Science is the formalization of our methods for acquiring knowledge, nothing more, nothing less...

[Humanist_Activist]

Modern science, as developed over the past 500 years or so, is simply a formalization of the rules for observation, experimentation, trial and error and using evidence, to reduce bias and increase accuracy in our theories.

One of the things that somewhat annoys me is the insertion of the word "scientific" into something to make it seem more authoritative, this is, in my view, rather foolish, and generally, especially in popular culture, wildly misused.

If you see a toddler with one of those mental development toys, such as trying to fit the right shaped blocks in the right shaped holes, and you observe them, what do you see? At first the child gets it wrong, they try to fit a square peg in a round hole, etc. But let them play long enough, and through trial and error, they will learn to fit the right shaped block in the right hole, and the toy may make a sound showing they are right, etc. And they retain and are able to repeat this play, this experiment, getting progressively better at identifying the shapes. Knowledge is gained, and its gained through an instinctual drive we have to try different things, and learn from them through trial and error.

In addition, we are a highly developed social species, and as such, we rely quite a bit on observation of our peers and are able to gauge their success and failure, and imitate that. And its not like either of these methods for acquiring knowledge are unique to humans, and indeed, even predates our species. Our most recent ancestral species made stone tools, was that intuition or instinct, or was it a building on those factors to allow for experimentation and improvement?

These are tools that were developed in us many millions of years ago, and indeed are far from unique to humans, other species have been observed to use these same methods, they even have technology themselves. the other Primates, certain species of Monkeys, Crows, Dolphins, and Elephants are but a few examples of species that develop tools and problem solving ability that, while its not close to equal what we have, can be termed as advanced at the very least.

These methods, these instincts, if you will, give species that have them an edge in flexibility that aids in survival for that species. Not only technologically, but being able to learn how to use traffic lights to crack nuts and retrieve the contents safely, in the case of crows, or unlocking cages for many of these species, most of the quite notorious in this regard.

But the key here isn't that these are instinctual, that's a necessary first step, but only a step, the most important thing is to use them to acquire knowledge, because they do not provide it on their own. Its like a calculator, a useless paperweight until you start pressing the buttons. That's what we have in common with all these species, we gain knowledge, retain it, and then pass it on to peers and offspring, so that they don't have to muddle through our errors quite as often.

I think this is key, the methods don't change, only the results, and with the formalization of these methods into the Scientific Method, our ability to point out the faults occurs much more quickly, and improvement in our theories and technologies has greatly accelerated our development. This is what sets us apart from the other species, they haven't formalized it, and most likely don't have the cognitive ability to do so. Science as a discipline, science as a method, hasn't changed much since being formalized, only the theories that resulted from this discipline have. As we increase our knowledge, we also increase our understanding about the world around us and about ourselves.

But, this recent discipline is again just a formalization of methods that we have used since our species wandered the Serengeti, and our pre-scientific attempts at understanding the world around us were hit and miss, and the methods were relegated to philosophy and inventors. Science brought them together, and combined with imagination and the curiosity, has allowed us to make great leaps forward in our understanding of the world, and in our technology. But all of this, in all the species listed, is still based on empirical, testable, evidence and observation. There are no other methodologies that we have ever claimed to have used that are nearly as reliable.

We did not gain the ability to use tools from on high, but from ourselves, and because these methods, these instincts are present in everyone, everyone has access to them. We still, to this day, have regular people make discoveries in scientific fields. While science is a discipline, its a discipline that anyone can learn, and everyone can access, the discoverer of Pluto was a farmboy, the discover of Relativity was a patent clerk, but following the discipline of science is what made them scientists. Whether formal or informal, scientists are scientists, and anyone can be one, as long as they agree to let others look at their work, to make sure its accurate.

Who knows? Maybe a grand unified theory will be cooked up by someone who is merely curious about the universe and self taught, stranger things have happened. But one thing I do know, its not going to come "other ways of knowing" whatever they are.

[RainDog]

1. k&r

very nice. thank you.

[MarkCharles]

2. K+R! And quite well written, I might add. n/t

[humblebum]

3. "one thing I do KNOW, its not going to come 'other ways of knowing'..."

