What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

[ecco]

Broadly, generally, on average, many folks today do not trust everything what gets shoved down our throats as 'science'. A fair % of it ends up in the quackery-bin.

What, exactly has been shoved down your throat that you threw into the quackery-bin?

Only when 'science' stops disproving 'science'. For examples, only when all tower buildings are reasonably safe in fires. Only when medical developments are sure and healthy. Only when commercial science is a word that means 'trustworthy'.

Buildings are safer today that they were 100 years ago. Today buildings in California are being built with earthquakes in mind.

Modern medicine doesn't know everything, nor does it claim to. Heart stents and blood pressure medications keep people alive who would have died 50 years ago.

You expect everything to be perfect, yet it is people like you who rail against scientific advances who have impeded progress throughout history.

 

[ecco]

Science cannot answer metaphysical questions.

Can you give an example of a metaphysical questions that does not imply the supernatural?

I find those scientists who claim that philosophy is either dead or irrelevant, ... particularly myopic.

Can you give an example of a philosophical tenet that has relevance?

I like to think some of what they say is hyperbole to sell books or make TV audiences sit up, but I fear they mean it.

The above is definitely true of hucksters selling metaphysics and all things woo.

 

[oldbadger]

What, exactly has been shoved down your throat that you threw into the quackery-bin?

How many examples do you require, and will you remember my answers?
Just tell me how many examples, exactly, you want to read.

Buildings are safer today that they were 100 years ago. Today buildings in California are being built with earthquakes in mind.

To show 100 years' progress in building design and construction as an example of trustworthy progress is hardly an outstanding proposal. But tell that to the survivors of the Grenfell Tower (London) disaster........
I have watched films about Far Eastern Skyscrapers which can withstand earthquakes, but I am thinking of a much wider range of building failures, all trusted before tragedies struck.

Modern medicine doesn't know everything, nor does it claim to. Heart stents and blood pressure medications keep people alive who would have died 50 years ago.

.... and thousands of diabetics die each year through mis-medication. Not long ago I met and spoke with a pharmaceutical specialist who was writing a data program for GPs to use whereby they could prescribe more precise medication to diabetics..... he had turned down a chair at Baliol just to do that work.

And the tragedies that medicine tries to hide away point to horrific corruption by some. Let's see if you're a detective.... have a search into 'sodium valproate' and the horrors that it caused to pregnant women and their babies not that long ago..... In the UK horrifically disabled babies were placed on 'feed on demand' to end their distress, and worse. I know rather a lot about this.

You expect everything to be perfect,

...... now just you go back and cop[y/quote where I wrote that....... thatv is a bad det it is people liktortion of my expectations.

It is you who rail against scientific advances who have impeded progress throughout history.

Now just you go back and copy/quote where I wrote anything like that.

 

[oldbadger]

What, exactly has been shoved down your throat that you threw into the quackery-bin?

Hello again.......... I thought I would dig out some examples of quasi-science which you have probably believed in in the past, or maybe still do.

But that's the problem with quasi-science, it's a bit like fundamentalist extremist religion, which is funny in a way, since it's usually quasi-scientists who mock religions....
This is how it works.......... take the small % of fundy extreme Christians, they'll tell you that Christians are good, and if you point to a Christian known to have done bad things, they'll tell you 'That person is no Christian! We are the Christians!' ..... See how it works? To them, all Christians are perfect.

Well that's what the quasi-scientists do! Tell 'em that tragedies have occurred, or the World got dirty in under 250 years, or a medical belief was wrong, and they'll answer back.... 'They weren't scientists! We're the scientists!' See? To quasi-scientists, all 'scientists' are perfect, until, they need to be forgotten quickly. !!

Now........ to answer you're points, and remember, all these examples were embraced by the quasi-scientists as Science! Maybe you did?

Buildings are safer today that they were 100 years ago. Today buildings in California are being built with earthquakes in mind.

Super! Many will be built with good knowledge, but if any fail then you can all forget about those, because they weren't built by science! I love it!
Homework! :-
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9e66/485748af29ac28f18234ada60d7126b9abb6.pdf
Study of recent building failures in the United States.
see: California....

