Suggestions for Knowledge Base

It gives specifics in the link, turtle. Don’t just read the first paragraph and give up buddy. It’s not that long of an article. Just read it.

I don’t think that a knowledge base is a good idea unless it’s just a sticky thread where people can post interesting/useful links. Anything more will establish a dogma and limit discussion.

flannel would you tell me what you agree with and what you dont agree with in that link…

I don’t think so. It’s not required, it’s optional, for those people who wish to become more science/math-literate. Discussion on the science/math subforum is already pretty scant as it is, I don’t think a thread which suggests becoming more knowledgeable is going to limit discussion. It’s not so much about ‘agree with these things I’m linking’, it’s more about ‘whether you disagree with these links or not, they will help you to communicate your points more clearly, and to understand the points of others more clearly’.

Eg if I link to an evolution introduction, I’m not saying ‘Everyone, agree with evolution,’ I’m saying ‘If you want to talk about evolution or evolution-related fields, regardless of whether or not you disagree, you’ll certainly put your mouth in your foot less often if you at least understand some basics of the current state of the field of study.’

You rejected Anon’s suggestion of Gould as a legitimate source. So, you are establishing what is correct in regard to evolution and science in general.

I’m just establishing what I’m going to link to. I don’t have the power to establish what is correct in general. That’s not something I’m capable of.

There’s one other problem with that link as well: it seems, at a glance, to be a list of scattered articles all grouped together. I’m looking for a sort of more cohesive introduction to the theory of evolution, as opposed to a bunch of random articles about evolution. Something that starts from the beginning and leaves the reader at a point where they have a solid footing on the topic, and preferably does so concisely.

The knowledge base thread will be open to anyone? And you won’t delete/modify posts?

I knew this would be a bit contentious when I started it, which is why I’m trying to make this as clear as possible:

There’s no requirement for agreement, there’s no requirement for even looking at the stuff. There’s no requirement whatsoever. All materials are up for debate, and in fact I should probably set up some system by which people of the community can somehow veto something up there that they don’t think is representative of current scientific view, and so that something that is representative of the current scientific view and is a sort of requirement for basic science literacy can be put up, regardless of my own views. Not all sources are equal, and in science, not all views are equal, as ‘dogmatic’ as that may sound.

This isn’t about agreeing with the current scientific stance, it’s merely about understanding what it is. I don’t think that that’s dogmatic, I think it’s essential for sensible conversation on matters of science. Everything is open for discussion, though, and hopefully this ‘knowledge base’ idea won’t end up being limited by my own views. For the moment, it is, and I’d like to work on rectifying that soon.

[edit after seeing above post]

No, the knowledge base thread won’t be open to anyone. I will try to set up a system by which it’s not limited to my views only, but it will be an announcement that remains at the top of the Science forum, and whatever system I set up, I want to make sure that:
(a) the content is of the highest quality it can be
(b) the views represented are representative of the current state of science
(c) the material is freely available online

and there may be a few other standards I haven’t thought of while making this post.

So, for perfect clarity: I agree that it shouldn’t be down to my views only, but it should meet at least requirements A, B, and C, and as such it will not be open to everyone, but everyone is free to suggest things they’d like to see on it, argue for things they’d like to see on it, or take off it, and in the (hopefully near) future there will be a system by which I will not be the sole final arbiter of what goes on it. Leaving it open to everyone will trivialize it, and the standards a b and c will soon be lost. I don’t want that.

The Gould links meet your a, b, and c. LessWrong might not.

Just to corroborate it – I didn’t want to dismiss it based on that alone as well – I looked for outside confirmation.

John Tooby, for example, a pretty important figure in evolution, writes

But of course I won’t be linking to Lesswrong in that post either, I agree.

You can do what you want, FJ, but your approach is puzzling to me. Gould was one of the leading exponents of evolutionary theory, and he was well known, for instance in The Mismeasure of Man (an excellent read), for separating good science from its hijacking by people with stupid social agendas. His views conflicted with the views of other scientists, which says nothing about which are correct. Dawkins talks some shit, and says things that are plainly anti-scientific, such as “it’s all in the genes”. But he’s also an excellent scientist, who should be read by scientifically literate people, and you’ll notice that Gould’s site includes many papers expressing a variety of opinions, many of which he openly disagreed with. The links are set up in groups, which provide an excellent introduction to various themes and a way to explore different approaches to those themes. I don’t know if Gould chose those links himself or not (he’s dead). I’ve spent some time exploring the “units of selection” grouping, for instance, and found what I learned there to be both introductory yet highly intelligent (and varied).

If you’re interested in a non-controversial introduction to science, you should just find yourself an actual textbook and figure out how to post it online without breaking any laws. yawn

I’ve added it tentatively to the page, anon. There does seem to be significant evidence that Gould misrepresented the view of evolutionary biologists of his time, and argued for various positions regarding evolution that experts pretty unanimously don’t agree with. I hope to find an introductory source that is less contentious, more approachable, and also free in the future.

So, your suggestion is up for now, but is open to be trumped (as is anything that is on that page, of course).

i agree with anon…flannel you are just causing yourself trouble…

I appreciate your reconsidering.

I did read what you quoted above, but even those topics can be treated as a series of facts. I now know that’s not what you intended but if I read that other post it’s focus comes off focused the way I took it.

The person I was responding to was talking about ‘epistemology’. I said ‘philosophy of science’. Surely ‘philosophy of science’ places a lot of importance on epistemology, no?

For Philosophy of Science, Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery) and Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) are pretty much baseline texts. Taking it further, I like van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism (The Scientific Image) as a non-ideological, non-utopian/dogmatic description of the aims and methods of science.

Gould’s “problem” is political, rather than factual. You can learn decent stuff about evolution, and get a wrong impression of the beliefs of current scientists. He was more a populiser - it’s a bit like Dawkins’ The God Delusion; it’s not wrong, but there’s nothing especially thrilling or challenging about it. Dawkins himself does a better job on evolution - The Selfish Gene is a good starting point for discussion.

Are there free versions of this online? Or free sources that talk about the ideas in them at least?

Flannel, have you ever considered enforcing the standards that you espouse, in the forum? I mean by weeding out the posts which are obviously facetious, or just flaming, or totally irrelevant, or betray a total ignorance of both science and philosophy? I realise that there wouldn’t be an awful lot left, but at least it would be intellectually respectable?

He is the top moderator on this site, has been the gold standard this past year.

Perhaps you need to focus less on getting others to remove posts you want removed from insidious bias, and instead try engaging in discussions with others, in a exchange of knowledge and it’s principled validity, instead of plunging us back into a unrepresentative dark age ruled by narrow minded prejudiced. We don’t burn witches, or persecute others just because they have differing ideals. That’s not what science is about, not what we are about on this forum.

Place your faith in science and reasoning. We don’t need another Inquisition by the short sighted or the vindictive. The freedom of personal expression of ideas is paramount to propagating the Republic of Science.