Why is there a hostility towards science?
One thing the Covid crisis has shown us is the apparent hostility the general populace has towards science. This is (a simplification) demonstrated by people refusing to social distance or wear face masks, despite scientific guidelines and evidence showing their efficacy. Or when people directly contradict science by saying masks do not work, Covid is a hoax, or some similar nonsense, even though they have no valid evidence to support such assertions, let alone refute actual science. To be fair, some of that hostility may stem from either ignorance and/or uncertainty surrounding science and its findings. When Covid hit, it was an unknown. As time progressed, science learned more about and changed its recommendations and guidelines accordingly. That's how science operates and is an inherent strength of science. However, implementing new guidelines and necessary behavior changes has been much slower.
But the negative stance against science is not limited to Covid. There is a history of hostility towards science. We see this in past attempts to remove evolutionary theory and/or introduce creationism and intelligent design into public schools. We see this when people reject medical findings and treatments in favor of (instead of supplement to) unproven or unresearched alternative therapies. We see this in the lack of promotion or adequate funding of science programs and education. We see this when people try to push flat eartherism or deny climate change. The list goes on.
The questions become why are people hostile towards science? For what reason? And to what end? I suspect one reason is emotional comfort, as people may not be able to tolerate the reality that science discovers. Such mentality and hostility toward science boggles the mind. One thing is for sure, be it the Covid crisis or some other crise, it will probably be science that gets us out of it.
When it comes to discovery and solving problems, science will lead the way. Anything else will hold us back.
It isn’t for most of us. I use science nearly every day for my job. Successfully I might add for nearly 40 years.
The right tool for the right job. Just like I wouldn’t use a hammer to replace a circuit board. I don’t usually use science in faith based decisions.
I know that’s tough for some to accept but that’s really inconsequential as it works for me and mine. And in the end that is all that matters.
So you're saying that you don't like to "use the wrong tool for the job"?
Another way of saying that is that you try to "use the right tool for the job"!
(I find that I have that same tendency as well!!!!)
Some people are hostile to science because they want what they want and they won't let science tell them they can't have it. This isn't necessarily anti-science as much as it is caring about one thing more than another. The irrational fear of nuclear power, for example, draws more inspiration from the Simpsons than it does from a scientific understanding of how nuclear power works. Fear for the environment, or of mutations, blinds people to any argument that the power can be generated cleanly. Same with the irrational fear of GMOs, which have been proven repeatedly to be safe. Democrats still seek labeling of GMOs for no valid scientific reason.
Another source of hostility is as a reaction to the high-minded sanctimony we see from some people who insist we follow certain recommendations from scientists because it came from a scientist. There is no acknowledgement in this righteousness that competent scientists can disagree on the proper conclusion from data. Scientists know science, but that doesn't mean they know anything about public policy, economics, sociology, or international affairs. There is rarely a disclaimer offered that the recommendation might one day prove to be the wrong course. This lack of humility breeds a lack of respect. You reap what you sow.
Who makes that argument? That is precisely what Gordy is addressing in this article. Science is not based on authority.
Another source of hostility is as a reaction to the high-minded sanctimony we see from some people who insist we follow certain recommendations from scientists because it came from a scientist.
Who makes that argument? That is precisely what Gordy is addressing in this article. Science is not based on authority.
I think that in most (all?) societies there are predominent beliefs held by most of the population, These beliefs may be scientific, political, religious, etc.
And then there is a small``small group of people who challenge those beliefs. (In a democracy that's accepted, even encouraged-- in a dictatorship they are often put to death).
And more often than not its "the crazy ones".. those who "think different"-- who are responsible for society to make great leaps forward.
I think that in most (all?) societies there are many predominent beliefs held by most of the population, These beliefs may be scientific, political, religious, etc.
And then there is a small`group of people who challenge those beliefs. (In a democracy that's accepted, even encouraged-- in a dictatorship they are often put to death).
And more often than not its "the crazy ones".. those who "think different"-- who are responsible for society to make great leaps forward.
This is one of my all-time favourite ads:
Apple Think Different ad (Narrated by Steve Jobs - 1997)
This is one of my all-time favourite ads:
Apple Think Different ad (Narrated by Steve Jobs - 1997)
People by order of appearance:
Albert Einstein
Bob Dylan
Martin Luther King Jr.
Richard Branson
John Lennon & Yoko Ono
Buckminster Fuller
Thomas Edison
Muhammad Ali
Ted Turner
Maria Callas
Mahatma Gandhi
Amelia Earhart & Bernt Balchen
Alfred Hitchcock
Martha Graham
Jim Henson
Frank Lloyd Wright
Pablo Picasso
The commercial ends with an image of a young girl, Shaan Sahota, opening her closed eyes, as if to see the possibilities before her.
Seems like quite a selfish mentality to me.
Yeah, but it is funny to occasionally see Homer nearly cause a nuclear meltdown.
I think that contributes to hostility to science. They don't understand science or what science says, so they fear and therefore "hate" it.
No one should follow something blindly just because it came from an authority like a scientist. That is not how science operates or bases its recommendations. Science goes by the evidence. An "authority" figure might relay the information. But one should not simply accept what the authority says as truth unless there's evidence to support what's being said. Ideally, any "authority" addressing others should say something along the lines of "we should do this because the evidence shows it's a good idea. At least until we learn more."
Scientists can disagree on anything. But again, evidence is required to back up any conclusions, whether in agreement ot disagreement.
By the same token, the public generally doesn't seem to know anything about science. And we have politicians trying to bridge that gap. We've seen how well that works out. >sarc<
I would think it's just common sense that people know science does not know everything and things might change as new information comes to light. Or am I giving people too much credit? But science will say earlier idea were wrong as they learned more or make changes on what new information is learned. That's just part of the scientific process.
Well, history shows us there is some basis for this. Not necessarily fear of the power source, but fear that safety measures will not be taken. Fukushima. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Rocky Flats, Colorado. St. George, Utah. Unfortunately, safety measures regarding radiation have on occasion been lax, with disastrous results.
There are 58 nuclear power plants in the world and 440 across the whole world. They have an excellent safety record and are getting safer all the time. It's bigger flaw is that with all the safety and permitting requirements, it's pretty expensive. But the degree to which people on the Left have historically freaked out over the radiation danger is just not supported by the science.
Nuclear Power Is Too Safe to Save the World From Climate Change
Thing is, that is not fear of science; that is fear of the application of science. It is the fear of what human beings (typically in political positions) do with advancements in scientific knowledge.
By the same token, consider the application of science in the creation of biochemical, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Is this a fear of science or the fear of its irresponsible application (and use)?
Remember, Gordy (with his article) is asking why there is hostility against science. Not the hostility against those who abuse it, but hostility of science itself. The notion, for example, that the evolving knowledge and thus recommendations regarding COVID-19 are interpreted as a negative against science rather than recognizing the beauty of a self-correcting system.
?
Sure, sure.
Also, death is not the only bad outcome of nuclear disasters. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima led to an increase in thyroid cancers. That's a pretty survivable cancer, granted, but the treatment is no fun, nor is a lifetime of trying to balance out your Synthroid.
There's also the problem of nuclear waste, and, from your own link, risk to those who mine uranium. And, as you said, the expense.
Right. But compare all of that to the burning of coal or oil and everything connected to it. We have to do something for energy.
And your link mentions renewables like solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric.
Yeah, the Left tends to hate geothermal and hydroelectric, too, for their impact on the environment. I still think they're better than burning coal and oil, though. And unfortunately, solar and wind are still very expensive and inefficient by comparison.
Darn lefties, not liking earthquakes. I mean, really.
Hydroelectric plants that do not rely on building up a reservoir by means of a large dam would have little environmental impact.
I don't have any sort of fear with respect to nuclear power. It does have it's uses, and I fully support research towards fusion power generation. Fission power plants are fine, but the longstanding issue of what to do with spent fuel rods with respect to "not in my backyard" has yet to be laid to rest.
The real issue is the cost of nuclear power generation is it losing ground against solar, geothermal, wind and other forms of power generation.
Nuclear power is one of the best sources in many ways. Its one of the cheapest. And in almost all cases (when it operates correctly-- its actually one of the cleaner ones. Especially when compared to carbon based sources).
Very clean-- and very safe.
Except when its not.
While those accident you mention are very, very rare-- they do happen. And when they do, the results are horrendous.
BTW I am generally not a fan of conspiracy theories. But while the vested interests (governments and some corporations) have claimed its "been proven" that the radioactive particles from Fukushima pose no threat-- I've seen information from reliable sources that that's not the case. (But I'm not interested in trying to prove this to anyone in a typical NT-style argument).
I personally am totally opposed to the reactors. There are other sources that are cheaper to build-- and more importantly much safer (innovative ways of harnessing the movements of the planet--wind, water, solar to name a few.) And scientists keep coming up with new and better ways of doing this.
I actually wouldn't have a problem with nuclear, IF we solved the problems of nuclear waste and safe uranium procurement, and if we could be sure that those in charge weren't cutting corners and were planning intelligently. It seems that in regards to Fukushima, they weren't planning intelligently, compounding the disaster of a tsunami with a reactor meltdown.
