While we might have to be harsh to some people some times, we should more often strive to forge a more rational, ethical world. So, in a response to some ad hominem attacks to a comment I wrote on Facebook, I wrote the following (written initially in Nov 2022, but edited here for significant improvements).
Thank you for caring about animals and ecology.
But please show more care for other people, for justice, for science, for truth.
You claim, without rational, scientific, evidentiary basis, without questioning me or investigation: “you’re creating a false equivalency based on traditional pet contexts” and “you really should do your homework on this topic and reassess your perspective.” And it might have been you who made a derogatory, ad hominem comment in the past about my having “[mere] interests in biology.”
If we think more broadly, beyond our emotion and the immediate situation — canvassing for similar facts and relevant principles — we’d find, by your argument, that Michael Faraday should be dismissed because he had only “an interest in” physics, not a physics degree. And Abraham Lincoln should be dismissed because he had “an interest in” law, not a law degree. And Darwin in evolutionary biology. And Edison in technology. And Michael Jordan did not have a degree in athletics or basketball. And Bruce Lee did not have a degree in athletics, martial arts, acting, or film making. Etc. etc., etc. (Note: these statements are to analyze your argument — not at all to put me in the league of the great people named, which I am not.)
Many people today would benefit by immersing themselves in reality and epistemology more. We’d all benefit from it, but some’d benefit more than the rest of us.
Please, for your own sake, learn to do more investigation before you think you know anyone. Learn to dig deep and understand. Please do not jump to conclusions or form judgments on too-limited information. Please learn to be logical, to practice a rational, objective epistemology, and to condition your thought on solid philosophic grounds. (I can help train you in better thinking. It’s what I love to do.)
Isn’t that part of the scientific viewpoint, after all?
A good, detailed process you (and all of us) could use is found in “How to Criticize with Kindness: Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the Four Steps to Arguing Intelligently.”
Excerpt: “How to compose a successful critical commentary:
“1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, ‘Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.’
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.”
Doing so, we could have had a much better, informative, educational discussion for us and everyone else following the discussion.
And you could have actually come to understand my viewpoint; instead, you have to suffer the consequences of your own misunderstandings and errors. And you suffer the responsibility of getting some people worked up, as if on some small little “witch hunt.” Let’s please not do so. Let’s be real and true.
And in following those four steps (and in doing “root cause analysis”), you would have discovered that some of my interests are logic, the philosophy of science, and epistemology — which, I think, are more than a little relevant here, and call for more than a passing or feigned investigation.
And, in following the four steps, you’d less often attack people who could and should be your friends and allies. Why you and others do not do this more often, I do not know. My recommendation and plea is to be more reasonable, and withhold judgement until you have the facts. When we have an evidenced, developed argument to back up some judgement and emotion — go for it. Until then, please be governed by reason and restraint.
To broaden the context to my discussion — with some history, fact, authority, and wisdom — here is some food for thought.
1. “I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is — in my opinion — the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.”
—Albert Einstein in a letter to Robert A. Thorton, Physics Professor at University of Puerto Rico (7 December 1944) [EA-674, Einstein Archive, Hebrew University, Jerusalem]. Thorton had written to Einstein on persuading colleagues of the importance of philosophy of science to scientists (empiricists) and science.
2. “In a debate involving two scientists and two philosophers, “Richard Dawkins said ‘You know, I’m not a philosopher, I’m a scientist. I’m only interested in truth.’
…
A Frenchman in the audience said ‘What is truth?’ “
—Dennis Noble, in Episode 2: Harnessing Randomness of the Big Biology Podcast
3. “Science students learned the facts of their specific field without understanding how science should work in order to draw true conclusions.”
—David Epstein, Range: How Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World
4. “Part of the problem, [Arturo Casadevall] argued, is that young scientists are rushed to specialize before they learn how to think. They end up unable to produce good work themselves and unequipped to spot bad or fraudulent work by their colleagues.”
