“On what? The Modesty Argument?”

Sorry, no. I mean how you compare to de Grey in your opposition to the consensus views of scientists in your field. Would Hal’s argument that “on that basis I would predict that his project will not experience much success” apply equally to your research? I would say yes–the reason I support the SIAI nonetheless is that my limited expertise points me towards trusting my own judgment in the matter over that of the scientific consensus. Since I don’t have as much expertise in biology, I must depend more on the scientific consensus in my evaluation of de Grey.

How does this follow? The social method of trusting individuals doesn’t work, but that’s because you can’t tell which individuals to trust. I see no reason to assume that no individual human expert is capable of reliably distinguishing good science from bad, especially given that science is composed wholly of human beings, and does no thinking which occurs outside the confines of a human skull.

“I wonder how this compares to Eliezer’s position.”

On what? The Modesty Argument? Remember, I’m *against* Modesty.

Is precision and accuracy of measure recognized?

Is it the issue or the people (consensus) that is used to support an idea?

Is there an appropriate intellectual integrity (no common logical falsities, especially hidden ones)?

Judgmental or opinion? Hubris? Tone? – many more.

“in which he basically states that the scientific consensus is against him”

I wonder how this compares to Eliezer’s position.

When an idea has been proven by this I mean that scientists have accumulated deep understanding of how something works that is the result of feedback, for instance in physics lots of particle experiments meant that the model of how particles work was refined over time with new insights being added as the feedback dictated. The result is a model that is shared by almost everyone working in the field, because errors could easily be tested and proven wrong.

Where the idea is not proven (i.e. there has not been this gradual idea,test,verify idea,test cycle perhaps because it is impossible as with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis) we should remain sceptical even if there is scientific consensus, for scientists are just as fallible (maybe even more so because of groupthink) than the rest of the population as evidenced by others above. Maybe they are fallible for different reasons (over-respect of other disciplines, peer review process stifling debate, need to get tenure etc), but they since they are human they have bias’s. Even the greatest of them (Einstein) had strong convictions (god does not play dice) that turned out to be wrong.

How do we decide then whether and idea (if is not testable) is correct or not? In some cases Occams razor will work (for instance on religion) otherwise I take a sceptical approach – if it can’t be tested it is unlikely to be an effect of any significance worth spending time evaluating.

Matthew, the case of de Gray is a good example of the kind of challenge I am talking about. Via scholar.google.com I found an essay of his at:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2005.8.207?cookieSet=1

in which he basically states that the scientific consensus is against him. Without getting into the question of whether his views are “pseudoscience” or not, on that basis I would predict that his project will not experience much success. It sounds like the gerentology community does not think that dramatic increases in mouse lifespan are possible with current and near future technology.

That’s a pretty easy conclusion to reach. The question is whether reviewing his writings and those of his critics in more detail is worthwhile in terms of improving accuracy. Biology is extremely complicated and I am skeptical that a layman can learn enough to improve on the opinions of professional biologists. Add the fact that this is an emotional area where people have many latent hopes and fears and the prospects of a successful “think for yourself” operation look exceptionally dim.

http://www.technologyreview.com/sens/index.aspx

Basically, if people don’t appear to be reasonable, they probably aren’t, and their support of a position isn’t evidence for it. If they speak in vague abstractions and can’t be pinned down in discussion or questioning, same thing. If they don’t even bother to appeal to hard evidence, in areas where there is relevant evidence, same thing. There’s more on Wikipedia under “Pseudoscience”. This type of thing can be evaluated by people without a lot of scientific knowledge.

Similarly, claims that de Grey is doing pseudoscience are hard to evaluate, because he speaks concretely, cites particulars, references (and coauthors) papers, and doesn’t immediately appear to be evasive in discussion (at least to my lay ears). So it takes people with much more expertise to evaluate his credibility. (And even then, it’s hard for laypeople to distinguish infighting from legitimate complaint. Scientists don’t have a reputation for being open-minded.)

Can you elaborate on this?