You're assuming that the only possible sources of energy are coal-- or nuclear.
There are many, many others such as Solar, Wind, Water (waterfalls, flowing rivers, water power generated by the tides, and possibly wats to harness the energy of various biological systems,. There are even scientists working on ways to turn garbage into energy, etc),
Aome these are or will be safer, cleaner, cheaper and generally more efficient than carbon based fuels or nuclear.
Bad example.
Ever hear of Fukushima?
Chernobyl?
Yes, I have a fear of nuclear power-- and its very rational.
(And BTW, I've never watched The Simpsons).
Actually my experience over time has been just the opposite-- Science has enabled me to have many things I wanted-- that I previously had though I could never have!
(But I suppose that depends a lot upon one's attitudes in life--- for people who constantly choose to "see the glass half empty"-- that usually turns out to be true, LOL!
An example of what Tacos! is referring to would be the Young Earth Creationists and in particular the organization Answers In Genesis. They actively try to discredit the findings of science that contradict their literal interpretation of the Bible. For example, they reject that the planet is 4.5 billions years old and claim that it is actually only about 6,000 years old and to accomplish this magic act, they claim that all methods for dating are bogus.
I am leery of nuclear power on the basis of history -- Chernobyl and Three Mile Island to be exact. However, I know the safety improvements in the industry. I accept that my concern is based on fear and not on today's standards. (See, it is possible to admit that even someone with a scientific profession can have feelings not totally based on science.)
I will admit that I will not step up for the COVID vaccination until I can be assured of its efficacy and safety. But, that will be based on my concerns that critical steps in the scientific process have been skipped in an effort to quickly get something to market.
Science isn't easy, and therefore isn't comfortable. It requires one to reason, to suppress one's biases, and perhaps to change one's beliefs. Consider creationism versus evolution. It's much easier to just say "God did it." It's much harder to trace back our origins to microbes through billions of years of evolution, and to know that we won't always have all the puzzle pieces. Science always has questions, where certainty is much more psychologically comfortable.
And away we go .... here comes the faith bashing .....
Pointing out a reality is not bashing. Blind faith is unwise.
Not necessarily.
Some religious interpretations dismiss Evolution. But there are highly religious people who believe the evidence for Evolution is pretty clear-cut. (All religions-- or perhaps I should say religious denominations) are not close minded and superstitious.
In fact I've known scientists who believe strongly in Evolution and see no conflict with their religious views.
(I suppose that last statement might anger both some "believers' as well as some of the more believers in "Evangelical Atheism".
Well, I for one don't find the two to be mutually exclusive.
Many do reject the overwhelming evidence that human beings are an evolutionary branch under the family Hominidae (Great Apes) because it contradicts with the religious notion of special creation (at least as it applies to human beings).
Dr. Francis Collins, for example, is a brilliant and highly accomplished geneticist who is also a devout Christian. He reconciles evolution as God's process and holds that God is guiding evolution with an unseen hand. Well, there you go; one can rationalize anything.
I think you touched on a major point, which I alluded to in the article: emotional comfort. Science doesn't offer that in its process. It may require one to put their emotions and beliefs aside and look at the evidence, which is apparently difficult for some to do. To use your creation v evolution example, I have seen people feel downright offended or irate at just the idea they are "descended from monkeys," as if evolving is something bad. I don't get it. It's like they have some narcissistic need to feel special or something.
Maybe. I'm not sure if that's true in all cases.
One of my strongest personality traits is-- curiousity. For me, I'm often happiest when researching some previously unknown topic. That brings me not only comfort-- but joy!
And if I have a theory that, upon investigation, proves to be wrong that doesn't cause me discomfort. Rather I feel it eliminates one possibility,and brings me closer to discovering the truth. (As a child my dream was to grow and become a Scientist-- to be alone in my laboratory, away from people and other distractions. In fact I started college (undergrad) as a Chem major.
I think many people are different (although some are the same), Some personality types are motivated in life primarily by seeking comfort (or perhaps more accurately, by attempting to avoid discomfort).
Some people adopt a strategy of "avoidance"-- often denial. And a strong belief system, be it religious (Or political, for example devout Communists) provide quick simple explanations of things-- thus helping them avoid the inevitable lackof orientation that comes in the process of havingnthem have to"think for themselves"-- much easier to be told what to believe!
But other types,(such as me) are motivated by other things. (I have accepted the fact that in order to sucessfully pursue some goals a degree of emotional discomfort is inevitable).
[In the MBTI system of personality, I am a typical ENTP).
They hate the science that would make their gods/goddeses immaterial. By proving the book of Genesis as being wrong, then one opens the door to the possibility that the rest of the bible could be wrong.
The study of science and math have really only enjoyed around 3000 years of existence, where as there is evidence that man has been creating things to worship back before we learned to use fire and fabricate tools. I think the current count is around 2400 different gods of record.
The funny thing is, one foes not even need science to prove Genesis (or the bible in general) wrong. One merely needs to point out the logical inconsistencies or contradictions to do that.
The funny thing is, one does not even need science to prove Genesis (or the bible in general) wrong. One merely needs to point out the logical inconsistencies or contradictions to do that.
Ah.... the old Cain's wife conundrum..... is that what you speak of?
I find the explanation in this link particularly humors...
No. But I suppose that works too.
More like bad comedy. My eyes still won't stop rolling after reading that.
Try keeping them in the sockets Gordy....
I think I need some eyedrops. I think I might have lost a few IQ points reading that nonsense too. And they used to say TV rots the brain.
A fine example of the antithesis of science: trying to explain a preconceived conclusion by pure speculation rather than sound evidence.
Indeed.
trying to explain a preconceived conclusion by pure speculation rather than sound evidence.
And we see it everyday here on NT from some of our membership...
Of course there's another way to interpret it.
Many "believers" take Genesis to be the literal truth. (Which makes it easier to disprove!) However I've known some who said its not meant to be taken literally---rather, its symbolic.
In my experience, most religious people (per Judaism and Christianity) do not hold that Genesis is to be taken literally.
But the ones that do,
Here's the way I look at it. Genesis was written around the time of Moses. At that time, concrete thinking (or lower) was the norm; abstract thinking was, at best, rare. Now, imagine standing in one place and looking at the sun in the morning the afternoon and dusk. You watch the sun moving while you are standing still. It is quite clear that the sun is the thing that is moving. Microscopes were not yet invented, so we knew nothing of cells or bacteria, etc., let alone sub-atomic particles.
Now, imagine Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai and bringing the theory of evolution and relativity. Chances are the people would have run back to Egypt!
The Bible spoke to the people of its time. Fortunately, God gave us intellect and curiosity to find out more of this infinitely complex an wonderous universe.
Well, could you believe that some phenomena exist-- but their existence cannot be proved logically?
I believe Shakespeare was familiar with this concept as he has Hamlet say:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Could? Of course, one can believe anything ... even truth in a blatant contradiction.
Should? To me that answer would be 'no'. It makes sense to hypothesize, fantasize, speculate, ... about something that cannot be evidenced (much less proven) but when one actually believes something true without supporting evidence (or at least based on logic grounded in evidenced or definitional axioms) one could then believe anything.
People can and do believe anything, no matter how ludicrous. But as I always say, belief does not equal fact.
I say, "show me the evidence!"
Well there's an easy way to defend Genesis--- (I may have mentioned this before?)/ If you believe its all allegorical, not to be taken literally....
(Some religious people believe that that is the case, while of course others do believe its literal).
To me the easiest explanation for Genesis is that it is a fantasy dreamed up by ancient men looking up at the sky, looking around at nature and spinning a tale for how it all started. That hypothesis explains everything in the Bible perfectly (including its vagueness, contradictions and errors).
There isn't a problem when people treat Genesis, or any other fable in the bible, as the story or myth that it is. It's when they think those stories are literally true that it becomes a problem. Even more so when they try to pass it on as fact, especially over actual science. The fact that so many people seem to regard biblical stories as factual is a sad commentary on our society and where it's headed.
IMO part of the problem is the public does not have access to the scientific literature. Science is locked behind paywalls. The primary public exposure to science is through popular media. Attempts to further research reported science only cycles through reporting by the popular media.
Popular media tends to highlight controversial issues and selects science reporting that dovetails with reporting on mainly political controversies. The type and quality of reporting by the popular media naturally creates a public perception that science is influenced by politics. The actual science is being filtered through the popular media's lens of political controversy.
The public only sees science debated by pundits in the popular media; not debated by scientists. Science is only used to support a generally political position. And that science is presented as settled science to convince the public to accept a particular political point of view.
So, science is not being presented to the public objectively and, often, is presented less than honestly.
There is plenty of literature out there in libraries and the internet. I can access articles from the NIH without having to pay. If one site requires payment, another site will probably have access to the same information. Perhaps the public is too lazy to do a thorough search?
There is nothing stopping the public from doing a more in depth search. I think college students must do that on a regular basis for science classes or research.
Politics does have a way of screwing things up.
Therein lies a big problem.
This is why science should be presented by scientists and not by politicians pretending to know science.
The public libraries in this locale have been closed due to the pandemic. Not everyone has internet access; a problem that has been revealed by attempts at online learning during the pandemic.