Then might I ask how you KNOW that? Was it by the Logical Empirical epistemology (aka Scientific Philosophy)? Or is it through some "other way of knowing", such as by experiential, presentational, propositional, or practical methods?

[edhopper]

4. I thin because in all of human history

the other ways of knowing have not produced any real knowledge.

[MarkCharles]

6. Precisely that! It really comes down to the semantics of defining the

word "knowledge".

Confusing mythologies or dreams or hallucinations or imagined entities with what is "known" is a common human error in logical or rational thought.

[MarkCharles]

5. Quite simple really, nothing that cannot withstand the scrutiny of

the discipline of scientific examination can really be called "knowledge". It can be called mythology, dreams, visions, hallucinations, imagination, wive's tales, rumors, fairy tales, fiction, or any number of other terms which refer to that which cannot be called "knowledge".

[humblebum]

9. One thing that I have noticed about certain atheists/skeptics/humanists

such as yourself, is that in order to define "knowledge" and to make it fit your cozy little paradigm, you attempt to change the recognized definition of the term knowledge. However, what you are doing is disregarding the bulk of historical understanding of the term. Men like Kant, Hume, Popper, Peirce would beg to differ with you. In reality, what you are doing is defining one type of knowledge, which of course is empirical and objective. But, that has never been the sole definition of knowledge. Not All knowledge is 100% objective or close to it. Subjective knowledge is still knowledge and in fact most knowledge is composed of varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity. However, I understand that in order to maintain your radical atheist POV, it is necessary for you to continue to redefine the commonly understood definition of knowledge.

[cleanhippie]

10. Then just give ONE EXAMPLE of knowledge gained through some "other way of knowing" then.

Its really simple, prove us ALL wrong with just one example.






Your continued deflection, along with my intuition (oh looky, another way of knowing) lead me to conclude that you will not provide any examples of knowledge gained by some "other way of knowing" because you are UNABLE to do so.


Or tell me I am right about your reason for not providing said example by using MY example above....

:rofl:


Just one example, bum. Just one.


And.


You.

Can't.

Do.

It.

[MarkCharles]

14. "along with my intuition (oh looky, another way of knowing)"...you, of course KNOW, that...

that's NOT your "other way of knowing", it's your "guess", a pretty SAFE guess, based upon several facts in evidence, and the basic laws of probability.

If a bear NEVER poops in the road, but always in the woods where the bear cannot be seen doing the pooping, then when you see the bear crossing the road, it's unlikely he will poop there.

Of course, the bear could defy the odds, and actually come out with one big poop square on the center line of the highway, but it's not too likely, since it has never happened before for that particular bear and that particular road he keeps crossing.

[humblebum]

16. You are definitely not the expert you claim to be. nt

[MarkCharles]

19. I never made a claim to being an expert. If I did, please point it out, .it was..

in error.

I'm just a simple person who reads a lot, and understands the world I live in, to some degree.

I don't see the need to personally attack you, it's your thinking that I disagree with.

I would hope you pay me the same respect.

[humblebum]

24. I believe that you suggested that when you disclosed that you give

lectures on such topics. There are are many on here who have read much and hold higher degrees.

[MarkCharles]

27. I plead guilty to that. I read, and I have taught, (lectured if you prefer),

but how is that a claim that I am smarter, or more informed than many others here? It is decidedly not!

[humblebum]

29. So have several others here, including myself. Still it is obvious

that your narrow view on what constitutes knowledge is not the prevalent one, nor even widely accepted. It is only one type of knowledge.

[cleanhippie]

26. And you cannot provide the example you claim you can.

[MarkCharles]

12. I am convinced. My "radical atheist" POV

has made it impossible to believe in fairy tales, or "Subjective knowledge", or "faith" or "inspiration" whatever you choose to call them today.

AH! Immanuel Kant, One of my FAVORITE quotes from him:


"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith."

http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/kantquo1a.htm

A better example of Christian (or general religious) apologetics I have hardly ever seen.

[rrneck]

17. Is that conviction important to you? nt

[MarkCharles]

53. I think my post above got lost with someone's attempts at obfuscation of Kant's quote:

"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith."

http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/kantquo1a.htm

A better example of Christian (or general religious) apologetics I have hardly ever seen.

