· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 09/19/2014 10:54:47 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
Here's one certain sign that something is very wrong with our collective mind: Everybody uses a word, but no one is clear on what the word actually means.
One of those words is "science."
Everybody uses it. Science says this, science says that. You must vote for me because science. You must buy this because science. You must hate the folks over there because science.
Look, science is really important. And yet, who among us can easily provide a clear definition of the word "science" that matches the way people employ the term in everyday life?
So let me explain what science actually is. Science is the process through which we derive reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation. That's the science that gives us airplanes and flu vaccines and the Internet. But what almost everyone means when he or she says "science" is something different.
To most people, capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. It is a thing engaged in by people wearing lab coats and/or doing fancy math that nobody else understands. The reason capital-S Science gives us airplanes and flu vaccines is not because it is an incremental engineering process but because scientists are really smart people.
In other words — and this is the key thing — when people say "science", what they really mean is magic or truth.
A little history: The first proto-scientist was the Greek intellectual Aristotle, who wrote many manuals of his observations of the natural world and who also was the first person to propose a systematic epistemology, i.e., a philosophy of what science is and how people should go about it. Aristotle's definition of science became famous in its Latin translation as: rerum cognoscere causas, or, "knowledge of the ultimate causes of things." For this, you can often see in manuals Aristotle described as the Father of Science.
The problem with that is that it's absolutely not true. Aristotelian "science" was a major setback for all of human civilization. For Aristotle, science started with empirical investigation and then used theoretical speculation to decide what things are caused by.
What we now know as the "scientific revolution" was a repudiation of Aristotle: science, not as knowledge of the ultimate causes of things but as the production of reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation.
Galileo disproved Aristotle's "demonstration" that heavier objects should fall faster than light ones by creating a subtle controlled experiment (contrary to legend, he did not simply drop two objects from the Tower of Pisa). What was so important about this Galileo Moment was not that Galileo was right and Aristotle wrong; what was so important was how Galileo proved Aristotle wrong: through experiment.
This method of doing science was then formalized by one of the greatest thinkers in history, Francis Bacon. What distinguishes modern science from other forms of knowledge such as philosophy is that it explicitly forsakes abstract reasoning about the ultimate causes of things and instead tests empirical theories through controlled investigation. Science is not the pursuit of capital-T Truth. It's a form of engineering — of trial by error. Scientific knowledge is not "true" knowledge, since it is knowledge about only specific empirical propositions — which is always, at least in theory, subject to further disproof by further experiment. Many people are surprised to hear this, but the founder of modern science says it. Bacon, who had a career in politics and was an experienced manager, actually wrote that scientists would have to be misled into thinking science is a pursuit of the truth, so that they will be dedicated to their work, even though it is not.
Why is all this ancient history important? Because science is important, and if we don't know what science actually is, we are going to make mistakes.
The vast majority of people, including a great many very educated ones, don't actually know what science is.
If you ask most people what science is, they will give you an answer that looks a lot like Aristotelian "science" — i.e., the exact opposite of what modern science actually is. Capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. And science is something that cannot possibly be understood by mere mortals. It delivers wonders. It has high priests. It has an ideology that must be obeyed.
This leads us astray. Since most people think math and lab coats equal science, people call economics a science, even though almost nothing in economics is actually derived from controlled experiments. Then people get angry at economists when they don't predict impending financial crises, as if having tenure at a university endowed you with magical powers. Countless academic disciplines have been wrecked by professors' urges to look "more scientific" by, like a cargo cult, adopting the externals of Baconian science (math, impenetrable jargon, peer-reviewed journals) without the substance and hoping it will produce better knowledge.
Because people don't understand that science is built on experimentation, they don't understand that studies in fields like psychology almost never prove anything, since only replicated experiment proves something and, humans being a very diverse lot, it is very hard to replicate any psychological experiment. This is how you get articles with headlines saying "Study Proves X" one day and "Study Proves the Opposite of X" the next day, each illustrated with stock photography of someone in a lab coat. That gets a lot of people to think that "science" isn't all that it's cracked up to be, since so many studies seem to contradict each other.
This is how you get people asserting that "science" commands this or that public policy decision, even though with very few exceptions, almost none of the policy options we as a polity have have been tested through experiment (or can be). People think that a study that uses statistical wizardry to show correlations between two things is "scientific" because it uses high school math and was done by someone in a university building, except that, correctly speaking, it is not. While it is a fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads, all else equal, to higher atmospheric temperatures, the idea that we can predict the impact of global warming — and anti-global warming policies! — 100 years from now is sheer lunacy. But because it is done using math by people with tenure, we are told it is "science" even though by definition it is impossible to run an experiment on the year 2114.
This is how you get the phenomenon of philistines like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne thinking science has made God irrelevant, even though, by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson (Facebook.com/COSMOSOnTV)
You might think of science advocate, cultural illiterate, mendacious anti-Catholic propagandist, and possible serial fabulist Neil DeGrasse Tyson and anti-vaccine looney-toon Jenny McCarthy as polar opposites on a pro-science/anti-science spectrum, but in reality they are the two sides of the same coin. Both of them think science is like magic, except one of them is part of the religion and the other isn't.
The point isn't that McCarthy isn't wrong on vaccines. (She is wrong.) The point is that she is the predictable result of a society that has forgotten what "science" means. Because we lump many different things together, there are bits of "science" that aren't actual science that get lumped into society's understanding of what science is. It's very profitable for those who grab some of the social prestige that accrues to science, but it means we live in a state of confusion.
It also means that for all our bleating about "science" we live in an astonishingly unscientific and anti-scientific society. We have plenty of anti-science people, but most of our "pro-science" people are really pro-magic (and therefore anti-science).
