Two kinds of science, polar opposites of each other

[Jim]

@Audie @ChristineM @Polymath257 Here are some examples, from this thread, of the ways of thinking about science that I’m denouncing.

“... the scientists are the authorities.”

“... science has authority in certain matters.“

“... I am calling the consensus of working research scientists science.“

 

[Jim]

((It grieves me to see people with so little respect for honest and responsible research, and for people who do it, using its name in such despicable ways, even if it is only a game.))

 

[Jim]

((I appeal to the best in each person to spend some time reading stories about the people at the heart of the scientific revolution, then do some soul-searching about the ways you’re using the name of science, even if all this is only a game for you.))

 

[Jim]

((I mean, the human stories about their discoveries, and the human interactions and relationships between them.))

 

[Jim]

And I disagree that it is a 'false stamp of authority'. In fact, it is a *true* stamp of authority because the scientists are the authorities.

And yes, those views that are unscientific should be recognized as such. In particular, those who promote their ideas as scientific for political gain when, in fact, the consensus of the scientific community disagrees with them, should be called out for their mendacity. This is the case, for example, of many creationist 'authorities' based in the Discovery Institute.

((I’m seeing some new possibilities here, for finding examples that I’m looking for, of what people are calling “science.”

What do you mean by saying that the scientists are the authorities? Do you mean that everything that scientists say is true?

What makes a view unscientific? When it disagrees with the consensus of the scientific community?))

 

[Jim]

I can speak with the authority of my profession ...

((I’m seeing some new possibilities in this discussion, for finding examples of what people are calling “science.”

What do you mean by speaking with the authority of your profession? Do you mean that everything that anyone in your profession says about anything that you consider part of your profession, is always true? What do you call your profession?))

If a religious idea contradicts current scientific understanding ...

((What do you mean by current scientific understanding? Do you mean the same thing as what people call “scientific consensus?”))

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I did say that, but then I added pronouncements of professional associations, and there might be other things that I missed. What I mean is people calling “science” or “scientific” something they read or heard somewhere, other than results of honest and responsible research, as reported by the people who did the research.

And the 'pronouncements' of scientific societies, like the AAAS, are generally summaries by professionals. Why do you consider such to be problematic?

If anything, they are more reliable than particular research papers because they also contain corrections.

 

[Polymath257]

((I’m seeing some new possibilities here, for finding examples that I’m looking for, of what people are calling “science.”

What do you mean by saying that the scientists are the authorities? Do you mean that everything that scientists say is true?

What makes a view unscientific? When it disagrees with the consensus of the scientific community?))

No, that is NOT what I said. I said that the scientists are the authorities. They can give the *best approximation* to the truth that we currently have. This is especially true in 'pronouncements' of professional societies.

A view is unscientific when it isn't based on testable hypotheses and observation. A good rule for determining this is disagreement with the current consensus, unless it is strongly evidence based. In which case, it is unlikely there will *be* a consensus.

 

[Jim]

... the scientific view based on literally millions of irrefutable, independent and very carefully investigated, scientific and archaeological discoveries that have been made in the last few hundred years that clearly debunk that preposterous idea and show beyond a shadow of doubt that our species has been around for hundreds of thousands of years and the earth for billions ...

((I want to make sure that I’m understanding you correctly. Are you calling the view that “our species has been around for hundreds of thousands of years and the earth for billions” “the scientific view?” Also, another question, are you saying that what makes it “the scientific view” is that it’s based on millions of irrefutable, independent and very carefully investigated, scientific and archaeological discoveries? That’s two questions, and I’m hoping that you’ll answer both of them.))

 

[Polymath257]

I had no idea that I would be walking into the middle of a Bible-as-true-history spit-wad fight.

But that is where the biggest disputes between science and religion are found. And that is primarily because the creationists completely reject the science.

 

[Polymath257]

You’re claiming an authority for science that no honest and responsible research would ever claim for itself, by definition.

Sorry, but if a researcher in a subject has shown that something happens, they are an authority that can say that it happens. And, when they talk about the subject in general, they are also an authority because they have been trained to be such.

As an example, I am a mathematician. I have spent years doing research in math, teaching math, etc. I *do* get to decide what is bad math. And, furthermore, I *am* an authority in math. So, when someone religious comes along with a bad argument based on probabilities (and I have seen many), I *do* get to say that the argument is faulty and simply wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

((I want to make sure that I’m understanding you correctly. Are you calling the view that “our species has been around for hundreds of thousands of years and the earth for billions” “the scientific view?” Also, another question, are you saying that what makes it “the scientific view” is that it’s based on millions of irrefutable, independent and very carefully investigated, scientific and archaeological discoveries? That’s two questions, and I’m hoping that you’ll answer both of them.))

