judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the tag “Experiment”

Science vs. Science™!

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article that warrants posting here.  I have seen a recent proliferation of articles in respected publications pointing out, bemoaning, and/or highlighting increasing problems with the trustworthiness of the alleged findings of the contemporary scientific community.  I find these articles to be particularly interesting given how our society looks to science as a (the?) source of ultimate truths (often as a mutually exclusive alternative to spirituality).  This sort of scientism may be misplaced, and these articles delve into the pitfalls that come with such an approach.

Here are the links the other articles I posted on this subject:

Be edified.

________________

Who needs experiments and proof when your zeal is religious?

On Saturday, leftists around the nation took to the streets to sound off about their new religion: Science™! No, not testable hypotheses and well-constructed experiments. Science™! You know, like gay rights and abortion and global redistributionism and dying polar bears ’n’ stuff.

Leading the charge was eminent scientific revolutionary Bill Nye the Science Guy, a mechanical-engineering-degree holder who got famous as a children’s television presenter. Nye was a keynoter at the March for Science, where he stated, “We are marching today to remind people everywhere, our lawmakers especially, of the significance of science for our health and prosperity.” What sort of science was Nye standing up to defend? Budget increases for the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health, of course! He explained how all of this was scientific and not political: “Somewhere along the way, there has developed this idea that if you believe something hard enough, it’s as true as things discovered through the process of science. And I will say that’s objectively wrong.”

Belief isn’t science. This is a good point.

Unfortunately, Nye followed up his widely praised appearance at the March for Science by unleashing a video that destroyed the Internet, from his new show Bill Nye Saves the World. He trotted out Crazy Ex-Girlfriend actress Rachel Bloom to sing a “very special” song (Nye’s words). She warbled:

My vagina has its own voice / Not vocal cords, a metaphorical voice / Sometimes I do a voice for my vagina . . . / ’Cause my sex junk is so oh, oh, oh / Much more than either or, or or / Power bottom or power top / Versatile love may have some butt stuff / It’s evolution, ain’t nothing new / There’s nothing taboo about a sex stew . . . If they’re alive, I’ll date ’em / Channing or Jenna Tatum / I’m down for anything / Don’t box in my box.

Science™!

If this seems rather unscientific to you — if you wonder why a talking vagina with obvious self-control problems is being trotted out by the self-proclaimed Science Guy — you’re not alone. You’re rational. You might even be using some scientific thinking. But this is demonstrative of the Left’s take on science: Science is actually just the name for anything the Left likes. Worried about the humanity of an unborn child? Concerned that fetuses have their own blood types and their own DNA? Stop it! You’re quoting science, not Science™! Wondering how it is that a genetic male is actually a woman? You’re worrying about science, not Science™!

This is the dirty little secret of the Left’s sudden embrace of Science™ — it’s not science they support, but religion. They support that which they believe but cannot prove and do not care about proving. Bill Nye isn’t interested in a scientific debate about global warming — how much is occurring, the measurement techniques at issue, the sensitivity of the climate to carbon emissions, the range of factors that affect the climate. He wants you to accept his version of the truth — not just that global warming is happening, but that massive government intervention is necessary in order to avert imminent global catastrophe.

Such government solutions aren’t verifiably scientific. They are speculative. But that speculation has costs, particularly to the most impoverished people on the planet, who benefit from cheap carbon-based fuels. Even if you accept the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate that sea levels will rise by two feet over the course of the rest of the century and the temperature will rise about 7 degrees Fahrenheit, there is reason to question, as Oren Cass points out, whether or not massive government intervention is necessary or even justifiable.

But the Left refuses to acknowledge such questions. It makes you a “denier” to disagree with the Left’s conclusions, just as it makes you a cruel person to wonder whether gun control will actually lower the American murder rate. Science, in other words, is just a baton for the Left.

A decade ago, the Left declared President Bush anti-science for his restrictions on the use of new federally funded fetal-stem-cell lines. They claimed that Bush hated science, that fetal stem cells were the wave of the future, that Bush was a “moral ayatollah,” in the words of Senator Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). Democrats ran on the promise that if Bush were thrown out of office in 2004, they’d make Christopher Reeve walk again using fetal stem cells. But it turned out that fetal stem cells were unnecessary to scientific research — scientists came up with an embryo-free process to produce genetically matched stem cells. As Charles Krauthammer, no religious fundamentalist, wrote at the time: “Rarely has a president — so vilified for a moral stance — been so thoroughly vindicated. Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance.”

In other words, Bush didn’t rely on science to give him his values. Nor should he have. Science is incapable of making value-laden decisions. There are plenty of ob-gyns who know better than the most pro-life conservative just how complex life is in the womb, yet they will perform abortions — science hasn’t dictated their behavior. The Nazis were famously pro-science, declaring that science itself mandated the killing of the “unfit” for the strengthening of the race; their racism was supposedly scientific.

