Can I rant for a moment about Thunderf00t?

[Ex_Nihil0]

Okay, so Thunderf00t goes after some new guy named Dan Brown and, I feel, took his argument out of context.  First of all, half of his latest video bashing Dan Brown is a first a comparison between Dan and Glenn Beck and then Glenn Beck and a fictional propagandist from the V for Vendetta movie, who sounds like your typical Jerry Falwell type.  So because Dan Brown slightly resembles Glenn Beck (I think he sounds and acts more like VlogBrothers, but that's just me), and because Glenn Beck slightly resembles a fictional propagandist who spouts religious nonsense, Dan Brown must be motivated by religious nuttery to have dropped out of school and rejected the University system of learning.

When I saw Thunderf00t, a self proclaimed PhD resort to such blatant and unwarranted character assassination, my jaw hit the floor.  In one move, he committed a number of fallacies all at once, including: red heiring, hasty generalization, guilt by association and maybe even Godwin's law, depending on how loose a definition you give it.  This is utterly inexcusable and I nave no more respect for the man, as if I had any left for a statist pigs.

It seems that Thunderf00t feels that only valuable career path is the one he took, so anybody who thinks that science isn't for them is basically jumping out of an airplane without a parachute.  Does anybody see a problem with this analogy?  Lots of people get college degrees and ever find the jobs they were promised and only find out, after the fact, that they actually needed more school then they were told they needed.  Hell, I couldn't find a job with my Biology degree, so I had to go back and get my MLS so I could start my career as an applications scientist in hospital laboratories. 

When Dan Brown says that information is free, he's saying that any information he needs is available to him practically free of charge if he's willing to apply himself to learn it on his own.  Thunderf00t's example of the physics problem misses the point entirely.  Why would anybody take the time to learn how to solve physics problems if they don't need to know how to do that?  Would Thunderf00t dare to call an English professor or a Language expert inferior because they don't know how to solve physics problems?  Strangely, I wouldn't put it past him.  In my job, I need to have detailed knowledge of how blood clots, how the body's biochemistry works, how drugs affect the body, what cells in a person's blood indicate disease and what signs I need to look for when I suspect a patient has cancer.  I also need to have in good understanding of basic statistics and data collection in order to ensure that my equipment is producing accurate results.  I even need to know the principles and physics behind how my machines work so that I can repair them if they break down.  But do I need to know physics problems to do my job?  No, I don't.  In fact, most people don't need to know what it is I do.  I do that job that I do so that other people can do other things with their life, like get a PhD in a specialty field of Biology.

It may come as a surprise to Thunderf00t that people, like the cells of a developing fetus, tend to specialize into different rolls, and don't just do as they are told by society.  Just because the heart can't think doesn't mean it isn't important or any less valuable then the brain.  Thunderf00t's claim is that people of vision are people with PhDs, which has got to be the biggest load of elitist crap I've yet to here him say.  Most of the major companies founded in the united states were founded by people who never got their college degree.  These are the people who had true vision, these are the people who make enough money to higher PhDs, like Thunderf00t, to come up with new products and innovative ideas.  Yet Thunderf00t makes himself out to be the self-sacrificing lamb who has given up riches for the sake of science and the betterment of humanity.  Well, an't he just a bleeding heart Mother Teresa!  It is hard to believe that even he would sink this low, then again I'd probably expect no less from somebody who thinks saving for retirement is a waste of money.  We all know that, even though Thunderf00t doesn't get money from his videos (yet), he at least gets paid in mountains of praise from his loyal fans who will, at the slightest provocation, defend their secular messiah like zealous crusaders.  Yes, I'm sure we've all dealt with these pseudo-skeptics and sophists on many occasions.  No matter how rational or reasonable you are, your argument will always be "retarded because it is retarded" to them.  You'd expect somebody like Thunderf00t to chastise his fans for such poor reasoning, but as we've all seen, Thunderf00t himself rejected philosophy in favor pure science, even though science is itself based on philosophy.  Without philosophy, one becomes in danger of embracing dogmatic reasoning, as he currently suffers.

