Why is science demonized in people's minds?

Post Reply New Topic

Back to topic, I think the fact that mediocre scientists and -more particularly- self-appointed spokesmen for scientists typically dismiss the kind of arguments I made in my last paragraphed post is what most irritates any number of the general public about what they see as science. I think I've already said (in a different way) that this denial of issues that are clearly there is irrational; it goes way beyond the parameters of science and has to be in any case deeply unscientific, revolving around the ego of the denier as a kind of protection.

There again there's also the communication breakdown that is inevitable when generally-used terms are used in a narrow, technically specific context. For instance, an 'invalid claim' in the language of science, Fnord has implied, is not necessarily a claim which cannot conceivably be true - It's simply a claim that cannot be evidenced, and is thus a poor choice of hypothesis for experiment.

In terms of the last example (in my last longer post), I appreciate that some -particularly younger people who have had less time to reflect on life- may not atfirst understand the concept that there are no scientific reasons why they are who and what they are. Every organism develops a particular nature depending on its genes and physical (rather than secondary psychological/familial) environment, but who can explain why they occupy their own body and not some other? Those fortunate enough to have a well-oiled machine of a brain to do their subconscious processing aligned to their life experience are able to express the spirit of being alive (which -as a vague but self-evident effect of the phenotype- animates us all) in a way that makes sense to those around them, and many of those who haven't been able to probably can't see, let alone appreciate, what they're missing, but I'm skeptical of the superficially commonsense argument that Aristotle's "A=A" applies to something as complex as a whole person, whose properties need not be uniform. This rounds off neatly into the oversimplification of 'popular science', particularly where it reflects -as here- on our most intimate concerns.

To conlcude, the idea that there are somehow 'wrong questions' is bound to seem patronising (and also potentially sinister!) to laymen.

Last edited by undefineable on 25 Jan 2012, 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No.

Historically, science was known as Natural Philosophy, which I understand is still the case in the land of the Scottish (Edinburgh) Enlightenment. Later on - in the 20'th century - most English-speaking philosophers made an attempt to focus on logic, analysis (particularly of language), and science, and while this made their work too dull to claim the limelight, it atleast prevented the excessive vagueness and drift (from both science and experience) of continental philosophy, in which celebrity thinkers proclaimed such absurdities as 'to make no choice is a choice {Even a moment's honest thought will reveal that a 'choice' will only be made if there is a basis provided by a being's given nature for that 'choice', and that the more usual order of things is for relevant inner and outer circumstances to pre-determine a course of action.}

Philosophy differs from science mainly in that it doesn't systemise empirical evidence-gathering to form experiments, and so focuses on investigations in which this wouldn't be applicable.

Do they have approximate locations in space and time then?

The fact that they don't have fixed locations, dimensions, or (from what I understand) a definite discernible substance shows that the popular, non-specialist image of 'the physical' is out of date, such that popular science thus ends up presenting science -or atleast scientists- in an unfavourable light again after deeper research shows it to have been economical with the truth.

If fermions and all those other buzzings with funny names that disturb the void are indeed the building blocks of physical reality, then I don't see how it can make sense to claim -as atleast one science writer has in recent years- that 'the quantum level' is too microscopic to have any bearing on everyday reality.

Science writers call quantum mechanics 'wierd'. However, while I'm autistic enough to take a passing interest (NTs have been said to be unable to do this) but not knowledgeable enough to understand it, isn't general impression of fuzziness and relativity that one gets (from reading a summary of it) far more in line with how human beings have always naturally viewed the natural world than the rigid 'concrete' of Newtonian physics?