—David Epstein, Range: How Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World
5. “Few [scientists] are philosophers. Most are intellectual journeyman, exploring locally, hoping for a strike, living for the present.”
—E.O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge
6. “But educators at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health assert that memorization alone does not a scientist make — above all, students must be critical, creative thinkers who are honest and responsible with data. In order to train scientists as critical thinkers, the R3 Graduate Science Initiative was recently created in the Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology (MMI), led by director Gundula Bosch, Ph.D.”
—From “Revolutionizing with R3: A New Ph.D. Program Seeks To Train Scientists As Critical Thinkers” (21 March 2018) by Rachel Evans
7. “For their part, Casadevall and Bosch write that science education reform should result in scientists who are: (1) broadly interested, creative and self-directed, as were some scientists in the era of Louis Pasteur, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, and Linus Pauling; (2) versed in epistemology, sound research conduct and error analysis, according to the “3R” norms of good scientific practice—rigor, responsibility and reproducibility; (3) skilled in reasoning using mathematical, statistical and programming methods and able to tackle logical fallacies; … (4) able to think innovatively and across disciplinary boundaries.”
—From “Biomedical science education needs a new philosophy, Johns Hopkins researchers say: Pilot program at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health aims to close gaps in graduate science education” (3 Jan. 2018) by Barbara Benham
8. John Ioannidis studies science, and finds that too much of it is poorly done.
i. https://phys.org/news/2018-07-beware-scientific-studiesmost-wrong.html
ii. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
9. “I should even think that in making the celestial material alterable, I contradict the doctrine of Aristotle much less than do those people who still want to keep the sky inalterable; for I am sure that he never took its inalterability to be as certain as the fact that all human reasoning must be placed second to direct experience.”
—From the Second Letter of Galileo Galilei to Mark Welser on Sunspots, p. 118 of Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, translated by Stillman Drake, (c) 1957 by Stillman Drake, published by Doubleday Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., Garden City, New York
10. Newton’s Rules of Reasoning in Natural Philosophy:
“Rule 1 We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
“Rule 2 Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
“Rule 3. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
“Rule 4. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.”
—Isaac Newton, Principia, beginning of Book 3. Source 1. Source 2. Source 3. Source 4.
Note:
i. Science is about causes, not about “making things up.”
ii. Physics is “experimental philosophy,” i.e., it is an understanding based on experience and the evidence of the senses.
iii. Physics is inductive, i.e., forms generalizations.
iv. By “hypothesis” Newton did not mean what we do today; he meant an idea made up without evidence.
v. ”Hypothesis that may be imagined,” i.e., making things up without evidence, making things up in one’s head, is not science: Platonic thought is to be rejected.
11. “Galileo’s radical renewal sprang, nevertheless, from the Aristotelian mind set, as it was taught at the Jesuits’ Collegio Romano: human reason has a basic ability to recognize and understand the objects registered by the senses. The objects are real. They have properties that can be perceived, and then ‘further processed’ according to logical rules. These logical concepts are also real (if not in exactly the same way as the physical objects).”
—Atle Naess, Galileo Galilei: When the World Stood Still
12. Here is some of the silliness that shows in the scientific community when some practitioners don’t understand logic or their craft. In an excerpt from “Using Research and Reason in Education: How Teachers Can Use Scientifically Based Research to Make Curricular & Instructional Decisions” (pub. 2003), Stanovich and Stanovich (University of Toronto) write:
”Galileo claimed to have seen moons around the planet Jupiter. Another scholar, Francesco Sizi, attempted to refute Galileo, not with observations, but with the following argument:
“ ‘There are seven windows in the head, two nostrils, two ears, two eyes and a mouth; so in the heavens there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury alone undecided and indifferent. From which and many other similar phenomena of nature such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven…ancient nations, as well as modern Europeans, have adopted the division of the week into seven days, and have named them from the seven planets; now if we increase the number of planets, this whole system falls to the ground…moreover, the satellites are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the earth and therefore would be useless and therefore do not exist.’ (Holton & Roller, 1958, p. 160)”
13. “From the statements made by the noble Shaykh, it is clear that he believes in Ptolemy’s words in everything he says, without relying on a demonstration or calling on a proof, but by pure imitation (taqlid); that is how experts in the prophetic tradition have faith in Prophets, may the blessing of God be upon them. But it is not the way that mathematicians have faith in specialists in the demonstrative sciences.”