To add insult to injury, the idea that PhDs are necessarily visionaries is absurd!  As one becomes more specialized in their field, the more narrow the scope of their discipline.  Ergo, if a BS studies a door, and an MS studies a lock assembly, then a PhD studies one of the lock assembly's screws.  In order to have a vision, one must have a wide scope, not some specialized understanding of one specific detail about life.  In order to get a wide scope, one must have a wide range of different experiences, hence, this is why college drop outs start companies and why PhDs get jobs working for them. 

What the hell has happened to Thunderf00t?  His latest videos have been one sophomoric decline after another since his face-off with HTWW. And what ever happened between them, anyway?  As I recall, Thunderf00t's last words to him were "Fall in line, swine, or your bitch ass is mine."  Doesn't anybody remember that?  I guess Thunderf00t realized that he'd made an error going after somebody like HTWW and not some dumb creationist like Ray "Banana Man" Comfort.  Could their be any more proof that he's a coward who only prays upon soft targets with pwnage troll videos thinly veiled in scientific rhetoric? How many times have we pointed out that he continues to ignore his sharpest critics, ShaneDK, myself, Gun Criminal, MisterBusta, etc.  The best he can do with anybody who backs him into a corner is to come back with some lame science experiment to distract everybody with.  Then, as time goes by, he opens his big yap again, and starts to bash all the Libertarians. 

Does anybody remember Thunderf00t's video on Scientology and how he thought the collective group efforts of anonymously self organised individuals who operate without government could take down an evil centralized power?  Well, that's exactly what WE did to him when he started to trash us, and will do it again, even if he tries to make us look bad by showing another image of David Riddly's comedic funny faces or clips from anti-vaccine nutjob videos.

I'm glad some people recognize that college education isn't for them, and I'm glad that we live in a country that is still free enough to allow them to become successful anyway.  College is expensive and does not ensure success in life or in career.

Thus concludes the end of my rant.

I feel much better now.

Peace to you all.

[Travis Retriever]

That was very well put.

You deserve a -1 on your bogometer just for getting through that video TF made attacking Dan.  I only managed to get through about 10 seconds of it, before I get so enraged I had to stop watching.

However, I have a question:

Thunderf00t himself rejected philosophy in favor pure science, even though science is itself based on philosophy.  Without philosophy, one becomes in danger of embracing dogmatic reasoning, as he currently suffers.

What do you mean by this statement?

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Probably refferring to that "having a PHD renders you unable to say you were wrong" effect that James Randi warned us all about.

[Gumba Masta]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5hI6VY_rmE

[Virgil0211]

What was it about Thunderf00t's video to an "educator" that you did not agree with? If you believe that people can learn a lot online(if this is your position), why do you think this? If this is not your position, what is?

-some Tf00t fantard on Shane's channel comments.

[MrBogosity]

I'll just quote Bob Park (who has a PhD):

"There is no idea so insane that you cannot find at least one PhD scientist to support it."

[valvatica]

In Thunderf00t's first video to Pogobat he didn't explain why being in class with a professor will automatically make the facts/knowledge better, as opposed to just learning them by oneself. He makes a point about no employer wanting to hire these kinds of know-it-alls, but I don't think anyone's implying that they'll walk in and even try to apply if they know they peruse Wikipedia 23 hours a day and have no other education. It's as if he's answering questions no one asked.

Anyway I'm mixed about formal education. I have a Bachelor's from an art school and though I'm glad I gradumacated and all, it hasn't been too useful which is why I want to go to an actual university and get an education in a hard science or academic subject later in life. That doesn't mean someone should be looked down upon for not going to school. If school was free, most people would go without thinking twice. But guess what? It's not fun to be in debt after 3-4 years and still not have a job due to employers wanting "hands-on" experience. Hell, my friend who's going for MSCE, A+, Network+, CCNA and all that good stuff, is saying to me employers are STILL giving new grads the runaround with this "requiring experience" B.S. I mean, a CCNA for God's sake!