That’s why the March for Science is such foolishness. If the march were simply focused on advocacy for increased EPA funding, that would be political, not scientific; if the marchers were demanding more funding for the NIH, that too would be political, but with a stronger scientific component. But the March for Science was actually a march for Science™: The Leftist Religion — and that leftist religion isn’t interested in science in the slightest. It’s simplistic and simple-minded virtue signaling.

By Ben Shapiro in the National Review on April 26, 2017 and can be seen here.

Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article that warrants posting here.  I have seen a recent proliferation of articles in respected publications pointing out, bemoaning, and/or highlighting increasing problems with the trustworthiness of the alleged findings of the contemporary scientific community.  I find these articles to be particularly interesting given how our society looks to science as a (the?) source of ultimate truths (often as a mutually exclusive alternative to spirituality).  This sort of scientism may be misplaced, and these articles delve into the pitfalls that come with such an approach.

Here are the links the other articles I posted on this subject:

Be edified.

___________

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd.

This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day betrays what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted as much early on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in sciencey camouflage.

If past is prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this claim is to shut up skeptical non-scientists.

How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science. But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other.

“Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink?

When can you doubt a consensus? Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus.

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are prone to herd instincts. Many false ideas once enjoyed consensus. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternatives to their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with anger.

We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone who thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best ignored.

So how do we distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Do we have to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?

Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. I don’t know of any complete list of signs of suspicion. But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even should, doubt a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be leery.

(1) When different claims get bundled together

Usually, in scientific disputes, there’s more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that we are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we must transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different claims based on different evidence.

Evidence for warming, for instance, isn’t evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet and Newfoundland become a popular place to tan: That wouldn’t tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.

There’s a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There’s even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four claims are often bundled together. So, if you doubt one, you’re labeled a climate change “skeptic” or “denier.” That’s dishonest. When well-established claims are tied with other, more controversial claims, and the entire bundle is labeled “consensus,” you have reason for doubt.

(2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate

Personal attacks are common in any dispute. It’s easier to insult than to the follow the thread of an argument. And just because someone makes an ad hominem argument, it doesn’t mean that their conclusion is wrong. But when the personal attacks are the first out of the gate, don your skeptic’s cap and look more closely at the data.

When it comes to climate change, ad hominems are everywhere. They’re even smuggled into the way the debate is described. The common label “denier” is one example. This label is supposed to call to mind the charge of columnist Ellen Goodman: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious.

(3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line

The famous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union is example of politics trumping good science. But it’s not the only way politics can override science. There’s also a conspiracy of agreement, in which assumptions and interests combine to give the appearance of objectivity where none exists. This is even more forceful than a literal conspiracy enforced by a dictator. Why? Because it looks like the agreement reflects a fair and independent weighing of the evidence.

Tenure, job promotions, government grants, media accolades, social respectability, Wikipedia entries, and vanity can do what gulags do, only more subtly. Alexis de Tocqueville warned of this almost two centuries ago. The power of the majority in American society, he wrote, could erect “formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.” He could have been writing about climate science.

Indeed, the quickest way for scientists to put their careers at risk is to raise even modest questions about climate doom (see here, here and here). Scientists are under pressure to toe the party line on climate change and receive many benefits for doing so. That’s another reason for suspicion.

(4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish

Though it has its limits, the peer-review process is meant to provide checks and balances. At its best, it helps weed out bad and misleading work, and make scientific research more objective. But when the same few people review and approve each other’s work, you get conflicts of interest. This weakens the case for the supposed consensus. It becomes, instead, another reason for doubt. Those who follow the climate debate have known for years about the cliquish nature of publishing and peer review in climate science (see here for example).

(5) When dissenters are excluded from the peer-reviewed journals not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but to marginalize them.

Besides mere cliquishness, the “peer review” process in climate science has, in some cases, been subverted to prevent dissenters from being published. Again, those who follow the debate have known about these problems for years. But the Climategate debacle in 2009 revealed some of the gory details for the broader public. And again, this gives the lay public a reason to doubt the consensus.

(6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented

We’ve been told for years that the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous in its support for human-induced climate change. In Science, Naomi Oreskes even produced a “study” of the literature supposedly showing “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.”

In fact, there are plenty of dissenting papers in the literature. This is despite mounting evidence that the peer-review deck was stacked against them. The 2009 Climategate scandal underscored this: The climate scientists at the center of the controversy complained in their emails about dissenting papers that survived the peer-review booby traps they put in place. They even fantasized about torpedoing a climate science journal that dared to publish a dissenting article.

