A light in science, hidden and people repelled from it by clouds of smoke and dust

[Jim]

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.3566

I see a light in science that I think the world needs, that I think can be seen in the human stories behind modern physics. I see a lot of what people on all sides are saying about science, in media stories and Internet discussions, as clouds of smoke and dust hiding that light from people, and even repelling people away from it.

Part of what I see hiding the light in science and repelling people away from it, more than anything that its detractors could ever say or do, is calling reports of research in media and faction stories, statements of professional associations, and/or views of people with science degrees about public debate topics, “science,” and calling views contrary to those “unscientific.”

 

[exchemist]

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.3566

I see a light in science that I think the world needs, that I think can be seen in the human stories behind modern physics. I see a lot of what people on all sides are saying about science, in media stories and Internet discussions, as clouds of smoke and dust hiding that light from people, and even repelling people away from it.

Part of what I see hiding the light in science and repelling people away from it, more than anything that its detractors could ever say and do, is calling reports of research in media and faction stories, statements of professional associations, and/or views of people with science degrees about public debate topics, “science,” and calling views contrary to those “unscientific.”

But since those contrary views so often are unscientific, what do you think we should call them instead?

It seems to me there is a huge danger in failing to apply scientific rigour to ideas, or expressed opinions, that claim to have something to say on scientific topics.

 

[Jim]

But since those contrary views so often are unscientific, what do you think we should call them instead?

I’m wondering if that’s a rhetorical question, or if you’d really like to try to understand what I think about it.

 

[exchemist]

I’m wondering if that’s a rhetorical question, or if you’d really like to try to understand what I think about it.

I am - mildly - interested in what you think about this.

I suppose it may come down to the sorts of things you have in mind when you mention "contrary" views. Would examples help?

 

[Jim]

But since those contrary views so often are unscientific, what do you think we should call them instead?

If you really would like to try to understand what I think about that, I would need an example of when you might see a need to call some particular view “unscientific,” what audience that would be intended for, and what you think you would be communicating to them with that word, that they might need or want to know.

 

[exchemist]

If you really would like to try to understand what I think about that, I would need an example of when you see a need to call some particular view “unscientific,” what audience that’s intended for, and what you think you’re communicating to them with that word, that they might need or want to know.

A classic example would be the creationist concept of "intelligent design". This purports to be scientific, when it is nothing of the kind. The object of calling it unscientific would be to warn people who might be taken in by it and think it genuine.

Another example would be that dietary theory according to which lemons are described as "alkaline". The object of describing that as unscientific would simply be because it is cobblers, and so letting it go unchallenged leads to the propagation of ignorance.

 

[Jim]

A classic example would be the creationist concept of "intelligent design". This purports to be scientific, when it is nothing of the kind. The object of calling it unscientific would be to warn people who might be taken in by it and think it genuine.

Another example would be that dietary theory according to which lemons are described as "alkaline". The object of describing that as unscientific would simply be because it is cobblers, and so letting it go unchallenged leads to the propagation of ignorance.

The intended audience is people who might be fooled by people calling it “scientific”? What you think you’re communicating to them is that the claim of it being scientific is false?

 

[exchemist]

The intended audience is people who might be fooled by people calling it “scientific”? What you think you’re communicating to them is that the claim of it being scientific is false?

In the case of ID, yes exactly. ID offers creationists a supposedly scientific basis for their beliefs, when in fact it relies on unscientific - indeed antiscientific - ideas.

In the case of the lemons, I suppose one might equally just call it "wrong". However I was once at a dinner party where someone claimed lemons were alkaline and was sceptical when I said this was incorrect. So I had to go into more detail (citric acid, school pH experiments with lemons, etc.), to show that what she was saying was wrong as a matter of science - unscientific.

 

[Jim]

In the case of ID, yes exactly. ID offers creationists a supposedly scientific basis for their beliefs, when in fact it relies on unscientific - indeed antiscientific - ideas.

If someone is calling something that they’re saying “scientific,” I would ask them what they mean by that. If they mean that some people with science degrees believe it, I would say that I don’t think that’s a reason at all, for believing it. Do you have any idea what else anyone might mean by saying that ID is a scientific reason for thinking that one of the Christian Gods exists or is real, other than some people with science degrees allegedly saying so?