[Virgil0211]

In Thunderf00t's first video to Pogobat he didn't explain why being in class with a professor will automatically make the facts/knowledge better, as opposed to just learning them by oneself. He makes a point about no employer wanting to hire these kinds of know-it-alls, but I don't think anyone's implying that they'll walk in and even try to apply if they know they peruse Wikipedia 23 hours a day and have no other education. It's as if he's answering questions no one asked.

Anyway I'm mixed about formal education. I have a Bachelor's from an art school and though I'm glad I gradumacated and all, it hasn't been too useful which is why I want to go to an actual university and get an education in a hard science or academic subject later in life. That doesn't mean someone should be looked down upon for not going to school. If school was free, most people would go without thinking twice. But guess what? It's not fun to be in debt after 3-4 years and still not have a job due to employers wanting "hands-on" experience. Hell, my friend who's going for MSCE, A+, Network+, CCNA and all that good stuff, is saying to me employers are STILL giving new grads the runaround with this "requiring experience" B.S. I mean, a CCNA for God's sake!

Alot of that has to do with licensing laws and other regulations. People used to be able to take apprenticeships, for example. Why doesn't that happen now?

[LuminousMonkey]

Spot on about Thunderf00t I think.

His videos that go outside debunking creationists have been pretty telling, I've lost respect for him because of them.

[Travis Retriever]

Spot on about Thunderf00t I think.

His videos that go outside debunking creationists have been pretty telling, I've lost respect for him because of them.

Word.

[Ex_Nihil0]

That was very well put.

You deserve a -1 on your bogometer just for getting through that video TF made attacking Dan.  I only managed to get through about 10 seconds of it, before I get so enraged I had to stop watching.

However, I have a question:
What do you mean by this statement?

When Thunderf00t says he subscribes to "PERL", he's embracing verification over falsification.  Without getting into philosophy of science, it means that Thunderf00t is taking the assumption that the universe is real as an absolute truth.  This means Thunderf00t has proclaimed himself to be a purveyor of The Truth, with a capital "T", which is testament to his arrogance.  In order for PERL (logical positivism repackaged) to work, it must be able to justify itself by its own standard of verification, which it can't.  How can anything prove itself to be real without resorting to circular logic?

As Hume explained, the "real" world, if it exists, is inherently unknowable as it truly is.  Science works to figure out the true nature of the real world through a process of induction.  Though the scientific process seems to work great from an engineering standpoint, it will never give you ultimate truth, even though it is the best epistemological method we have to date.

Never trust anybody who says they know The Truth.  It doesn't matter if they are called "reverend", "pastor", "teacher", "officer" or "doctor", because anybody who claims to know the unknowable is an automatic liar, and anybody who thinks their credencial entitles them to "special knowledge or understanding" is guilty of a fallacy.

[Travis Retriever]

When Thunderf00t says he subscribes to "PERL", he's embracing verification over falsification.  Without getting into philosophy of science, it means that Thunderf00t is taking the assumption that the universe is real as an absolute truth.  This means Thunderf00t has proclaimed himself to be a purveyor of The Truth, with a capital "T", which is testament to his arrogance.  In order for PERL (logical positivism repackaged) to work, it must be able to justify itself by its own standard of verification, which it can't.  How can anything prove itself to be real without resorting to circular logic?

As Hume explained, the "real" world, if it exists, is inherently unknowable as it truly is.  Science works to figure out the true nature of the real world through a process of induction.  Though the scientific process seems to work great from an engineering standpoint, it will never give you ultimate truth, even though it is the best epistemological method we have to date.

Never trust anybody who says they know The Truth.  It doesn't matter if they are called "reverend", "pastor", "teacher", "officer" or "doctor", because anybody who claims to know the unknowable is an automatic liar, and anybody who thinks their credencial entitles them to "special knowledge or understanding" is guilty of a fallacy.

What about the null hypothesis?
Is that positivism?
Also, I would have thought his problem was refusing to look at what evidence there is for free market economics. :\

[valvatica]

On a more humorous note, am I the only one who thinks Dan Brown sounds a lot like Azrienoch when he speaks? I'm talking about the voice, not the mannerisms.