[cleanhippie]

7. Then just give ONE EXAMPLE of knowledge gained form some "other way of knowing". JUST ONE!

You keep saying you have given many, so it should be easy for you to give just ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of knowledge gained by some "other way of knowing." Just one.


Go on, prove me wrong right here, right now. Just one example.




Just. One.

[MarkCharles]

8. It's kind of difficult for...

It's kind of difficult for someone to come up with something that can't be "known" by scientific methods.

Just to help out our trusted and predictable adversary, and to get him off the spot, I've got a list of three here I'm sure we're all familiar with:

the Easter Bunny

Santa Claus

the tooth fairy.

But seriously, ever notice that those who INSIST upon there being "other ways of knowing" all have a kind of fondness for religious beliefs, too?

[rrneck]

18. Of course they exist. You just named them.

How could they not exist?

[MarkCharles]

20. Having a hard time with that freshman philosophy chapter on nominalism?

Simply because we have the word "god", means god exists?

[rrneck]

23. "God" is a noun.

A noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. Those three letters were not gibberish. You Just used the term itself with the certainty that I would understand it, and I did.

So which one is it, a person, place, or thing?

[MarkCharles]

25. All concepts are "things"; there being no other evidence for

either of the other two categories.

"God" capitalized is used by certain folks to refer to their own personalized concept. The generic word "god", uncapitalized refers to the concept more generally, without placing any positive or negative value upon the concept, itself, nor claiming any affinity nor adherence to belief in the concept.


Likewise Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the tooth fairy are concepts, with those who believe in the reality of those concepts, and those that have grown too old for continuing to believe in those concepts being real. Santa Claus is personified as a male, so is a proper name of a specific imaginary being. I don't know the gender of the other two concepts, both are not persons or places.

[rrneck]

30. Sure.

How do you measure those? How does one prove their existence empirically?

[MarkCharles]

33. One does not, because they do not exist other than as imaginary ...

figures, concepts given human or animal form, but as non-existent as any other god or fairy tale or fictional figure.

[rrneck]

34. Then how do we know about them? nt

[MarkCharles]

40. We know about them because people talk about them, people write stories and

songs, and draw pictures, and practice superstitious and other pretend games with each other, as if they existed.

Much like the Bible and Christianity. We know of them because people relate stories about them. The truth of the stories, either about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead or about the Easter Bunny, is about the same.

[rrneck]

46. Ah. Another way of knowing. nt

[MarkCharles]

54. No "knowledge" there in that "other way of knowing" did you miss that?

Seems like you and Father Humble have similar desires for attention, either that OR, you simply don't know what you're talking about, having done little reading on the history of the philosophy of science.


Take your pick as to which motive and moments of impulse brought you to your last post.

[rrneck]

56. If there is no knowledge there

what is it that you just said got transmitted through images and fiction?

[MarkCharles]

57. Fairy tales? Moments of childish wishful thinking?

I had a professor in college who had us read the writings of several divergent religious texts.
Those writings all had convinced millions to follow those writings and to do or believe in certain ideas, fantsasies.

Just as a child of five years fully believes in Santa Claus in our western Christian nations, few children at ten years believe the same. We have other fairy tales, we tell children that some of them believe all their lives until the moment of their death, it's about all the same, a fairy tale, believed with equal or more or less enthusiasm as a five year old goes to bed on Christmas Eve.

[rrneck]

58. Do you have knowledge of them? nt

[humblebum]

31. We are not even talking about such things. Well maybe you are but I am not.

However, a member of an audience who is making a decision on whether a play or a movie is good or bad, has just used one of your non-existent ways of knowing, or the jurors who found OJ innocent. Objective proof? Hardly.
By your definition all "knowledge" is absolutely objective and yet not even scientific knowledge can claim 100% objectivity, because there is always the chance that some new piece of information will change that so called knowledge or truth.
The atheistic position is anything but "free-thinking" in its orientation, as has been demonstrated by atheist attempts to redefine the definition of knowledge. Yours is not the only definition.

