To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
The difficulty people have is in fact making the distinction between science itself, which Mr. Silver does indeed describe very eloquently and to my amateur eye correctly, and the faith that the process of conducting science will eventually indeed discover all that is worth knowing and discovering. He attempts to make the second claim by merely linking it with the first, which IS NOT GOOD SCIENCE. It is false cause. He can't prove that. He wants it to be true.
Why is this so hard to see? Because people who are quite rational in their field of specialty - science - are quite blind to their own flaws of logic and their own belief systems when it comes to philosophy. In that field, they obfuscate and equivocate with the best Medieval theologian.
So, yes, as a matter of fact, I am critical of Mr. Silver's point when it comes to an objective view of his own philosophical prejudices.
This does not negate any of his work in the field he knows much better - science. It does look as if he may want to avoid further meta-philosophical discussion, though.
Philosophical misappropriation is a natural symptom of unregulated mass media, unfortunately. You could say it's the 21th c. intellectual scourge. And the righteous counterinsurgencies are underfunded.
Probably I'm just talking smack, but I've been seeing this used almost daily as PR strategy by one group or another; prejudicial parsing is now a career.
What you are talking about makes it almost impossible to discuss anything worthwhile anymore without worrying that one is using a word that has become "loaded" in certain circles.
I don't think my "PUFOPS" is going to go anywhere, though.
The key, it seems to me, is to get people of this mindset to acknowledge that atheism and science are not synonyms. Once the discussion gets to that point, then it's possible to talk about one, the other, or even both, in a sensible way.
Gzodik agreed or at least rated "3. Good Point" in response to my answering his question with "quants", physicists hired by Wall Street who developed and sold the investment world on the "scientific" validity and safety of an entire array of financial debt instruments which turned out to be the root cause of the credit market crash in 2008, most notably "credit default swaps," the acceptable risk of which was validated by complex mathematical formulas developed by physicists.
AIG is the poster boy for scientism run amok.
What do you get when the "scientist" writing this dairy ignores the readily available information from the dairy upon which he is commenting? Its not science, thats for sure.
A memorable perversion of the scientific method in the legal realm was the analysis of exit polls to "prove" voting fraud in Ohio in 2004. In that theory, the exit poll data led to statistical "probabilities" that cheating occurred. Now, cheating no doubt occurred, but scientific "probabilities" do not equate to legal "proof", even if you accept that anonymously taken exit polls are a 100% accurate reflection of the actual voting, which itself is unproveable. Yet, many many people in the whiteysphere were unshaken in their belief that the statistical analysis of exit polls "proved" voter fraud and demanded the election results be overturned on this evidence alone.
There are, I suppose, a few believers in the first kind of scientism, and I think you can find this in some of Dawkins' thinking. Frankly, I don't care (and my essay isn't about) if some people believe in this kind of assertion, since it has no relevance I can see to public policy.
My essay claims there are no well-known advocates of the second, apparently sinister kind of scientism, the kind Merton and (obviously) the Faith and Reason producers condemn. I await any evidence that such individuals exist or that those beliefs are widespread. If such beliefs were to exist and gather influence, I would oppose them. If they don't exist and their pretend existence is part of a "'wedge strategy' [that] dictates, among it's goals, to seed doubt among lay persons regarding the validity of the science" of evolution, global warming, and so on . . . well, that seems to be the case at this point, doesn't it? For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
("Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."
Gawd, what bullshit...
The word is admittedly ambiguous.
Scientists, these critics say, have faith in the belief that science explains everything.
That is not quite what I have seen writers say, critics or otherwise. The term as originally defined in philosophy is that science eventually could explain everything, not that it does. The distinction is important.
belief in the truth of a proposition that is not supported by scientific theory or evidence - or, indeed, in the truth of a proposition that flies in the face of empirical evidence - is the definition of faith. Good science is an enemy of faith, and faith is an enemy of good science.
Faith in such things as the concept of "good science"? I believe this is intentional ambiguity. Does he employ the word "good" in the sense of "well-done," or in a "value" sense? Is "bad science" the ally of faith?