[Ex_Nihil0]

What about the null hypothesis?
Is that positivism?
Also, I would have thought his problem was refusing to look at what evidence there is for free market economics. :\

I don't think the null hypothesis is logical positivism.

I think that if you are using the null hypothesis as a disproof of something that lacks evidence, then yes, it would be logical positivism.  But if the null hypothesis is taken as an assumption in the absence of evidence for the alternative hypothesis, then that's fine.  As an assumption, one must be willing to abandon the null hypothesis should the current or new alternative hypothesis be show to be reasonably correct. 

On the other hand, if you are a neopragmatist, your thinking is that science can only prove things false, and that belief and doubt require equal justification.  In other words, the alternative hypotheses are never prove true under any circumstances, but when they are proven false, the null hypothesis becomes true (if it is worded in such a way that it is true when the alternative hypothesis is false).  Under neopragmatic assumptions, both the alternative and null hypothesis have equal weight in the absence of any evidence or scientific test.  In other words, you take on a more pyrrhonian skepticism and reserve judgment for both until all the facts are in. 

Let's say you keep loosing money out of your pocket.  You think that the money fairies are steeling your cash.

To put this into context, we have:

Alternative hypothesis: Fairies are steeling your cash.
Null Hypothesis: Fairies are not steeling your cash. 

No matter what, you simply can't prove nor disprove that fairies had anything to do with your missing money because their is no such think as a fairy detector.  A Logical Positivist would say that because fairies can't be farified, the null hypothesis is true because anything that can't be verified experimentally or tautologically isn't real.  A neopragmatist, on the other hand, would say that although faries may have something to do with the theft of money from your pocket, it is of no practical use to know this even if true.  Pragmatically, the question simply doesn't matter, so why bother if your goal is to solve a mystery and possibly advance science?  If your goal is to advanced metaphysics, then that's a different matter outside the scope of this thread.  The point is that it doesn't matter if fairies are real or not because they have nothing to do with science.

Let's look at the problem again.  You keep loosing money, and you suspect it is your son steeling from you. 

Alternative Hypothesis: Your son is robbing you.
Null Hypothesis: Your son is not robbing you.

It isn't possible to know with 100% certainty that your son stole your money, but it is possible to gain a statistical probability that he has been steeling based on the weight of evidence, such as finding the money in his room or his finger prints being on it.  You may also set up a camera to catch him in the act.  Although this is no proof of past theft, it is proof of theft as it was captured on film.  You could, however, run a test to see if your son did not steal your money by checking for an alibi.  Confirming that your son was some place else during the time of theft disproves the alternative hypothesis, meaning that the null hypothesis is true (your son did not steal from your wallet). 

In the absence of evidence, your son may still have robbed you, but the null hypothesis becomes the safest assumption if one must be made.  Never the less, you may still have a feeling that your son stole the money, which may turn out to be true, but this is not proof.  Remember that the null hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, so you really can't prove it true in the absence of evidence, even if it seems like a safe assumption.  Never the less, the alternative hypothesis must be shown to be false in order for the null hypothesis to be know as factually true and not an assumption.   

I do not feel that assuming the null hypothesis to be true in the absence of evidence is a valid way of conducting science, however, since the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  In matters of law, however, it is better to assume innocents (the null hypothesis) over guilt (the alternative hypothesis) since the consequences of sending an innocent man to jail are considered far worse then setting a guilty man free. The former is a mater of epistemology, while the later is a mater of ethics.  You'll often see arguments over the null hypothesis conflate epistemology and ethics in this way, and I find it rather dishonest, or at least misguided.

Do not confuse assumption with belief.  These are two different things. 

[Travis Retriever]

I don't think the null hypothesis is logical positivism.

I think that if you are using the null hypothesis as a disproof of something that lacks evidence, then yes, it would be logical positivism.  But if the null hypothesis is taken as an assumption in the absence of evidence for the alternative hypothesis, then that's fine.  As an assumption, one must be willing to abandon the null hypothesis should the current or new alternative hypothesis be show to be reasonably correct. 

