Ball Python Uses Small Hide. Is She Stupid?

[Malum Argenteum]

I don't believe in science, but I'll do what Malum says.

I've heard people claim this pretty often. It has never been true, though, since it is based on a very basic lack of understanding of just what science is.

Science is, at its core, measurement plus logic. Science involves collecting data about physical things, and applying reasoning to figure out what follows from that data. (It is often said that a core element of science is 'repeatability', which is true but that's mostly a re-confirmation of the data, and of the reasoning, to make sure that the results weren't accidental or contingent on some unknown variable.)

But everyone (more correctly, every human person who can operate in the world at at least a very basic level -- so not people in vegetative states, or full-on and complete dementia, but pretty much everyone else) believes in (i.e. uses and depends on, almost every second) logic, usually implicit but very very frequently explicit. Simply saying 'I don't...' is a move in logic (it is a negation). The statement above that I quoted is itself a conditional -- 'if this, then that' -- which is the primary operator of logic (logic itself is something like 'the science of what follows from what'). So, it can't be the logic part that isn't believed in, since that would make the above quote a self-referential paradox.

Everyone believes in (i.e. uses and depends on) measurement, too. Even walking down stairs involves measurement (doing it, and modifying one's behavior based on it), since if the foot goes a certain distance farther forward, there's broken bones in one's future, and everyone avoids broken bones at least much of the time.

But even professional scientists often have a fuzzy grasp of what science is, or at least ignore what science is fairly often. It isn't hard to find claims like 'science says that we should stop emitting so many greenhouse gases' or 'according to science, all that beer is bad for you'. But those are moral imperatives ('should') and evaluations ('bad'). Measurement and logic famously cannot by themselves get us to prescriptive statements (look up 'Hume's is/ought problem' for the history of this).

It seems that what people who think they don't believe in science (which is different than 'not believing in science'; the person whose belief it is does not have preferential access to that belief -- "actions speak louder than words" is the colloquial take on this fact) are opposed to are the ethical claims of scientists, or (similarly) of people who take the findings of science seriously enough that they have natural and expected moral feelings about those findings. But that's not 'not believing in science'; that's a moral dispute, one that if it is to be figured out needs to understand where the dispute actually lies. Because the dispute doesn't lie in science, since everyone who has been alive and functioning for the last ten minutes believes in science.

My minor field of PhD study was the philosophy of science, so I find this stuff all quite interesting.

[Gio]

Unfortunate for science, I have scammed it.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. I don't know what you mean by "I have scammed it"


"Science" in the context I'm referring to it here is very important.

Field studies about reptiles are funded in the name of science.

The reptile hobby we have today is better because of science.

The discovery of new species, their diets and mating habits are due to field studies. Those studies have improved the way we care for our animals.

Herpetology is the science of studying reptiles and amphibians. It is something you should believe in if you are going to keep any type of animal.

Over the years, I have searched for, read and often times posted links on this board to very interesting and informative science based field studies of various species of snakes.

Discounting science, if that is truly what you mean by your post, will be counterproductive to keeping your animal in good condition.

[Gobuchul]

I've heard people claim this pretty often. It has never been true, though, since it is based on a very basic lack of understanding of just what science is.

Science is, at its core, measurement plus logic. Science involves collecting data about physical things, and applying reasoning to figure out what follows from that data. (It is often said that a core element of science is 'repeatability', which is true but that's mostly a re-confirmation of the data, and of the reasoning, to make sure that the results weren't accidental or contingent on some unknown variable.)

But everyone (more correctly, every human person who can operate in the world at at least a very basic level -- so not people in vegetative states, or full-on and complete dementia, but pretty much everyone else) believes in (i.e. uses and depends on, almost every second) logic, usually implicit but very very frequently explicit. Simply saying 'I don't...' is a move in logic (it is a negation). The statement above that I quoted is itself a conditional -- 'if this, then that' -- which is the primary operator of logic (logic itself is something like 'the science of what follows from what'). So, it can't be the logic part that isn't believed in, since that would make the above quote a self-referential paradox.

Everyone believes in (i.e. uses and depends on) measurement, too. Even walking down stairs involves measurement (doing it, and modifying one's behavior based on it), since if the foot goes a certain distance farther forward, there's broken bones in one's future, and everyone avoids broken bones at least much of the time.