Like it or not, the public's primary exposure to science is through the popular media. The popular media reports on controversial issues in a manner to heighten the controversy; that is the business model for the popular media to encourage consumption of their product.
The public researching information only allows the public to accept or reject declarations made through the popular media. The public may attempt to implement their acceptance or rejection of declarations through social media and their own actions. The public is required to listen to the hypotheses, theories, and conclusions of scientists and either accept or reject. The scientists are not required to listen or understand the public's point of view.
The science is presented to the public in a very authoritarian manner. The public is only allowed to accept or reject authoritarian declarations and act upon those declarations according to their acceptance or rejection.
Even when scientists present information, that presentation is done in an authoritarian manner. The public can only accept or reject what is presented. There isn't a mechanism that requires the scientist to consider or conform to public concerns or public priorities other than through politics.
The concerns and priorities of scientists compete with other concerns and priorities in society. The only mechanism available to the public to rank concerns and priorities is through politics. Decision makers choosing concerns and priorities that the public has ranked lower usually generates hostility that is reported by popular media in a manner to heighten the controversy.
Scientists assume an authoritarian role. Scientists are not accountable to public concerns and public priorities. And disagreements between scientists and the public can only be resolved through politics.
Science isn't a conspiracy.
Science also isn't a democracy.
True. Science is not based on opinion (and votes) but rather on the persuasiveness of formal evidence and the associated formal explanation based thereon.
Science is not a matter of persuasion, either. Scientists present authoritative conclusions based upon evidence. The evidence may or may not be complete. The evidence may or may not be biased. However, the conclusions drawn from the evidence are authoritative.
The public is only allowed to accept or reject those authoritative conclusions. Disputes over use of those authoritative conclusions for formulating public policy can only be resolved by means of politics.
This is how I view your attitude towards science, like Dean Yeagers view of Peter Venkman:
Read what I wrote Nerm. I wrote about the persuasiveness of the evidence.
The conclusions are not authoritative. There is no authority in fact (conclusions). Facts do not contain the means to force compliance; facts are simply information.
It is so odd that some seem determined to falsely portray science itself and scientific findings as authoritative. What is the point of this silliness?
The evidence is only evidence. Perhaps you intended to indicate the persuasiveness of interpretation of the evidence? Or perhaps persuasiveness of conclusions drawn from the evidence?
Conclusions are obtained from evidence. The conclusions are presented as being accurate, reliable, and true. The conclusions are presented as being authoritative. The conclusions are not presented as being persuasive. Authoritative conclusions may be persuasive for speculative hypotheses that extend beyond the evidence.
The authoritative conclusions are presented as being accurate, reliable, and true. That form of truth provides the authority to formulate public policy.
No, I meant exactly what I wrote. The evidence is the foundation. Focusing on the interpretation now opens the door wide open. For example, we have hard evidence that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado river. The layers of sediment support this theory. Yet we have individuals from organizations like Answers In Genesis looking at the same evidence and interpreting it as the result of a massive flow of water which deposited layers of sediment (Noah's flood).
Another example is evolution. Mountains of evidence (including now molecular biology - genetics) show the theory of evolution to be spot on yet we have people today denying evolution and claiming instead special creation. They interpret the evidence of evolution to be mere changes guided by the hand of God after God had created the 'kinds' from scratch.
You have it backwards in terms of science. Presenting a conclusion as authoritative comes from the political realm - not science. In science it is the evidence and supporting formal explanation based on same that is considered (for persuasion).
Again, you inexplicably continue to conflate declarations by officials with science itself. Science does not exercise authority. It explains phenomena based on empirical evidence and formal explanations based on a foundation of established science.
Then I suggest you are presenting an over simplified, elementary description of science. Evidence is the foundation for authoritative conclusions.
Collecting evidence provides knowledge. But scientific knowledge requires applying the scientific method to develop an authoritative explanation based on the evidence.
A + B = C
The A + B is the evidence. The equal sign is the scientific method. And C is the authoritative conclusion that represents scientific knowledge. The scientific method is a process to generate scientific explanations from the evidence. The evidence, by itself, is knowledge but is not scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge depends upon the scientific method. And the scientific method is a process used to arrive at definite conclusions based on evidence.
Charles Darwin did not observe fossils and arrive at conclusions concerning finches' beaks. Darwin made disparate observations and arrived at authoritative conclusions for each set of observations. Darwin assembled the separate conclusions into a theory of evolution because the conclusions were persuasive for speculative hypothesis. Darwin believed the separate conclusions he developed for different sets of evidence were related and connected. Each conclusion was authoritative but the relationship between the separate conclusions was speculative.
That is incorrect. Politics is the art of persuasion (according to Plato). A political argument presents an uncertain truth whose acceptance requires belief and faith.
Science presents definite truths based in evidence. Scientific truth is presented in an authoritative manner because the scientific truth is accurate, reliable, and true with certainty.
The authority of science derives from the certainty of scientific truth. Science does not provide evidence; science provides explanations that are accurate, reliable, and true. Science provides a type of authoritative truth and has authority because scientific truth is authoritative.
If scientific truth is uncertain then accepting that scientific truth will require belief and faith, just as with political truth.
Is scientific truth authoritative or persuasive? Should decisions be made using authoritative truth or persuasive truth? Should scientific truth have greater authority in decision making than political truth?
What do you believe?
Let's clear something up here Nerm. The key problem is the use of the adjective 'authoritative'. As with most English words, the specific usage matters. So when you use the term 'authoritative' are you connoting:
1. Able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable
-or-
2. Proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience.
I have been arguing that science is not authoritative per usage 2 (above). That is, science does not make edicts by authority. Individual scientists of great stature do not get to simply state truth because they say so. It is always the evidence that matters; a scientist is only as good as what s/he can evidence. Clearly, this is what I have argued.
Your prior comments suggest that you are alternating between 1 and 2. For example:
This example statement by you appears to use 'authoritative' as usage 2 in your first sentence (although 1 could also apply given your wording). Your second sentence, however, connotes usage 1.
Another example is this:
Your first sentence uses usage 2 while your ending sentence uses usage 1.
Pick a meaning (usage) for 'authoritative' and 'authority' and be consistent so that readers know what you are trying to argue. There is no point trying to continue this without a clear, consistent use of language. Again, my argument has always consistently used usage 2.
No point in continuing until you define what you mean by 'authoritative' and 'authority'.
I have used one meaning for authoritative throughout; authoritative means accurate, reliable, and true.
Your cited second example of my comment Nerm @ 8.1.10 uses that meaning as well. So I will make the same statement using over simplified, elementary English to mitigate your confusion:
"The authority of science derives from the certainty of scientific truth. Science does not provide evidence; science provides explanations that are accurate, reliable, and true. Science provides a truth that is accurate and reliable and has authority because scientific truth is accurate, reliable, and true."
You are attempting to dishonestly make a persuasive argument that is the opposite of accurate, reliable, and true. You are making political statements about science. Splitting hairs from Schrodinger's cat is an attempt to make an argument that is in two places at once while avoiding discussing the issues at hand.
If science presents uncertain truth ( a truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain ) then accepting that uncertain scientific truth will require belief and faith, just as with political truths.
Either science truth is authoritative (accurate, reliable, and true) - or - scientific truth is persuasive (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain). Which is it?
Either science doesn't require belief and faith because scientific truth is accurate, reliable, and true - or - science requires belief and faith because the accuracy and reliability of scientific truth is uncertain. Which is it?
Science is declaring itself an official source of truth and is expecting public acceptance of that truth based on compliance or obedience to truth. (Note: that is the second definition of authoritative you cited.)
Science has declared that accepting evolution is not a matter of belief or faith. Science has declared that evolution is truth and expects acceptance of evolution in compliance and obedience to the truth. What is the authority that allows science to make those declarations? Science is claiming the authority of truth. But is the scientific truth of evolution authoritative (accurate, reliable, and true) - or - is the scientific truth of evolution persuasive (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain)? Should the public accept evolution as obedience to a definite scientific truth - or - should the public accept evolution on belief in the persuasiveness of an uncertain scientific truth? Which is it?
Have you read what you wrote in this thread? My point all along has been that science itself does not have authorities who proclaim truth but rather truth (at least a good approximation to truth) is founded in evidence, not in individual authorities. Your ' rebuttals ' do not match your claim.
Okay Nerm, trying to blame me for your tactic crosses the line. You just admitted that you have been using ' authoritative ' in a completely different sense than when you first introduced the term and here is the proof. You started out @ 8.1.1 with this use of authoritarian :
That is clearly using ' authoritarian ' in the sense of: ' Proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience ' rather than ' Able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable '. Either you have forgotten what you wrote or you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. Which is it?
I have little patience for game playing Nerm. Your comments show you are flipping between at least two meanings of the word ' authoritarian '.
Déjà vu.
Science IS authoritarian. Science is not a democracy. Science claims to be an official source of truth. And scientific truth is expected to be accepted by the public in compliance and obedience to the truth. The public is not allowed to vote on whether or not the truth is to be accepted.