(7) When consensus is declared before it even exists

A well-rooted scientific consensus, like a mature oak, needs time to grow. Scientists have to do research, publish articles, read about other research, and repeat experiments (where possible). They need to reveal their data and methods, have open debates, evaluate arguments, look at the trends, and so forth, before they can come to agreement. When scientists rush to declare a consensus — when they claim a consensus that has yet to form — this should give everyone pause.

In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.” In the real 1992, however, Gallup “reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.”

Seventeen years later, in 2009, Gore revised his own fake history. He claimed that the debate over human-induced climate change had raged until as late as 1999, but now there was true consensus. Of course, 2009 is when Climategate broke, reminding us that what had smelled funny was indeed rotten.

(8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus

It makes sense that chemists over time may come to agree about the results of some chemical reaction, since they can repeat the results over and over in their own labs. They’re easy to test. But much of climate science is not like that. The evidence is scattered and hard to track. It’s often indirect, imbedded in history and laden with theory. You can’t rerun past climate to test it. And the headline-grabbing claims of climate scientists are based on complex computer models that don’t match reality. These models get their input, not from the data, but from the scientists who interpret the data. This isn’t the sort of evidence that can provide the basis for a well-founded consensus. In fact, if there really were a consensus on the many claims around climate science, that would be suspicious. Thus, the claim of consensus is a bit suspect as well.

(9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution

In Newsweek’s April 28, 1975, issue, science editor Peter Gwynne claimed that “scientists are almost unanimous” that global cooling was underway. Now we are told, “Scientists say global warming will lead to the extinction of plant and animal species, the flooding of coastal areas from rising seas, more extreme weather, more drought and diseases spreading more widely.” “Scientists say” is ambiguous. You should wonder: “Which ones?”

Other times this vague company of scientists becomes “SCIENCE.” As when we’re told “what science says is required to avoid catastrophic climate change.” “Science says” is a weasely claim. “Science,” after all, is an abstract noun. It can’t speak. Whenever you see these phrases used to imply a consensus, it should trigger your baloney detector.

(10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies

Imagine hundreds of world leaders and NGOS, science groups, and UN functionaries gathered for a meeting. It’s heralded as the most important conference since World War II, in which “the future of the world is being decided.” These officials seem to agree that institutions of “global governance” need to be set up to reorder the world economy and restrict energy use. Large numbers of them applaud wildly when socialist dictators denounce capitalism. Strange activism surrounds the gathering. And we are told by our president that all of this is based, not on fiction, but on science — that is, a scientific consensus that our greenhouse gas emissions are leading to climate catastrophe.

We don’t have to imagine that scenario, of course. It happened at the UN climate meeting in Copenhagen, in December 2009. It happened again in Paris, in December 2015. Expect something at least as zany at the March for Science.

Now, none of this disproves climate doom. But it does describe a setting in which truth need not appear. And at the least, when policy effects are so profound, the evidence should be rock solid. “Extraordinary claims,” the late Carl Sagan often said, “require extraordinary evidence.” When the megaphones of consensus insist that there’s no time, that we have to move, MOVE, MOVE!, you have a right to be wary.

(11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as fairly as possible

Do I really need to elaborate on this point?

(12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus

A consensus should be based on solid evidence. But a consensus is not itself the evidence. And with well-established scientific theories, you never hear about consensus. No one talks about the consensus that the planets orbit the sun, that the hydrogen molecule is lighter than the oxygen molecule, that salt is sodium chloride, that bacteria sometimes cause illness, or that blood carries oxygen to our organs. The very fact that we hear so much about a consensus on climate change may be enough to justify suspicion.

To adapt that old legal rule, when you’ve got solid scientific evidence on your side, you argue the evidence. When you’ve got great arguments, you make the arguments. When you don’t have solid evidence or great arguments, you claim consensus.

Adapted from THE AMERICAN. This piece has been updated since its original publication.

By Jay Richards and published on April 19, 2017 in The Stream and can be found here.

 

The Miracle of Science

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article the warrants posting here; I recently came across one in Splice Today by my old philosophy professor Dr. Crispin Sartwell from back in my Penn State days which, I thought, was pretty insightful. Be edified.

________________

Can it save us from itself?

“Science” is a good thing for traumatized progressives to march for, allowing them to express their commitment simultaneously to truth itself and to the epistemic and cash-money hierarchy recognized by their kind. There were no anti-science counter-demonstrations, partly because almost everyone recognizes science as having a kind of overwhelming credibility; no one explicitly opposes it in general, even if they haven’t quite accepted human-caused climate change. Many purport to think of it as the only source of truth.

