Two kinds of science, polar opposites of each other

[Jim]

You mean like this?
Big Bang Theory Primer

No. See this post.

 

[Audie]

The only kind of science that I think deserves its reputation is honest and responsible research, and reports of the research by people who did it. I’m opposed to calling anything else but that “science,” in discussions about current issues. Now I’ll go even farther and say that I think it would be better for science and for discussion purposes to never call anything that people are saying “science” at all. If people are quoting directly from some research, all they need to do is cite the research. Calling it “science” adds nothing to the argument, creates needless and useless distractions, and helps perpetuate lines of alienation between people, consequently damaging the reputation of science and weakening its impact.

So far you have failed utterly to demonstrate that there
are different "kinds" of science.

Speaking of adding nothing!
You are complaining about people not bringing
substantive info to the table is a tad ironic.

 

[Jim]

So far you have failed utterly to demonstrate that there
are different "kinds" of science.

Thank you.

What I mean by that is:
1. Honest and responsible research, and researchers reporting the results of their research.
2. Everything else that people call “science.”

“Polar opposites” was another reckless exaggeration.

 

[David T]

Well, the basic problem is that real science is technical, detailed, and tends to use a lot of math. Most people don't have the time or energy to learn the math, let alone all the details and technicalities. In fact, going through that learning process is a big part of the training to be a real scientist. And, unfortunately, that training only works for one field. If you go through the training to be a physicist, you won't have the time to go through the training to be a biologist (even though there is some overlap).

So, we have a specialized population of people that have gone through this training. But policy decisions have to be made by people who have *not* gone through that training. And the general public, while 'interested', wants to avoid all that training because they have other things to think about.

So, we have 'science writers' who have often (not always) gone through some of the basic training, but don't have the details and the technicalities (or, often even the math). They are, in essence, journalists that attempt to communicate ideas to the public. The problem is that the journalists, themselves, don't *really* understand these ideas. They are communicating a poorly understood set of ideas to people who want to know even less: they want the end result, not the details.

And, of course, to make the story interesting, these journalists have to 'play up the controversy' and make things seem more unusual than they actually are. They are selling the *story*, not the science.

And, of course, there are also many 'science writers' who really don't understand much about what they are writing. These give poor descriptions and cater to those who don't want to believe the science. SO, politics enters in and we get those who want things one way when the science says they are another. And, for the general public, who has little training, figuring our who the 'experts' are is, in and of itself, a job that requires more thought than they want to do. So they 'go with their gut' and the result is bad policy all around.

Now that is an incredibly accurate and truthful take on the whole thing. Nice job poly!

I was just reading a little dust up in science where one writer was saying that cosmology was in crisis and another said it wasnt. I think at some point in time we resolve current issues but really we also will only be creating deeper questions at the same time.

Feynman is one of my favorites in science and he was very focused not on answers but questions.

 

[David T]

Audie i think he is saying that "science" is seen in multiple ways and understood in multiple ways. Not literally different sciences. The term gets used at times as justification about observational interpretations , and its then called science.
Although, like in religion, science can create a transcendental illusion of scientific orthodoxy that can take over and it becomes the only way in peoples thinking. Science is not independent of that happening.

 

[Jim]

Audie i think he is saying that "science" is seen in multiple ways and understood in multiple ways. Not literally different sciences. The term gets used at times as justification about observational interpretations , and its then called science.
Although, like in religion, science can create a transcendental illusion of scientific orthodoxy that can take over and it becomes the only way in peoples thinking. Science is not independent of that happening.

If that really is what I was saying, I hope Audie understands it, because I don’t.

 

[David T]

If that really is what I was saying, I hope Audie understands it, because I don’t.

Thats alright lots of very senible stuff is said and the folks saying it arent sure why! Then some stuff is said the they are absolutely sure is correct and its pure nonsense!!!! Funny how that works!

 

[Audie]

If that really is what I was saying, I hope Audie understands it, because I don’t.

