Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

Kevin Behan

Agreed, great site. Interesting list of crackpots

CARL SAGAN: As a youngster who was fascinated by the possibility of time travel in science fiction, to be in any way involved in, in the possible actualization of time travel is, it just brings goose bumps.

[Here Dr. Sagan is acting like a wild-eyed "Trekkie". I feel sorry for the man.]

 

If author is right, I'm proud to have flunked the Carl Sagan phony-baloney test. 

 

 

 

This is what HE actually writes in Demon Haunted World.:

" My interest in science was maintained through all those school years by reading books and magazines on science fact and fiction."

a couple of pages later

"Pseudoscience is easier to contrive than science, because distracting confrontations with reality - where we cannot control the outcome of the comparison - are more readily avoided. The standards of argument, what passes for evidence, are much more relaxed. In part for these same reasons, it is much easier to present pseudoscience to the general public than science. "

 Ever since probabilistic analysis of 'data' became science, I wonder what distinguishes science from pseudoscience.

 Does caffeine ward off cancer of the bladder, or cause it?  Given two separate articles submitted to the JAMA (medical journal), two separate refereed studies on 1000 + 1 data samples can give statically verified, and opposing, conclusions.

After spending most of our adult lives hearing and reading such contradictory science, you can appreciate Charles Schultz (Peanuts comic) saying "I always believe the last thing someone told me about any subject."

Richard Rorty is the recently deceased famous American Pragmatist philosopher who concluded that philosophy and science are both a waste of time w/r getting at 'the truth', 'the actual nature of reality.'  On his view, following Kant, we cannot ever know the 'transcendent reality of the noumena,' the 'things in themselves' - our minds are not structured for it. All we are equipped with is the epistemic ability to grasp the 'phenomena,' the 'things as they appear.'

Mathematics as the language of disclosure of the 'things in themselves' does seem to leave us estranged from them.

 Again from Demon Haunted World, Sagan makes the distinction not about the conclusion but the approach.

Pseudoscience differs from erroneous science. Science thrives on
errors, cutting them away one by one. False conclusions are drawn
all the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypotheses are
framed so they are capable of being disproved. A succession of
alternative hypotheses is confronted by experiment and observation.
Science gropes and staggers toward improved understanding.
Proprietary feelings are of course offended when a scientific
hypothesis is disproved, but such disproofs are recognized as
central to the scientific enterprise.

Pseudoscience is just the opposite. Hypotheses are often framed
precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a
prospect of disproof, so even in principle they cannot be invalidated.
Practitioners are defensive and wary. Sceptical scrutiny is opposed.
When the pseudoscientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists,
conspiracies to suppress it are deduced.

 In it he also addresses this concept of "truth" and science. 

However, in accord with our understanding of human fallibility,
heeding the counsel that we may asymptotically approach the
truth but will never fully reach it.

 

I think that there is a significant population of crackpot conspiratists who invent language to describe things that are quite passe in science terms. They usually occupy wierd liitle niches. One is what we call the golden ears brigade. (some audiophiles) we find that elctrons flow up hill much better than down, and that unipolar copper leads have polarity. One is often remined of placebos and placebo effect.

 The langauge of science is often maths. It is not science itself.  One learns to appareciate it's neccesity if you have ever had to wade through pages of bad english language meant to describe something new, and then discover it is plain old hat.

I think that large parts of NDT have been around before. We keep on hearing about "Attraction" or apprach vs avoidance, a view presented by Skinner himself, and reported by Panksepp.

I guess that is where the failing is, in the wonder of seeming so different it is so passe. You can see many trainers doing the same things. Whithout the elaborate collars, i might move much the same with much the same kind of dogs. But the confused theory leads to confused praxis. i acknowledge the tole of aversives, i don't shy away from this. I use rewards, i don't call them moose droppings. :) I am a strong advocate of play with my dogs and others. I actively encourage and teach people to track theri dogs.

I am not that far off the mainstream positve axis at all, in fact i tend to free shape even more than those who might choose to ignore what people working in the emotional space of mammals are saying . 

 

So after 40 odd pages i am getting ready for yet another round..... 

 

Messier110

 Again from Demon Haunted World, Sagan makes the distinction not about the conclusion but the approach.

Pseudoscience differs from erroneous science. Science thrives on
errors, cutting them away one by one. False conclusions are drawn
all the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypotheses are
framed so they are capable of being disproved. A succession of
alternative hypotheses is confronted by experiment and observation.
Science gropes and staggers toward improved understanding.
Proprietary feelings are of course offended when a scientific
hypothesis is disproved, but such disproofs are recognized as
central to the scientific enterprise.