“How did America rise up from a backwoods country to be one of the greatest nations the world has ever known?” asks Neil de Grasse Tyson in a video which he describes as containing “the most important words I have ever spoken.” It’s technology, man, which he folds effortlessly into science. As the video unspools, it shows an inspiring montage of extreme carbon-emitting activities: rockets rising into the sky, steam power from coal plants, cities aglow with incandescent light. All that’s missing is the mushroom cloud… of science!

Indeed, even on Tyson’s conception, science has had some really terrifying results, such as industrial agriculture and ever-new generations of weaponry. According to his view, science is now the only hope for ameliorating the conditions it has itself ushered in. As to how science stands today in relation to the objective truth, I wouldn’t assume that this time around the results will stand up permanently or the effects wind up being benign. Every time they tell you what’s true, take it seriously and cock a skeptical eyebrow. Any other attitude is not compatible with science.

Tyson says that, in the 21st century, people other than himself “have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not.” The question is easy for people like Tyson: “science” is what is true, denying it or even quibbling with some particular result, is a sign not only that you probably didn’t do that well on the SAT’s, but that you’re irrational and evil. And since few of us are in a position to check the results of any particular research project, we must accept the deliverances of science on authority. For Tyson, the distinction between what’s true and what’s not is identical to the distinction between what people like him agree on and what they agree against. If someone “doesn’t believe in science,” they’re questioning his authority and that of his ilk.

This dogmatism is incompatible with science’s own self-understanding as producing provisional, challengeable knowledge. And it’s incompatible with the history of science. Think for just a moment what you would’ve been accepting if you had “accepted science” 50 years ago: what you would’ve believed about the nature of the universe (for example, that it’s in a steady state, rather than expanding), or about what food or pharmaceuticals could be safely consumed. What you’re urged today to accept without question as a badge of your goodness and rationality and your social status will quite likely be revised tomorrow. That’s what is good about science, actually.

But science was presented in those marches not only as consisting of thousands of specific assertions you’re called upon to accept, but as a token of identity. A defense of science is a defense, among other things, of academic institutions as being arbiters of knowledge and ignorance. More to the point, academics and scientists feel their funding to be under threat by the Trump administration.

I don’t think the “science wars” are wars about truth. They’re wars about class, identity, and the shape of history. The real avatars of the science march were Bill Nye the Science Guy and Ms. Frizzle, the cartoon teacher from The Magic School Bus. These figures, along with Sesame Street and Barney, helped shape the consciousness of, let’s say, middle-class white American kids. Nye and Frizzle spent half their time instructing and the other half enthusing about the wonders of science itself. Now they’re figures of preternatural power, battling the forces of ignorance in the streets.

It strikes me that it’d behoove us to do whatever the scientists tell us to do. They have access to biological, chemical, and nuclear agents, which they developed themselves, and the expertise to weaponize them. Watch these people bring down the Internet, if they want, or seize control of the grid. Perhaps we have focused too much on the threat of radical Islamism, and too little on the threat of rigorous scientism.

Originally published on April 24, 2017 and can be found here.

Tactical Retreat: The Bequest

My friend and co-worker Brian M. Lambert has founded an online sketch comedy project called Tactical Retreat which you can find here on Facebook and here on Youtube.

As Tactical Retreat releases new videos, I will post them here.  So far, I have found them rather funny and clever and they seem to get better with each release.

Here are the links to Tactical Retreat‘s previously released sketches:

Tactical Retreat‘s latest sketch is entitled “The Bequest” can be viewed below.

Tactical Retreat: Frequent Flyer

My friend and co-worker Brian M. Lambert has founded an online sketch comedy project called Tactical Retreat which you can find here on Facebook and here on Youtube.

As Tactical Retreat releases new videos, I will post them here.  So far, I have found them rather funny and clever and they seem to get better with each release.

Here are the links to Tactical Retreat‘s previously released sketches:

Tactical Retreat‘s latest sketch is entitled “Frequent Flyer” can be viewed below.

Tactical Retreat: Guilty Pleasures

My friend and co-worker Brian M. Lambert has founded an online sketch comedy project called Tactical Retreat which you can find here on Facebook and here on Youtube.

As Tactical Retreat releases new videos, I will post them here.  So far, I have found them rather funny and clever and they seem to get better with each release.

Here are the links to Tactical Retreat‘s previously released sketches:

Tactical Retreat‘s latest sketch is entitled “Guilty Pleasures” can be viewed below.

Putting nature on the rack

This is from edwardfeser.blogspot.com which you can find here.  This blog is written by Edward Feser who is a Christian philosopher who I have been recently introduced to who I think provides effective clear, sobering, and direct responses to the advance of secular culture.