Modern medicine doesn't know everything, nor does it claim to. Heart stents and blood pressure medications keep people alive who would have died 50 years ago.

Wonderful........ so that proves medical knowledge is all great science, does it?
Homework! :-
NHS medication errors contribute to as many as 22,000 deaths a year ...
US › News › Health
23 Feb 2018

Oh..... and don't blame just the UK.......... please don't tell us here that your country's medical science is better!

You expect everything to be perfect, yet it is people like you who rail against scientific advances who have impeded progress throughout history.

No we don't...... we make mention of the quackery and corruption which the quasi-scientists claimed was great stuff, and then went into denial over later.
Can you remember being told that diesel engines burned more cleanly than petrol engines? Proven by 'science'? Did you believe that? Well most folks did.
And then the motor manufacturers got caught using devious deception in their testing equipment, and it was found that diesel engines are..... dirty! Those companies are facing rather large fines, but they took us all in.......... were you driving a diesel?

We aren't against true knowledge (science), we're just cautious about claims that folks are 'scientists' when in fact they're anything but........ and the same goes for the word 'intellectual'.

By the way, would you say that you're an intellectual person, a scientist? Just askin'.... just wonderin' ....

 

[exchemist]

Can you give an example of a metaphysical questions that does not imply the supernatural?



Can you give an example of a philosophical tenet that has relevance?

1) Is the world objectively real, i.e. observer-independent?

2) The nature of scientific theories is that they are predictive and are falsifiable by observational evidence, but can never be proved true.

 

[exchemist]

Here we start to see the answers to the questions posed in the OP.

• Science = Atheism
• Atheism = Bad
• Anti-Atheism = Good
• Anti-Science = Good

None of these inferences can justifiably be drawn from the post you are responding to.

 

[Polymath257]

Well I think the article you link to has much to commend it. There IS overreach.

Science cannot answer metaphysical questions, nor add much useful to the humanities. I find those scientists who claim that philosophy is either dead or irrelevant, due to science, particularly myopic. Hawking has form here, Dawkins of course, and so too do both De Grasse Tyson and even the late, great Feynman.

I like to think some of what they say is hyperbole to sell books or make TV audiences sit up, but I fear they mean it.

I think what these people generally mean when they say philosophy is dead is that it no longer has bearing on scientific questions. Questions that would have been philosophy not all that long ago (nature of matter, for example) are now questions of science. And, truthfully, most of the philosophy of modern science is very poorly done. It tends to stick with classical concepts and has mostly failed to learn what the science has discovered. As such, it has become useless *in the sciences*.

Science cannot determine aesthetics. It cannot determine morality. It cannot determine beauty. Those are vital areas of human inquiry that are simply beyond science. Science can *inform* all of these, of course. But it cannot answer the fundamental questions because the fundamental questions in these areas are more matters of opinion and goals and not simply how the universe works.

 

[exchemist]

I think what these people generally mean when they say philosophy is dead is that it no longer has bearing on scientific questions. Questions that would have been philosophy not all that long ago (nature of matter, for example) are now questions of science. And, truthfully, most of the philosophy of modern science is very poorly done. It tends to stick with classical concepts and has mostly failed to learn what the science has discovered. As such, it has become useless *in the sciences*.

Science cannot determine aesthetics. It cannot determine morality. It cannot determine beauty. Those are vital areas of human inquiry that are simply beyond science. Science can *inform* all of these, of course. But it cannot answer the fundamental questions because the fundamental questions in these areas are more matters of opinion and goals and not simply how the universe works.

I agree with much of this. However I think anyone who spends time on forums like this one will find he is constantly resorting to Popper's philosophical insights on the nature of science, in order to explain why religious belief and creationism, for instance, are not science. So I would contend that philosophy is far from irrelevant today when discussing science. In fact it may be more important than ever, given the deluge of hogwash that we are exposed to via the internet.