—Ibn al-Haytham (Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham, c. 965 – c. 1040.)
14. “Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses.“
—Thomas Aquinas, De veritate, q. 2, art. 3, arg. 19
15. “Each truth you learn will be, for you, as new as if it had never been written.”
—Ancient African proverb
16. “Always watch and follow nature.”
—Ancient African proverb
17. ”The best and shortest road toward knowledge of truth is Nature.”
—Ancient African proverb
18. “All plants are our brothers and sisters. They talk to us and if we listen, we can hear them.”
—Arapaho Proverb
19. “When a man moves away from nature his heart becomes hard.”
—Lakota Proverb
20. “Trust yourself. Think for yourself. Act for yourself. Speak for yourself. Be yourself. Imitation is suicide.”
—Marva Collins
21. ”As you begin the study of geometry, you no doubt wish to know why the subject is taught and what benefit you will receive from its study.
“Primarily, geometry teaches you how to reason. The habit of correct thinking acquired in its study is beneficial to all. By its study you will be able to converse more logically and read with a greater understanding.
“It is said that Abraham Lincoln studied geometry in order to make better arguments in court. Before a lawyer makes his argument to a jury, he must study the evidence presented during the trial and choose that which has the greatest bearing on the case; he must search the court records for past decisions on similar cases; and then he must arrange his argument in a logical order, proving each statement by giving an acceptable reason for it.”
—Welchons and Krickenberger, p. 1, Plane Geometry, Revised Edition, (c) 1943
22. ”Logical thinking is correct and productive thinking. Building a logical system of thought means correctly combining ideas in such a way that they produce other ideas. … Of course, if we combine wrong ideas, or if we combine correct ideas in a wrong way, our conclusions are worthless. In this course in geometry you will learn to weigh ideas for correctness, and you will learn to combine them correctly. By correctly combining the ideas of size and shape which you have already accumulated, you will be able to discover new ideas. These ideas, in turn, can be used to produce still other ideas until you have built a whole system of logical thought about geometry. …[T]he process of building a logical system of thought is important, also to all of you regardless of what field of work you enter. Studying how to make your thinking about geometry logical can help to make all of your thinking logical. This is important, for much of your success and happiness will depend upon your ability to think logically.”
—Welchons and Krickenberger, p. 5, Plane Geometry, (c) 1958
23. “The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to arguments and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.”
—Ibn al-Haytham (Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham, c. 965 – c. 1040.) Source: quote at the beginning of Chapter 11, “The Physicist,” in the book The House of Wisdom by Jim Al-Khalili
24. “Education must also train one for quick, resolute and effective thinking. To think incisively and to think for one’s self is very difficult. We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half truths, prejudices, and propaganda. At this point, I often wonder whether or not education is fulfilling its purpose. A great majority of the so-called educated people do not think logically and scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction.”
—Martin Luther King, Jr. (From MLK’s 1947 article “The Purpose of Education,” published in the Morehouse College campus newspaper The Maroon Tiger.)
25. “A little learning is a dang’rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.“
—Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism
Truth is a philosophic issue. Philosophy is fundamental. Science comes afterward. Please get to the root of good science and good thinking: a commitment to truth, and a commitment to our means of gaining conceptual truth: logic.
If you want to learn logic, epistemology, the philosophy of science, let me know. I can train you to think, reason, and do science better. I love to help people think better to live better.