I didnt either. It read like one of these...puzzle hedge - Google Search:

 

[wandering peacefully]

((There are many things that people call “science.” One that I’ll be discussing here is honest and responsible research and reporting the results. That’s the kind of science that I love, and the kind of science that gave science its reputation. Another is media and faction stories about reports of research, and pronouncements of professional associations. The first meaning is the one that people will cite to defend their use of the word “science,” but in forum debating that is never what anyone actually means when they call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific.” In forum debates, when people call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” they only ever mean the second kind of science, media and faction stories about research reports, and pronouncements of professional associations. Anyone who disagrees with that, please show me some counter examples.

Look! The emperor has no clothes!))

What in the world are you talking about now? There is so much wrong with that generalization, your hypothesis is basically rendered useless. Who died and left you king of what science is and what people do with it or think about it? Maybe take a peaceful retreat with much meditation and calm your racing mind?

 

[ChristineM]

((There are many things that people call “science.” One that I’ll be discussing here is honest and responsible research and reporting the results. That’s the kind of science that I love, and the kind of science that gave science its reputation. Another is media and faction stories about reports of research, and pronouncements of professional associations. The first meaning is the one that people will cite to defend their use of the word “science,” but in forum debating that is never what anyone actually means when they call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific.” In forum debates, when people call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” they only ever mean the second kind of science, media and faction stories about research reports, and pronouncements of professional associations. Anyone who disagrees with that, please show me some counter examples.

Look! The emperor has no clothes!))

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Media : the main means of mass communication (broadcasting, publishing, and the Internet) regarded collectively.

Big difference. If people call the media science then that is down to their own poor education and most people of reasonable intellect are able to do a little research and tell the difference between the two

 

[Audie]

What in the world are you talking about now? There is so much wrong with that generalization, your hypothesis is basically rendered useless. Who died and left you king of what science is and what people do with it or think about it? Maybe take a peaceful retreat with much meditation and calm your racing mind?

Well, our opster does have a habit of putting up more
and more threads on topics that have not had two
minutes' thought, so, yeah, a retreat into meditation
would be in order.

 

[Audie]

Big difference. If people call the media science then that is down to their own poor education and most people of reasonable intellect are able to do a little research and tell the difference between the two

ya think?

 

[ChristineM]

ya think?

Sometimes i think ;-)

Yeah, i specifically said "most people of reasonable intellect"

 

[Jim]

There is so much wrong with that generalization, your hypothesis is basically rendered useless.

Agreed. Nothing but a string of reckless statements. I’ll try again.

Sometimes when I see people denouncing a religion, its followers or its beliefs, it looks to me like they think that their arguments are what they call “scientific” and/or that the beliefs they’re denouncing are contradicted by what they call “science.” With one possible exception seven years ago, I haven’t seen any posts in these forums using a direct quote from reports by researchers of results of their research, as an argument against the beliefs they’re denouncing.

@Audie @A Vestigial Mote @Polymath257
@sayak83 @wandering peacefully @ChristineM
I would like to see some more recent examples of direct quotes, from reports by researchers, of results of their research, as arguments against what other people are saying. More recent than 2012, but before I started this thread.

 

[sayak83]

Here’s an algorithm for testing a post for what I’m asking for:
1. Was it posted before I started this thread?
2. Is it arguing against some belief or beliefs, or denouncing a religion or its followers?
3. Does it call anything that it’s saying “science” or “scientific”?
4. Is everything that it’s calling “science” or “scientific” a direct quote from results of honest and responsible research, as reported by the people who did the research?

If the answer to all those questions is “yes,” then please post a link to that post.

Ok. I rarely denounce anybody. So I am out.

 

[siti]

Please provide links to some posts that were made before I started this thread, where people were calling what they were saying against other people’s beliefs “science” or “scientific,” where what they were calling “science” was direct quotes from results of honest and responsible research, as reported by the people who did the research.