If someone rejects evolution then the individual is accused of denying the truth. The rejection of evolution has not complied with and has not been obedient to the truth. A range of scientific conclusions from the official source of truth will be used to demonstrate the individual not been compliant and obedient to the truth; the individual is in violation of the truth provided by the official source of truth. The authority to accuse someone of denying the truth is derived from science as an official source of truth.
The question you repeatedly avoid answering is whether scientific truth is authoritative (accurate, reliable, and true) - or - scientific truth is persuasive (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain)?
Youre starting to repeat yourself Nerm. Where does science declare truth or claim to be a source of truth? It doesnt! Science goes by the evidence it collects, which helps establish a degree of confidence or probability. If someone wants to deny a scientific theory as false, then all they have to do us provide contradictory evidence to discredit it. "Truth" is dependent on the evidence to support it, not on popularity or blind authority. If someone denies evolution (or any other scientific theory), then they will be challenged to produce the evidence to discredit it. If they can't, then they have no credibility and their challenge is rightfully rejected. If their challenge passes scrutiny, then science will incorporate the new evidence and correct itself.
And this is why we are going around in circles. You claim to use 'authoritarian' in a consistent manner but you flip back and forth. Here you are back to using it to mean: 'Proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience' when you just claimed to be using it as: 'Able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable'.
Incorrect (I have addressed this fully)
Correct
Wrong (I have addressed this fully)
Expected by whom ... everyone? Science (as a whole) does not expect acceptance and public compliance and obedience (where applicable) to its findings / recommendations. Again, I have addressed this fully.
Correct. A silly notion to put forth but you are correct that the public does not vote on the acceptance of a scientific finding.
No, the individual will be challenged to explain why they do not accept a well-founded, extremely well evidenced (multidisciplinary even) finding of science. Especially if the favored explanation by the individual is akin to magic.
Science does not claim to produce truth. Science provides formal explanations of phenomena based on empirical evidence, the application of formal methods and the use of extant knowledge (e.g. biochemistry, geology, genetics, archeology, ...).
Good grief Nerm, I am done repeatedly addressing this stubborn, flat-out-wrong spin. Maybe someone else will have the patience to engage you on this.
Then how can science be cited as an authority to oppose teaching creationism in schools? If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science has no place in the debate concerning teaching creationism in schools. If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science has no place in the debate over how to address climate change. If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science has no place in the debate over abortion.
Politics claims the authority of truth. Religion claims the authority of truth. And science claims the authority of truth.
Imposing truth onto any issue requires authority as an official source of truth that expects acceptance of truth in compliance and obedience to the truth. If science has no authority as an official source of truth then accusations of denying science would be empty accusations without substance or meaning. If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science can be ignored without consequences in same manner as ignoring spam advertising.
You are claiming that science is not authoritarian, does not claim to be an official source of truth, and does not impose scientific conclusions onto the public with expectation of acceptance in compliance and obedience to the truth. Aren't you arguing that Dr. Anthony Fauci can go fuck himself because he is not any sort of official source of truth? Fauci is just some guy blathering on TV who can simply be ignored like any advertising on late night TV.
You are arguing yourself into an indefensible position. The argument you are constructing leads to a conclusion that science can simply be ignored because science does not declare truth or claim to be a source of truth. That argument places science in the same category as the Enquirer and People on the rack by the checkout.
And I still haven't gotten answer to the question, does public acceptance of scientific truth require belief and faith? Is scientific truth authoritative truth (accurate, reliable, and true) - or - is scientific truth persuasive truth (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain)?
Correct!
Although I think in many cases a more accurate way to describe it that its more a total lack of curiosity.
For sometimes I wondered why so many people have such a lack of curiousity. There may be different reasons in different people, but in many cases (especially on Social Media sites such as NT) I think the lack of curiousity is due to the common attitude of "I know it all).
If someone is a Know It All-- why should they even both to invesitigate when someone brings up an unusual concept-- or posts a link or a video.
Although a wise old saying:
Its a truly wise man who knows how much he doesn't know.
Or apathy. Mental laziness.
Or possibly "I don't care?"
You need to get the whole "authority" thing out of your head.
The key here is OBJECTIVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! Creationism is a religious concept. It is not science. It is essentially a declaration of certainty and/or assumption (i.e. "God did it"), sans evidence. Therefore, it has no place in a science class. Actual science will completely contradict or debunk creationism, depending on how strictly one adheres to the concept. As for abortion, science only describes the gestational process. It makes no claim over the sociopolitical discussion of abortion.
Yes, yes, and no!
Ant "truth" requires evidence and/or proof to support it. No one is compelled to be obedient, except possibly in religious circles.
Again, it's about the evidence. Accept or deny science based on evidence. Then present the evidence to legitimize acceptance or denial.
He, like anyone in the sciences, needs to present evidence to support what he is saying. It's not that he's an "authority" that gives him credibility or is a reason anyone should listen to him or not. He should say "this is what the evidence shows...." Then you can take that as you will.
If that's what you think, then you clearly do not understand the argument, or what was said.
I'll sum it up in one word: EVIDENCE! If one needs belief or faith to accept science, or thinks science is an authority or declares truth, then there is something wrong here. And I would place a lack of scientific acumen near the top of that list.
The allegation was about using the term 'authoritative' in a consistent manner. You've moved the goal post again.
You are playing these circle games to avoid answering questions. You aren't discussing anything. You aren't debating anything. You are only attempting to protect your own point of view in a political manner.
This sort of behavior is not unusual for science advocacy. It's one of the reasons there is hostility towards science.
Then people need to stop making declarations and dictates as though science had some sort of authority.
That's true, creationism is not science. Creationism is a spiritual and sociopolitical explanation of evidence rather than a scientific explanation of evidence.
Evidence is knowledge but isn't scientific knowledge. The evidence stands on its own and doesn't need validation science. Scientific knowledge consists of scientific explanations of evidence. As you have correctly pointed out, science only concerns itself with a portion of available evidence and knowledge.
In some respects, scientific explanations are the result of ignorance and lack of curiosity resulting from ignoring and denying portions of available evidence and knowledge.
Are you arguing that science does not attempt to convey truth?
Science advocates have declared science as an official source of truth. Science advocates have declared religion is not a source of truth. Science advocates certainly are utilizing the authority of truth to make their arguments against religion. That's what you've done in your descriptions of science and creationism. Your argument claims science is an official source of truth and has the authority to impose that truth onto claims made by creationism. You are even using the authority of science to define what is and what is not truth.
If science has no authority as an official source of truth then science has no business claiming any other institution has no authority as a source of truth. Science should not be opposing creationism if science has no authority as a source of truth.
You have been making statements from an authoritarian point of view. You have claimed science is an (the?) official source of truth. You have made statements concerning religion and creationism supported by the authority of scientific truth.
And now you accuse me of not understanding the argument?
The evidence stands alone. Collecting evidence isn't science. Any untrained observer can collect evidence. A toddler can collect evidence by collecting shiny blue pebbles just because they like shiny blue pebbles. Evidence is NOT science.
Science generates hypotheses, theories, conclusions, and explanations using the scientific method. Scientific hypotheses, theories, conclusions, and explanations are scientific knowledge; the evidence is NOT scientific knowledge.
Evidence does not require faith or belief; it is either evidence or it is not evidence. But evidence is not scientific knowledge. And the certainty of the evidence does not impart certainty onto scientific hypotheses, theories, conclusions, and explanations. Evidence is authoritative knowledge but evidence is NOT scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge consists of conclusions derived from evidence. But is the scientific knowledge authoritative (accurate, reliable, and true) - or - is the scientific knowledge persuasive (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain)? Does public acceptance of scientific knowledge require belief and faith because scientific knowledge is persuasive rather than authoritative? Is there public hostility toward science because scientific knowledge is presented with an authority of truth but the scientific knowledge is persuasive rather than authoritative?
Nerm that is blatant bullshit. I alleged (and proved with direct quotes) that you are using the same word 'authoritative' with different meanings (usage semantics). You are flip flopping on the meaning of a word that is operative in your comments. That makes your resultant comments incoherent.
Maybe you do not realize this, but your comments in general often are expressed with common words to which you assign your own special meaning. Thus the flip-flopping of usage semantics in this thread does not surprise me, but I also have no patience for it. As noted, engage someone else.
You are making baseless accusations, in a political manner, hoping something will stick.
My position has been clear. Science is authoritarian. Scientists, such as Dr. Fauci, issue directives for action based on the authority of truth. The public is only allowed to accept or reject the directives issued by scientific experts. Rejection of those directives is deemed denial of truth. Scientific experts are not required to consider or incorporate public concerns or priorities into their directives for action. The only mechanism to resolve disputes between authoritarian scientific directives and public concerns/priorities is through politics.
Science is not a democracy. Public concerns and priorities have no representation in science. Scientific institutional consensus claims authority as an official source of truth. The public is expected to accept scientific truth in compliance and obedience to the truth; denying the truth is unacceptable disobedience. Not following the directives for action made by scientific experts is considered denial of truth. And scientific experts, themselves, tell the public that denying the truth is irrational.
