Posts tagged ‘con-science’

Bad science

May 5th, 2007

If there was a commandment for “(really) good liars” it might be: You shall not use fallacious arguments. A “bad liar” — heck, who would not want to be bad from time to time — might just as well juggle with fallacies, and hope for the listeners logical illiteracy.

The Fallacy Files is one of Internet’s finest collection of examples of fallacious reasoning, see for instance “appeals to ignorance“. Moreover, Fallacy Files comes with a weblog, a comprehensive taxonomy of logical fallacies, and more.

Bad Science is the tempting apple that does not fall far from the tree of fallacious reasoning. “If you ever doubted the dangers of fallacious reasoning” says Gary N. Curtis, author of the Fallacy Files, you should read Losing the Lottery by Ben Goldacre, “guardian” of Bad Science.

If you’re unlucky enough, fallacious reasoning could put you behind bars for the rest of your life for “murders” you didn’t commit, and which in fact may not be murders at all.
Gary N. Curtis, Fallacy Files

A nurse called Lucia de Berk has been in prison for 5 years in Holland, convicted of 7 counts of murder and 3 of attempted murder. An unusually large number of people died when she was on shift (…)
Ben Goldacre, Bad Science

If I myself was only safe from fallacy.

Not explaining explanation

October 30th, 2006

How can we explain explanation? Of course, dictionaries explain explanation. With ease, and without a word about self-reference. Though, implicitly (they explain a lot).

I wonder whether they have to in order to sell. Like scientists need to stick to objectivity in order to get funded. (This explains a hell of a lot.)

So, we can explain explanation (like we can think about thinking). Imagine we cannot. — I can’t. Now explain that you cannot!

I cannot explain why I cannot explain that I cannot explain. This is my explanation.

Wanna be a scientist?

June 5th, 2006

Check that your criterions are bleeding edge. Be conscious about what you are doing. Define your science. Analyze your methods. Discuss the results, but draw clear distinctions. Exert precision.

Go ahead, take the scissors. Make sure your knifes are sharp. Be careful not to cut yourself, though. And, beware of dichotomies. Cut through them. Eventually, consider philosophy of science. Cut the scissors.

Please, do not hurt anyone. Yes, this includes yourself.

Warning: Conscience ahead

April 15th, 2006

Conscience is the inner voice that warns us
somebody may be looking.

— H. L. Mencken

Trapped in a feedback loop

March 3rd, 2006
a pair of scissors

See what science is named after.

Some say science is about truth. It is not about lies. What could science of science be? The truth about no lies? Says who? And do we know that it is the truth? Isn’t science also about questioning and analysis? Hence, what do we know about analysis of analysis?

Science “refers to a system of acquiring knowledge (…) aimed at finding out the truth” (Wikipedia, 2006-03-03). So we assume that knowledge is not truth. Probably that’s why to know is derived from “view”, as are “vision”, “witness” and the German “Wissen”. What do we know about knowledge?

No, not me. I am a liar.
I am trapped in a feedback loop. Please, don’t cut it!