[MarkCharles]

35. NO, none of that makes any sense.

People not liking "Gone with the Wind" or not liking chocolate ice cream has not a thing to do with "another way of knowing".
Simply "knowing" you don't like chocolate ice cream, or Indian food, or the color purple means not a thing, and has nothing to do with knowledge. It has to do with you "remembering" tastes which were not pleasing to you. There is no "other means of knowing" there. There is memory of a personal set of experiences, which, for whatever "UNKNOWN" scientific reason, you have classified as "another way of knowing". Personal tastes and pleasures are not "knowledge", they are human responses to external stimuli, which garner different reactions in different people, animals, etc. There is no "knowing" or "knowledge" involved. Tastes are perceptions of the external world, not "knowledge" of it.

The use of inductive and deductive reasoning, when applied to evidence, (as in the OJ Simpson first case), does not mean that all human beings apply them with equal rigor and integrity. The use of scientific means such as inductive and deductive resoning in evaluation of evidence can be as flawed as the logic I see some folks exemplify here every day. OJ was guilty, the evidence pointed that way, and those who used deductive reasoning and logic (scientifically) could very well see his guilt. Those that refused to do so, did not. There was no "other way of knowing" used by the jury in that case. There was simple abandonment of scientific principles of logic applied to the evidence available to them.


"By your definition all "knowledge" is absolutely objective and yet not even scientific knowledge can claim 100% objectivity, because there is always the chance that some new piece of information will change that so called knowledge or truth. " Now you are using the very technique you rail against to claim that knowledge is less than absolute. Scientific methodology leads human minds to an ever greater approximation of the absolute truth, and you just said exactly that! No other techniques, no "other way of knowing", (other than "the chance that some new piece of information", YOUR words) changes the accuracy or amplifies a validation of the knowledge. I had to laugh when I read that you rely upon "the chance that some new piece of information", could lead to knowledge but continuously previously rejected the technique as not reasonable in favor of "other ways of knowing". You contradicted yourself, using the hypothetical scientific method (of gathering "some new piece of information") to do so.

Your last statement on atheism is simply not logical. The scientific method, (neither atheist nor theist) is hardly closed-minded, it is, indeed, "free thinking", using the discipline of rational thought and evidence to reach whatever conclusions may come from it, wherever and whatever they may be.

If there are other ways, why can't anyone demonstrate them, and point to knowledge so acquired by these "other ways of knowing"?

[humblebum]

37. When have I "previously rejected the technique

as not reasonable in favor of other ways of knowing"? I use it often, but that certainly in no way excludes the utilization of other epistemologies. You are a spin master. Does subjective knowledge exist or not? You have indicated both yes and no. Either logical positivism is the only epistemology or it is not. There is no in between. And, if you say there are epistemologies, then you have contradicted yourself, because that is what this entire discussion has been about.

[MarkCharles]

38. I really don't think you understand "logical positivism", nor the word

"subjective". Now you claim you use the scientific methodology often, but still find it "limiting", and use "other ways of knowing" too.

Who is contradicting whom?

Perhaps you can try again tomorrow.

[humblebum]

41. It is very obvious that you do not understand any of these concepts.

Are you telling me that there are no limitations to logical positivism can reveal or evaluate?

[MarkCharles]

42. I doubt you can tell me much I don't know. Let's stop there. Please

read the original post in this thread. It is more clear than any philosophy of science textexplanation of what logical positivism is all about.

Please re-read it.

"Are you telling me that there are no limitations to logical positivism can reveal or evaluate?"sic

Your question makes no sense, please edit it to make it make sense. I think you meant THIS:

"Are you telling me that there are no limitations to what logical positivism can reveal or evaluate?

There are no limitations as to what or to which truth a scientific methodology can be applied. One rather cogent and compelling description of the scientific methodology was stated in the last century with the philosophical concepts of logical positivism.
It is not the ONLY description, but it is a very useful one, given it's time in a pre-nuclear world of advancements in science.

[humblebum]

44. "I doubt you can tell me much I don't know." With that one statement

you have shown the absurdity of your own reasoning. About Logical Positivism. Its limitations were plainly stated by those developed the epistemology, and you too have already stated them. Could it be .. let's think... maybe concepts that cannot be falsified?

[MarkCharles]

45. "Could it be .. let's think... maybe concepts that cannot be falsified?"

Concepts that cannot be falsified are NOT "knowledge", nor do they come about as a result of "another way of knowing".