Is science the enemy of propositions such as "Mankind is inherently good"? One could believe in the truth of such a proposition, but how could it be supported by scientific theory or evidence? It is not a scientific proposition in the first place, nor was it intended to be one. Really? This makes it the enemy of "good science," whatever that means?
Don't get me wrong - I am a scientist with hopes and dreams. But I do not hold 'faith' in anything. Instead, I view the future in terms of probabilities. The Sun has come up every morning of my life, and I have every reason to think it will do so for the rest of my days. There is, however, a slight chance that I am wrong. I think my friends will come to my aid, if I need them in future, but again I might be wrong. Science and hope are different from scientism or faith.
What an odd paragraph! I know most people consider hopes and dreams under the laws of probability... don't you? Why, that's not a function of hope or faith at all! Are hope and faith interchangeable? If not, why is he confusing them in his argument? If so, then how is he not exhibiting faith? Does he even know what faith means? Faith is not certainty, either. Otherwise, it would be... ummm... "certainty".
Academic critics of science, as a discipline, are mostly irrelevant today.
One's eyes fall to the word "mostly," don't they? And what does he cite to prove such a sweeping statement? Nothing I can see but changing the subject. I have not seen much academic criticism of science per se. Have you? Is that what you see me doing?
"Mankind is inherently good" doesn't seem testable by the scientific method. Here again, I assume Comte-ian scientismists, if there are any still around, would disagree with me, and would believe, I guess, that someday we'll be able to test for inherentness and goodness in humans. But, like I said, I don't really care and don't think this kind of scientism matters at all for public policy, so kick its ass at will, vox.
But what about the second, sinister scientism, which I claim doesn't exist in the public universe:
Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method.
Who are these scientismists who want to "do away" with the ethical claim "Mankind is inherently good"? They don't exist.
As for Silver, I think he's going too far in a quest to be 'literary' and strike a phrase, and probly should've written something much more mundane like:
When faith makes truth claims that are testable by the scientific method, good science is an enemy of faith, and faith is an enemy of good science.
And, about this:
I know most people consider hopes and dreams under the laws of probability... don't you?
I don't think about (is that what you mean by consider?) hopes and dream as ruled by or dependent on (not sure what you mean by 'under') the laws of probability. I guess I don't get what's upsetting you about that paragraph, which strikes me as a little odd too.
I'm just doing my thing, which is basically defending the title of this diary. I'm not sure what you're attacking, exactly. For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
When faith makes truth claims that are testable by the scientific method and shows those claims as wrong or highly probably wrong, good science is an enemy of faith, and faith is an enemy of good science.
Ne'er the twain shall meet, save on the field of combat.
That's where the faithist whining comes from.
And faith never complains honestly.
It never has a case, or it would be testable.
Faith is defined as untestable. Learn that.
Theories are testable. Faith never is.
And the funny thing is, faithists sorta hate the real world.
Even though it's wonderful, seen through the science eye.
Bad science is still science if its practiced within the discipline of scientific inquiry.
Scientism involves the misuse of or misidentification of scientific method for applications outside the bounds of scientific inquiry. Pseudo-science is a close relative of scientism. In fact, you could say the concepts generally sleep together if not married.
The whiteysphere practices a form of pseudo-social science.
Personalization of issues Tight social groups and granfalloons, authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[53] Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.[54] Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[55]
Adherents and examples can be found in this thread!
Another really good example is the misuse of "science" in criminal justice...d'uh. ARSON INVESTIGATIONS! People have been put to death because juries automatically believe in the "science" of arson investigation, which it turns out isn't based on scientific principles at all, but a collection of historic "old wives tales" handed down thru generations by untrained police investigators and given a patina of "scientific" legitimacy!
http://www.newyorker.com/repor...
Of course, this was a practical application of scientism, and the doctor's testimony worked very effectively on the jury because his opinion was that of a scientist.
This Dr. by the way, had a nickname in the DA's office: "Dr. Death."
RIOTOUS!
Ironically, it was a scientist who felt guilty about making his fortune creating new and better bombs who eventually debunked the pseudo-science underlying arson investigation. He was able to save some lives thru experiments and testimony, but not Willingham, who was refused pardon by Republikkkan Gov. Rick Perry, even after Hurst testified on Willingham's behalf.