__________

What was it that distinguished the modern scientific method inaugurated by Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, and Co. from the science of the medievals?  One common answer is that the moderns required empirical evidence, whereas the medievals contented themselves with appeals to the authority of Aristotle.  The famous story about Galileo’s Scholastic critics’ refusing to look through his telescope is supposed to illustrate this difference in attitudes.

 

The problem with this answer, of course, is that it is false.  For one thing, the telescope story is (like so many other things everyone “knows” about the Scholastics and about the Galileo affair) a legend.  For another, part of the reason Galileo’s position was resisted was precisely because there were a number of respects in which it appeared to conflict with the empirical evidence.  (For example, the Copernican theory predicted that Venus should sometimes appear six times larger than it does at other times, but at first the empirical evidence seemed not to confirm this, until telescopes were developed which could detect the difference; the predicted stellar parallax did not receive empirical confirmation for a long time; and so forth.)

Then there is the fact that the medievals were simply by no means hostile to the idea that empirical evidence is the foundation of knowledge; on the contrary, it was a standard Scholastic slogan that “there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses.”  Indeed, Bacon regarded his Scholastic predecessors as if anything too quick to believe the evidence of the senses.  The first of the “Idols of the Mind” that he famously critiques, namely the “Idols of the Tribe,” included a tendency to take the deliverances of sensory experience for granted.  The senses could, in Bacon’s view, too readily be deceived, and needed to be corrected by carefully controlling the conditions of observation and developing scientific instruments.  And in general, the early moderns regarded much of what the senses tell us about the natural world — such as what they tell us about secondary qualities like color and temperature — to be false.
So, it is simply not the case that the difference between the medievals and the early moderns was that the latter were more inclined to trust empirical evidence.  On the contrary, there is a sense in which that is precisely the reverse of the truth.

 

Where empirical evidence is concerned, the real difference might, to oversimplify, be put as follows.  Both the medievals and the early moderns regarded sensory experience as a crucial witness to the truth about the natural world.  But whereas the medievals regarded it as a more or less friendly witness, the moderns regarded it as a more or less hostile witness.  You can, from both sorts of witness, derive the truth.  But the methods will be different.

 

Hence, a friendly witness can more or less be asked directly for the information you want.  That doesn’t mean he might not sometimes need to be prodded to answer.  Even if he is honest, he might be shy, or reluctant to divulge something embarrassing, or just not very articulate.  It also doesn’t mean that everything he says can be taken at face value.  He may be forgetful, or confused, or just mistaken now and again.  A hostile witness, by contrast, though he has the information you want, cannot with confidence be asked directly.  Even if he is articulate, has a crystal clear memory, etc., he may simply refuse to answer, or may persistently beat around the bush, or may flat-out lie, seriously and repeatedly.  Thus, he may have to be tricked into giving you the information you want, like the Jack Nicholson character in A Few Good Men.  Or you may be tempted to threaten or beat it out of him, like one of the cops in L.A. Confidential would.  So, you might say that whereas the medieval Aristotelian scientist has a conversation with nature, the early modern Baconian scientist waterboards nature.  Hence the notorious Baconian talk about putting nature to the rack, torturing her for her secrets, etc.

 

Of course, this is melodramatic.  And to be fair, Bacon himself seems not to have put things quite the way commonly attributed to him (i.e. the stuff about torture and the rack).  All the same, the medievals and moderns do disagree about the degree to which the world of ordinary experience and the world that science reveals — what Wilfrid Sellars called “the manifest image” and “the scientific image” — correspond.  For the Aristotelian, philosophy and science are largely in harmony with common sense and ordinary experience.  To be sure, they get at much deeper levels of reality, and they correct common sense and ordinary experience around the edges, but they don’t overthrow common sense and ordinary experience wholesale.  For the moderns, by contrast, philosophy and science are likely radically to conflict with common sense and ordinary experience, and may indeed end up overthrowing them wholesale.

 

(This is not a difference concerning whether to accept the results of modern science, by the way.  It is a difference about how to interpret those results.  For example, it is a difference over whether to regard modern science as giving us a correct but merely partial description of nature — a description which needs to be supplemented by and embedded within an Aristotelian metaphysics and philosophy of nature — or whether to regard modern science instead as an exhaustive description of nature, and a complete metaphysics in its own right.)

 

The early moderns’ attitude of treating nature as a hostile witness — of thinking that the truth about nature is largely contrary to what ordinary experience would indicate — is one of the sources of the modern tendency to suppose that “things are never what they seem,” that traditional ideas are typically mere prejudices, that authorities and official stories of every kind need to be “unmasked,” and so forth.  Michael Levin has called this the “skim milk fallacy,” and I’ve often noted some of its social and moral consequences (e.g. here, here and here).  But these are merely byproducts of a much deeper metaphysical and epistemological revolution.

