sal wrote:It's not a fact in my mind until I decide it's a fact.
Sal, I was struggling to understand many of the comments you have made for some time, as with many of these things often the disagreement hinges on some foundational point which is what causes the difference in perspective. I am beginning to see that there is only a very tiny difference in how we view things but that difference is really foundational.
Science doesn't argue you are supposed to believe something is true because someone says it. You are not even supposed to believe something is true even if everyone says it and has said it for as long as everyone has said anything on the topic. You are only supposed to believe something is true when the justification for it supports the conclusion.
This is why journal articles don't just state the conclusion and they instead have to spell out in great detail not only the data and the reasoning but exactly how they obtained the data so every step of it can be criticized to see if their conclusion follows and if it isn't simply a bias or faulty reasoning. This is why you have to present your data when it is requested.
There are two sides of the coin, yes it is laid out in detail to make the argument compelling, but it also is laid out in detail so if there is a fault it can be potentially exposed. You are not supposed to passively accept it, you are supposed to actually independently review it, ideally you review every aspect of it to ensure it is a valid argument. That is why we have peer review and that is why we have repeated and continuous trials/experiments even on things which are well established.
When someone looks at a materials science article and doesn't find the evidence compelling, what they are doing is part of science, in fact it is arguably the most important part. If someone responds with the statement that they need more evidence, they need to see it confirmed, that there could be other explanations - then this is excellent, that is them becoming part of the process of generating knowledge.
But when someone responds to evidence with dismissal of it simply because they don't like the conclusion, well that is not only not science, it is clearly not rational. They are not trying to know anything, they are not trying to learn, they want to be deluded. Now do I think this is wrong - no, not in some absolute sense. However I would like to see them actually state it and not pretend otherwise because spreading deliberate misinformation to others is wrong.
If someone asks about an empirical issue and Sammy Davis wants to post on the topic then he should. If Sammy holds his views because he likes them not because they are justified then this doesn't mean he should not be able to speak. However I do think he should at least tell other people this and not give the impression that what he is saying is actually justified and he certainly should not make up justification to make it appear to be the case.
In short, when I cite evidence for my position, this isn't done simply to convince you, the main reason it is done is to give you the opportunity to examine the justification and see if it is valid. If it isn't then you respond by showing how it isn't. That Socratic dialog under pins all of science and it, arguably, the most fundamental aspect of it, critical discussion of the ideas without bias to the presented (i.e. all arguments have equal validity no matter who makes them).
But I understand your frustration and have also been participating here less for similar reasons. Have you ever checked out USN? I've been preferring that place lately, as they don't seem to have the issues we do here, though the Spyderco sub forum has considerably less traffic than here.
