tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3258082.post5772981525699672065..comments2024-01-12T08:44:54.145+00:00Comments on While looking for something else...: On not trusting "the research"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3258082.post-51815302100084396812011-01-04T11:00:13.143+00:002011-01-04T11:00:13.143+00:00Thanks James, but the author of that article naive...Thanks James, but the author of that article naively accepts the existence of the so called decline effect, for which he is to be forgiven as mathematics at his level is really just a branch of philosophy. His philosophical explanations are solid, but there is nothing to explain here. <br /><br />The "Decline Effect" is not (as Paulos thinks) a term coined by Lehrer, but by Beloff, a believer in psychic abilities. When his experiments didn't show the thing he "knew" to exist, and the harder he looked, the smaller was the effect, he assumed science was wrong. Really this is all we need to know about Beloff, but a detailed explanation of the false assumptions underlying his "discovery" can be seen here: http://www.skepdic.com/declineeffect.html<br /><br />So, the only places the so-called effect can be seen is in fringe and pseudo- "sciences" like parapsychology and educational research.<br /><br />Contrary to the imaginings of scientific illiterates, scientific constants stubbornly remain constant, despite philosophy saying they don't have to. We might add a few decimal places, but acceleration under gravity going from 10 to 9.81 m/s2 shows the power of the scientific method, not any weakness. <br /><br />Here's the thing - Science works, but philosophy (and also maths) unanchored in empirical fact is worthless, producing postmodernist nonsense, and "physics porn" respectively.<br /><br />Sure, Paulos can produce a philosophical explanation for the necessary imperfection of science, but he does it to explain soemthing which doesn't exist, and a skilled philosopher can produce what seems an equally valid argument for science being nonsense. Philosophy can allow us to provide an elegant argument for our unexamined personal prejudices, but it will never get us any closer to the truth. In fact philosophy seems to have despaired of ever finding the truth, and now wishes to spread that despair to more fruitful approaches to enquiry. <br /><br />I'm open minded on this issue - anyone care to point to an example of the decline effect away from fringe science?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3258082.post-74369636754894563812011-01-04T10:30:55.707+00:002011-01-04T10:30:55.707+00:00Latest response to the "Decline Effect" ...Latest response to the "Decline Effect" from John Allen Paulos here: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=12510202James Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12253521286404575829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3258082.post-91551558099467658992010-12-29T11:06:20.726+00:002010-12-29T11:06:20.726+00:00Well done James, and compliments of the season.
&...Well done James, and compliments of the season.<br /><br />"In education it is still possible to do research very cheaply. The same is probably true of mathematics and philosophy" - Is this an example of getting what you pay for? "Research" is all of these fields is cheap because it consists largely of unsupported speculation piled on top of previous unsupported speculation. <br /><br />Whilst Lehrer's article is well written as a document, there is no such thing as the decline effect unless we start (as he clearly does) from the a priori belief that there is such a thing as psychic ability. A complete explanation of the "decline effect" is that there is no such thing, and we are getting better with time at proving it.<br /><br />I know that muddle-headed subjects contaminated with postmodern hogwash remain keen to drag down science to their level, but citing science's failure to prove and explain a non-existent effect as a failure of science? Duh.<br /><br />Science works-anyone who can't see that is wilfully ignorant. Is it perfect? No. Is there a complete absence of bias? No. Does it put more effort into combating these things than any other field of human endeavour? Yes. Is scientific truth consequently the truest truth we have about external phenomena? Of course it is - look around you. That science is true is built into more or less every object you are looking at.<br /><br />There is no scientific method, as philosophers understand it, and the straw man they set in its place would never have done half the things science had done. <br /><br />Educational research is in general worse than useless to the practitioner, as virtually every would-be practitioner quickly learns. They drop any engagement with it the second they are no longer forced into engagement, and engage as little as possible even when forced. This is not because they are stupid and lazy, but because it does not address the questions they have, offer convincing explanations for its "truths", or produce answers which chime with well-examined experience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com