And before anyone chimes in predicatably with cries that atleast imply "wanting it to be true means it isn't true", I never said I or we would mostly prefer quantum to classical _ _

But Natural Philosophy was always viewed as being different from other forms of philosophy. I believe the Greek's felt it was inferior. Natural Philosophy separated itself by dealing with facts and physical things, supporting its findings with evidence. Other forms of philosophy though, focus on the abstract and use logic or rhetoric to support a viewpoint. What we call the scientific method was developed for use in Natural Philosophy, and not moral philosophy or any other form of philosophy. Therefore, science as we know it today is completely different from philosophy. Philosophy is not an artsy form of science. Philosophy is about arguing over the subjective, whereas science is the search for facts about the physical universe.

Metaphysics, theology and moral philosophy are a priori disciplines. They are derived from first principles which are supposed to be self-evident. The discipline of natural philosophy is basically inductive, and hypotheses are suggested by actual observations and facts. Furthermore the theories are tested by experiment and can be falsified empirically. That is the main difference between natural philosophy (i.e. physical or natural science) and the other branches of philosophy.

ruveyn

Politics can't mix with the physical sciences. Politics is about matters of state and opinions on them, whereas science is about the state of the universe. The universe doesn't care whether you're a conservative, a liberal, a capitalist, or a socialist, it is what it is. But I think you are a bit unfair when it comes to the social sciences (which, although I don't view them as truly science are a lot more scientific than philosophy). To say that they're mixed with politics makes it sound like they're following the line of the Democrats (or NDP in Canada, or Social Democrats or Labour Party elsewhere etc.). If the policies of these parties seem suspiciously similar to what is being said by social scientists, I think that it's because those are the parties who are inclined to listen to what social scientists have to say. Just as how the left is generally more willing to listen to what climate scientists have to say (in North America at least). That doesn't make climate science a left-wing conspiracy. It means that the left is more willing to look at the long term and make these difficult decisions (note: I do not consider Obama left-wing so his [lack of] environmental policy agrees with my generalization).

Technically, yes - Only physical things and their associated facts (the only facts that can be demonstrated to more than one person) can be supported by empirical evidence alone, clearly. I understand that what is meant by the term 'scientific method', and was using the term 'branch of science' in a broader sense that includes mathematics, social sciences and so on. I was only comparing science with philosophy so as to draw a very broad circle around them that would exclude, for example, socialising, slow lorises (a subject I'm watching a doc about@the mo!), or indeed theology. We don't get very far -in life as much as in other ways- by just saying that everything is completely different to everything else, so let's just say that philosophy is atleast as close to science as to art, and far closer to science than theology, which (as far as I understand) begins with an arbitrary claim.

Philosophy, ofcourse, is less scientific than the 'social sciences' in that it only uses second-hand evidence, i.e. the findings of experiments carried out by 'hard' and 'soft' scientists(!), to support its arguments, but it's arguably more scientific at the same time, as it often seems to involve fewer dubious leaps of interpretation. Both fields involve subjective interpretation, whereas 'hard' science doesn't; however, much of what is popularly seen as science - claiming that all available evidence proves that only physical phenomena can be rightly seen as real for example - is only subjective interpretation and not hard science, as I'm sure you're well aware. Science in your definition ends with what 'is'; the humanities go further. Ofcourse, the purer the science, the more restricted and less useful it becomes, or else the more work there is for inventors, philosophers etc. to do.

P.s. rhetoric in the usual sense isn't enough to support a serious argument of any kind_

The trouble with categorizing Philosophy as a scientific discipline is that Philosophy relies solely on reason to determine which claims are more valid than others, while science relies on empirical demonstrations of physical activities or properties to validate claims.

Theology is derived from a first principle that is supposedly revealed; I certainly don't see how the existence of a God can be as self-evident, say, as the existence in some form or other of your own mind. Philosophy doesn't include theology, and covers far more than the other two 'specialisms' you mentioned, which themselves don't have to (and really shouldn't!) begin with assumptions such as 'there is a non-physical world' and/or 'there is absolute Good and Evil'. Philosophical 'hypotheses' cannot be proven true or false -only 'weighted', as it were-, but then neither can any supposed 'meanings' of the abstract results of scientific experiment.