My Life in Concerts: the Complete List

Over the course of the last 23 plus years, I have enjoyed the opportunity to go and see many bands in a live setting.  As my readers know, I have seen Yes by far the most, but, contrary to popular belief, Yes (and their openers) is/are not the only band(s) I have ever seen live.

After so many years and shows, I thought it would be fun to try and list and catalogue all the shows I have seen.  I think the list below is about as comprehensive as I can create, and it does not, obviously, include live bands in bars and community festivals and such.

I have also, over the course of this blog, put up numerous posts of tour programs, tickets, reviews, and other things I have collected over the years at concerts.  Here they are below:

Here is, what I think, is my complete list of concerts (227):

Yes (24):

Porcupine Tree (8):

  • 6/23/01: NEARFest 2001
  • 7/26/02: Theater of the Living Arts (with Tim Reynolds)
  • 11/8/02: Tower Theater (with Yes)
  • 7/20/03: Trocadero Theater (with Opeth)
  • 5/21/05: Trocadero Theater (with Tunnels)
  • 9/27/05: Keswick Theater (with Robert Fripp)
  • 10/7/06: Keswick Theater (with ProjeKCt Six)
  • 9/26/09: Electric Factory (with King’s X)

The Musical Box (7):

  • 2/26/04: Keswick Theater
  • 7/9/04: NEARFest 2004
  • 12/17/04: Keswick Theater
  • 12/10/05: Tower Theater
  • 10/20/06: Tower Theater
  • 12/15/07: Tower Theater
  • 8/3/13: Camden Tweeter Center (with Yestival)

Renaissance (3):

  • 10/11/09: Keswick Theater
  • 6/23/12: NEARFest 2012
  • 8/3/13: Camden Tweeter Center (with Yestival)

Philadelphia Orchestra (3):

  • 4/5/05: Verizon Hall
  • 9/24/05: Verizon Hall
  • Another date: Mann Music Center

Änglagård (2):

  • 6/29/03 NEARFest 2003
  • 6/23/12 NEARFest 2012

Asia (2):

Banco del Mutuo Soccorso (2):

Bela Fleck and the Flecktones (2):

  • 8/1/96: Keswick Theater
  • 8/5/08: Mann Music Center (with Return to Forever)

DFA (2):

  • 6/17/00: NEARFest 2001
  • 6/20/09: NEARFest 2009

Echolyn (2):

  • 6/29/02: NEARFest 2002
  • 6/22/08: NEARFest 2008

Steve Hackett (2):

King Crimson (2):

Magma (2):

Mike Keneally Band (2):

  • 7/10/04: NEARFest 2004
  • 6/24/12: NEARFest 2012

PFM (2):

Riverside (2):

Tunnels (2):

  •  6/28/03: NEARFest 2003
  • 5/21/05: Trocadero Theater (with Porcupine Tree)

Van Der Graaf Generator (2):

  • 6/19/09: NEARFest 2009
  • 6/22/12: NEARFest 2012

Carl Palmer ELP Legacy Band (2):

  • 8/3/13 Camden Tweeter Center (with Yestival)
  • 8/15/17: Hershey Theater – Yestival Tour

Other (152):