Yes, and yes.

 

[Polymath257]

Just to let everyone know, I'm leaving for Europe and China tonight and won't be on RF as much for the next couple of months.

 

[Jim]

And the 'pronouncements' of scientific societies, like the AAAS, are generally summaries by professionals. Why do you consider such to be problematic?

I don’t consider such to be problematic. I was saying that sometimes when people say “science” or “scientific,” they’re referring to those summaries.

If anything, they are more reliable than particular research papers because they also contain corrections.

I’m not sure that makes them more reliable. I’m not sure it doesn’t.

 

[Polymath257]

I don’t consider such to be problematic. I was saying that sometimes when people say “science” or “scientific,” they’re referring to those summaries.

And I think that is a valid method of speaking. The scientific consensus at the time is generally what you see in such pronouncements.

I’m not sure that makes them more reliable. I’m not sure it doesn’t.

Well, the individual research papers can be faulty for a number of reasons. Those faults tend to be brought out by later research papers and the professional pronouncements take into consideration how the evidence has changed. That makes them more reliable.

 

[Audie]

I can live with that, as a description of what I think of science. I think I do remember saying something other than that, along with it.

Oh. Okay then.

((It grieves me to see people with so little respect for honest and responsible research, and for people who do it, using its name in such despicable ways, even if it is only a game.))

The creationists here do employ what they may think is,
and identify as, "science" to promote their wacky ideas.
(See flash frozen mammoth, hydroplate theory, fossil on
everest=flood proof etc)

I'd not get emotional enough to be despising it but of course
it is variously facile, ignorant, dushonest, rtc.
Of course there is no respect at all in it, not for
science, or even themselves. See "intelcetual honesty"
for one aspect of self respect.

I have not seen anything faintly resembling this crude
disregard for honesty and intelligence from any who
speak for science v creationism.

You've not identified an individual, a quote, a group
or a reason, nor given any focus to your rather emotional
complaints about how someone somewhere speaks of
science.

Maybe look into why this even seems like an issue
to you?

Could you maybe do so for at least one of these,
before making further complaints about the "despicable"
behaviour of others?

 

[Jim]

... scientific concepts ...

What makes a concept “scientific?” Can you give me a few example of scientific concepts?

... 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 ...

What makes a fact “scientifically established?” Can you give a few a few examples of scientifically established facts?

Are there any other facts besides scientifically established ones? If so, can you give a few examples?

What makes evidence “scientific?” Can you give a few examples of scientific evidence?

Is there any other kind of evidence besides scientific evidence? If so, can you give a few examples?

 

[Jim]

Maybe look into why this even seems like an issue to you?

I’ve explained that already, (reckless exaggeration)thousands of times(/reckless exaggeration).

 

[Polymath257]

What makes a concept “scientific?” Can you give me a few example of scientific concepts?

It isn't the concept itself, but the process around the concept that is important.

Scientific concepts are those supported by observational evidence, testable hypotheses, and that survive many attempts to prove them wrong thorugh observation.

What makes a fact “scientifically established?” Can you give a few a few examples of scientifically established facts?

An idea is 'scientifically established' when it has been extensively tested, is part of a unified, testable theory which has also been tested, and has gained the acceptance of the vast majority of researchers in the area of study.

So, for example, evolution of biological species, the Big Bang description of the universe, quantum mechanics, general relativity.

Are there any other facts besides scientifically established ones? If so, can you give a few examples?

Sure. Mathematical facts are not scientific. Neither are moral facts (assuming such exist), nor are legal facts.

What makes evidence “scientific?” Can you give a few examples of scientific evidence?

It has to be observation driven, testable, and repeatable. Many examples can be found in any area of science you want to investigate.

Is there any other kind of evidence besides scientific evidence? If so, can you give a few examples?

Sure, when doing research in math, I often collect a number of results that constitute evidence for a theorem I would like to prove before I attempt to prove it. This is not scientific evidence, but it is a sort of evidence.

Most legal evidence is not scientific.

 

[Polymath257]

I’ve explained that already, (reckless exaggeration)thousands of times(/reckless exaggeration).

I have to say that your explanations are either not very clear or I fundamentally disagree with your position. It isn't clear to me why you want to avoid labeling certain ideas as scientific when they are, in fact, supported by the science. it isn't clear to me why you regard 'pronouncements' of professional, scientific organizations to not be scientific statements.

I understand *that* you have certain positions, but I don't understand why and what your concern is.