While institutional science does have an authoritarian role in society as an official source of truth, is scientific truth authoritative - or - is scientific truth persuasive? Scientific experts issue directives for action based on the authority of scientific truth. Is the public expected to accept those scientific directives for action because the scientific truth is accurate, reliable, and true? Or is the public expected to accept those scientific directives for action because they have faith and believe in the institution of science as an official source of truth?
Is disbelief in the accuracy or reliability of scientific directives for action denying the truth? When the underlying science is constantly changing then the scientific directives for action have been based on uncertain truth and not authoritative truth. The authoritarian role of institutional science in society is as an official source of uncertain and constantly changing truth.
The public expressing doubts about the accuracy and reliability of declarative statements and directives for action made by scientific experts is not irrational. When a truth presented by scientific experts has been base upon constantly changing underlying science then public rejection is not denying the truth.
Hostility towards science may be an expression of doubt that scientific experts have any authority to claim that the public is denying truth or that rejection of scientific truth is irrational. Hostility towards science may be recognition that institutional science does not have any authority to claim that something like creationism is untrue.
[deleted]
TiG explained quite clearly why Nerm is wrong and supported his own position with direct quotes and explanations. And after reviewing the discussion, Nerm is wrong, even if he doesn't recognize or accept it. If one wants to be right, then I suggest stopping with dubious debate tactics and provide a rational and reasonable rebuttal.
Yeah, it's the same dance, different day. Scientists prefer a circle jerk because there aren't any corners.
Science is never wrong; science evolves. But no one admits that evolving science is never quite right, either.
Why is there hostility towards religion? The hostility towards science is the same as the hostility toward religion - and - for the same reasons.
Opinions do vary.
[deleted]
That's why I prefer facts.
No one ever said science is never wrong. So spare us the hyperbole. But unlike religion, science admits it's wrong and/or has a probabilitu of error when the evidence shows that and science will self correct itself. That conspicuously rarely or doesn't happen in religion.
That is false. TiG disputed the use of the term 'authoritative' which I addressed by directly answering TiG's allegations with a rational and reasonable rebuttal @8.1.12 . Since I rebutted TiG's allegation, TiG then transposed 'authoritarian' for 'authoritative' in comment @8.1.13 which moved the goal post and had nothing to do with what I had addressed. But I have contended all along that science is authoritarian which I explained in @8.1.1.
TiG claims I am ignoring his point of view that science is not authoritarian. That's correct, to an extent, because I contended science is authoritarian and that the role of science in society is authoritarian. I haven't flip flopped or changed my position. And TiG has not rebutted any of my supporting arguments that demonstrates science is authoritarian.
And TiG used the dispute to stop the discussion completely and avoid answering any of the questions I had directed toward him.
Your claim that I have been entirely wrong is not supported by the facts and evidence. And this is a reasonable and rational rebuttal to that false accusation.
Your allegations and accusations are false. And my contention that science is authoritarian has not been rebutted.
Who has ever claimed that science achieves perfection (truth)? Gordy and I both routinely note that science formally explains phenomena based on a foundation of formal evidence and never declares certainty (truth). If you do not know the reasons why science operates this way I can explain them to you.
Strawman!
I understand completely. I was a practicing engineer myself, long ago and far away. I've dealt with a lot of scientists professionally. It seems snarky was part of the training.
Engineers are also scientists. But science is only a part of engineering. Practical experience also provides evidence and knowledge that is not scientific knowledge.
In the case of the pandemic, we have well over a century of practical experience controlling outbreaks of infectious disease transmitted by humans (or other vectors, for that matter). We have more practical evidence and knowledge than scientific knowledge about controlling transmission of disease. Outbreaks of disease were being controlled before we knew anything about bacteria or viruses. We don't need science to tell us what we should already know from practical experience. Practical knowledge is not scientific knowledge and we should not ignore or dismiss practical knowledge just because science was not involved.
The justification for social distancing is provided by hundreds of years of practical knowledge. We don't need scientific blather or controlled studies. We already know what works but understanding why it works, in exquisite detail, really is unnecessary.
Scientists strive for answers that are correct with certainty. Engineers strive for answers that are correct enough to be applied practically. Right now we need practical answers more than we need to be correct with certainty.
It's been repeatedly explained to you why science is not authoritarian nor operates that way, despite your continued flawed assertions to the contrary. You have not shown that to be the case. So now things are just going in circles.
You can fix ignorance but sadly, you just can't fix stupid.
What bullshit Nerm. You are the one who introduced authoritarian and authoritative. You are the one who repeatedly changed the meaning of these terms within your comments. My comments have consistently stated that science is not authoritative (and similarly science is not authoritarian).
Remember the semantic distinctions I presented. About as clear as one can be:
And since you are playing new dishonest games, pretending that I 'moved the goalpost', the definition for the word 'authoritarian':
That is not science. Your claim that science (and/or scientists) is authoritarian is ridiculous. Makes no difference whether you use the word 'authoritarian' or 'authoritative' in your description of science because both are flat out wrong. As I described upfront and continued consistently throughout:
... on and on ... you have been stubbornly dead wrong this entire thread
Finally, you used 'authoritarian' in a comment to Gordy @8.1.1 and then @8.1.5 you used the term 'authoritative' in a reply to me. As noted, you introduced the terminology (not me) and you have flip-flopped on the meaning (not me).
To wit, you injected the language 'authoritative' and 'authoritarian'. You flip-flopped (repeatedly) on usage semantics. And, regardless of the terminology you use, you remain dead wrong in your allegation that science is authoritative or authoritarian. Science explains phenomena and never declares absolute truth — always holding that findings could be falsified in the future and always looking for ways to falsify existing theories.
This is basic stuff too, so it is amazing you have chosen to stubbornly argue a position that is just dead wrong.
Then scientific truth must be persuasive (truth whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain). Since scientific knowledge has been wrong before and scientific knowledge changes then scientific knowledge cannot be authoritative (accurate, reliable, and true) with certainty.
That leads to a conclusion that public acceptance or rejection of scientific knowledge is influenced by belief and faith in the institution of science; not by acceptance of authoritative knowledge since the accuracy and reliability of that knowledge is uncertain.
Public acceptance of science involves belief and faith just as with politics and religion. Science uses the authority of truth to influence and persuade the public in the same manner as politics and religion. The science's role in society as an official source of truth is similar to the roles of politics and religion in society.
Hostility toward science is much the same as hostility toward politics or religion - and - for the same reasons.
Nobody has claimed that scientific knowledge (findings, theories, etc.) are authoritative (either as in true or as in demanding compliance). I know I have consistently stated that science does not declare truth / certainty probably hundreds of times on NT alone.
Strawman!
Science never declares 100% certainty on a finding. Public acceptance of scientific findings will vary per person. Some may just trust institution of science because of its continued success. Others will dig deeper and look at the details supporting the findings. Regardless, science never demands that people accept and comply with its findings. Science does not operate in an authoritative fashion.
Here we go again with someone trying to portray science as a belief system so that they can lower it to the level of religious belief.
That is correct. I stated a contention for discussion and debate.
That is false. I have repeatedly used terms that supported my contention that science is authoritarian. If you are complaining that I have contended science is authoritarian then offer a reasonable, rational rebuttal. Don't complain about my use of terms denoting authority. Since I contended science is authoritarian then use of such terms to denote authority would be appropriate to support my contention. I haven't changed meaning of terms; I have used the terms to support my contention.
You have claimed that evidence imparts the authority of truth to science. I have rebutted that contention by pointing out that evidence stands alone, evidence is knowledge, and evidence is not scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge consists of hypotheses, theories, conclusions, and explanations derived from (or supported by evidence); the evidence, itself, is not scientific knowledge. The accuracy and reliability of evidence does not impart accuracy or reliability onto scientific knowledge.
Institutional science does have a role of authority in society as an official source of truth. But that authority as an official source of truth does not derive from the accuracy or reliability of evidence since evidence is not scientific knowledge.
Remember my direct answer and rebuttal in @8.1.12 ?
About as clearly the opposite of what you are falsely claiming as can be.
You did move the goal post. My original contention was that science is authoritarian and I have been using terms that denote authority in support of my original contention. What you did, in a backhanded manner, was try to make a persuasive argument that I had not made a contention that science is authoritarian. You moved the goal post using a false allegation.
I injected the contention that science is authoritarian first. And I have used terms denoting authority to support that original contention.
I haven't flip flopped. I contended science is authoritarian at the beginning and continue to maintain that science is authoritarian. And I have used the appropriate terms in the appropriate manner to support that contention.
Your citations are correct and you correctly point out that I have used terms denoting authority. That's the whole point I'm making. Obviously you disagree with my contention that science is authoritarian but you haven't offered any rational rebuttal.
Once again you a making a false allegation and are trying to move the goal post.
I never claimed anyone on this thread said scientific knowledge was authoritative. I asked a question: Is scientific truth authoritative or persuasive? If the term 'truth' in the context of previous discussion ties your panties in a knot then the question can be restated without changing meaning: Is scientific knowledge authoritative or persuasive?
Gordy answered the question I posed and I responded to Gordy's answer. Your allegation of 'strawman' is, itself, a strawman. You are alleging something I did not do.
Since science never declares certainty then scientific knowledge is always uncertain.