In the case of the lemons, I suppose one might equally just call it "wrong". However I was once at a dinner party where someone claimed lemons were alkaline and was sceptical when I said this was incorrect. So I had to go into more detail (citric acid, school pH experiments with lemons, etc.), to show that what she was saying was wrong as a matter of science - unscientific.

Did you actually use the word “unscientific”? Did you literally call the idea of lemons being alkaline “unscientific”? If so, what did you think that you were communicating to her, more than what you communicated with details about citric acid, etc,?

 

[exchemist]

If someone is calling something that they’re saying “scientific,” I would ask them what they mean by that. If they mean that some people with science degrees believe it, I would say that I don’t think that’s a reason at all, for believing it. Do you have any idea what else anyone might mean by saying that ID is a scientific reason for thinking that one of the Christian Gods exists or is real, other than some people with science degrees allegedly saying so?

Did you actually use the word “unscientific”? Did you literally call the idea of lemons being alkaline “unscientific”? If so, what did you think that you were communicating to her, more than what you communicated with details about citric acid, etc,?

I suppose I am a bit handicapped in answering this as I am one of those people with a degree in physical science, so you may consider me prejudiced or blinkered in some way. But I have a fairly clear idea of what it means to say if an idea is scientific or not, based on the basic philosophical principles of natural science - what is sometimes called the "scientific method".

I am sure people lacking this knowledge may have a variety of conceptions of what being scientific means. If they get this wrong, part of the discussion would be to try to enlighten them.

But this is all about me and my ideas. At the beginning I expressed some interest in your views of the matter. What are they and can you illustrate them with examples, as I have done?

(P.S. About the lemons I really can't recall my exact words, but an argument based on what science, viz, chemistry, says about them was the gist of it. If your issue is the actual word "unscientific", we can discuss why you think this matters.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you have any idea what else anyone might mean by saying that ID is a scientific reason for thinking that one of the Christian Gods exists or is real, other than some people with science degrees allegedly saying so?

Beating around the bush, Jim! No. There is no credible evidence of the existence of God or his manifestation or the visit of the "Heavenly Maiden".

 

[icehorse]

If you really would like to try to understand what I think about that, I would need an example of when you might see a need to call some particular view “unscientific,” what audience that would be intended for, and what you think you would be communicating to them with that word, that they might need or want to know.

How about when someone bases their kids' healthcare decisions on unscientific ideas?

 

[Jim]

I suppose I am a bit handicapped in answering this as I am one of those people with a degree in physical science, so you may consider me prejudiced or blinkered in some way.

I don’t think that there’s anyone who isn’t, including me. I try not to be distracted by those thoughts about people that I’m trying to communicate with. It’s a never-ending struggle.

But I have a fairly clear idea of what it means to say if an idea is scientific or not, based on the basic philosophical principles of natural science - what is sometimes called the "scientific method".

Do you think that any time anyone calls anything “scientific,” that means the same thing to them that it does to you? Specifically, when people claim that there are scientific reasons for thinking that a creator God is the only possible explanation for whatever people are calling “Intelligent Design,” would you agree that their actual working definition of “scientific” is different from yours, regardless of how you and they define it in words?

I am sure people lacking this knowledge may have a variety of conceptions of what being scientific means. If they get this wrong, part of the discussion would be to try to enlighten them.

My approach would be, rather than trying to change what “scientific” means to them, to bring out in the open for everyone to see, what it actually does mean to them in the context of what we’re discussing, not how they define it in words, but precisely what it is about what they’re saying that they think makes it “scientific.”

But this is all about me and my ideas. At the beginning I expressed some interest in your views of the matter. What are they and can you illustrate them with examples, as I have done?

The matter that I thought we were discussing was what to do when you have an impulse to call some view “unscientific,” instead of calling it “unscientific.” There’s no single answer I can gIve you for all circumstances. There might be multitude of possible answers for a multitude of circumstances. The only general answer I can give you is to find some way to do whatever you feel impelled to do, without calling any view “unscientific.” The only way I can give specific answers for you is for you to provide examples of circumstances where you might have an impulse to call some view “unscientific.”

