Psience Quest

(2017-09-28, 01:04 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]This is why I am interested in the interview and feel it is absolutely relevant.  That is unless we wish to remove any discussion of science and just talk about psi from a non-scientific perspective.  (Which would prompt me to exit stage left in a hurry.)

tell me again how this connects to psi? Did I miss that detail somewhere buried in this thread?

(2017-09-28, 01:29 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]HIV/Aids denial is a very serious thing - and note how people were fine with the previous interviewees. And who are you to judge whether we're better off or not with/without certain members?

AIDs denial is not psi. HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO PSI?

(2017-09-28, 12:51 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't.  What relates, in my mind, is the industry of science itself.

Anything can be considered about "science itself". 

The point of this forum is psi. 

There are uncountable forums about science. I for one have zero interest in investigating science in general at this point, and in this place.

The uniqueness about this place is the ability to discuss psi in all it's flavors, and incorporate science and proof into the discussion. 

I would venture that this place is one of the premier places on the WWW to do this in the English language. Pretty strong words for a forum that is only a few weeks old, I know, But I believe it.

Adding topics because they of of general science interest, seems to me to be missing the whole point of what we do here, and waters down our value.

To prevent further speculation, here I post a provisional plan of the interview, so everyone can understand what kind of questions I will ask to Henry Bauer:

Quote:1. What is science? What is its main characteristics and qualities?

2. What were the main stages of the development and change of science? Is modern science the same phenomenon that it once was, or is it notably different?

3. Is there a unified scientific method?

4. What are the limits of science? Why are non-scientific forms of knowledge important and valid?

5. What is a difference between science and scientism? How can belief in science turn into a dogmatic cult?

6. Is there a demarcation line between science and non-science? What about falsifiability? Measurability? Repeatability? Testable predictions?

7. What is the role of empirical evidence in science? Is it superior to the theory, or vice versa? Can the observations beyond the controlled laboratory experiments - such as field experiments, case studies, case reports – provide scientifically valid data? What about witness testimony, can it be used?

8. What is the relationship between science and philosophy? What role do philosophical concepts and assumptions play in scientific theorising?

 

9. Are mathematics and logic sciences? Are mathematicians and logicians scientists? What is the role of mathematics and logic in scientific theorising?

10. Is technology science? Are engineers scientists? How do science and technology connect and interact? What is “applied science”?

11. Is medicine science? Are medical doctors scientists? What about medical science?

12. Do life sciences differ from physical ones?

13. What about social and behavioral sciences? Are they “really” and “truly” scientific? What are their differences from natural sciences?

14. What is a scientific discipline? What about interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research? Why is it important?

15. What about anomalistics? About “fringe science”, “alternative science”, “unofficial science”? What is their scientific status? Are they “pseudoscience”? What about academic parapsychology – is it a scientific field of research or not? What about ufology and cryptozoology?

16. Why is it important to remember that scientists are people, and scientific community is a human community? What can sociology and psychology of science tell us about the scientific endeavor? Why is it inadequate to describe the social critique of scientific community as “conspiracy theory”?

17. What do you think about the notion of the “scientific consensus”? Is it a valid concept at all? Why scientific knowledge is always provisional? What are scientific revolutions? What role do they play in scientific progress? How can our knowledge of the history of science help us to understand it? What are former consensuses that were successfully overthrown?

18. What role do criticism of the current scientific consensus play? Why such challenges are necessary for the scientific progress? Why critics of current consensus should not be dismissed as “deniers” or “denialists”?

19. What role does commercialisation play in science? How commercial organisations can influence and distort research? What are conflicts of interest, and what danger can they pose for the research process?

20. What about politicisation of science? How can political institutions and movements instill bias into the scientific study? Why all political forces and positions – be they “Right”, “Left” or “Center” – are not innocent in this regard?

21. What about the social influences and factors beyond politics and economy? Can dominant social mores and customs turn into a pressure on scientific work and its results? Can scientists’ own social sympathies and antipathies do so?

22. What are role of ethics in science? What ethical imperatives should be accepted by the scientific community?

23. What about the doctrinal and paradigmatic preferences and prejudices of scientists themselves? What role can willful closed-mindedness play in the process of interpretation and evaluation of scientific results?

24. What about the competition and rivalry between scientists and scientific groups? How can it adversely influence the research process? How is it linked with the current academic “publish or perish” incentive?

25. Was there an increase in fraud and dishonesty in science? Were “publish or perish” social situations in work here as well? Is it true that the whole scientific journals and conferences can become fake and predatory? How serious is this danger?