But even professional scientists often have a fuzzy grasp of what science is, or at least ignore what science is fairly often. It isn't hard to find claims like 'science says that we should stop emitting so many greenhouse gases' or 'according to science, all that beer is bad for you'. But those are moral imperatives ('should') and evaluations ('bad'). Measurement and logic famously cannot by themselves get us to prescriptive statements (look up 'Hume's is/ought problem' for the history of this).

It seems that what people who think they don't believe in science (which is different than 'not believing in science'; the person whose belief it is does not have preferential access to that belief -- "actions speak louder than words" is the colloquial take on this fact) are opposed to are the ethical claims of scientists, or (similarly) of people who take the findings of science seriously enough that they have natural and expected moral feelings about those findings. But that's not 'not believing in science'; that's a moral dispute, one that if it is to be figured out needs to understand where the dispute actually lies. Because the dispute doesn't lie in science, since everyone who has been alive and functioning for the last ten minutes believes in science.

My minor field of PhD study was the philosophy of science, so I find this stuff all quite interesting.

I have no reason to believe reality is real, or that any measurements are reflective of anything. These measurements are just models, and the model is an abstract concept, rather than something actually tied to physical existence. I often act as if models are accurate, but I do not believe they actually are. Insofar as science defines a model and says "look in this model things are this way," I could be said to believe it. That means nothing though, because I only believe it within the context of its own definitions.

Logic is the same thing. It's true within the context of its own definitions. Most people's model of reality seems to follow basic logical axioms, but I see no reason to believe that has anything to do with what's really going on.

[Malum Argenteum]

I have no reason to believe reality is real, or that any measurements are reflective of anything. These measurements are just models, and the model is an abstract concept, rather than something actually tied to physical existence. I often act as if models are accurate, but I do not believe they actually are. Insofar as science defines a model and says "look in this model things are this way," I could be said to believe it. That means nothing though, because I only believe it within the context of its own definitions.

Logic is the same thing. It's true within the context of its own definitions. Most people's model of reality seems to follow basic logical axioms, but I see no reason to believe that has anything to do with what's really going on.

Oh, I understand. A completely non-realist conception isn't completely bonkers (though your outline of it above is, since it isn't fundamentally coherent). It is, though, not appropriate to trot out in a discussion about snake care (whereas the 'I don't believe in science' claim that the rest of us thought you were implying is appropriate, sort of). The reason it isn't appropriate is it doesn't link to anything we're talking about here (since whether or not the snake exists in metaphysical reality doesn't affect care recommendations one way or the other), and makes people who are trying to help waste time (like I apparently did in my lengthy post). If it doesn't matter at all, and undermines what others are doing here, then it isn't appropriate.

[Gobuchul]

Oh, I understand. A completely non-realist conception isn't completely bonkers (though your outline of it above is, since it isn't fundamentally coherent). It is, though, not appropriate to trot out in a discussion about snake care (whereas the 'I don't believe in science' claim that the rest of us thought you were implying is appropriate, sort of). The reason it isn't appropriate is it doesn't link to anything we're talking about here (since whether or not the snake exists in metaphysical reality doesn't affect care recommendations one way or the other), and makes people who are trying to help waste time (like I apparently did in my lengthy post). If it doesn't matter at all, and undermines what others are doing here, then it isn't appropriate.

Whether I believe in science or not doesn't affect care recommendations anyways. This is because I'll do what you say regardless of the source.

[Gobuchul]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. I don't know what you mean by "I have scammed it"


"Science" in the context I'm referring to it here is very important.

Field studies about reptiles are funded in the name of science.

The reptile hobby we have today is better because of science.

The discovery of new species, their diets and mating habits are due to field studies. Those studies have improved the way we care for our animals.

Herpetology is the science of studying reptiles and amphibians. It is something you should believe in if you are going to keep any type of animal.

Over the years, I have searched for, read and often times posted links on this board to very interesting and informative science based field studies of various species of snakes.

Discounting science, if that is truly what you mean by your post, will be counterproductive to keeping your animal in good condition.

When I say I've scammed it, I mean I reap the benefits without believing in it.

[Gobuchul]

Enclosure improvement, I have blacked out the sides with duct tape. I intended to use paint at one point to be able to go higher over the holes, but decided I wasn't going to get around to it.

There was a bit too much moisture in the substrate that I added, so I've been trying to let it air out a bit. The room is about 77F and the enclosure probes still read 80, so I figure I can do that without failing temps.