Public acceptance of scientific knowledge whose accuracy and reliability is uncertain depends upon belief and faith. The practice of science may not depend upon belief and faith but acceptance of uncertain scientific knowledge does require belief and faith.
Digging deeper into the evidence will not remove uncertainty in scientific knowledge. The uncertainty may be small but, nevertheless, scientific knowledge is always less than certain. Uncertainty establishes doubt and acceptance must overcome that doubt. Doubt is also influenced by belief and faith.
Institutional science does have a role in society as an official source of truth. Do you agree or disagree? And that role as an official source of truth does impart a status of authority on institutional science. Do you agree or disagree? Since scientific knowledge is always less than certain then any authoritarian role in society as an official source of truth must include belief and faith. Do you agree or disagree?
I proved @8.1.13 that you have used the same word with different usages.
I have been rebutting your authoritarian nonsense since your first comment.
I stated:
'Imparting the authority of truth' sounds like something Deepak Chopra would say. It is nonsense.
You know what Nerm, I am now convinced you are doing this on purpose. I back up my claims with actual quotes and you ignore the proof and just keep repeating the same nonsense. And along the way you produce claims like this one which shows you either are not reading what I am writing or are purposely fabricating false claims.
This is a pointless waste of time.
Like it or not, the public's primary exposure to science is through the popular media.
Sounds like your experience in public school was in a really lousy district....
Like it or not, the public's primary exposure to science is through the popular media.
Sounds like your experience in public school was in a really lousy district....
Actually, now that I think about it, my first exposure to Science was when as a really little kid my parents boughut me some very elementary science books.
But aside from that, my first exposure was in Public School (Unlike many people, I was lucky enough to go to a really excellent school district).
I remember learning Science in First grade> (No it wasn't Quantum Physic or anything like that-- but it was Science).
Maybe Kindertgarten (But that I don't remember that-- after all, that was well over 20 years ago
).
That's sounds like it might be interesting-- could you say that again that in plain English?
Sometimes I wonder. Some people seem to like being willfully ignorant.
it seems for some, ignorance is the rule
And no exceptions too.
difficult for thinking individuals
to watch the dismantling of so much, and i know you see through my panes
It's not "truth" that needs to be persuasive. It's the evidence which must be. I don't why you keep getting, much less narrow mindedly focusing on "truth." If people think science goes by or declares "truth," then people are woefully ignorant of science. I suspect that ignorance (willfully or otherwise) plays a large part of the general hostility toward science.
It's the scientific process and collection of evidence which leads to knowledge. And if someone needs belief or faith to accept science, then they don't understand science or are too lazy to try and understand it.
Seeing peoples hostility and/or general ignorance of science is what is painful. And sad. Having people in positions of leadership who are also ignorant and hostile towards science doesn't help.
teaching this belief, brings disbelief, as to how easily and severely the human brain can be led astray, cause as stated, when control and monetary interests are at stake, it is driven through the heart of a scientific argument, that still isn't beaten, just distorted and attacked, till simple minds gain a complex, as their view concaves inn, to the convex, and distorted perceptions, and are now just reflections of people who rather than be wrong, break the mirror, as they don't wish to face the truth, or imagine their image, if they were to think
different, than their peers
Actually I had more exposure to science than most. When I was a kid, atomic energy was the sexy science. Atomic ships, atomic submarines, atomic airplanes, atomic trains, atomic cars, atomic piles in our homes to eliminate the grid. Atomic spaceships. The atom was supposed to be the means to achieve a Star Trek future. But atomic energy became nuclear energy and nuclear energy was bad. The science of progress was transformed into the science of evil. Scientists formed a consensus that we shouldn't and couldn't have that atomic future. And because scientists decided we shouldn't and couldn't have that future, the public now must deal with the existential threat of climate change.
Science does not benefit the public. Science benefits whoever owns and controls the science. And controlling the science allows controlling the public and controlling the future. Science does not offer a future to the public; science imposes a future onto the public without responsibility or accountability.
Using selective science is also painful. My brother farms the family farm and we had one of the EPA type agencies come in years ago and try to stop us from farming certain areas, we finally got the head guy in here and he looked it over and realized the agents were overzealous and cleared all but a few acres. There were trees on part of the cleared area that we decided to remove and join two fields together, the same agency seen from satellite photos we had started clearing about a dozen trees, so out comes an agent, my brother joined him and they went out to the area, first a bore sample was done and found the seasonal water table was 2' below the surface, two of the trees were ash, and some plants were wetland type, so he declared it wetlands and for us to cease clearing. My brother pointed out that you take a bore sample from anywhere within a hundred square miles you will find the same water table line (this whole area at one time was a huge swamp), the ash trees were growing with oak, maple, and basswood trees all dry land trees, and the vegetation was more dry land than a few sparse wetland, and the big kicker was there is a newly formed man made 100 acre wetland a few hundred feet away with a water level 3 feet below the area in question. The agent was using science to give him power over someone without using all the evidence.
Oh, almost forgot, the agent had the satellite photo with him and showed it to my brother how they knew what we were doing, my bother had a hard time recognizing it because what was missing from the photo was the 100 acre man made wetlands, it had been photoshopped out making it look like an area of grassland instead of a lake with areas 50 feet deep.
What is it about science being authoritarian do you not understand? What is it about science being used to control the public and control the future do you not understand? SCIENCE IS AUTHORITARIAN.
You've only demonstrated a desire to talk about science in a political manner. As is typical in the history of using authority to control public discourse, the greatest concern is how something is said to shift attention away from the substance. The liturgy and dogma has become far more important to protect a position of authority rather scrutinizing the public purpose and need for that authority. It's quite possible that Charles Darwin could not formulate a theory of evolution in today's scientific environment.
You made an allegation and I rebutted that allegation. So now it is politically expedient to continue making allegations to score political points. You aren't discussing the substance. You have adopted a political tactic of proving that one mistake, one error, or one wrong statement makes everything wrong. And that political tactic depends upon science being the arbiter of truth, with absolute authority, that cannot be challenged. Questioning the authority of science is denying the facts, denying the evidence, and, worst of all, denying the truth.
You aren't debating anything. You are proselytizing. You make declarative statements about science and expect acceptance of those declarations as some sort of rebuttal BECAUSE science is the authority for truth that cannot be questioned or challenged. Disobedience to the authority of science must be proven wrong by any means.
You speak about science from the point of view of an authoritarian scientist without any consideration or regard for the public's point of view. You speak about science and defend science as an authoritarian. Science is not a servant of the truth. Science does not benefit the public. Science benefits whoever owns and controls the science. And science is being used to control the public and control the future.
The public allowing science to assume an authoritarian role in society is dangerous. Placing science in the position of the official source of truth will transform science into a religion. We see that happening today. Scientists will become priests.
Sounds like dishonest tactics to me. But I fault the person engaging in such tactics, not the science.
That's some grade A conspiracy theory crap right there!
Here you illustrate one of your problems. You state 'science is authoritarian' as a summary conclusion to your question/statement that 'science is being used to control the public and control the future'.
Figure out the difference between science and the usage of science (especially by political and religious authorities). If you continue to conflate the two, your comments (and by extension, your arguments) will remain dead wrong.
How can the public trust the evidence?
Scientists have found that weather observations collected in the past do not correspond to observations collected using recently adopted methodology. Scientists have concluded that the older methodologies introduced a bias in the observations. So, scientists have manipulated past evidence to conform to observations made with today's methodology. The public no longer has access to the evidence, the public only has access to manipulated evidence.
When science manipulates the evidence then why should the public trust that evidence?
Scientists conduct a controlled experiment by bubbling carbon dioxide gas into a tank of water and observe the effect on aquatic organisms. Scientists then extrapolate the observations from that controlled environment into predictions concerning an uncontrolled environment.
When science creates evidence by artificial means why should the public accept that evidence as an objective description of nature?
How can manipulated evidence and artificially created evidence be considered as accurate, reliable, and true? How can scientists avoid the need for belief and faith to justify manipulating and artificially creating evidence? How can the public accept scientific knowledge based on manipulated evidence and artificially created evidence without belief and faith?
The public perception of evidence isn't necessarily that of objectivity, accuracy, or reliability. Manipulating and artificially creating evidence establishes a source of public doubt toward what science declares to be true.
he's totally missed the letters in your plain as day words, and i don't think the postman gonna ring twice
You posted two definitions for the term 'authoritative' didn't you? Don't both definitions describe authority?
Definition 1: able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable. Doesn't that describe the authority of truth? Wouldn't denying something that can be trusted as accurate, reliable, and true be denying the truth?
Definition 2: commanding and self-confident; likely to be respected and obeyed. Isn't scientific knowledge commanding and self-confident because that knowledge has been subjected to falsification? Isn't scientific knowledge that is accurate, reliable, and true likely to be respected and obeyed?
Both definitions of 'authoritative' describe authority based on trust and truth. The term 'authoritative' describes authority by either definition you choose. Both definitions apply to scientific knowledge.
The definition of authoritarian (which I think you posted earlier): favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
Science favors enforcing strict obedience to the authority of truth provided by scientific knowledge that can be trusted as being accurate, reliable, and true and scientific knowledge that commands respect and obedience for overcoming the challenges of falsification.