  • Acoustic Trio (Stanley Clarke, Bela Fleck, Jean Luc Ponty): 8/12/05 Mann Music Center
  • After Crying: 6/24/01 NEARFest 2001
  • Alamaailman Vasarat: 6/28/03 NEARFest 2003
  • Alan Parsons Project: 6/27/98 Camden Blockbuster Center (with Yes)
  • Anderson/Ponty: 10/27/15 Keswick Theater
  • Anekdoten: 6/17/00 NEARFest 2000
  • Ange: 6/25/06 NEARFest 2006
  • Aranis: 6/22/12 NEARFest 2012
  • Astra: 6/19/10 NEARFest 2010
  • Beardfish: 6/21/09 NEARFest 2009
  • Bird Songs of the Mesozoic: 6/23/01 NEARFest 2001
  • The Black Eyed Peas (with Rita Marley and Stephen Marley): 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Bon Jovi: 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Cabezas de Cera: 6/20/09 NEARFest 2009
  • California Guitar Trio with Tony Levin: 6/24/01 NEARFest 2001
  • Camel: 6/29/03 NEARFest 2003
  • Canned Heat: 1/21/05 Keswick Theater (with Mountain and Vanilla Fudge)
  • Caravan: 6/30/02 NEARFest 2002
  • Dave Matthews Band: 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Def Leppard: 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Destiny’s Child: 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Deus Ex Machina: 6/23/01 NEARFest 2001
  • Discipline: 6/21/08 NEARFest 2008
  • Dixie Dregs: 4/7/05 Theater of the Living Arts (with Steve Morse Band)
  • Djam Karet: 6/24/10: NEARFest 2001
  • DJ Green Lantern: 7/2/05 Live 8
  • DJ Jazzy Jeff (with Will Smith): 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Bob Drake: 6/23/07: NEARFest 2007
  • Dream Theater: 9/3/04 Allentown Fairgrounds (with Yes)
  • KBB: 6/24/06 NEARFest 2006
  • Keith Emerson: 6/25/06 NEARFest 2006
  • Enchant: 6/30/02 NEARFest 2002
  • The Enid: 6/20/10 NEARFest 2010
  • Fish: 6/20/08 NEARFest 2008
  • The Flower Kings: 6/28/03 NEARFest 2003
  • FM: 6/24/06 NEARFest 2006
  • Forgas Band Phenomena: 6/19/10 NEARFest 2010
  • Peter Frampton: 6/15/10 Tower Theater (with Yes)
  • Robert Fripp: 9/27/05 Keswick Theater (with Porcupine Tree)
  • Frogg Cafe: 7/9/05 NEARFest 2005
  • Gerard: 6/30/02 NEARFest 2002
  • Glass Hammer: 6/29/03 NEARFest 2003
  • Gong: 6/20/09 NEARFest 2009
  • Gosta Berlings Saga: 6/24/12 NEARFest 2012
  • Josh Groban (with Sarah McLachlan): 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Guapo: 6/25/06 NEARFest 2006
  • Peter Hammil: 6/21/08 NEARFest 2008
  • Happy the Man: 6/17/00 NEARFest 2000
  • Hatfield and the North: 6/23/06 NEARFest 2006
  • Hawkwind: 6/23/07: NEARFest 2007
  • Helmet of Gnats: 6/23/12 NEARFest 2012
  • Hidria Spacefolk: 7/11/04 NEARFest 2004
  • High Wheel: 6/28/03 NEARFest 2003
  • Steve Hillage: 6/19/09 NEARFest 2009
  • Allan Holdsworth: 6/22/07: NEARFest 2007
  • Iluvatar: 6/17/00 NEARFest 2000
  • Il Balletto di Bronzo: 6/18/00 NEARFest 2000
  • Il Tempio delle Clessidre: 6/24/12 NEARFest 2012
  • Indukti: 6/24/07: NEARFest 2007
  • Iona: 6/19/10 NEARFest 2010
  • IQ: 7/9/05 NEARFest 2005
  • IZZ: 6/23/07: NEARFest 2007
  • Isildur’s Bane: 6/29/02 NEARFest 2002
  • Jars of Clay: 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Jay-Z (with Linkin Park): 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Jethro Tull: 8/9/03 MusikFest
  • Eddie Jobson / UKZ: 6/20/10: NEARFest 2010
  • Richard Leo Johnson: 6/24/06 NEARFest 2006
  • Kaiser Chiefs: 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Kansas: 7/18/00 Camden Blockbuster Center (with Yes)
  • Toby Keith: 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Kenso: 7/10/05 NEARFest 2005
  • Alicia Keys: 7/2/05 Live 8
  • King’s X: 9/26/09 Electric Factory (with Porcupine Tree)
  • Knight Area: 7/10/05 NEARFest 2005
  • Koenji Hyakkei: 6/21/08 NEARFest 2008
  • Kraan: 6/29/03 NEARFest 2003
  • La Maschera di Cera: 6/24/04: NEARFest 2007
  • La Torre dell’Alchimista: 6/29/02 NEARFest 2002
  • Le Orme: 7/10/05 NEARFest 2005
  • Linkin Park (with Jay-Z): 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Liquid Tension Experiment: 6/21/08 NEARFest 2008
  • Magenta: 6/23/07: NEARFest 2007
  • Sean Malone: 7/11/04 NEARFest 2004
  • Michael Manring: 6/25/06 NEARFest 2006
  • Rita Marley and Stephen Marley (with The Black Eyed Peas ): 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Maroon 5: 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Sarah McLachlan  (with Josh Groban): 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Metamorfosi: 7/11/04 NEARFest 2004
