I am published in peer reviewed philosophy journals

Peer-review is just a (often poor) method for ensuring that scholarly publications are at the very least worth reading. Your doctoral dissertation completely contradicts the historical method you’ve espoused for over a decade, it is about the most credulous historical account I’ve come across, your peer-reviewed publications are minimal and they are all representative of minority views of other peer-reviewed publications. I’ve read everything you’ve written, I know all the languages you know (and more), and have a background in fields you don’t,. You have credentials you obtained by compromising your own methods.

Your books on philosophy contain basic logical errors and are published by specialty presses. Your knowledge of basic mathematics, as you’ve admitted here, is not even equivalent to that an undergradutate mathematics major would have. Your presentation of the philosophy of science isn’t just pathetic, it’s pathetically incompatible with expert literature and scientific methods. I’ve cited literature. You’ve blathered about your “doctorate in ancient philosophy” you don’t have. Not only don’t you such a doctorate, you’ve made a point of claiming that your degrees are in ancient history.

Your references to scientific literature (those that aren’t simply wrong, such as your “coin flipping” reference) are popular science sources. You don’t cite or deal with real scientific literature and so far appear incapable of doing so.

What, exactly, do you hope to gain by applying your “expertise” in “ancient philosophy” (established by a doctoral thesis using historical methods you claim are subpar and should be abandoned) to the philosophy and methods of the sciences? Other than demonstrating an ignorance of both and an inability to support your nonsense with references to expert literature (and a dependence upon arguments from your own “authority” as an historian)?

I am published in peer reviewed philosophy journals, I teach philosophy, I’ve written books on philosophy that have been cited by other philosophers, and my degree is in history of philosophy–and history of science (as my cv attests). I am a philosopher as ever there was. I also have a science background (even apart from honors courses across the subject in high school and college, I specifically studied electrical engineering and the science of sonar, and worked in both for a year). More on all that here. But that debate is a distraction.

The issue is simply this: (1) I made a point that theories to explain QM are metaphysics–they are just good philosophy (being scientifically well-informed), and the refusal to call them that is a semantic game, corresponding to no substantive distinction between what philosophers mean by metaphysics and what physicists are doing when they propose theories to explain QM. (2) QM, meanwhile, is philosophy in exact the sense Aristotle meant as physics (per my talk), exactly as Darwin and Maxwell and Newton would all have agreed. It’s just philosophy with good data. (3) Once we exclude all bad philosophy (as I call it, pseudo-philosophy) and only count good philosophy, the methods are actually the same…it’s only access to data that differs.

Now, you have yet to challenge any of those three propositions. You drone on and on about the irrelevancies of semantics that actually have nothing to do with anything I actually said. But you can’t change reality by changing what it is called. And you can’t win an argument by avoiding the premises you claim to be challenging.

This is a good example of why scientists suck an philosophy outside their science

You aren’t a philosopher. You have taken as an insult the suggestion that your degrees aren’t in ancient history:

In fact, my degrees are in ancient history….

.

You have published no research in sciences, your CV lists nothing that suggests you are aware of scientific methodologies (and I’ve read your doctoral thesis, in which you don’t use “Bayes’ Theorem” at all despite the fact that you claim to have lectured on it since 2003; in fact, your historical account is among the most credulous I’ve ever read) or really anything regarding the sciences other than the misunderstandings I have pointed out, and your expertise in ancient philosophy (belied by your own valid defense to Carrier’s critique by your assertion that your degrees are in fact in history) doesn’t make your comments about the philosophy of science anything more than an amateur who can’t defend her or his statement other than by reference to non-existent expertise and vindictive commentary. I’ve read everything you’ve published. I grew up in your field and the standard Greek reference you used and cited was written by my grandfather. I simply went into science and chose to make classics, classical history, and classical languages a hobby. And as far as these fields are concerned, you are an expert and I am not.

You are still stuck on the bizarre notion that words only ever mean one thing, and don’t vary meaning by context and application

No, actually I tend to favor a construction grammar model, but as you aren’t a linguist any more than you are a scientist or a mathematician I don’t expect you to be familiar with this. I am sick and tired of this idiotic nonsense you purport defends you positions:

That QM can also be called a theory is irrelevant to what I was saying.

Quantum mechanics is a set of laws, not a theory

Given your blatant backtracking, why not return to what I had issue with to begin with? That is, you define theory and what is or isn’t “science” according to criteria that nobody in the philosophy of science or the sciences does. Your rejoinder that as a historian whose doctorate is in ancient philosophy (despite your own words) aside, there are those whose specialty actually IS the philosophy of science even if you do not respect the views of scientists regarding…well…science. They disagree with you too (and you can dismiss my personal opinions all you wish; that’s why I don’t rely on my assertions but on the expert literature).