Science is authoritarian because scientific knowledge is authoritative; assuming, of course, that scientific knowledge is actually authoritative.
---------------
You are attempting to split hairs from Schrodinger's cat by attempting to make an argument that is in two places at once. The term 'authoritative' describes authority by either definition you cited. The term 'authoritarian' describes use of authority although the emphasis on government is a red herring. My points have been consistent throughout. Your arguments have attempted to move the goal post.
You've engaged in a tactic that is more political than rational.
Figure out the difference between science and the usage of science (especially by political and religious authorities). If you continue to conflate the two, your comments (and by extension, your arguments) will remain dead wrong.
A worker goes to his boss and explains the number of rejects has spiked. The worker isn't sure what the problem is and doesn't know how to fix the problem. The worker is the expert who knows the the details of the process. The worker is certain that something is wrong. The worker recommends that everything needs to be shut down until the problem is understood and can be fixed.
The boss is required to make a decision whether or not to shut everything down. How does the boss make that decision? The evidence is clear, the number of rejects has spiked. So, the decision is whether or not to accept the worker's recommended course of action. Wouldn't belief and faith in the worker be a large factor in the boss' decision?
Was Dr. Anthony Fauci elected? Is Dr. Anthony Fauci a priest? Isn't Dr. Anthony Fauci exercising authority as a scientific expert?
How has Dr. Anthony Fauci been using science?
Why should the public accept Dr. Anthony Fauci's authority? And if the public is forced to obey Dr. Anthony Fauci's authority then why wouldn't there be hostility from the public?
Is that supposed to be some sort of refutation?
Modern science benefits those who own and control the science.
Scientific knowledge is now intellectual property. Scientific research in agriculture, medicine, biology, technology, energy, materials, and a host of other areas are being pursued to obtain profit. Whoever owns the the intellectual property will obtain the greatest profit. Scientific knowledge is locked behind paywalls and protected by patents. In far too many instances, academic research has turned into patent mills.
Science activists are attempting to control and utilize science to influence public opinion and control the future. Activist scientists are selectively using science to demand a course of action that will have ramifications far into the future. Activist scientists are manipulating evidence, artificially creating evidence, and deliberately dismissing evidence that does not conform to the purpose of their activism. Activist scientists are not describing things as they are; activist scientists are describing things as they should be.
Today's scientists are making institutional decisions that directly affect the structure of society and the course of the future. And public concerns and priorities have no representation in institutional science. The public is being forced to accept societal manipulation and a future that the public had no part in creating. In some respects, the public is becoming a victim of science rather than a beneficiary of science.
Institutional science has increasingly become authoritarian and the authority of science is increasingly being used to force the public to comply and be obedient to the authority of science. Disagreeing with or challenging institutional science has become a heresy against the orthodoxy of truth as defined by institutional science.
Again Nerm, you conflate individuals operating with political authority with science itself.
Dr. Fauci is not science. He is an individual scientist operating in a political / sociological role. If Dr. Fauci was strictly acting as a scientist he would be unable to do anything but make recommendations. Further, to my knowledge, Dr. Fauci even in his current role cannot mandate anything; he can only recommend to those who have the authority to mandate.
Science and the usage of science by authorities are two entirely different things. I am amazed that I must repeat something so demonstrably obvious.
How is Dr. Fauci using science in a political / sociological role?
Dr. Fauci has been making formal authoritarian announcements and declarations about actions to control the pandemic. How does science support Dr. Fauci's authoritarian role?
Dr. Fauci has stated there is much that is not known about the coronavirus. Dr. Fauci has stated that the evidence is uncertain in many situations because the evidence has been anecdotal. Dr. Fauci has been citing the methodology of science. Clinical trials provide authoritative conclusions (there's that word again). Dr. Fauci has been justifying his authoritarian announcements and declarations by indicating that science is authoritative.
Hasn't Dr. Fauci used science as an official source of authoritative knowledge? Hasn't Dr. Fauci been using science as an authority for truth? Hasn't Dr. Fauci made the argument that rejecting his authoritarian announcements and declarations would be an irrational denial of the truth?
Simple: first stop thinking science is some kind of conspiracy. Second, have a basic education and understanding of science. Third, investigate the evidence for oneself. Fourth, approach science logically and rationally, not emotionally or irrationally. Fifth, don't look to non-science individuals for science related issues or information.
What are you talking about?
Science or scientist?
It's called an experiment and simulation of a certain condition. Then it gets compared to what is observed and repeated as necessary for reliability.
That statement shows you view or treat science as some kind of conspiracy theory. It's delusional.
First of all, I suggested that Dr. Fauci is not the person empowered to require compliance; those persons are the mayors, governors, Congress and the PotUS. Dr. Fauci serves as an expert advisor in infectious disease. His recommendations are based on science. It is the political authorities who act (or not) on those recommendations.
Your use of 'authoritarian' is as wrong now as it was the first time you mentioned it. You ignore my answers and just repeat the same questions; so I am not going to yet again explain to you the basics of science. Get a clue on your own Nerm.
Dr. Fauci's recommendations are based on the findings of empirical science (in particular, the area of infectious disease).
And he is correct.
Your refusal to understand how science works is on you. I am not going to yet again explain this to you.
Dr. Fauci has used science as (most likely) the most accurate source of information about coronovirus (and COVID-19) and infectious disease in general. Exactly as he should; offer the best science has at the moment and revise based on new information.
No. Science never declares truth. This is one of the most fundamental concepts in science. Having repeatedly explained this to you, there is no point doing it yet again since you ignore the information and keep stubbornly repeating your mantra.
Your use of 'authoritarian' contradicts the scientific method. Buy a vowel.
Nope-- its all there if you want to look for it.
As that used to be-- but now with the Internet its even easier!
If anything most of the public doesn't think its important to be informed. So they don't even bother to look.
Example: You're in the midst of a really good online discussion. But no one knows the answer to some questions that would resolve some unknowns, and really move the discussion along. You discover a link to some fascinating information that will move the discussion along exponentially-- and post it in the discussion!
Question: what percentage of the people in the discussion will click on that link?
(My guess; usually aero).
Its not that the info isn't avaiable, its just that for various reasons most people don't care. Or-- they are "know it alls"-- so they think they can't possibly learn anything new, so why bother)
Its not that the info isn't there-- its just most people won't pursue it.
typo-- should be zero
Stuff for your perusal
3M Survey on Attitudes towards Science
Click on "Explore the Data" Lots of filters on this so that you can compare countries, age groups etc.
In general people seem curious about science and would like to know more
Pew Poll on Trust in Scientists and Medical Scientists being partisan
Pretty much what it says
That's quite interesting Adam. Thank you for that.
Very interesting!
But here's something to think about. The question about what would increase their interest in science seems to imply that they are currently not that interested in Science.
So what I find strange is their answers-- I would be more interested in Science if____.
Well how do they know what is currently available ...if they haven't bothered to even look?
Example: "
If It was explained in a way that related more to my everyday life 37%
So they're making a really stupid assumption-- that it isn't explained that way, so they don't check it out. (If they were all that interested, then why is the survey survey asking what would increase their interest?)
But how the fuck do they know that it won't-- if they don't check?
Sometimes the widespread stupidity of people really makes me give up hope for humanity!
1. Those with some sort of political agenda (that would be aided by more hostility to science).
Then again it may be very simple.
No matter how meager you life is, it's always possible that something could take what little you have away so you throw your wooden shoes into the machinery. (I wonder if that's actually true.)
In the past, science and technology made many jobs obsolete but created even more. That's starting to change. Truck driving, crop picking, hamburger flipping, grocery check out, tax preparation, farming, sports writing (no - really) are things that are being automated right now. Manufacturing jobs may be brought back from China, but when they return they will be performed by robots. These jobs for humans will be destroyed and replaced with just a few jobs requiring advanced degrees. Jobs that pay enough to live on will decrease.
I thought we had a few years to adjust to this but Covid-19 has made it obvious to companies that robots do not get sick. Expect them to quickly invest more in automation.
People have developed a love / hate relationship - loving the new smart phone and being able to command a personal servant - "Alexa. Turn on the lights." At the same time they have a real and rational fear of what they may lose in the bargain.
They turn to their politicians and they get ideas that will no longer work. Coal jobs are not coming back and retraining everyone to code smart phone apps is also a non starter.
(Perhaps we should do a "Robot Overlords are Coming For You" seed and hash it out.)
That's a fact....... Progress is never a bargain, you have to pay for it.
"Robot Overlords are Coming For You"
To that exact point... I was in the Kuka automation plant in Augsburg, Germany a few years ago. Humans were there to do only a couple of things. Keep the raw materials stocked, and put the finished robot on a skid and load it on the truck. Yep..... machines making machines. Terminator movies come to mind?
Don't worry I'm your friend ... Adam Selene
Ever see I Robot?
Better yet, I still read the book from time to time....
Very good book. I loved how the The 3 Laws of Robots came down to only being important
Yes, I need to re-read the book myself. The book and the movie usually don't align very well.
No they don't.