  • Miriodor: 6/29/02 NEARFest 2002
  • Moraine: 6/20/10 NEARFest 2010
  • Morglbl: 6/22/08 NEARFest 2008
  • Mountain: 1/21/05 Keswick Theater (with Canned Heat and Vanilla Fudge)
  • The Muffins: 7/10/05 NEARFest 2005
  • NeBeLNeST: 6/23/07: NEARFest 2007
  • Nektar: 6/29/02 NEARFest 2002
  • Nexus: 6/18/00 NEARFest 2000
  • Niacin: 6/25/06 NEARFest 2006
  • Nicholas Payton Quintet: 10/19/97 Central PA Friends of Jazz
  • North Star: 6/18/00 NEARFest 2000
  • Oblivion Sun: 6/20/09 NEARFest 2009
  • One Shot: 6/22/07: NEARFest 2007
  • Opeth: 7/20/03: Trocadero Theater (with Porcupine Tree)
  • Ozric Tentacles: 6/24/06 NEARFest 2006
  • Pallas: 7/10/04 NEARFest 2004
  • Par Lindh Project: 6/18/00 NEARFest 2000
  • Matthew Parmenter: 7/10/05 NEARFest 2005
  • The Pineapple Thief: 6/20/10 NEARFest 2010
  • Richard Pinhas: 7/10/04 NEARFest 2004
  • Planet X: 7/11/04 NEARFest 2004
  • Present: 7/9/05 NEARFest 2005
  • Procol Harum: 7/20/12 Tower Theater (with Yes)
  • ProjeKCt Six: 10/7/06 Keswick Theater (with Porcupine Tree)
  • Proto-Kaw: 7/8/05: NEARFest 2005
  • Pure Reason Revolution: 6/24/04: NEARFest 2007
  • Quantum Fantasy: 6/21/09 NEARFest 2009
  • Radio Massacre International: 6/22/08 NEARFest 2008
  • Return to Forever: 8/5/08 Mann Music Center (with Bela Fleck and the Flecktones)
  • Tim Reynolds: 7/26/02: Theater of the Living Arts (with Porcupine Tree)
  • Robert Rich: 6/24/04: NEARFest 2007
  • Steve Roach: 7/9/05 NEARFest 2005
  • Todd Rundgren: 8/15/17: Hershey Theater – Yestival Tour
  • Scale the Summit: 8/3/13 Camden Tweeter Center (with Yestival)
  • The School of Rock: 8/3/13 Camden Tweeter Center (with Yestival)
  • Second Sufis: NEARFest 2003
  • Secret Oyster: 6/22/07: NEARFest 2007
  • Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: 629/03 NEARFest 2003
  • Will Smith (with DJ Jazzy Jeff): 7/2/05 Live 8
  • Spaced Out: 6/30/02 NEARFest 2002
  • Steve Morse Band: 4/7/05 Theater of the Living Arts (with Dixie Dregs)
  • Strawbs: 7/11/04 NEARFest 2004
  • Styx: 7/4/11 Camden Tweeter Center (with Yes)
  • Syd Arthur: 7/19/14 Upper Darby Tower Theater (with Yes)
  • Synergy (Larry Fast): 6/20/08 NEARFest 2008
  • Thinking Plague: 6/18/00 NEARFest 2000
  • Three Friends: 6/19/10 NEARFest 2010
  • The Tony Levin Band: 6/23/06 NEARFest 2006
  • Toto: 8/9/15: Borgata, Atlantic City (with Yes)
  • Transatlantic: 6/18/00 NEARFest 2001
  • Trettioariga Kriget: 6/21/09 NEARFest
  • Twelfth Night: 6/23/12 NEARFest 2012
  • U.K.: 6/24/12 NEARFest 2012
  • The Underground Railroad: 6/24/01 NEARFest 2001
  • Under the Sun: 6/24/01 NEARFest 2001
  • Univers Zero: 7/10/04 NEARFest 2004
  • Vanilla Fudge: 1/21/05 Keswick Theater (with Mountain and Canned Heat)
  • Volto!: 8/3/13 Camden Tweeter Center (with Yestival)
  • Rick Wakeman: 10/29/03 Electric Factory
  • Kanye West: 7/2/05 Live 8
  • White Willow: 6/23/01 NEARFest 2001
  • Wobbler: 7/9/05 NEARFest 2005
  • Yezda Urfa: 7/10/04 NEARFest

Porcupine Tree Posts Round Up

Porcupine Tree was, for a number of years, my favorite new progressive rock band and, as a result, I tried to go see them as much as I could when I was not seeing Yes.  I have posted about them a number of times in this blog and you can find those posts below:

 

 

Random Concert Ticket Photos

As my readers know, I am a very avid concert goer.  Granted, since I have had children, I have had less time and less money to dedicate to seeing shows, but I still try to get two or three in every year.

For fun, I have already posted some tickets before, which you can find here:

I have also been to a variety of shows that really do not fit into any categories and I have posted a sort of grab bag of tickets below for various and miscellaneous shows.

20160203_210532

20160203_210603

20160203_210622 20160203_210649

20160203_210705

20160203_210716

20160203_210727

20160203_210737

20160203_210749

20160203_210801

20160203_210813 20160203_210820

20160203_210828

20160203_210841

20160203_210848 20160203_210901

  • Asia (a program from this show can be found here and a review here)

20160203_211042

Post Navigation