Existential comics punches scientism in the face, writes articulate blog post why.

[Jin-roh]

*do you think of Karl Popper...

[rogue06]

*do you think of Karl Popper...

Or Michael Ruse.

[Jin-roh]

Or Michael Ruse.

I don't know that name. Who is he and how does he relate to the discussion?

[rogue06]

I don't know that name. Who is he and how does he relate to the discussion?

Look him up. Very famous philosopher of science, very strong atheist but doesn't take crap from those who think that science explains everything. As a result folks like Dawkins despise him.

[seer]

I don't know that name. Who is he and how does he relate to the discussion?

http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brain...cientism/42028

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...t-region&_r=1&

[Jin-roh]

Look him up. Very famous philosopher of science, very strong atheist but doesn't take crap from those who think that science explains everything. As a result folks like Dawkins despise him.

It appears Mr Ruse doesn't think too highly of Dawkins either

More to the topic, I mentioned Karl Popper because Karl Popper (among other things) offered a fairly specific criteria of 'what is science' and it's been influential enough of a definition.

[seer]

It appears Mr Ruse doesn't think too highly of Dawkins either

More to the topic, I mentioned Karl Popper because Karl Popper (among other things) offered a fairly specific criteria of 'what is science' and it's been influential enough of a definition.

If I remember correctly Popper had a real problem with induction...

[Starlight]

What do you think of Karl Popper?

I think he over-philosophizes the scientific method. The scientists I know generally try everything they can think of and when nothing works, ask everyone around them for ideas, and then try all those ideas, and then on the 200th attempt it sort of works, and then they declare victory and submit a journal article. I would summarize the 'scientific method' as 'ad hoc trial and error' or 'you try lots of stuff with your fingers crossed hoping something works', which is not really a method that needs any sort of philosophical foundation or explanatory theory. To the best of my knowledge I have not met a scientist who ever once used the concept of 'falsification' in their work. So I would say that Popper was empirically wrong about how science is actually done.

Random side note: I did my philosophy degree at a university Popper used to lecture at, and in a building named after him.

[Carrikature]

This isn't true.
The question of 'why' is asked all of the time.

Most of those 'why' questions have answers on the physical realm (why do birds build nests?) but even if a question doesn't have an answer it should be asked anyways and a small 'unknown' put in as the answer. The blanket declaration of no 'why' is science seems heavy handed - just because that question irritates Dawkins doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked. He has no problem asking 'why' when attacking religion. He's just a really bad philosopher.

I don't think you understood what I said. I never said 'why' isn't asked (or shouldn't be) in science. I said it's a loaded question. Because it is. It brings with it purpose. And, most of the time, why doesn't have an answer. Why do some birds build nests while others burrow?

[Carrikature]

Sure, not all comics are intended to be humorous, but how most of the panels are drawn in this one I don't think it's a leap to think the author intended it to be humorous. The humor here may have been intended to be oblique, but it's still not funny.

I don't think the comic is generally supposed to be humorous in the traditional sense. I enjoy them for the same reason Jin-roh does:

I enjoy them though, because its intrinsically funny to see people discuss serious ideas while calling on Captain Metaphysics, or watching Neitzsche literally announce the death of God as a news caster, or see Marx get upset at thoroughly classist board game.

It's a stretch to call it 'funny', but yeah. It's an amusing twist.

That's cool. I get the appeal of a comic for philosophy geeks. Probably what rubs me the wrong way is that, stylistically, it seems very similar to the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic strip. I don't find SMBC that funny either (not that I've read a whole lot of it), but compared to this comic, I'd say that it looks like SMBC gets the job done with less effort, and it's wittier. Looking over the last three Existential Comics submissions, the jokes are there, but it all comes across so heavy-handed, and the timing is all off. It feels like someone explaining a joke to me rather than telling a joke.

Eh, but if people like it, it doesn't really matter what I think.

I think what makes SMBC better is that it frequently takes ideas to the extreme, or puts them in "hey stupid this is what this means" terms. And it's not bogged down with actual philosophers, usually relying instead on aliens and kids. I find SMBC more poignant than amusing because of how it highlights the absurdity in certain positions. I don't think I consider either comic to be really "make me laugh" funny.

