Critical look at zetetics

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16864
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2297

Critical look at zetetics




by Janic » 16/02/19, 08:42


I came across (as far as this one exists!) this interesting analysis of zetetics and therefore of scientism in general
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 10721
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 944
Contact :

Re: a critical look at zetetics




by izentrop » 16/02/19, 09:58

Janic wrote: zetetics and therefore scientism in general
It already starts from a formulation contrary to zetetics.
In addition, the comments of the video are disabled, another hint ...

Zetetics is precisely not to let information impose itself by doing its research itself, but with well defined and rigorous criteria. It is possible on the net with a little effort.
A site with sometimes errors but rather with a zetetic approach Fake news and conspiracy, why such acceleration?

On facebouk there are several zetetic groups, mainly that one. Janic if you register, I advise you to read well before intervening, because the modos are intractable on the interventions not sourced correctly or the debates of opinion.
0 x
User avatar
thibr
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 723
Registration: 07/01/18, 09:19
x 267

Re: a critical look at zetetics




by thibr » 16/02/19, 10:03

I prefer "La Pensée Bayesienne"
: Wink:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16864
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2297

Re: a critical look at zetetics




by Janic » 16/02/19, 11:11

by izentrop »16 / 02 / 19, 10: 58
janic wrote: zetetics and therefore scientism in general
It already starts from a formulation contrary to zetetics.

Between the philosophy of any group and its reality there is often a gap that cannot be crossed.
In addition, the comments of the video are disabled, another hint ...
these are not comments that replace any discourse, but the speech itself that you probably did not listen to, it is of a different cultural level than what I heard and read about zetetics where it anything is said, preferably.
I also noticed this lack of comments. But if we read the comments of any video, we see that there are two camps that express themselves there: those who pass the brush to shine, against who are in principle also without real arguments to oppose. So better delete Both [*] to stay with the point of view mentioned and after everyone gets what they want, that is to say in general a hardening of opposing opinions. Zetetics is no exception.
Zetetics is precisely not to let information impose itself by doing his research himself, but with well defined and rigorous criteria. It is possible on the net with a little effort.
It is very idealized. The little that I listened to and read coming from this information, it is precisely a desire to impose their opinion (on the few subjects that I know best and which are not numerous because it is better not to disperse too much. ) under the pretext of openness of thought, which is rarely (if ever) the case. For concrete proof, you zetetic at all costs, considering that only they hold any truth and that any opinion other than theirs is a lie. It’s brain stuffing, conditioning, Catholicism in its time. Except that instead of evoking an almighty god, their god (finally the one that they build according to their needs and ideology), they call it science.
Poor science how many things are not said in your name!
A site with sometimes errors but rather with a zetetic approach Fake news and conspiracy, why such acceleration?
that they look at themselves, maybe they will eventually realize it.
Do not confuse error (it's human!) And lie. For example on your pay or retirement if the accountant forgot to put a final zero on it, you have the right to consider that it is an error, of course, but if it tells you that he is right and he’s never wrong, it’s an intentional lie. So when your zetetics buddies, and not just one, accuse DR Wakefield (and all of his team) of all the evils on earth, without bothering to check it, "by doing the research yourself, (but with well-defined and rigorous criteria." they say in a beautiful leap of faith) contenting themselves with the writings of a journalist in need of notoriety. It is no longer a mistake, it is fake news, because when court judgments Make a judgment in favor of the accused as if by chance, your friends do not make a correction, but continue their defamation. This is intentional lying.
So the approach you believe in " Zetetics is precisely not to let information impose itself by doing its research itself, but with well defined and rigorous criteria. Is flouted since none of the criteria she proposes here is respected, either in her mind or in her letter. It's just a religious belief!
On facebouk there are several zetetic groups, mainly this one. Janic if you register, I advise you to read well before intervening, because the mods are intractable on the interventions not sourced correctly or the debates of opinion.
So they should start by applying their own philosophy to themselves, then !.
Then I don't register on no group on face of goat, even going in my direction.

[*] he could have kept those who pass the shine brush to him.
PS; for example the site Citizen Initiative indicates on 120 pages that is to say about a thousand official information or coming from books, journals recognized as Nature at home and others, on measles for example: how many of these who say the opposite of 'their information' do they publish? None! Is that their criteria? : Evil:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16864
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2297

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by Janic » 16/02/19, 13:42

by thibr "16/02/19, 11:03 AM
I prefer "La Pensée Bayesienne"
this approach is very interesting, but very limited, even completely unsuitable, in biology where the phenomena are of such complexity that the biggest of big data would explode in spite. By cons this is quite possible for chemistry, very simplistic by comparison. This is, moreover, the big problem of zetetics incapable of mastering the living as a whole.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 10721
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 944
Contact :

Re: a critical look at zetetics




by izentrop » 17/02/19, 08:22

thibr wrote:I prefer "La Pensée Bayesienne" : Wink:
You may be a player, but I find that it blurs the tracks, we must start with some simple old principles which mainly concerned the paranormal and the past UFOs of fashion, but which are still current
: https://www.penser-critique.be/quelques ... etetiques/
I. The right to dream has its duty of vigilance during it.
II. Unexplained is not inexplicable.
III. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
IV. An extraordinary allegation requires more than ordinary proof.
V. The origin of the information is fundamental.
VI. Amount of evidence is not quality of evidence.
VII. Consistency is not proof.
VIII. Beliefs create illusions.