"Scientific Knowledge: Truth, Induction and Falsification"

"First and foremost however, we must decide on what exactly it is that we commonly
understand to be scientific knowledge. One way to do this is by first explaining what
types of knowledge do not qualify"

"There is a type of knowledge best described as
‘practical’ knowledge, which involves such things as knowing how to ride a bicycle
or brush one’s teeth comprehensively"

"Another type of knowledge which I mean to avoid is that which grounds our ‘rulegoverned’ behaviour.
1
When we operate within our society we do so according to a
body of rules or laws that we must abide by, if we are to remain in that society. Such
things as ‘driving on the left’ or ‘stopping at a red light’ are examples of this kind of
knowledge. It is perhaps best called ‘procedural knowledge’."

http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp7_booth.pdf


If these are examples of "non-falsifiable" "Knowledge"... you might get the point, but really what you have here is semantics, and the over-generalization in the English language of the word "knowledge"

"The type of knowledge I have in mind is that which we claim offers us explanation of
the way the world is. It is a type of propositional knowledge that takes the form of
statements such as ‘cats miaow whereas dogs bark’, or that ‘kicking a football makes
it move’." op. cit.

[humblebum]

47. In fact, they are considered types of knowledge by many, and

Other ways of knowing are utilized by necessity. A priori and a posteriori types of knowledge have been acknowledged by many for a very long time. These would of course refer to the subjective elements that you claim do not exist. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant. That only qualifies them as subjective, as opposed to objective. Of course "subjective" both exists and doesn't exist according to you, so I guess you can decide for yourself. In any case, your opinion, superior though it might be, is hardly the defining last word on the subject.

[MarkCharles]

48. My opinion is no more "superior" than yours.......but mine seems to

suffer less from fuzzy thinking and logical fallacies.

You and I are equal in the world, we both have opinions, but that's not "subjective knowledge" that's the result of one mind or another being more or less trained in critical thinking and analysis skills.

You are quite free to continue to misunderstand the history of the philosophy of science. You are also free to make up stuff or have others make it up and believe in it. That's totally up to you.

[humblebum]

50. "misunderstand the history of the philosophy of science"? Sir,

You were not even able to define terms like Logical Positivism and epistemology until a short time ago. But I guess that's a subjective opinion.

[MarkCharles]

51. I admit, I had to go back to first year of graduate school and dig those concepts out of..

long since learned material.

Hey, I'm older and less impressed nor obsessed with the philosophy of science history these days.

I can still ride a bike, though. So you might not see me riding a bike, but I still can pull it out of the garage on a good spring day. I "know" how to do it.

I hope my analogy and personal insight into my honesty didn't go "over your head".

[humblebum]

52. I'm retired myself. You aren't that old. nt

[humblebum]

you have referenced practical knowledge, propositional knowledge

and procedural knowledge, as I have already mentioned. These are "other ways of knowing" - other epistemologies. You have absolutely contradicted yourself and any further discussion is pointless.

[humblebum]

11. Has been done several times already. I have given examples of

how it is used in a court of law, by historians, and even how the scientific method itself can be tailored to be adapted to virtually any discipline. The narrowly focused, militant atheistic definition of knowledge is not the only one, and, in fact, is far from being the most commonly used definition. But, I also realize that you need to maintain your position in order to justify your claims.

[cleanhippie]

13. You have given not a single example of knowledge gained by some "other way of knowing."

Not a single one.



Because you can't.


And that's why your opinions are not taken seriously.

[humblebum]

15. That is getting to be your stock answer hippie, inspite of the evidence

against you. your fanatical, radical, atheistic POV is blinding you.

[cleanhippie]

21. Then post it again, right here, for all to see. Just one example.

One single example of knowledge gained through "some other way of knowing."

Post it again, right here, and prove me wrong.

[MarkCharles]

28. "how it is used in a court of law" (other ways of knowing?) Are you

referring to deductive reasoning? Are you referring to incomplete knowledge, and decisions reached by such deductive reasoning? Are you referring to incomplete evidence? Surely you are NOT saying that decisions in court are made by "intuition", are you? We don't judge people guilty or innocent by "intuition", do we?

Decisions in a court of law follow many of the same logical principles as in the sciences.

We don't have an example of every living thing in the history of evolution, but we conclude that evolution has happened, based upon incomplete, (yet accurate and real) evidence.