What you actually said amounts to this:

Given that science is something it isn’t, then philosophy (which is what you say it is regardless of the views of ,many philosophers and scientists), then your understanding of the sciences that obviously conflicts in basic ways with what the sciences actually are or what scientific methods actually amount to somehow suffices to make conclusions about boundaries between the sciences and other field. You certainly have the intellect and the ability to make such conclusions. You simply haven’t done the work, and thus rely on an inability to cite anything other than your own expertise as an ancient historian.

For the last time: are you willing to discuss what scientists and philosophers of science believe scientific theories to be and what scientific methods are, or will you continually cite yourself?

This is a good example of why scientists suck an philosophy outside their science.

You are still stuck on the bizarre notion that words only ever mean one thing, and don’t vary meaning by context and application.

Consequently, even when I was very clear that I was using Quantum Theory to mean theories of Quantum Mechanics, you refuse to listen to what I actually said and insist the word can’t be used that way, when sorry to say, yes it can. That QM can also be called a theory is irrelevant to what I was saying.

As a result, you have burned thousands of words arguing an irrelevant point that has nothing to do with what I actually said.

And still you don’t even get it.

The inadequate knowledge of “science” by science teachers is widely recognized, and is referred to in e.g., the primary citation “in note 2” of your source (by the NRC). Your little “quiz” asks questions about what scientists do, and aside from scientific research I have participated in I have also (and actually primarily) served as a research consultant not only concerning methodology but also research software for scientific labs around the world. You can’t defend your misuse of scientific terms or inadequate knowledge of scientific methods by citing yourself or random papers you can’t place in context (still less works on the philosophy of science of scientific methods that you end up contradicting). You rely on simplistic works that, while admirable in that their ability to communicate scientific methods to complete amateurs, are woefully inadequate to defend your own, personal understanding. Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science? You were so close to a much better work you might actually appreciate: Wolpert, L. (1994). The Unnatural Nature of Science: Why Science Does Not Make (Common) Sense. Harvard University Press. Both works, however, are intended for non-scientists and those relying on “commonsense” notions about what the sciences are. If you would like a real bibliography on what constitutes science, what scientific “theory” is, and what methods scientists employ I’d be happy to provide one.

You did not say

the theory of why QM is true is not settled science.

. I quoted what you said in your talk above, and in your response here you even stated (clearly and clearly incorrectly) that

Quantum mechanics is a set of laws, not a theory.

I quoted several sources (including one you cited in your talk) clearly showing the above is simply wrong. Whatever your concept of “quantum theory” is, you have clearly stated that QM isn’t a theory, and this is quite clearly contradicted by everybody with relevant expertise because they do not define theory the way you do nor do they mistakenly describe the sciences and scientific methods. You do. And so far, your defense continues to be to either mischaracterize what I have stated or what you have and defend your view via reference to your own expertise as an ancient historian. If you can’t even acknowledge that the quote directly above is wrong and is your claim or, alternatively, produce something resembling actual evidence from some expert that QM isn’t a theory (which does NOT require that we know “how” it works as I explained in detail), then there isn’t any point in dialogue, is there? I am more than happy to refer you to any number of standard reference material, and even to the AAAS, NRC, and similar literature on the desired reforms in science education your source “in note 2” refers to. I am happy to expand on any points I’ve made. But there isn’t really any point in you referring to your own online essays on NOS when you have no experience in any science research or any background in the sciences, is there?

Again, are you interested in dialogue and, if so, can you do more than cite yourself (which is useless as you are an historian, not a scientist nor a philosopher of science), or not? If not, then once more I enjoyed the talk for what it was worth and think it is better in several respects than many a research methods course most undergrads are exposed to, and whatever are disagreements I appreciate your much needed insistence concerning the importance of philosophy in the sciences as elsewhere.

Well if the test came (qua test) from the paper then perhaps “I have created” should have been “I have copied”.
But no matter. The points made all have some validity, but some of them could reasonably be challenged. There are two or three where I might actually differ with you and at least a couple more where I wouldn’t downgrade someone for disagreeing (so if I was grading the test writer on achieving suitable test items for actually grading others then I’d give it maybe a B- according to the posted grading scheme)

Anyhow I doubt that anything in that discussion will be news to someone with anything like the exposure to real scientific literature of your commenter ‘messing’ and I have to admit that I share his or her puzzlement at your usage of the terms Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Theory.

It’s stated in the linked page. The source is in note 2.

Richard, On that page you say “I have created here” the test which you refer to above as “developed by science teachers”. Can you say a bit more about the provenance of those questions?

Sorry! Thanks. Fixed.

The “scientific literacy test” link appears to be broken