I also think it is salutary to realise when science drifts into metaphysics, as some theories of cosmogony do and some science popularisers do. When we start building castles in the air with theories that make no testable predictions, we leave science behind.

 

[magid]

You know that evolution is still a theory amenable to prove or to disprove.
How many years elapsed since the theory emerged to existence. Some people consider it a believe & a base of their life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You know that evolution is still a theory amenable to prove or to disprove.

This is kind of false and kind of true at the same time.

For starters, theories in science are NEVER proven (although they can be disproven), so it is not amenable to proof. However, the important thing to remember is that, in science, a "theory" is "a well substantiated explanation of an observed phenomenon". In this case, the "observed phenomenon" (i.e: "fact") is evolution. The "theory of evolution" is the extrapolation and explanation of the FACT of evolution, just as the "theory of gravity" is the extrapolation and explanation of the FACT of gravity.

So you are right to say that evolutionary theory cannot be proven, since ALL theories in science remain tentative explanations, but you are wrong to suggest that evolution itself isn't "proven", because it is already an observed fact.

How many years elapsed since the theory emerged to existence. Some people consider it a believe & a base of their life.

How?

 

[exchemist]

You know that evolution is still a theory amenable to prove or to disprove.
How many years elapsed since the theory emerged to existence. Some people consider it a believe & a base of their life.

And...Bingo! I now have to deploy Popper's philosophy of science to deal with this post.

Firstly, you can never prove a theory in science. All you can do is amass more and more data that supports it.

Secondly, nobody I have ever heard of bases his life on the theory of evolution. I can't even imagine how that might be possible.

 

[exchemist]

This is kind of false and kind of true at the same time.

For starters, theories in science are NEVER proven (although they can be disproven), so it is not amenable to proof. However, the important thing to remember is that, in science, a "theory" is "a well substantiated explanation of an observed phenomenon". In this case, the "observed phenomenon" (i.e: "fact") is evolution. The "theory of evolution" is the extrapolation and explanation of the FACT of evolution, just as the "theory of gravity" is the extrapolation and explanation of the FACT of gravity.

So you are right to say that evolutionary theory cannot be proven, since ALL theories in science remain tentative explanations, but you are wrong to suggest that evolution itself isn't "proven", because it is already an observed fact.


How?

SNAP!!

 

[Audie]

You know that evolution is still a theory amenable to prove or to disprove.
How many years elapsed since the theory emerged to existence. Some people consider it a believe & a base of their life.

Well, yes, we know it is a theory. That is news of
the well known.

The only way that could change is if it is disproved.
Theories do not become fact.

You can check on Darwin to see how many years
it has been, if that is a question.

You can also note that in all those years, nobody
has been able to disprove it.

Some "christians" think that ToE is a belief,
a religion. Someone may be so insane as to
try to base his life on it, tho I dont see how
that could be done.

What is your point?

 

[Polymath257]

I agree with much of this. However I think anyone who spends time on forums like this one will find he is constantly resorting to Popper's philosophical insights on the nature of science, in order to explain why religious belief and creationism, for instance, are not science. So I would contend that philosophy is far from irrelevant today when discussing science. In fact it may be more important than ever, given the deluge of hogwash that we are exposed to via the internet.

I also think it is salutary to realise when science drifts into metaphysics, as some theories of cosmogony do and some science popularisers do. When we start building castles in the air with theories that make no testable predictions, we leave science behind.

I tend to agree. My main hesitancy is that most scientists have only vague knowledge of Popper and may well disagree in the sense of how they actually conduct science. Why is it that physicists see string theory (and other constructs) as legitimate science even though it cannot be tested now or in the foreseeable future? Why is it that so many actual experiments are not set up to attempt falsification, but instead as verification? The practice of science and the philosophy of science are disconnected with the philosophical deductions having less to do with what happens in science journals than what happens in internet forums.

So, my sense is that Popper is used more by those of us debating science vs non-science with an essentially lay audience than actually having any bearing on science itself. By the way, as a mathematician, I would say the same thing has happened with the philosophy of math. At the beginning of the 20th century, philosophers had a great deal to contribute to the foundations of math. Today, I would say that they have almost no impact at all.