Pseudoscience is just the opposite. Hypotheses are often framed
precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a
prospect of disproof, so even in principle they cannot be invalidated.
Practitioners are defensive and wary. Sceptical scrutiny is opposed.
When the pseudoscientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists,
conspiracies to suppress it are deduced.

 In it he also addresses this concept of "truth" and science. 

However, in accord with our understanding of human fallibility,
heeding the counsel that we may asymptotically approach the
truth but will never fully reach it.

 

Thanks.  This was quite helpful. 

Thanks for the link, Burl. It explained from the other direction what I was saying. How could Einstein's summations about light hold water when his theory invalidates the standard of time by which C exists? That is, he wishes all to be explained by a physical process. Unified theory, indeed.

And part of my contention, as well. A number of people can get a grant to "prove" Einstein and go broke trying to "disprove" him. Because the people involved are just as subject to politics and economics as they envision themselves not to be.

I have a basic understanding of math. Yes, I have studied single and multivariable calculus, linear equations, linear algebra, n-space geometry, riemannian space geometry, topology. I have seen some of the work of Paul Dirac, who claims to have an equation that shows that gravity is a continously diminishing constant based on the "theory," of an expanding universe, which is also predicated on a theory of the "Big Bang." We build the Hubble and think that it shows us all there is to see. It is the equivalent of looking through the bottom of a soda bottle and claiming we now know everything there is to know. How arrogant. And misled.

Anyway, I invite anyone with a basic understanding of math and how it relates or doesn't relate to physics to read that link. And yes, math is the easiest way to express physics. But it is also the easiest way to express fantasy, which was my point earlier. Just because a math expression is elegant and beautiful, as only a math fiend could appreciate it, doesn't mean it reflects reality or substitutes for reality. And the very problem I have is that, especially for those who support Einstein's theories, they flatly refuse to acknowledge they are violating the very precepts of the math they claim to love in order to support his theory.

Indeed, Einstein's theory was described as a block universe, 100 % deterministic. Which, if you knew Einstein, was to be expected. It is he who stated, "I do not think that God plays dice with the universe." I submit that statement to be deterministic, as well. Just because he did not practice judaism past the time of his bar mitzvah does not mean that he did not have a religious faith and it is possible that such faith influenced his thinking on math and physics.

Just as today, many scientists with degrees and everything, are allowing their thinking on science to be influenced by their politics, which includes religious beliefs, as well. For they are also human.

Now, as I try to return to the topic, I noticed Kevin pointed out, "how can we know what a dog is thinking, except through our own interpretation?" Well put. Is the dog deceiving for survival? As compared to what, a human deceiving? Is not the human deceiving for survival, too? That is, first we must prove the standard by which we compare. Prove first that a human is not lying for survival before we can measure whether or not a dog is lying for survival or for what? And is this lying a sign of ToM? ToM as a difference between humans and dogs? Or as a similarity?

 

I guess that is where the failing is, in the wonder of seeming so different it is so passe. You can see many trainers doing the same things. Whithout the elaborate collars, i might move much the same with much the same kind of dogs. But the confused theory leads to confused praxis. i acknowledge the tole of aversives, i don't shy away from this. I use rewards, i don't call them moose droppings. :) I am a strong advocate of play with my dogs and others. I actively encourage and teach people to track theri dogs.

i don't think you are familiar enough with ndt to make these statements. kbehan's book (natural dog training) said for the first time that the hunt is the purpose of sociability and that we should as owners work with and honor this nature in the dog. it also outlined training techniques to this end. kbehan has also been training pretty much since dog training became a profession in the united states. so i do think he speaks with a lot of authority in the realm of the practical application.

you think that it's an issue surrounding language. it is not. "be the moose" means something. it means be the object of attraction in your dogs world. dogs are attracted to prey, the moose being the most attractive prey animal of all. if your dog is attracted to you, your dog will listen to you.

your characterization of "moose droppings" illuminates your lack of understanding concerning ndt. it's a very simple idea but you have been unable to synthesize the theory/method, therefore you don't see the value in the language that kbehan uses.

have you read the natural dog training book?

A few random thoughts.

Kevin asks ‘Why do dogs chase cars’ and ‘Why do they stick their heads out the moving car window’, etc.  Usually, some primitive connection with social hunts or with the planet are given

How about Americans and their football/baseball/basketball.  Or the Europeans, Australians and soccer, or Canadian hockey.

Maybe the sports of our allies and friends with their ground based object of attraction shows a preference for hunting prey that moves on all fours, while the American airborne objects show an affinity for birds, ducks, eagles, etc.   In both cases, the socializing is demonstrated by the flowing beer!

Then there was Hartshorne’s looking into birdsond and concluding its purpose is simply for the fun of it.  And maybe that is what explains the majority of what we do behaviorally (once safety and food are secured).  

It is simply interesting and fun.  It is play.