Last edited by undefineable on 25 Jan 2012, 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

... And Religion requires belief without reason or evidence.

Agreed, along with your next post - Why then do you insist on classifiying philosophy alongside theology as somehow, well, unreasonable?

I was just looking up 'inductive' on Wiki earlier (I don't do jargon, lol), and found a good example of the kind of abuse of science I've been rambling on about:

Every single time I've heard about the possibility of life on other planets, I've heard it baldly asserted that All life depends on liquid water to exist.
I don't see that the probability argument merits the "concessionary" term "weak inductive reasoning", especially when you read the bit about swans _ _

I didn't mean to be taken literally; I was talking about scientists and the public image of science, not its practice_

I'm not an expert on social sciences, but I've not heard of experiments on, for example, the destructive psychological effects of the existence of welfare - Social sciences are widely treated with suspicion because of this one-sidedness which leaves all its conclusions effectively incomplete.

It's all rather ironic when you consider that the universe -or human nature in time of surplus at any rate- is actually capitalist, by dint of rational self-interest. If I may say so, my part of Europe is right to have it the other way round -rightwing science and leftwing religion- _ _

As to climate science, the hard left -like the hard right- would be keen to deny it if it still existed to pass judgement - Both emphasise large-scale industry. Also, I can't see how the 'CO2 from industry=warmer air' kind of equation could have parallels in the social sciences or indeed psychology, where there's far more variables to play into any trends, and no irrefutable understanding of how they might work.[/quote]

I think you misunderstood the analogy I was trying to make. Global warming is obviously something that can be shown a lot more conclusively than anything from social sciences. But in America (and to a degree Canada) climate science is considered left-wing (well, "liberal" in the United States, which they mistakenly associate with being left-wing) because the Republicans and libertarians tend to deny climate science while the Democrats tend to be more vocal about the issues (of course, actions speak louder than words, and in terms of actions they are silent). Some people seem to view climate change as a left-wing conspiracy so that government can justify intervening in people's daily lives. The only parallel with social sciences is that they'd also be viewed as left-wing as they tend to support those kinds of policies. What I was suggesting (of course, it's by no means something I'm certain of) is that it's just that the left is more willing to listen and so tend to adopt the policies that the social sciences recommend. This parallel doesn't hold true to the same extent in Europe because environmental issues haven't become quite so politicized there, so I can see where the confusion would come from.

If by hard-left you mean Soviet style communism, you'd be quite right. The Soviet Union was an environmental nightmare, presumably because there was no democratic accountability. However, that's not what I'm referring to when I speak of the left. I'm talking about a range from social liberals to democratic socialists and maybe even left communists (communists that denounced the Soviet Union and its lack of democracy). Socialism is really all about democracy. The main idea is that the people should have democratic control over the economy. Since the USSR was not democratic it can not be called truly socialist and it was only a very perverted form of leftism. When you look at modern leftist parties, including the radical revolutionary ones like the Danish Red-Green Alliance, they do tend to be very concerned about climate change and other environmental issues. If you look at the voting patterns in European Parliament, the European United Left/Nordic Green Left group (communist and democratic socialist parties) is second only to The Greens when it comes to environmental issues. And the Greens are the second most left-wing group after the European United Left/Nordic Green Left.

Hi Fnord,

The uses of the body of science do start wars, do cause famine, and do create natural disasters.

A "demon" is called forth because many individuals practicing their own frauds try to incorporate their secular religious beliefs and pass them off as an "Empirical Science" being practiced, when even modifying it to a labeled "Pseudo-Empirical Science" is still improper because it is not "of Science", but of prejudice instead. (I use "secular religious beliefs" as you promoted the use of the non sequitur).

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. made this demon very evident when he pronounced "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" in Buck versus Bell (1927). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... H_Bell.jpg

You are attempting to repeat and/or promote similar blunderous and/or evil mistakes by tainting the objectivity and validity that an Empirical Science must, by definition, be characterized as satisfying.

Tadzio