 

[exchemist]

I tend to agree. My main hesitancy is that most scientists have only vague knowledge of Popper and may well disagree in the sense of how they actually conduct science. Why is it that physicists see string theory (and other constructs) as legitimate science even though it cannot be tested now or in the foreseeable future? Why is it that so many actual experiments are not set up to attempt falsification, but instead as verification? The practice of science and the philosophy of science are disconnected with the philosophical deductions having less to do with what happens in science journals than what happens in internet forums.

So, my sense is that Popper is used more by those of us debating science vs non-science with an essentially lay audience than actually having any bearing on science itself. By the way, as a mathematician, I would say the same thing has happened with the philosophy of math. At the beginning of the 20th century, philosophers had a great deal to contribute to the foundations of math. Today, I would say that they have almost no impact at all.

Well, as science advances, either theory or observation will be ahead of the other, at the cutting edge. With dark energy and dark matter observation is ahead of theory. We have the observations but we don't know what the hell dark energy or dark matter are, yet, if they exist. That's a normal state of affairs. It also applies to abiogenesis. With some theories of physics, theory is ahead of observation. That is less usual, but I think it is natural that sometimes a speculative theory may need to develop before an observational test suggests itself.

The only thing I think we should be careful of - and some scientists are not very careful of it - is to point out in public explanations that such theory is only speculative and not corroborated. The classic case is all the speculations about the actual moment of origin of the universe. None of this is anywhere near testable, yet people sometimes talk as though it was settled science.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, as science advances, either theory or observation will be ahead of the other, at the cutting edge. With dark energy and dark matter observation is ahead of theory. We have the observations but we don't know what the hell dark energy or dark matter are, yet, if they exist. That's a normal state of affairs. It also applies to abiogenesis. With some theories of physics, theory is ahead of observation. That is less usual, but I think it is natural that sometimes a speculative theory may need to develop before an observational test suggests itself.

The only thing I think we should be careful of - and some scientists are not very careful of it - is to point out in public explanations that such theory is only speculative and not corroborated. The classic case is all the speculations about the actual moment of origin of the universe. None of this is anywhere near testable, yet people sometimes talk as though it was settled science.

Agreed. The problem is that short sound bites don't allow the more subtle descriptions such as 'here is what our best guess is at this point' along with *why* that is our best guess. Going into the details of why it has been so difficult to unify quantum theory and general relativity and why we *expect* new physics to come about in quantum gravity is simply not conducive to advertising. And, unfortunately, the dramatic 'we discovered that we can get a universe from nothing' sells much better that 'we have a very speculative theory that allows for the universe as we see it to develop out of a vacuum state'. This is also why you see people such as Michio Kaku playing off the quantum woo fantasies, making serious discussion of QM even more difficult.

 

[ecco]

How many examples do you require, and will you remember my answers?
Just tell me how many examples, exactly, you want to read.

So, no response. OK.

To show 100 years' progress in building design and construction as an example of trustworthy progress is hardly an outstanding proposal. But tell that to the survivors of the Grenfell Tower (London) disaster........
I have watched films about Far Eastern Skyscrapers which can withstand earthquakes, but I am thinking of a much wider range of building failures, all trusted before tragedies struck.
.... and thousands of diabetics die each year through mis-medication. Not long ago I met and spoke with a pharmaceutical specialist who was writing a data program for GPs to use whereby they could prescribe more precise medication to diabetics..... he had turned down a chair at Baliol just to do that work.

And the tragedies that medicine tries to hide away point to horrific corruption by some. Let's see if you're a detective.... have a search into 'sodium valproate' and the horrors that it caused to pregnant women and their babies not that long ago..... In the UK horrifically disabled babies were placed on 'feed on demand' to end their distress, and worse. I know rather a lot about this.

ecco previously:

You expect everything to be perfect​

...... now just you go back and cop[y/quote where I wrote that....... thatv is a bad det it is people liktortion of my expectations.
Now just you go back and copy/quote where I wrote anything like that.