[Carrikature]

Questions of ultimate purpose are still asked, and I think it's bit anti-humanist (in the best sense of the word, not in the popularly appropriated sense of the word), to ignore them or pretend like they don't matter.

I didn't say they aren't asked. They can't be answered by science, though. I definitely didn't suggest ignoring them or pretending like they don't matter, either. It's a matter of scope, and these questions are outside the scope of science. That's nothing against science or the questions.

[Carrikature]

Did Dawkins push for a change in society based on something other than naturalistic reasons?
I think you could oppose feminism from a purely scientific standpoint with no philosophy involved.

I haven't read much Dawkins, so I have no idea. I don't know how you'd go opposing a philosophical position (feminism) without using philosophy, though. Maybe you can explain?

[Jin-roh]

I think he over-philosophizes the scientific method. The scientists I know generally try everything they can think of and when nothing works, ask everyone around them for ideas, and then try all those ideas, and then on the 200th attempt it sort of works, and then they declare victory and submit a journal article. I would summarize the 'scientific method' as 'ad hoc trial and error' or 'you try lots of stuff with your fingers crossed hoping something works', which is not really a method that needs any sort of philosophical foundation or explanatory theory.

Alright, in debates about Creation Science, detractors often argue that Creation Science is not truly a science, because it is not falsifiable (among other reasons). Is that something you're willing to give up if you do not think an empirical falsification criteria is what separates science from ... whatever?

Secondly, I read a study awhile back that argued that access to the internet gives people overconfidence in certain topics. The researchers' first experiment (using a control group and such) suggested that "yes" people get overconfident due to easy access to information on the internet. The researchers then thought that some other factors might've influenced the outcome... so they repeated several variations of the experiment (nine total iirc), to account for other variables... which does seem a rather rigorous series of tests for falsification.

Does that seem to weaken or strengthen the conclusion of their research?

To the best of my knowledge I have not met a scientist who ever once used the concept of 'falsification' in their work. So I would say that Popper was empirically wrong about how science is actually done.

Maybe, but Popper is arguing for a sine qua non of what science is at an essential level. Brute empiricism alone can't get that. After all, you'd have to have a definition of 'science' before you could argue 'this is how we observe science being done.'

Random side note: I did my philosophy degree at a university Popper used to lecture at, and in a building named after him.

Cool...

[Jin-roh]

It's a stretch to call it 'funny', but yeah. It's an amusing twist.

Come on, you have to admit that the comic where Sartre trolled Neitzsche was hilarious. Also, the quips on 'Philosophy News Network' new ticker are pretty clever. I think today's was 'Aristotle discovers fifth fundamental cause: a cause to party.'

[Starlight]

Alright, in debates about Creation Science, detractors often argue that Creation Science is not truly a science, because it is not falsifiable (among other reasons). Is that something you're willing to give up if you do not think an empirical falsification criteria is what separates science from ... whatever?

I don't participate in such debates. I don't really think falsification is a criteria science uses much, so it wouldn't be a go-to reason for me as to why Creation Science wasn't a science.

Secondly, I read a study awhile back that argued that access to the internet gives people overconfidence in certain topics. The researchers' first experiment (using a control group and such) suggested that "yes" people get overconfident due to easy access to information on the internet. The researchers then thought that some other factors might've influenced the outcome... so they repeated several variations of the experiment (nine total iirc), to account for other variables... which does seem a rather rigorous series of tests for falsification.

Does that seem to weaken or strengthen the conclusion of their research?

Testing other possible explanations seems worthwhile, and improves the quality of the research by ruling in or out other competing explanations. I wouldn't call it falsification.

Maybe, but Popper is rguing for a sine qua non of what science is at an essential level. Brute empiricism alone isn't get that. After all, you'd have to have a definition of 'science' before you could argue 'this is how we observe science being done.'

To do something, you don't first need a philosophical definition of what you are doing, you just do it. If I try stuff to see what works, there's not a lot of deep philosophy going on - it's the equivalent of a baby who gives everything in the world around him a poke and puts it in his mouth to see what happens. If a philosopher wants to come along after the fact and get all theoretical about why I'm doing it, and define it as different from what other people are doing, that is fine, but philosophers delude themselves as to their own importance if they believe that doing their philosophical theorizing was necessary for the scientist do research in the first place.