Pages

04 January 2012

Accusations of Sophistry

wawei67 You claimed:
I didn't post anything cause I"m tired of it all and don't believe your sophistry would accept anything regarding the proof of homeopathy's efficacy (I really don't!). You're 'analysis' of what I posted was entirely your point of view smothering the fraud that is peer-review studies (or any studies) of H. And DON'T STRIVE to BE anything!!! Just be open minded and OBSERVE the fucking world!!! Is that so hard to do with you people???
  1. Sophistry is a pretty serious charge to make. I don't take it lightly and neither should you make it lightly. If my logic has ever been in error, it was never deliberately so.
  2. You're "tired of it all". Well I'm not feeling all that refreshed either, but if you're going to make a claim, you've got to put the effort into backing it up with evidence. Forget anecdotal evidence though.
  3. I smothered the fraud that is peer-review? If you're referring to that article that RebornHammer posted as "proof" that peer-review was corrupt may I remind you of some small details:
    1. RebornHammer claimed the article made a certain claim.
    2. I read the article and said that it made a different claim.
    3. RebornHammer accused me of not even reading the article.
    4. I demonstrated that I did indeed read the article and that it said exactly what I claimed it said.
    5. RebornHammer admitted to not reading the article and even seem to think it was a point-of-pride to have not read it.
    6. The irony of RebornHammers actions was so poignant that I took a screenshot. Of the two of us it was RebornHammer, not I, that committed sophistry.
  4. "...DON'T STRIVE to BE anything!!!" Okay, I have no idea what you mean by that. Could you please be so kind as to explain in the comments section below when you answer?
  5. "Just be open minded and OBSERVE..." Right, simply observing is not doing science. What are you looking for? How will you know it when you see it? What can you do to make sure that you're seeing actual phenomena and are not just fooling yourself? Can others repeat your results or verify the observed phenomena in other settings? How can you relay your methodology and results to others? Who do you know that can check your work or figures? How do your results fit in with what we already know? etc.... These questions and more are what real scientists have to answer. If science were just all about observing it would never progress.
Here's a story I'd like to share with you now. I can't remember exactly how the story goes so I might get some of the details wrong. Perhaps you or another reader can provide a link to the original story.

"An elderly man in his late sixties decided that he wanted to make his contribution to science. Everyday at precisely 12:00 he'd sit himself down by the window of his apartment overlooking the busy street below. He'd record the number of people entering and leaving the stores, the time they did so, their sex, apparent age, apparent weight, etc.... The man continued doing this for next twenty odd years up till the day he got to weak to from infirmity to do so any more.

"On his deathbed the elderly man asked that it be put in his will that his contribution be given to the scientific community. After the elderly man's death the executor brought the elderly man's contribution to the local university and handed it to one of the head scientists. The head scientist looked through the contribution and give it back to the executor shaking her head sadly. "I'm sorry," said the scientist, "But there's nothing we can use in there. They're just lists of numbers and other data. This is not science.""

Now I ask you, why wasn't what the elderly man did science? Think about that and what I just discussed.