You reminded me of the "difficulties" the two technicians that had the lucky job of troubleshooting the glitches with the robots went through... Brought a good chuckle for the evening Tess... Thanks.
People are always throwing things into machinery.. sometimes even themselves! I suppose its just modern times!
Even in the 30's people were wondering about what the impact of modern technology would be (in this case the new technology was automation and the production line).
I thought we had a few years to adjust to this but Covid-19 has made it obvious to companies that robots do not get sick. Expect them to quickly invest more in automation.
And it goes even beyond that. We often hear that a robot will replace a worker. But the actual facts are that in most cases one robot will not replace one worker. Rather, one robot will replace several workers.
P.S: A friend of mine is a High School teacher. She says that most American kids today just do not want to become Computer Programmers/Software Engineers.
The insecurity factor, people never personally want to believe they are "stupid". They will always take the "path of least resistance" because it absolves them of ever needing or even wanting to understand complex ideas and never want to do the extra effort of learning.
Are you familiar, by any chance, with the DMA course?
DMA course..... No, please post a link as several possible alternatives pop up (Doctor of musical arts is just one of the choices)
The best known (at least the one with the most entries when I last googled "DMA"):: Direct Marketing Association.
It was an amazing course I used to teach many years ago. A course on a systematic, practical approach to creating results. it was popular fram about the early 1980's ;till IIRC< about 1987 or so.
Then it kind of faded away. (Because, IMO, it was waaay ahead of its time).
After maHy years I was wondering if it was still in existence, so I called the DMA organization (originally in Salem MA, they had moved to New Hampshire and did what I had done in the past-- request materials for teaching a class.
But I couldn't, bevause they now do what many organizations do-- instead of having to pay teachers to teach classes in person, it could only be taught by them-- as an on-line course. (Now if I taught it I'd be violating a copyright).
I looked at the online course-- they took out a lot of "the heart and soul" of the original, from the little I saw.
The creator of the course was a (classical) musician, at one time a member fo The Boston Philharmonic and also a composer. (But outside of Boston IIRC he wasn't all that famous).
However he was thinking about the act of creating music and realized that consciously or not, a musician goes through a series of steps in writing music.And then researched-- and found all creators go through the same steps (although in different media).
And then wondered-- why not cofdgythese steps and temost as gpalsach them to people-- so that they could use them to create..their life. (Discover what's truly meaningful to them, create these goals, then purse these steps to create what they wanted in life!
The course was a combination of two very different things-- a lot of ancient mysticism and spiritual practices that sounded good but when taught they never told you exactly to use them practically! (Many based on the teachings of Hermes Trismisgestus). Also some Kabbalistic and Christian mysticism thrown in as well). And a new field he created-- "Structural Thinking". (That's a bit technical).
We used to tell people DMA = "Doesn't Mean anything"-- but its actually from the Kabbala-- let's just say its about creating and leave it at that for now.
The creator of the course wrote the first book on the subject-- its called "The Path of Least Resistance". Its about structural thinking. Although obviously he didn't invent that phrase, its a key concept in structural thinking. So that's why I asked if someone knew it-- and DMA.
Its a very profound book of these principles and how to apply them-- but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who hasn't taken the course.(Its profound with a tremendous amount of info-- not light reading.
Here's the copy I have -- the original version of the first edition, circa 1982 or 3 as I remember.
Here are some reviews .
And I agree with your observation of the insecurity factor, but I just don't understand it. When I retire, my plan is to be a professional student and sit in on any and all lecture classes that I want. I've been around machines and processes for the bulk of my life, but I want to learn about microbiology and chemical processes at the cell level just out of sheer curiosity.
Sounds like you might have a second career ahead of you as a research Scintist (probably in Biology or medicine or some related field)
Oh looky, he's back!
He makes a good point: if people don't get vaccinated, then there is no herd immunity. The virus will continue to spread and infect others.
I'd say the good doctor is spot on target with his assessment.
What is it you are wanting to take exception to Greg?
Wasn't Einstein himself, questioning a scientific authority?
What authority? Do you have an example?
Paul Karl Ludwig Drude, is the person of which Einstein was speaking.
What did Einstein specifically question?
As the story goes, in 1901, Einstein considered himself above all others and certainly on the level as someone he considered as brilliant as he... Paul Drude, although Einstein had done nothing significat at that point. Drude was the Editor of Annalen Der Physik. Drude and had recently developed what is now called the Drude model.
Einstein considered it has having several flaws and wrote the journal with his findings and hoping for employment was dismissed rather rudely by Drude and Einstein took it as a personal affront. At which point Einstein now considered Drude a sad specimen and the dunces in the world were in confederacy against him (Einstein).
As a result, Einstein confided via letter to Josh Winteler , that he would write a humiliating article about Drude, et al, titled "unthinking respect for authority, is the greatest enemy of truth". He never wrote that article, but did cite Drude in some of his earlier papers that followed.
Interesting story.
Wasn't Einstein himself, questioning a scientific authority?
I think in one sense all scientists are constantly questioning authority. Questioning the present beliefs about something.
There are the current beliefs about "the way things are". Then some scientist has an insight that some generally accepted belief may be inaccurate. They come up with a theory about that currently accepted belief-- that reality may be different, then test their hypothesis by experiments, and often prove the current prevailing belief actually isn't true, and discover a new one that is.
Than, later on, that cycle repeats.
At one time in Europe, The Catholic Church was the ultimate authority on "the way things were". One of their beliefs was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Copernicus thought that the Earth revolved around the Sun. (IIRC that was after making various observations with a telescope.)
INstead of just assuming or guess what was true-- he actually observed it and discovered what the actual facts were-- the truth.
Which of course challenged authority, challenged the prevailing view.
(Pun intended
Incidentally, if history is any guide, I wouldn't be surprised if some day Einstein's views are disproven and a news theories about the Universe are proven.
(Until someone else comes along)
Rinse and repeat!
Speaking of movies-- anyone remember these classic lines?
Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
“HAL was told to lie by people who find it easy to lie. HAL doesn't know how, so he couldn't function. He became paranoid.” (Dr Chandra) HAL was an AI, but still operating under instruction from humans, he was faced with a conflict of interest and unable to reconcile that conflict.
So the answer to your question Krishna... would be a definitive yes!
Daisy, Daisy....
You got it!
Great movie...a;beit in some ways a bit scary re: the picture of the future it paints....
"No one said they "got it right."
Now we know, "Why There Is A Hostility Towards Science" !!!!!
Anytime someone becomes hostIle towards science because science "didn't get it right," didn't have all the answers, or something along those lines, clearly does not understand science or how science operates. Perhaps some people have unrealistic expectations and become irrational or emotional when those expectations are not met, especially by science.
Perhaps some people have unrealistic expectations and become irrational or emotional when those expectations are not met, especially by science.
Kind of how I felt when at 14 or so I realized religion wasn't going to meet any of my expectations with respect to logical answers.....
I had a similar experience (but don't remember the exact age). As a kid I always wanted to be a Scientist (I had two Chemistry sets in my basement). Read lots of Sceience books.
besides being logical and seeking actual proof, Scientists have another trait-- curiousity. And the good ones spend a lot of time exploring the unknown.
While I never became a professional scientist, I also was also extremly curious-- especially about the unknown and the mysterious. (Of course "the mysterious " is only mysterious until you begin to investigate it with an open mind...as your understanding unfolds it starts to become not so mysterious at all...).
If you have already made up your mind about something before you explore it...then you're missing outon a lot.
Then I became interested in thing s that were true...but couldn't be comprehended by the logical mind itself.
I developped my Psychic abilities to a large degree (not long ago finished a very serious year long program in Psychic Development)-- studied Astrology for many years, and similar phenomenon.
I left the Catholic church when I got my first driver's license.
I would say curiosity is a necessary trait to be a scientist. Curiosity is what drive the discovery of the unknown.
Yes-- an absolute necessity!
Science depends upon :"proof"-- determined by actually trying out ideas (AKA "experiments"). And probably in most cases Science doesn't get ti right. Much more often than it does get it right. For numerous trials. Its doesn't get it right-- until it does!
It keeps getting it wrong-- often many, many times. Until the experiments finally succeeds-- then it finally gets it right-- once! (And then there's no longer need to search for the solution-- because they just found it).
Here's a bit of interesting trivia. The first drug finally invented to cure Syphilis--- "Salvarsan" is often called by another name : "606".
Why? Because it was the 606th drug they tried that finally worked! (So science "got it wrong 605 times-- until they got it right , , , once.
Proof is nice, but may be too high of a bar to achieve. Evidence is better. The more collaborating evidence that is collected, the greater the certainty of an idea. But I know what you mean.
That's the beauty of science: it is self correcting.
I did not know that. Thank you for sharing.
And once is all it takes.
Science and innovation will lead the world into tomorrow. The question is, will we as a country lead the way? Or will be led along the way at the end of the line? Looking around, especially with the apparent hostility, disinterest, and/or ignorance of science going on in this country, I'm not so optimistic anymore.
I do find it interesting that there is a mantra against science by a faction of 'right' individuals. They are running with a talking point that science is incompetent if new evidence results in new recommendations. Is that ignorance (doubt it) or simply dishonesty due to partisanship?
I'd say both.