(P.S. About the lemons I really can't recall my exact words, but an argument based on what science, viz, chemistry, says about them was the gist of it. If your issue is the actual word "unscientific", we can discuss why you think this matters.)

That’s precisely my issue. I’ve already said why I think it matters. I don’t see any need to discuss it unless you want to.

 

[Jim]

How about when someone bases their kids' healthcare decisions on unscientific ideas?

The intended audience would be that person? Would you just tell that person that their view is unscientific, without explaining why you’re calling it “unscientific”?

 

[gnostic]

If someone is calling something that they’re saying “scientific,” I would ask them what they mean by that. If they mean that some people with science degrees believe it, I would say that I don’t think that’s a reason at all, for believing it. Do you have any idea what else anyone might mean by saying that ID is a scientific reason for thinking that one of the Christian Gods exists or is real, other than some people with science degrees allegedly saying so?

Good grief

 

[icehorse]

The intended audience would be that person? Would you just tell that person that their view is unscientific, without explaining why you’re calling it “unscientific”?

Well I guess if I felt that the person would be open to that, I would be happy to explain why their opinion is unscientific, and why that might be dangerous.

 

[exchemist]

I don’t think that there’s anyone who isn’t, including me. I try not to be distracted by those thoughts about people that I’m trying to communicate with. It’s a never-ending struggle.

Do you think that any time anyone calls anything “scientific,” that means the same thing to them that it does to you? Specifically, when people claim that there are scientific reasons for thinking that a creator God is the only possible explanation for whatever people are calling “Intelligent Design,” would you agree that their actual working definition of “scientific” is different from yours, regardless of how you and they define it in words?

My approach would be, rather than trying to change what “scientific” means to them, to bring out in the open for everyone to see, what it actually does mean to them in the context of what we’re discussing, not how they define it in words, but precisely what it is about what they’re saying that they think makes it “scientific.”

The matter that I thought we were discussing was what to do when you have an impulse to call some view “unscientific,” instead of calling it “unscientific.” There’s no single answer I can gIve you for all circumstances. There might be multitude of possible answers for a multitude of circumstances. The only general answer I can give you is to find some way to do whatever you feel impelled to do, without calling any view “unscientific.” The only way I can give specific answers for you is for you to provide examples of circumstances where you might have an impulse to call some view “unscientific.”

That’s precisely my issue. I’ve already said why I think it matters. I don’t see any need to discuss it unless you want to.

Ah, so apparently you think that when I feel an "impulse" to call something unscientific, I should refrain from doing so and should embark instead on an exercise in teasing out what my interlocutor thinks "scientific" means. Is that what you are saying? Well, it's an idea, though it might be a long exercise if the person in question had no idea of how science actually works.

But, as far as I can see, you still have not explained why you think it is mistake for me to describe an idea as unscientific. What is your objection to the word "unscientific"? Do you think it has no meaning? Or do you think it is somehow so off-putting that it is bound to be counterproductive to use it? Or something else?

 

[Jim]

Well I guess if I felt that the person would be open to that, I would be happy to explain why their opinion is unscientific, and why that might be dangerous.

If you did not feel that they would be open to that, would you just say to them “Your ideas about that are unscientific,” without any other explanation? If so, what do you think that word by itself would communicate to them, that might change their decision?

If you did explain to them what you mean by it, then what more besides that would you be trying to communicate to them, by calling their ideas “unscientific”?

 

[Jim]

But, as far as I can see, you still have not explained why you think it is mistake for me to describe an idea as unscientific

Yes I have, in the OP. The reason I think it’s a mistake is because I think that it’s part of what is hiding the light in science from people and repelling people from it, and I don’t think that there is any need for it, for any good purpose.

 

[Jim]

Ah, so apparently you think that when I feel an "impulse" to call something unscientific, I should refrain from doing so and should embark instead on an exercise in teasing out what my interlocutor thinks "scientific" means. Is that what you are saying?

I see a possible misunderstanding there about what I think.