I don't have to go back too far. You just need to read and understand what you wrote above.

Buildings still fall and catch fire. That wouldn't happen if they were perfect.
Diabetics are mis-medicated. That wouldn't happen if medicine were perfect.
A medication intended to do good turned out bad. That wouldn't have happened if research was perfect.


Maybe you should QuitYerB1tch1n and acknowledge all the good that science and engineering have done.

 

[ecco]

Hello again.......... I thought I would dig out some examples of quasi-science which you have probably believed in in the past, or maybe still do.

But that's the problem with quasi-science, it's a bit like fundamentalist extremist religion, which is funny in a way, since it's usually quasi-scientists who mock religions....
This is how it works.......... take the small % of fundy extreme Christians, they'll tell you that Christians are good, and if you point to a Christian known to have done bad things, they'll tell you 'That person is no Christian! We are the Christians!' ..... See how it works? To them, all Christians are perfect.

Well that's what the quasi-scientists do! Tell 'em that tragedies have occurred, or the World got dirty in under 250 years, or a medical belief was wrong, and they'll answer back.... 'They weren't scientists! We're the scientists!' See? To quasi-scientists, all 'scientists' are perfect, until, they need to be forgotten quickly. !!

Now........ to answer you're points, and remember, all these examples were embraced by the quasi-scientists as Science! Maybe you did?



Super! Many will be built with good knowledge, but if any fail then you can all forget about those, because they weren't built by science! I love it!
Homework! :-
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9e66/485748af29ac28f18234ada60d7126b9abb6.pdf
Study of recent building failures in the United States.
see: California....


Wonderful........ so that proves medical knowledge is all great science, does it?
Homework! :-
NHS medication errors contribute to as many as 22,000 deaths a year ...
US › News › Health
23 Feb 2018

Oh..... and don't blame just the UK.......... please don't tell us here that your country's medical science is better!


No we don't...... we make mention of the quackery and corruption which the quasi-scientists claimed was great stuff, and then went into denial over later.
Can you remember being told that diesel engines burned more cleanly than petrol engines? Proven by 'science'? Did you believe that? Well most folks did.
And then the motor manufacturers got caught using devious deception in their testing equipment, and it was found that diesel engines are..... dirty! Those companies are facing rather large fines, but they took us all in.......... were you driving a diesel?

We aren't against true knowledge (science), we're just cautious about claims that folks are 'scientists' when in fact they're anything but........ and the same goes for the word 'intellectual'.

By the way, would you say that you're an intellectual person, a scientist? Just askin'.... just wonderin' ....

Yada yada yada.

You started your post with: "I thought I would dig out some examples of quasi-science which you have probably believed in in the past".

Then you went on a barely intelligible rant about Fundies.

You finally gave one example:

"Can you remember being told that diesel engines burned more cleanly than petrol engines? Proven by 'science'? Did you believe that?"​

Told by whom - Governments? Manufacturers? Oil Companies?

Please provide evidence for your allegation that science proved that diesel engines burned more cleanly than petrol engines.

 

[ecco]

Can you give an example of a metaphysical questions that does not imply the supernatural?


Can you give an example of a philosophical tenet that has relevance?

1) Is the world objectively real, i.e. observer-independent?

2) The nature of scientific theories is that they are predictive and are falsifiable by observational evidence, but can never be proved true.

1. Yes. The sun and the earth existed long before the existence of life on this planet.

2a. Generally agreed with hesitation about the word "never". The existence of atoms was a scientific theory which has been proved true.
2b. I believe multi-verse is currently accepted as a scientific theory. It may be predictive, but it is not "falsifiable by observational evidence" at this time.

 

[exchemist]

1. Yes. The sun and the earth existed long before the existence of life on this planet.

2a. Generally agreed with hesitation about the word "never". The existence of atoms was a scientific theory which has been proved true.
2b. I believe multi-verse is currently accepted as a scientific theory. It may be predictive, but it is not "falsifiable by observational evidence" at this time.

These are the examples you asked for.