On the other hand, if you are a neopragmatist, your thinking is that science can only prove things false, and that belief and doubt require equal justification.  In other words, the alternative hypotheses are never prove true under any circumstances, but when they are proven false, the null hypothesis becomes true (if it is worded in such a way that it is true when the alternative hypothesis is false).  Under neopragmatic assumptions, both the alternative and null hypothesis have equal weight in the absence of any evidence or scientific test.  In other words, you take on a more pyrrhonian skepticism and reserve judgment for both until all the facts are in. 

Let's say you keep loosing money out of your pocket.  You think that the money fairies are steeling your cash.

To put this into context, we have:

Alternative hypothesis: Fairies are steeling your cash.
Null Hypothesis: Fairies are not steeling your cash. 

No matter what, you simply can't prove nor disprove that fairies had anything to do with your missing money because their is no such think as a fairy detector.  A Logical Positivist would say that because fairies can't be farified, the null hypothesis is true because anything that can't be verified experimentally or tautologically isn't real.  A neopragmatist, on the other hand, would say that although faries may have something to do with the theft of money from your pocket, it is of no practical use to know this even if true.  Pragmatically, the question simply doesn't matter, so why bother if your goal is to solve a mystery and possibly advance science?  If your goal is to advanced metaphysics, then that's a different matter outside the scope of this thread.  The point is that it doesn't matter if fairies are real or not because they have nothing to do with science.

Let's look at the problem again.  You keep loosing money, and you suspect it is your son steeling from you. 

Alternative Hypothesis: Your son is robbing you.
Null Hypothesis: Your son is not robbing you.

It isn't possible to know with 100% certainty that your son stole your money, but it is possible to gain a statistical probability that he has been steeling based on the weight of evidence, such as finding the money in his room or his finger prints being on it.  You may also set up a camera to catch him in the act.  Although this is no proof of past theft, it is proof of theft as it was captured on film.  You could, however, run a test to see if your son did not steal your money by checking for an alibi.  Confirming that your son was some place else during the time of theft disproves the alternative hypothesis, meaning that the null hypothesis is true (your son did not steal from your wallet). 

In the absence of evidence, your son may still have robbed you, but the null hypothesis becomes the safest assumption if one must be made.  Never the less, you may still have a feeling that your son stole the money, which may turn out to be true, but this is not proof.  Remember that the null hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, so you really can't prove it true in the absence of evidence, even if it seems like a safe assumption.  Never the less, the alternative hypothesis must be shown to be false in order for the null hypothesis to be know as factually true and not an assumption.   

I do not feel that assuming the null hypothesis to be true in the absence of evidence is a valid way of conducting science, however, since the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  In matters of law, however, it is better to assume innocents (the null hypothesis) over guilt (the alternative hypothesis) since the consequences of sending an innocent man to jail are considered far worse then setting a guilty man free. The former is a mater of epistemology, while the later is a mater of ethics.  You'll often see arguments over the null hypothesis conflate epistemology and ethics in this way, and I find it rather dishonest, or at least misguided.

Do not confuse assumption with belief.  These are two different things.

Don't take this the wrong way, FlowCell, but I only got through the first two paragraphs of that before I started to see too many words I didn't know and don't have the will or strength to look up.
I'm still convinced that you went a distance of 100 meters when you only needed a displacement of 2 meters with all of this.
I'm no philosophy buff, and I really don't care about it (outside of the philosophy of liberty of course) and I don't have the same problems as Thunderf00t in this at all.

TF's problem is really quite simple:

1. A dogmatic refusal to look at the evidence that contradicts his deeply held convictions about democracy and the "collective" (however it is defined) and about the free market.

At the risk of opening a can of worms, I find myself easing away from the Philosophy of science discussions because the message of them seems to be, "Well you don't know it all, so deal with it!" or some kind of original sin-type of thing like that.
I don't recall science ever "claiming" to know everything or even to try to.
As QualiaSoup explains in his videos, Science thrives on openmindedness and on change.
In fact, changing what we DO know and not taking it as absolute is how science progresses.
So, (assuming I'm not misunderstanding what the philosophy of science stuff is getting at), it seems it is:

1. Strawmanning how science works period     and/or
2. making a mountain out of a mole hill.