I find some contestable points in the above statements, dear BroJoeK.
(1) You maintain that “science is not a matter of public opinion,” yet seemingly remain quite blind and strangely mute about the fact that “science” is being used to shape public opinion — and you yourself proffer a notorious example of this ghastly abuse of science: “Gore-bull warming.” Are you trying to refute yourself? Or are you just too lazy to connect the logical dots?
(2) I don’t need “honesty” to make a decision about whether a traffic light is green or red. I just need eyesight and experience to discriminate visual inputs, analyze and decide what they mean, and respond accordingly, as generally prescribed by the laws and regulations pertaining to public safety. This is virtually a mechanistic, almost totally unconscious process by now. It is unclear to me how a term from the moral universe — honesty — applies to this seemingly mainly empirical situation, or could apply, without trivializing the moral universe.
(3) You seem to suggest that “the truth of the matter” is the result of “consensus.” [Quoting you directly, “Thus ‘consensus’ is the result, not the cause of, the truth of the matter.”] That strangely sounds like a political statement to me: In what way would what you describe here be different from a public opinion poll? And how is science to advance if it is faced with/constrained by such a monumentally impoverished mentality?
“Majority opinion” may have to suffice when it comes to deciding political questions. But I conceive that, if questions in science are to be asked and answered in this way, we will finally hear the death knell of science itself.
For consensus kills curiosity. Or rather makes curiosity superfluous, once the “consensus community” makes its pronouncements known — and forbids all questions that rise outside its putative domain….
Thus the destruction of one of the most glorious achievements in the history of mankind.
Do I personally believe that would ever happen?
NO!!! I have too much confidence in science — even though its tires might need a little “kicking” right now….
Must leave off for now. Hubby wants to go shopping. Ugh. Will get back soon.
Thanks so much for writing, BJK!
As posters like tacticalogic have pointed out, science is merely a tool, readily available for use (or mis-use!) by anyone who grabs hold of it.
And while science every day saves and improves the lives of billions of people, it is also sometimes misused, most notoriously by dictators starting wars or exterminating whole populations.
That is simply a fact, not even debatable.
But, as I've also posted many times now, I don't blame science itself for the fact that historically bad people mis-use it, any more than I blame Christianity for historical horrors committed by Christians against "heretics" & "infidels", etc.
betty boop: "...you yourself proffer a notorious example of this ghastly abuse of science: “Gore-bull warming.”
Are you trying to refute yourself?
Or are you just too lazy to connect the logical dots?"
Somebody is being intellectually lazy here, FRiend, but it's not me.
betty boop: "(2) I don’t need “honesty” to make a decision about whether a traffic light is green or red....
It is unclear to me how a term from the moral universe — honesty — applies to this seemingly mainly empirical situation, or could apply, without trivializing the moral universe."
Every day dishonest drivers run red lights, are sometimes stopped by police, or cause accidents while claiming the light was green.
These people are the moral equivalent of Al's "Gore-bull warming" science.
Those politicians look at scientific "traffic lights" which are in fact "red" or at most "yellow" and claim them to be "green" = "go for global warming".
They are also the moral equivalent of anti-evolution "scientists" who deny all scientific evidence to the contrary, in order to justify their Biblical understandings.
That's not "science".
betty boop: "You seem to suggest that “the truth of the matter” is the result of “consensus.” [Quoting you directly, “Thus ‘consensus’ is the result, not the cause of, the truth of the matter.”] "
What is your problem here?
Are you intellectually dyslexic?
How could I possibly be more clear, and yet even while you quote the truth, you twist it around to mean the opposite?
What's up with that?
Which part of "Thus ‘consensus’ is the result, not the cause of, the truth of the matter," do you not get?
betty boop: "That strangely sounds like a political statement to me:
In what way would what you describe here be different from a public opinion poll?
And how is science to advance if it is faced with/constrained by such a monumentally impoverished mentality?"
Obviously, yours Ms. boop, is the "monumentally impoverished mentality", if plain English words get twisted around inside your mind to mean the opposite of what they clearly say.
You must stop that, FRiend.
In this case my analogy of the traffic light absolutely perfectly applies.
The light is either red or green, but it is your moral choice to respond lawfully or illegally to it.
If you chose to respond illegally, and cause an accident, now you face yet another moral choice: will you tell the truth and suffer the just consequences, or will you lie and claim the light for you was actually green?
Likewise, science itself requires truth-telling and can be highly disrupted by those who lie -- "Gore-bull warming" being the perfect example.
So can you tell us why that simple idea gets so twisted around backwards inside your brain, Ms boop?
betty boop: "For consensus kills curiosity.
Or rather makes curiosity superfluous, once the 'consensus community' makes its pronouncements known — and forbids all questions that rise outside its putative domain…."
Science itself is not all-about "consensus", except in the sense that we all agree a traffic light is green.
If the light is green, and we see it as green, then anyone claiming otherwise is clearly lying, and should be questioned about their motives.
Of course, "yellow lights" are a different matter, as are traffic lights which malfunction or shut off.
Now we have lots of room for interpretations & interpolations about which people can legitimately hold different opinions.
So nature does not always give us a clear red or green light -- sometimes the lights flash erratically, etc.
Then the science is not "settled" and research continues.
I ask again, what is so difficult for you to understand about that, FRiend?