 

 Is my thinking just preposterous, or might creativity and interesting and fun be built-in to our creaturly DNA?

 

corgidog

I guess that is where the failing is, in the wonder of seeming so different it is so passe. You can see many trainers doing the same things. Whithout the elaborate collars, i might move much the same with much the same kind of dogs. But the confused theory leads to confused praxis. i acknowledge the tole of aversives, i don't shy away from this. I use rewards, i don't call them moose droppings. :) I am a strong advocate of play with my dogs and others. I actively encourage and teach people to track theri dogs.

i don't think you are familiar enough with ndt to make these statements. kbehan's book (natural dog training) said for the first time that the hunt is the purpose of sociability and that we should as owners work with and honor this nature in the dog. it also outlined training techniques to this end. kbehan has also been training pretty much since dog training became a profession in the united states. so i do think he speaks with a lot of authority in the realm of the practical application.

you think that it's an issue surrounding language. it is not. "be the moose" means something. it means be the object of attraction in your dogs world. dogs are attracted to prey, the moose being the most attractive prey animal of all. if your dog is attracted to you, your dog will listen to you.

your characterization of "moose droppings" illuminates your lack of understanding concerning ndt. it's a very simple idea but you have been unable to synthesize the theory/method, therefore you don't see the value in the language that kbehan uses.

have you read the natural dog training book?

 

Moose droppings is an excellent characterizable of Behan's ideas.  It's not just that hes wrong. It;s not just that he ignores facts. It's not just that he relies on methaphors. It's not just that he invents excuses. It's not just that his explanations are nonsensical. It's not just that he invents physics. It's not just that he has no evidence. 

ron2

Any, after digressing, what I see in NDT reminds me of the early days of SR and GR from Einstein. No proof, whatsoever, merely semantics and causal links not verified by data and when those causal links are called into question, well, then, we just have to wait for "science to catch up." But that is the opposite of science. Holding a theory aloft and mashing data to fit the theory, as happens with the lorentzian transforms. That is faith, not science. I'm not knocking faith, I just don't see where it fits in science.

 

I think that SR and GR were always science, at least the theoretical aspect, and maybe protoscience from a pragmatic standpoint. My Garmin Forerunner 305 GPS says its science.

In between science and pseudoscience stands protoscience. NTD is pseudo-explanation. It purports to explain a phenomena, but actually hides behinds it's obscure language, it uses none of it's principles.  Alchemy started as a protoscience, but it became science under the pressure of the evidence.  BBC's 'The Story of Science' touches on this aspect of proto/magic to science. 

themilkyway, the fact that you think it's an excellent characterization only demonstrates how much you do not know. It's that simple.

corgidog

have you read the natural dog training book?

 

 

Yes, i did. I usuallly make it a practice of knowing what i am critical about before i open my mouth. Like getting Tch on my old dog, i know what the experience is.

I kept it until recently acutally. I threw it out along with Kohler and a foul book on tracking by Pattinson.  Kevin's book wasn't of that league at all, just hard to understand

corgidog

it means be the object of attraction in your dogs world. dogs are attracted to prey, the moose being the most attractive prey animal of all. if your dog is attracted to you, your dog will listen to you.

 Sorry to say but the above is also old old hat. No trainer would argue with you except nowadays we would have discussions on Play vs prey. Of course i work to make myself "attractive to my dogs". Any trainer worth  his/her salt does this. I am my dogs source of food, play and a fair bit of enjoyment. This conept is as old as R+ to be honest...

 

 

Burl

Australians and soccer,

 

Soccer is a minority sport in Australia. We prefer really aggressive sports, the two rugbys, The best one is Rugby Union which my birth country is usually ranked world number one, and the lesser which is Rugby League. A bit like Grid Iron without the sissy pads.

There is a third sport AFL (Australian Footbal League) which is spectacular to watch, but is played by grown men wearing tutus, and is sometimes called aerial ping pong.... well to us proud New Zealanders at least. It is really popular in Melbourne.

Nowadays the flow of beer has reduced. In my younger days we indulged in another sport, which was trying to smuggle as much beer as we could into the grounds. Some were pretty primitive. !!! I think we were trying to import the lake for the birds to swim on :)

A feature of New Zealand and Australian winter sports was the very high participation rate. No  matter how good or bad you were there was a team that you could fit into.

The agression could be pretty bad. But the best games were when you had a kind of MAD (mutually assured destruction ) happening. I don't think i have  a limb in my body that isn't carrying a rugby injury.

 PoodleO

 

Good info - I am not a sports fan, and I meant to google my assumption of soccer down under.

 

What do you think is the validity of saying most of what creatures actually do - after securing safety and food - is to follow whatever seems interesting and fun - as I write this, this seems like SEEKING and PLAY