Try doing a search for posts by @siti in the science and religion and evolution vs creationism forums - try searching for the word "paper" - I'm sure you'll find a few - there are probably more examples that weren't prefaced by "this paper" or "here's a paper" - I might also have used the word "study" or whatever. I have frequently drawn attention to genuine peer-reviewed science publications in these discussions.

That said, I do also refer to more 'popular' level sources to explain things sometimes - science is hard and research papers are not the stuff most people are inclined to read over a cuppa after a hard day's work - I do try to check the content carefully before recommending to anyone - but once you 'popularize' scientific concepts you necessarily make the account less precise and more open to (sometimes bizarre) reinterpretation.

For me, upholding 'science' is not about winning arguments (although I admit it might look like that sometimes), but its a professional responsibility - I am passionate about science and increasingly dismayed at the lack of scientific literacy among the general public. Sometimes, addressing that means being "cruel to be kind" - if someone's pet belief is based on denial of clear scientifically established fact, there is no easy way to address that but to confront them with the scientific evidence - it rarely works, but I feel duty-bound to at least try.

 

[siti]

@Jim

I did the search myself and there are quite a few examples...here's an example of a page of a discussion in which the Genesis account of the age of the universe was being discussed...

Does the Bible begin 'after' the dinosaur/Neanderthal ages?

On that one page, in 3 or 4 posts I made no less than 5 references to different peer-reviewed science journal articles that highlighted evidence clearly demonstrating that the religiously-motivated arguments about the earth/human species being only a few thousand years old were patently wrong. I also referred to some more general sources (Wikipedia) and clearly recommended (twice) that the reader should look up the references to the original research for themselves and check all the references for themselves and I posted the simplest explanation I could (in my own words) of how radioactive decay series measurements can be used to date cave paintings with a reasonable level of confidence.

As you might expect the explanation was met with a deafening silence. Nobody wants their pet religious theories overturned by a genuine consideration of inconvenient facts. But the fact is, to believe the Biblical account of creation as a literal fact is unscientific and needs to be exposed as such to any who still haven't cottoned on to that fact. For me to fail to do that when a reasonable opportunity presents itself would be to fail in my professional responsibility as a scientist, just it would be unprofessional for a medical doctor to fail to point out the dangers of an unhealthy lifestyle when he has a chance to do so.

 

[Jim]

@siti Here’s an example of how to confront people with the evidence, without calling anyone’s views “scientific” or “unscientific.” You could say “Here’s some research that I think contradicts that, and here’s my understanding of what it says.”

 

[siti]

...and for the record, here's a post from about a year ago where I recommended an approach for people to do their own scientific research research (if you see what I mean)...

Atheists Vs. Theist

Here's what I wrote in the relevant paragraph - worth repeating in case anyone is interested and doesn't already know...

"...neither "science-minded atheists" nor fantasizing "Christian theists" should get their scientific education from the History Channel - or any other TV channel for that matter. If you want a general readership level update on science try Scientific American or New Scientist. If you want to dig deeper in specific areas try searching the subject in Google Scholar and then select relevant papers from reliable journals that you trust."

 

[siti]

@siti Here’s an example of how to confront people with the evidence, without calling anyone’s views “scientific” or “unscientific.” You could say “Here’s some research that I think contradicts that, and here’s my understanding of what it says.”

I get what you are saying Jim, but I don't think it is desirable not to call a spade a spade in this case...especially for someone who is a scientist...I can speak with the authority of my profession - you presumably would not appreciate your doctor telling you, that based on the positive test results, he was pretty sure you had cancer but that you should feel free to disagree with him if you preferred to see it otherwise would you? Or telling you that your well-meaning faith-healing friend's suggestion that you should attend the service at the local Church on Sunday rather going for chemotherapy if you want to get well was an equally valid interpretation, and not at all an uninformed or un-medical opinion would you?

If a religious idea contradicts current scientific understanding then it is, by definition, unscientific - isn't it? How does pretending otherwise help anyone?