This bizarre misunderstanding of science yields the paradox that even as we expect the impossible from science ("Please, Mr Economist, peer into your crystal ball and tell us what will happen if Obama raises/cuts taxes"), we also have a very anti-scientific mindset in many areas.
For example, our approach to education is positively obscurantist. Nobody uses rigorous experimentation to determine better methods of education, and someone who would dare to do so would be laughed out of the room. The first and most momentous scientist of education, Maria Montessori, produced an experimentally based, scientific education method that has been largely ignored by our supposedly science-enamored society. We have departments of education at very prestigious universities, and absolutely no science happens at any of them.
Our approach to public policy is also astonishingly pre-scientific. There have been almost no large-scale truly scientific experiments on public policy since the welfare randomized field trials of the 1990s, and nobody seems to realize how barbaric this is. We have people at Brookings who can run spreadsheets, and Ezra Klein can write about it and say it proves things, we have all the science we need, thank you very much. But that is not science.
Modern science is one of the most important inventions of human civilization. But the reason it took us so long to invent it and the reason we still haven't quite understood what it is 500 years later is it is very hard to be scientific. Not because science is "expensive" but because it requires a fundamental epistemic humility, and humility is the hardest thing to wring out of the bombastic animals we are.
But until we take science for what it really is, which is both more and less than magic, we will still have one foot in the barbaric dark.
Well done!
And I just love this zinger:
...science advocate, cultural illiterate, mendacious anti-Catholic propagandist, and possible serial fabulist Neil DeGrasse Tyson....
People like to define "scientist" in such a way as to include themselves and their special interest group while excluding others.
The article itself bears witness to that.
Naming Aristotle as the first “proto-scientist” betrays the author’s lack of a classical education.
The first “proto-scientist” was (as far back as is recorded) was Imhotep, an Egyptian circa 2650-2600 BC.
Much of what Aristotle did was based on knowledge he gained from Pharonic Egypt, which was gained from the sea-people of western north Africa (or ancient Libya: everything west of the middle of the Nile Delta to the Atlantic sea coast {mostly a blue-eyed, blond people}).
exactly
Liberal teachers are rotten liars through and through. Where are these supposed conservatives on school boards? Non-existent or minimal. Just about every public school or college is overrun with liberal administrators and teachers. And that's a fact. My kids grinned and beared it while in college, having to hear all the liberal rants from teachers. They made it through quickly and graduated just so they wouldn't have to hear any more of it.
definition of "scientist":
definition of "physical science":
definition of "scientific method":
So Bill Nye the Science Guy clearly qualifies as a "scientist".
Of course, not every word ever uttered by Nye qualifies as "scientific".
Astronomers can't run controlled experiments on the nature of stars... and yet the Main Sequence is a very scientific explanation of stellar activity and stellar populations.
Not every science has the capacity for "controlled experiments".
It's making predictions that can be verified by further observation that's important.
As for "climate science"... it's not that it is fundamentally unscientific... it could be scientific. The problem with "climate science" as it exists today is that it has been completely and totally hijacked by a political and economic agenda run by forces that are so powerful they make Galileo's opponents look like pipsqueaks in comparison.
If you say ANYTHING against the POLITICAL ORTHODOXY of "climate science" (as it is defined by the powerful forces that control it) you will be permanently unemployed by all university/main-stream-research institutions. And all "climate scientists" know that.
Some of them brave the opposition and speak out anyway (fully aware they have forever burned their bridges to the establishment) but most knuckle under and repeat the incantations of the "climate science" priests.
This all has NOTHING to do with what "climate science" could be, if it were truly treated as a science, but is only about the very powerful socialist forces on planet earth today who have coopted "climate science" as an anti-capitalist tool.
This is CA, though. So it’s to be expected. I reported it to my counselor, but it didn’t go anywhere.
No Science, No Logic and No Morality: Atheism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxz84kS8k4U
I agree with the author.
Our “Modern” culture has taken Science to mean Truth on the surface, and when they are challenged with contradictions they will shift into science being the process.
To think this issue is not ideologically driven would be foolish. Everybody, and I mean everybody has a bias.
The Left has co-opted “Reason” as their clarion call for a just world. It is a world that can’t exist using their own logic and leaves them only to “Embrace Uncertainty” as their only escape.
They are in fact, certain about everything being uncertain. In addition, they will fight anybody that is certain because to be certain is to be judgmental and that is unacceptable.
Mathematics and the physical sciences are more amenable to the “scientific method”. Charlatans always hover along the fringes and champion various “pseudo-sciences” which derive their popularity from being delivered more by celebrities and other social elites than those actually driven by actual results.
Worse. They are whores for a Federal grant check.
It's difficult to figure out what's what these days. You may think someone is a tap-dancer, but presto! you are wrong. That someone is actually brain surgeon. Likewise, one should not assume that the fellow at IBM Almaden who has a name-plate on his desk that reads "RESEARCH SCIENTIST" is actually a scientist. He might not be. Here are some useful rules of thumb to help tell if someone is a real scientist...
If a person goes to church, he is not a scientist. If he reads Carl Sagan books, he is a scientist. If he believes that his ancestors are dead monkeys buried in the ground, he is a scientist. If he wonders whether Bill Nye is gay, he is not a scientist. If he is an atheist, he is a scientist. If he believes in God, he is not a scientist. That should help.
Fred likes to watch TV.
the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena,
His favorite show is on fridays at 8.
experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and
He turns on the TV.
a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis."
At 8pm Fred discovers that today is thursday.
Fred is a scientist!
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.