To learn more
What is the zetetic method?
The zetetic method, in its broad sense, is a set of tools allowing to exercise critical thinking based on methodical doubt and making it possible to make an enlightened sort between probable information and false true information. This tool is not used to be absolutely right, but to realize when one is wrong so that one can constantly revise one's judgments with full knowledge of the facts. Historically, this tool has been refined to prove or refute paranormal phenomena or pseudo-sciences.

Knowing whether information is true or not is difficult. With the Internet, information is everywhere and quickly accessible. But it is often biased, biased and rarely sourced. Under these conditions, everything and anything can be advanced and be taken for real. The use of the zetetic method allows you to create a mental map as close as possible to the state of current knowledge or the likelihood of an exposed fact, in the light of existing evidence. This allows you to realize what is a knowledge (what we know) of what is a belief (what you think we know). https://www.lesieur.name/zetetique/


Charter of the fessebouc zetetic group https://www.lesieur.name/zetetique/

Zetetic news on the net https://www.coup-critique.com/actualites/
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16864
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2297

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by Janic » 17/02/19, 09:56

I. The right to dream is due to the duty of vigilance.
II. Unexplained is not inexplicable.
III. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
IV. An extraordinary allegation requires more than ordinary proof.
V. The origin of the information is fundamental.
VI. Amount of evidence is not quality of evidence.
VII. Consistency is not proof.
VIII. Beliefs Create Illusions

It is all the difficulty of distinguishing between an act of faith (here is what I believe, here or something else) and the reality which does not necessarily correspond to it.
Thus article I: The right to dream has for duty of vigilance
a duty of vigilance is understandable, but on what criteria since a dream is not consistent, measurable, weighty and all in all? So article one worthless
II. Unexplained is not inexplicable.
It's obvious, but the explainable depends on the tools available at the time. For example the flat earth and therefore gravitation, evolution, breathing, love where these unexplained have a reality that cannot be disputed without these tools. So this article falls into the water at an instant T in history, but zetetics aficionados make no distinction.
III. The burden of proof is on the claimant. It all depends on what everyone calls evidence? Are these incontestable facts (for example homeopathy) or interpretation of this evidence on a priori questionable.
IV. An extraordinary allegation requires more than ordinary proof.
The extraordinary is only a subjective opinion because it is extraordinary in relation to what. Climbing with your bare hands is extraordinary compared to climbing with suitable tools. For the first it is ordinary as can be eating or drinking.
V. The origin of the information is fundamental.
Seen earlier with the Wakefield case. Everything depends precisely on this origin, especially when it is false. So they already do not respect their precept, unless they believe they are exempt?
VI. Amount of evidence is not quality of evidence.
Exactly, the W case is still the demonstration. The "evidence" brought was only fake news that zetetics was far too happy to find there a useful argument to support their anti-anti speech, The justice of the States decided by considering that these accusations of the journalist as much as of the order of doctors was not admissible.
Nexus 68
Translation of his reaction to his trial:
“On Wednesday April 7, 2011 (?), The lawyers of the General Medical Council will ask that I be removed from the British Medical Association, along with 2 other doctors involved in the MMR-autism case, and that we do not 'We no longer have the right to practice medicine.
Medical authorities have estimated that 3 of us, Professor John Walter-Smith, Professor Simon Murch and I, are guilty of undertaking research on autistic children without the approval of a committee of ethics. We can prove, with numerous documents, that this assertion is false.
Let me make it clear that the GMC trial had no other objective than to protect the vaccine policy for MMR. This was done by dissent, according to an organized plan that, in my opinion, serves the government and the pharmaceutical industry, not children's health. It is important to note that there has never been a single complaint against the doctors from the parents involved in the case.
My colleagues, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch, are renowned pediatricians. For decades, they have been leaders in pediatric gastroenterology, devoting their lives to caring for sick children. Our only "crime" in this case was to listen to the parents' concerns, act according to our professional conscience, and give appropriate care to this neglected child population. It is unthinkable that at the end of a remarkable career, one could consider Professor Walker-Smith's care of children as unethical.
In the course of our work, we discovered and treated an intestinal disease syndrome in autistic children, thereby relieving their suffering. This should be celebrated when we have been vilified by the press and demonized by a large campaign by the Ministry of Health. The purpose of the negative publicity was to discredit my criticism of the safety of the vaccine.
Sadly, my colleagues suffered collateral damage in this fight to avoid a real scientific investigation, they should be spared and keep their reputation intact, because they did nothing that was not right.
The loss of my own medical license will unfortunately deprive me of the benefit of my work. Although I do not take this loss lightly, the suffering - most of which is not justified - that I have observed in those who are victims of this disease makes that, by comparison, my professional worries seem a small price to pay.
As long as the safety of the vaccine arises; as long as this vaccination policy is opposed to profit and particular interests; as long as the benefits of vaccines are threatened by those who have lost the public trust by denying the side effects and as long as these children need help, I will continue my work. ”