A child prodigy who was raised by a sharecropper during the Great Depression, Hurst used to prowl junk yards, collecting magnets and copper wires in order to build radios and other contraptions. In the early sixties, he received a Ph.D. in chemistry from Cambridge University, where he started to experiment with fluorine and other explosive chemicals, and once detonated his lab. Later, he worked as the chief scientist on secret weapons programs for several American companies, designing rockets and deadly fire bombs-or what he calls "god-awful things." He helped patent what has been described, with only slight exaggeration, as "the world's most powerful nonnuclear explosive": an Astrolite bomb. He experimented with toxins so lethal that a fraction of a drop would rot human flesh, and in his laboratory he often had to wear a pressurized moon suit; despite such precautions, exposure to chemicals likely caused his liver to fail, and in 1994 he required a transplant. Working on what he calls "the dark side of arson," he retrofitted napalm bombs with Astrolite, and developed ways for covert operatives in Vietnam to create bombs from local materials, such as chicken manure and sugar. He also perfected a method for making an exploding T-shirt by nitrating its fibres. His conscience eventually began pricking him. "One day, you wonder, What the hell am I doing?" he recalls. He left the defense industry, and went on to invent the Mylar balloon, an improved version of Liquid Paper, and Kinepak, a kind of explosive that reduces the risk of accidental detonation. Because of his extraordinary knowledge of fire and explosives, companies in civil litigation frequently sought his help in determining the cause of a blaze. By the nineties, Hurst had begun devoting significant time to criminal-arson cases, and, as he was exposed to the methods of local and state fire investigators, he was shocked by what he saw. Many arson investigators, it turned out, had only a high-school education. In most states, in order to be certified, investigators had to take a forty-hour course on fire investigation, and pass a written exam. Often, the bulk of an investigator's training came on the job, learning from "old-timers" in the field, who passed down a body of wisdom about the telltale signs of arson, even though a study in 1977 warned that there was nothing in "the scientific literature to substantiate their validity."
His conscience eventually began pricking him. "One day, you wonder, What the hell am I doing?" he recalls. He left the defense industry, and went on to invent the Mylar balloon, an improved version of Liquid Paper, and Kinepak, a kind of explosive that reduces the risk of accidental detonation. Because of his extraordinary knowledge of fire and explosives, companies in civil litigation frequently sought his help in determining the cause of a blaze. By the nineties, Hurst had begun devoting significant time to criminal-arson cases, and, as he was exposed to the methods of local and state fire investigators, he was shocked by what he saw.
Many arson investigators, it turned out, had only a high-school education. In most states, in order to be certified, investigators had to take a forty-hour course on fire investigation, and pass a written exam. Often, the bulk of an investigator's training came on the job, learning from "old-timers" in the field, who passed down a body of wisdom about the telltale signs of arson, even though a study in 1977 warned that there was nothing in "the scientific literature to substantiate their validity."
Type something up when you find me or Silver doing that. For attractive lips, speak words of kindness, For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people, For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. -- A-Hep
There is a very strong correlation though, isnt there, between atheism and the "belief" in reason and empirical knowledge? This "belief" in science is definitely present in Dawkins, and Otvos and Gzodik, although Gzodik claims he's simply defending science from the religious nuts. I find that more farfetched conspiracy theory thinking exacerbated by teh google's polarizing effects. He provided links. "Republikkkan War on Science" or wtf. ALl links lead to one guy.
Politics, finance, criminal justice, are areas recently perverted by erroneous applications of science. "Belief" in science tends to beget more pseudo-science, although not when practiced by scientists in teh proper fields of inquiry. I provided RL examples of problems with the misuse of science. Credit Default Swaps. Politics of global warming (no problem there with the science per se, but with its overt politicization). Arson investigation. Expert trial witnesses with Doctorates in Science who willfully distort justice and get away with it because their opinions are considered "scientifically" expertby lay people on the jury and thus not considered with "reasonable doubt". Read the Willingham case. It contains several instances of "scientism" as well as pseudo-science.
This "belief" in science is definitely present in Dawkins, and Otvos