26. What about formation of “knowledge monopolies” and “research cartels”? What are these social structures within (and beyond) the scientific community? How do they thwart the search for reliable knowledge?

27. What is a “science bubble”? What are the perils of this current state of the scientific enterprise?

28. Understanding such crisis state of the scientific community, what can laypersons believe, and whom can they trust when being presented with a scientific controversy? How should they form their own positions on such controversies?

29. What about policymakers who have to deal with controversial scientific propositions? How should they make a choice on scientific matters while making public policy?

30. What can be done to resolve the current crisis of science? What about the “scientific court” idea? Are there some other measures that may be implemented?

 

Vortex, I appreciate very much all the efforts you've made here. And those are a list of terrific questions - but they are about science in general. And very little about psi - question 15 seems to be the ony one. As such, I don't think it is fit for a Psience Quest interview - we are defining ourselves first and foremost as a psi forum.

However I personally would have no problem with you making this interview and posting it on the forum, but in another category like Alternative Views on Science or Other Stuff, and not labelled as a Psience Quest interview, but as Vortex's interview with H. B.

(2017-09-28, 02:56 PM)Vortex Wrote: [ -> ]To prevent further speculation, here I post a provisional plan of the interview, so everyone can understand what kind of questions I will ask to Henry Bauer:

So, these are the kind of questions I will ask him if my interview is approved.

 

No questions about the specific point of our site? The meaning and definition of "scientific" proof, and how this may or may not relate to the "scientific" study of psi? I mean, isn't THAT the core issue that we should be trying to gt at? Isn't that the only relevant (to PQ) angle here?

(2017-09-28, 08:47 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that people are going to post HIV/AIDS denialist propaganda here anyway, whether or not Henry Bauer is interviewed about it.

For the reasons I've already explained, I'm going to withdraw now.

No they won't, Chris. I'm formally asking not to discuss Bauer's theories here, because it's not content that fits this thread or this subforum.

Such posts were moved to a thread in the CT subforum.

Now I want ask a question to all of you: DO YOU APPROVE THE INTERVIEW WITH HENRY BAUER OR NOT?

Please let's resolve this situation one way or another.

If you do not, I will contact him and tell about your decision, so no interview will be made.

I just want to add: by disinviting him, you miss a lot. This man is one of the very best in Science and Techology Studies (STS) - even his opponents accept it.

And he is one of the most prominent figures in the Society of the Scientific Exploration (SSE) - one of its founders, in fact - and was among its leadership for all its history, and the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the Scientific Exploration (JSE) for some time. Does it destroy SSE and JSE in your eyes? And does it destroy the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, where Bauer is Professor and Dean Emeritus and the founder of its STS course?

Whether you accept his position on HIV-AIDS or not, his other positions still should be judged separately. And his possible interview will be on his positions beyond HIV-AIDS controversy.

So, I'm waiting for your decision.

(2017-09-28, 03:12 PM)Vortex Wrote: [ -> ]Now I want ask a question to all of you: DO YOU APPROVE THE INTERVIEW WITH HENRY BAUER OR NOT?

Please let's resolve this situation one way or another.

Vortex, I answered your question in my post no 143. It is not approved for a PQ Interview. But if you wish to do the interview in your own name, for another subforum than PQ interviews, then you can.

(2017-09-28, 03:12 PM)Vortex Wrote: [ -> ]Now I want ask a question to all of you: DO YOU APPROVE THE INTERVIEW WITH HENRY BAUER OR NOT?

Please let's resolve this situation one way or another.

If you do not, I will contact him and tell about your decision, so no interview will be made.

I just want to add: by disinviting him, you miss a lot. This man is one of the very best in Science and Techology Studies (STS) - even his opponents accept it.

And he is one of the most prominent figures in the Society of the Scientific Exploration (SSE) - one of its founders, in fact - and was among its leadership for all its history, and the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the Scientific Exploration (JSE) for some time. Does it destroy SSE and JSE in your eyes? And does it destroy the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, where Bauer is Professor and Dean Emeritus and the founder of its STS course?

Whether you accept his position on HIV-AIDS or not, his other positions still should be judged separately. And his possible interview will be on his positions beyond HIV-AIDS controversy.

So, I'm waiting for your decision.

I vote for not making it seem like forum consensus needs to be reached within one day. Where is the urgency in this decision? If it takes another day or so reach a consensus then what is the harm. 

There is another thread to discuss this specific issue about HB. I suggest you make your case there.