We don't know the purpose of every structure in the DNA molecule, but we know some, and we can make deductive 100% accurate conclusions about parentage, relationships, etc from looking at and comparing just THIRTEEN locations on the DNA strand.
We "KNOW" by deductive reasoning, who is a parent of a child from this incomplete examination of the DNA.

We reach decisions in courts of law by similar deductive reasoning applied to whatever evidence we examine. Sometimes there is enough to make an inescapable decision, sometimes not. The process is the same,deductive reasoning and examination of all available evidence, and THAT PROCESS is a part of the discipline of "science".

[humblebum]

32. I believe you are backtracking here and have certainly contradicted yourself.

Didn't you suggest that subjective knowledge did not exist? Logical empiricism aka scientific philosophy was not what was used to determine O J's innocence. When was it ever stated that deductive or inductive reasoning wasn't scientific? You have now admitted that subjective knowledge does indeed exist. That has been the whole point of this discussion.

[MarkCharles]

36. Your confusion of the terms within the philosophy of science and

within metaphysics, combined with your lack of open-mindedness seems to have halted any sense in me that you know much about what you are posting. Your claim, along with that of so many hundreds of actually competent theologians over the past few thousand years, that there are "other ways of knowing", (e.g. faith, intuition, belief) somehow gets you muddled up with a misunderstanding that scientific methodologies are "limiting".

I addressed OJ Simpson's first trial and the miscarriage of justice (the mis-application of scientific methodologies) in another post. That example certainly serves to prove my point more than it does whatever point you are attempting to make.

[humblebum]

39. "the mis-application of scientific methodologies" - LOL

Either something is proven empirically or it is not. And empiricism is limited to the five senses, period.

So I can only assume that your position is that if something cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched - it doesn't exist. It doesn't get much more limited than that.

[MarkCharles]

43. I see you have difficulty in perceiving the meaning in what was written.

Something is proved. Not all people believe or subscribe to the proof, for whatever reason. In the case of OJ, it was 12 jurors who mis-applied scientific methodologies.

What is so difficult for one to "grasp" about those historic facts?

I have lost patience with people who are more able to read and understand what is written.

In your case, I see this is more attention-seeking behavior, not a commitment to truth.

Your claim that an aberrant jury verdict argues in favor of "another way of knowing" seems almost absurd, were it not coming from someone who poorly understands human perception and basic concepts of logical thinking. There is no "knowledge" "another way of knowing" from from the unjust results of improper jury deliberations.

[MarkCharles]

22. Cleanhippie, you have a "fanatical radical atheist POV", but I only...

have a "radical atheist POV"!

;) ;)

[Humanist_Activist]

49. I have yet to see an example of other ways of knowing that are...

even properly defined, let alone actually create accurate results.

[MarkCharles]

55. The fault here is with the imprecision of the English language when it..

comes to the conceptualization of the word "knowledge".

We already admit that people with religious persuasions who attempt to enlarge the concepts of the word "knowledge" to include each and every opinion and subjective experience, real, dreamed, or imagined, in their life.

I "know" how to ride a bike. I "know" people who love me. I "know" how I experience their love, or how I ride a bike. Both of these uses of the word, "know", are imprecise, and have only minimal connection with the concepts of real knowledge. So these Bible and other religious folks have invented and endorsed "another way of knowing". "Knowing" not about reality, but about subjective experience, not about their place in the cosmos, but a special place just for them.

Semantic games, chances for the religious folks to infringe upon rational thought with their fantasies of a god figure loving them, and at the same time condemning the miscreants, the impious, to hell for not going along with whatever fantasy of virtue they, themselves adhere to. This is the essence of the quagmire for those religious folks, they are stuck in the dogma's quicksand, and they can only lash out at those not so sunk down. They grab hold of any broadly constructed philosophical discussion of the concepts of knowledge, any seemingly liberating views of their own stuck positions. They claim any other humans cannot be as virtuous as they are, accuse them of being "arrogant" "militant" "fanatic" "radical" for being such free thinkers, and for their demanding observable, measurable, verifiable "proof", that there is only a scientific method to so determine, knowing that they, (the religiously inclined) abandoned the scientific methods in favor of simply wishful thinking.