Journalist Dan Olmsted has undertaken an in-depth study on autism. In seeking unvaccinated children - which is rare in this country - so that they serve as a "control case" of the experiments, he addressed himself to the Amish of the district of Lancaster, in Pennsylvania, whose religious convictions are opposed to vaccination. According to the percentage of people with autism nationally, he should have found 130 among the Amish. However, he found only 4. One of them had been exposed to a high level of mercury for a long time because of a generator and the other 3 were vaccinated. Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the CDC, replied that it had no interest because "the Amish have genetic dispositions which make them different from other populations of the US"
He also studied Homefirst Health Services in Chicago, an association of doctors founded in 1973 in the suburbs of Chicago that has something in common with the Amish: children are not vaccinated and are never autistic. According to Dr. Mayer Eisenstein "For years we have followed 30.000 to 35.000 children since birth and we have not encountered a single case of autism among those who have not received a vaccine. "
In the US, nearly 5.000 autistic families are awaiting judgment in the federal court ... 1322 cases of serious neurological effects caused by the vaccine, including autism, which had been compensated by the courts since 1988 for sums sometimes passing the million bucks…. Professor Jean Michel Dubernard, a renowned surgeon and member of the College of the Haute Autorité de Santé since 2008 declared on June 6, 2007 in the Senate: “There is no scientific proof on the usefulness of vaccines. "
Extract from the article: Autism: the ROR track. by Sylvie Simon

So we can compare these two articles
https://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article2713
http://sylviesimonrevelations.over-blog ... 20786.html
As a reminder, the two American and English judgments were not the subject of an appeal.
VII. Consistency is not proof.
The inconsistency of their speech, no more
VIII. Beliefs Create Illusions
And so they stretch out the stick to get beaten. Because they believe in their own speech.

I remind you that I have proposed, several times in succession, to dissect their assertions and none raised the proposal. So they are afraid of seeing their certainties questioned based on what they criticize and contest elsewhere.
It is quite understandable, moreover, on a human level since it appeals to their dreams…. !
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
thibr
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 723
Registration: 07/01/18, 09:19
x 267

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by thibr » 17/02/19, 11:27

the strength of the self-criticism of a zetetician : Wink:
How I found myself invited on the set of Cyril Hanouna facing 4 mediums for a "debate" which did not allow to say many things. My thoughts on the questions raised by this kind of invitation. Should we go? Should we abstain?
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16864
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2297

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by Janic » 17/02/19, 15:06

this video is very interesting because it highlights that depending on which side we are in a debate (leader or led) the result is obviously not the same. He should take it into account when others are not on the side of the handle but on the side of the mass (which he has had the painful experience) or, in his videos, he always places himself on the side of the handle (it makes sense for that matter).
Other than that he has some interesting reflections which value him in his own eyes so as not to have been completely ridiculous (in a program made for that).
Being therefore on the iron side of the mass which is falling on the nonconformists, most of the time, faced with the discourse of the zeteticians (who besides do not respect their own rules while recommending them), that feels good to see the roles reversed, (while respecting the individual zététicien or not,) to show (and I do not speak about me, but of all those who are being bullied on the general, but conventional media, more his own , on everything that does not seem to them conformist) that the inversion of roles does not put in a situation of being able to really express themselves.

PS: I remember this video where he wants to push Klein to take a stand against pseudosciences (according to his point of view obviously) and who gets his beak nailed by this one who saw him coming from afar with his big hooves , with for any answer "all sciences are pseudo sciences " and bangs in the teeth, and he doesn't bring her back afterwards. Claiming to be a scientist does not mean being so. and "La Pensée Bayesienne" (which I don't know enough to talk about), seems to set the record straight for him.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 10721
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 944
Contact :

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by izentrop » 18/02/19, 08:31

All this to demonstrate that opinion debate is excluded from zetetics.
In this domain of the "paranormal", the blah drowns the fish, but the statistics proven by real facts do not lie.
0 x


Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 14 guests