MovieChat Forums > kotorfan1 > Replies
kotorfan1's Replies
But how can you reasonably doubt your perception if you already are in doubt of what other people relay to you about their perceptions? How do you verify what they "see" is true. How do you verify the verification of what they see? Do you see how you create an endless cycle of needlessly trying to ensure that accuracy of every single thing in this world. If you never operate on any fundamental beliefs, facts, assumptions, whatever you have no idea of how to determine if ANYTHING that you perceive is true.
Your second flaw is also a complete misrepresentation of the scientific method. A hypothesis is the scientist looking for truth. They might propose something like this: "I believe that cats will search for mice within a half of a mile from their home." Normally, they would summarize any previous research that may be related to this field. Maybe they would include some facts about cat behavior, whatever. They would then come up with their methods to prove if this hypothesis is true or not. Next they would conduct the research, record the data, compile it, sift through it, etc. They would then find conclusions based off this data. They would determine if what was alleged in their hypothesis is true or not, and they would indicate that in their conclusion. If they were right, they would say, "my findings indicate that cats do look for mice within half a mile of their home." If they were wrong, they would say, "My findings indicate that cats do not search for mice within a half a mile of their home." Both of these findings are about "truths," not just answers.
BTW, that creationists have no clue (assuming they scientific field, social science, etc.) how to conduct sound research, so their views about any given piece of research would be incredibly flawed. They also (assuming they aren't educated in that field) aren't too knowledgeable about any given subject in that field. You're also making the bizarre assumption that some scientists aren't religious????
p.s. Peterson is a certified lunatic; constantly ranting and raving about "postmodernistic left" and "SJWs." His idiotic standards of what consists of "truth" are completely out of line with what anyone of a sound, rational, and sane mind would consider truth to be. He bases his "truths" in superstition and (arguably and hilariously) postmodernsitic thinking. He's a loony toon.
You are distorting the scientific method to such a degree it is absolutely baffling.
Regarding you first *ahem* "flaw," you completely misunderstood what researchers what being a peer actually encompasses. "Similar education" is a vague term. Their "similar education" does not mean that these people necessarily are equally as knowledgeable as each other, meaning they know the exact same facts. It does not mean that they also hold the same beliefs. They may not even agree with the research that is being reviewed, or the findings may conflict with their own beliefs. The idea of peer review is not to hold researchers to specific standards to ensure that fundamental beliefs are reinforced; the idea is to ensure that the research conducted their research ethically and reasonably within their field. They aren't trying to only produce research that confirms their core beliefs. Science always has a inkling of iconoclasm in it; core beliefs are ready to be shattered at any given moment if new research comes along that disproves or expands upon previous assumptions.
I don't know where you get this idea that peer review involves disproving research that is being reviewed, but that isn't how most professionals would view it. The idea is that the research that was conducted holds up to standards that the community in a field believes are necessary to be suitable for publication. Now these standards aren't unreasonable or necessarily in conflict with standards most people would have. It mostly consists of ensuring that the work was done in a way to avoid overt flaws in how the data was collected, how conclusions were reached, and if the methodology was sound. Now that doesn't mean that some peer reviews are without their fair share of biases, but that isn't the goal of researches as a whole.