tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post4497719013199820216..comments2024-03-19T09:06:21.507-04:00Comments on Irtiqa: Are there “universally human” traits?Salman Hameedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04327330113822656571noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-9431700207202281852010-10-07T17:39:19.910-04:002010-10-07T17:39:19.910-04:00Thanks and best wishes to you too, NidhalThanks and best wishes to you too, NidhalAlinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-39282167220899283862010-10-06T09:10:19.566-04:002010-10-06T09:10:19.566-04:00Good points, Ali.
I'm sure we'll get more ...Good points, Ali.<br />I'm sure we'll get more chances to explore these issues in the future.<br />Best wishes.Nidhal Guessoumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638764091228065424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-18514362630840964032010-10-06T02:40:59.718-04:002010-10-06T02:40:59.718-04:00I haven't read Pigliucci's book.
There o...I haven't read Pigliucci's book. <br /><br />There obviously is a danger in limiting the definition of science -- it excludes some of the important and at least one of the most expensive forms of science we are doing. <br /><br />Of course, SETI is science. To say otherwise cannot be justified. <br />But if SETI is science, everything else that fits into the same criteria is also science. <br /><br />"Still, one has to be careful with allowing into Science areas where claims can never be proven wrong (like all kinds of new-age fields and effects...)."<br />This is where I disagree. <br />You cannot use the same yardstick and not measure two things in the same way. <br /><br />We need to attempt to prove "claims that can never be proven wrong." That they can never be proven wrong is an assumption we are making. Some people made the assumption and proved that we have an eternal universe. They also thought that they cannot be proven wrong. But we all know what happened. :)Alinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-62244466547501020162010-10-05T11:06:45.761-04:002010-10-05T11:06:45.761-04:00Hi Ali,
Regarding SETI, Pigliucci discusses it at ...Hi Ali,<br />Regarding SETI, Pigliucci discusses it at some length, in connection to Popper's falsifiability criterion: since we cannot set up an experiment that will give a negative answer ("falsify" the claim of the existence of aliens), then SETI is not a real science, at least according to Popper. On the other hand, SETI uses bona fide scientific methodology, is naturalistic, objective, universal in its work, etc. Still, one has to be careful with allowing into Science areas where claims can never be proven wrong (like all kinds of new-age fields and effects...).Nidhal Guessoumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638764091228065424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-16913965390440381862010-10-05T03:33:38.721-04:002010-10-05T03:33:38.721-04:00Hi Nidhal,
"First, the WEIRD subjects DO liv...Hi Nidhal,<br /><br />"First, the WEIRD subjects DO live in the "right-angled (western) environments", and it's not clear to anyone whether such environments are "better" (for what purposes?)."<br />Ok. I actually thought otherwise. But, never mind. <br />In my comment above, the word 'weird' is to be read as 'weird' not as the acronym. I shouldn't have used capital letters.<br /><br />Science has been defined a number of ways, i heard. But more importantly, some psychological findings make me wonder whether we are anything close to what reality is. People seem to make theories and do all sorts of experiments, surveys and research to find out various psychological findings. Or so they say. To me, sometimes they looked more like something cooked up. So the minute someone says psychological research findings, I normally run for miles. <br /><br />About Piglliuchi's views ....<br />If science is naturalism, theory and empiricism, SETI is not science proper. It is more like pseudo-science. (oops, that makes it worse than 'almost science'). <br /><br />How can SETI be science when it has no naturalism, no theory and no empiricism? <br />I think at best ESTI is based on a speculation. Which means it is not even a theory. Now, you can add Drake eqation to argue otherwise. But thats hardly adding any theory, I think. :)Alinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-9846243447530881342010-10-05T02:42:33.238-04:002010-10-05T02:42:33.238-04:00Hi Ali,
Thanks for your comments. I need to bring ...Hi Ali,<br />Thanks for your comments. I need to bring some clarifications and add my views on your remarks regarding psychology.<br />First, the WEIRD subjects DO live in the "right-angled (western) environments", and it's not clear to anyone whether such environments are "better" (for what purposes?). And whether Pythagoras's world was "right-angled" or more "round-shaped" is a good question for historians.<br />Now, is psychology a "real" science, and does it tell us things that we do not know? You may recall that I reviewed Massimo Pigliucci's recent book in the summer, where he tries to determine the "demarcation line" between real science and non-science. He concludes that there are gray areas in between, fields he calls "almost science" and "pseudo-science". Furthermore, he stressed that what all scientific investigations have in common is three elements: naturalism, theory, and empiricism. By this criterion, psychology cannot be said to be a "real science", at least not yet, but perhaps it can be classified as an "almost science". Clearly we can see that it makes progress on the objectivity scale, but it also finds that many of the conclusions reached in the field are constantly in need of revision, first and foremost because it seems to be weak on the "universal" scale. When its experiments ("empiricism") become more solidly universal and objective (not depending on the subjects), and when it becomes able to provide explanations for its findings ("theory"), then it will become a real science. <br />Hope this makes sense.Nidhal Guessoumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638764091228065424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38085367.post-23667860430456444592010-10-04T15:34:11.259-04:002010-10-04T15:34:11.259-04:00"I’m glad that my fondness for sweets is a ty..."I’m glad that my fondness for sweets is a typical, universal trait…"<br /><br />And I'm wondering whether I am superhuman!!!! :) <br />(I am not fond of sweets.)<br /><br />Interesting post Nidhal. <br />Isn't psychology the most open subject? I think anything cann fit in there. I think what they say is human psychology depends on who is making the theory. <br /><br />I think it can also be said that people from an "environment filled with right angles" are better than those from WEIRD environments. Do we need a psychologist to tell us that? :) <br /><br />The right andgled environment makes me wonder whther Pythagoras was educated there.Alinoreply@blogger.com