Posted on 11/30/2017 7:43:57 PM PST by MtnClimber
Suppose a scientist makes a bold claim that turns out to be true. How confident are you that this claim would become widely accepted?
extraordinary evidence. Still, the indirect evidence is mounting and most cosmologists now believe that dark matter exists. To the extent that non-scientists think about this issue at all, we tend to defer to experts in the field and move on with our lives.
But what about politically contentious topics? Does it work the same way? Suppose we have evidence for the truth of a hypothesis the consequences of which many people fear. For example, suppose we have reasonably strong evidence to believe there are average biological differences between men and women, or between different ethnic or racial groups. Would most people defer to the evidence and move on with their lives?............
There are many forms of pluralistic ignorance, and some of them are deeply important for how science works. Consider the science of sex differences as a case in point. Earlier in the year James Damore was fired from Google for circulating an internal memo that questioned the dominant view of Google’s diversity team. The view he questioned is that men and women are identical in both abilities and interests, and that sexism alone can explain why Google hires more men than women. He laid out a litany of evidence suggesting that even if average biological differences between men and women are small, these differences will tend to manifest themselves in occupations that select for people who exhibit qualities at the extreme ends of a bell curve that plots a distribution of abilities and interests.
(Excerpt) Read more at quillette.com ...
Try to be a university professor and claim that Global Warming is a hoax and present evidence. Just watch what happens.
1. Political bias is baked into the department to the degree that the political Truth is more important than the truth.
The big review paper on the lack of political diversity in social psychology
http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/
Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/
2. Studies they are basing their research on are not replicable or the results are twisted and warped beyond what little the study merely suggests. But the value of the “science” to justify the political demands is too great.
The False ‘Science’ of Implicit Bias
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/false-science-implicit-bias-10689.html
Dr. Jordan Peterson: The Dangers of Unconscious Bias Testing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veAPVuuUSUY
Many scientific studies can’t be replicated. That’s a problem.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/27/trouble-in-science-massive-effort-to-reproduce-100-experimental-results-succeeds-only-36-times/?utm_term=.1177ad29a2dc
It is hoped that science eventually recognizes fallacy and routs around it, if not through it.
It was common knowledge for decades that ulcers were caused by stress. A lot of sturm and drang were expended before the needle swung to Helicobacter pylori.
Or the case of nineteenth-century French philosopher Auguste Comte’s pronouncement that scientists would never know what the stars are made of.
Or the head of the US Patent Office who in 1899 recommended closing the office because “everything that can be invented has been invented.”
Science isn’t always right but the methodology is way ahead of whatever is in second place.
But the methodology is always subject to human passion and will. This is the failure of science.
If you do a search on “Average IQ by country” it will show very politically incorrect results. Especially israel compared to surrounding Arabic countries or Europe compared to North Africa.
It’s beyond me how anyone can sit in front of a computer transmitting information at the speed of light while describing science as a failure.
Careful. I said human passion and will are the failure of science. Very different from stating science is a failure.
Without human will and passion there would be no science.
But there they are. Maybe your point goes right over my head.
Understand that science is made of facts, methods, measures and mathematics but also human passion.
When a guy named Mike decides to skew the observations of his study to get the result he wants, this is human passion.
Human passion is a driver. How can that be a failure?
Didn't happen, from what I understand. I only recall that this had been cited for years, when I saw an explanation of its false origin.
Science isn’t the problem. It’s scientism. But you know that.
Ah, the Mike gambit.
Form a hypothesis.
Create a means to test the hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis.
Collect the data.
Adjust the data to fit the hypothesis. LOL
Newton was asked how he was able to arrive at his results, which seemed so far beyond what anyone could achieve. He answered, “By thinking on them constantly.”
You’re the on who said it was a failure of science, not me.
As for scientism, put me down as for it.
“The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” –Stephen Weinburg, The First Three Minutes
“We can be proud as a species because, having discovered that we are alone, we owe the gods very little.” –E.O. Wilson, Consilience
ooops. sorry.
When that passion is overtaken by an unceasing desire for scientific truth to replace transcendent Truth, then you set yourself up for all kinds of epistemological and ontological failures. Positivism literally became a religion utilizing the scientific method as a means to determine absolute Truth. Now we have the AI people unveiling their “Religion of the Godhead” as pure rationalist truth. Substituting or replacing immanent truth for transcendent Truth is a recipe for disaster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.