is at some point (or points) predicated on an article of faith or assumptions based on personal experiences and the powers of observation. Likewise I am making a logical argument referenced with some science and articles of faith/assumptions (although I am arguing it is populated with far fewer because it is based on a definition of emotion). So either we both fail the phoney/baloney Sagan test, or we both pass.

Infants, certainty, temperament, neuroscience and Kagan

 http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2007/04/aim_20070421.mp3

 Thanks for the link and also a point about certainty. Sooner or later one has to be certain about something. Our modern overly intellectualized age is so enamored of irony, no one wants to be certain about anything. The problem is that nature abhors a vacuum, and into this void no matter how smart one might think they are, the default settings impose themselves on the mind. I'm not particularly well read in the classics but I do recall one ancient Greek expression in this regard, "The Furies attack through the very faculty that denies their existence."
.

poodleOwned

So the challenge is to work with us, to change what is rubbish and find out what is good. I think that what you may face is pure naked fear. What if what you say isn't right? What say you need to find other answers to how you work that explains for you what you do? In my book the really big person is the one that says "look i think that i got this wrong and i need to change what i am saying and doing in these areas"..

Early on I learned the value of checking and verifying findings and having the courage to ask from your own research what you demand from others. The value of documentation, verification and independent duplication cannot be over emphasized when it comes to testing the validity of one's ideas.

 As a young summer student I worked for 3 months looking for a protein that kept showing up on the results but looked anomalous to the PI - "too good"  There was discussion as to whether this was an artifact or not. This blot showed up even when the PI himself did the job to check on his RA's work. Did the PI discover something new? 

My job was to isolate it and characterize it  After weeks and weeks and weeks of work; looking and repeating the previous tech's work I was able to track down the origin to a synergistic combination of improperly stored reagents and a seemingly insignificant (at least from a logical standpoint) change in the written protocols.   I never would have been able to do so without the exquisitely detained notes kept by the previous tech. The PI was willing to ask hard questions from his results and have a lowly B.Sc. summer student tech check his work.

 If Behan had been in charge, the answer would have been yes, and he would have demanded that the rest of the world adjust their thinking to accommodate his error.  Science works differently. 

It's also a lesson I took to my own career, it makes the techs happy to know their work and input is valued - and makes my work better.

 "The Furies attack through the very faculty that denies their existence."

This argues for skeptical vigilence over dogmatic certainty (ala, denies).  Kagan, Gopnick, and posters here all argue for the probabilistic test of a theory against known evidence.  Today, theory X is most probable given evidence a, b, and c, but tomorrow, theory Y may seem more probable given a, b, c, and new evidence d, e, and f.

corgidog

@themilkway you take the bait, hook line and sinker everytime!

Kevin Behan

What you consider parsimonious, is fraught with innumerable assumptions and articles of faith. Whereas if  someone objectively deconstructs their experience of stumbling in a public place, even when completely alone, they can vividly remember the uncomfortable sense of being the object of attention, and hence the negative experience. No pontification can obscure what anyone can apprehend for themselves and other explanations are hopelessly complex and full of internal contradictions.

So you keep saying but when pressed for details you cower in the corner?  Then again you spout crap like 'uncontrollable urge' when you read 'selective imitation' but when pressed you can't explain how you came up with it.

Why haven't you been able to come up with a scheme to test NDT?

 BTW, it's not just me. OTOH, only you and the poor victims believe what you say.

Kevin Behan

 Right, you are making a logical argument referenced with some science, (albeit one which lacks a definition of emotion) and which is at some point (or points) predicated on an article of faith or assumptions based on personal experiences and the powers of observation. Likewise I am making a logical argument referenced with some science and articles of faith/assumptions (although I am arguing it is populated with far fewer because it is based on a definition of emotion). So either we both fail the phoney/baloney Sagan test, or we both pass.

Network consciouness = Faith

Phyiscal memory = Faith

Emotional center of gravity = Faith

Every aspect of NDT is based on your emotional beliefs.  The Hypocrisy inherent in your posts is mind boggling.

 As far as baloney, you fail every time.  And what Burl proposes cannot be characterized as baloney for the reasons outlined in the very first post.

Kevin Behan

Sooner or later one has to be certain about something.

NO. Certainty is for those who peddle religion like you.  Two quotes from Feynman

"We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty. People are terrified–how can you live and not know? It is not odd at all. You can think you know, as a matter of fact. And most of your actions are based on incomplete knowledge and you really don't know what it is all about, or what the purpose of the world is, or know a great deal of other things. It is possible to live and not know."

"It you thought that science was certain -- well, that is just an error on your part"

However this doesn't mean we can't have facts, as Gould points out.

 "In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

Kevin Behan

The problem is that nature abhors a vacuum

Pathetic fallacy. Nature doesn't abhor anything... it can't  And the universe is at least 99.999999999999999999999999% vacuum. I won't speak for Nature, but it seems to me that Behan abhors knowledge.

TheMilkyWay

Kevin Behan

Sooner or later one has to be certain about something.

 

NO. Certainty is for those who peddle religion like you.  Two quotes from Feynman

 

"We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty. People are terrified–how can you live and not know? It is not odd at all. You can think you know, as a matter of fact. And most of your actions are based on incomplete knowledge and you really don't know what it is all about, or what the purpose of the world is, or know a great deal of other things. It is possible to live and not know."

"It you thought that science was certain -- well, that is just an error on your part"

However this doesn't mean we can't have facts, as Gould points out.

 "In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”

Very good description of healthy agnosticism.  My PhD advisor's favorite way of stating this was "Everything is random [probabilistic] and non-linear."  And this is in probably the most deterministic branch of engineering there is - structures.

It's refreshing to hear that those here on this forum are not certain that sexuality is fundamentally about procreation, that behavior is not fundamentally about survival and competition over resources, that thinking is the most parsimonious explanation for complex intelligent behavior, that learning is not the direct result of material reinforcement, and therefore are open to those who are willing to question these assumptions.