4 ms·

> watch out for dogmatic belief in science "Dogmatic belief in science" is an oxymoron. Science is skepticism defined. Science doesn't rely on belief, it relie

by lutusp 10y ago

> watch out for dogmatic belief in science "Dogmatic belief in science" is an oxymoron. Science is skepticism defined. Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part. In fact, the existence of belief is why science exists -- it's a tool to to overcome belief. If we were cured of belief, what we now call "science" would be called "thinking".

PhasmaFelis 10y ago
> Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part. The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings. It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that anything a scientist says is true, and you need not understand or question it. That's dogmatic belief in science.
- lutusp 10y ago
  > The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings. Yes, and that's why science exists. If there were no "biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings," there would be no need for science -- we would be able to think rationally, we would have no need for the unnatural discipline imposed by science. > It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that anything a scientist says is true ... That's not science, that's religion. Science is based on skepticism and the rejection of all authority. The motto of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society still in existence, is nullius in verba, "take no one's word for it." The Society explains their motto this way: "It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment." > That's dogmatic belief in science. A dogmatic belief in science is something that fresh religious converts experience, and they've entirely missed the boat. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    "The motto of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society still in existence, is nullius in verba, 'take no one's word for it.'" That might be their motto, but that's certainly not their practice. It's simply impossible to personally reproduce every scientific study one reads about, for lack of time, money, staffing, knowledge, skill, etc. So even if some scientist wanted to reproduce every one exactly as it was done, they couldn't do it. Modern science is an edifice built largely on trust. Scientists mostly trust that what they read about in scientific journals and books (especially ones outside their specialty), or that someone somewhere has verified it, or could in principle. Like ants, scientists mostly focus on building their little bit of the whole, and not try to rebuild the entire anthill every day. Imagine if some physicist set out to try to personally reproduce every physics experiment in history to see if the results square up with what he's read about. Maybe if he lived a thousand years, had hundreds of billions in funding and mastery of every branch of physics he could do it. But realistically, it's not even conceivable as a possibility for a single human being. But even if this hypothetical physicist superman could do it, the "scientific world view" (if we may call it such) is based on so much more than physics. As soon as he was finished with physics, this superman would need to move on to every other branch of science, to personally verify the rest. Not bloody likely, to say the least. The skepticism that scientists do have tends to be at the local level, much like a couple of ants tugging at a little twig. They never tug at every grain of sand in the entire anthill. At best, they could maybe tug at a part of the foundation, and maybe the whole anthill will collapse and then they'll build themselves another one.
    - lutusp 10y ago
      > That might be their motto, but that's certainly not their practice. To whom does "they" refer? You're speaking as though scientists define science. That would be like arguing that, because murders are committed, therefore laws against murder serve no purpose. Because of how science is structured, properly trained practitioners know what to doubt (i.e. everything but empirical evidence) -- claims are assumed to be false until supported by empirical evidence (the null hypothesis). The alternative is pseudoscience, which uses the opposite presumption -- a claim is assumed to be true until proven false. In science, theories remain theories regardless of the evidence -- some theories have more weight than others, but all are open to falsification using new evidence. In pseudoscience, because ideas are assumed true until proven false, and because most things cannot be proven false, we have Bigfoot, alien abductions, and virgins claiming to have been raped and taken seriously[1]. Take your pick, but don't assume science is defined by how it's practiced. p.s. I was just reading a scientific paper and found this: (from https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/04/10/genetic-link-to-stress-and-depression-questioned/118890.html https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/04/10/genetic-link-to-str...) "Culverhouse noted that finally, when it comes to this gene and its connection to stress and depression, the scientific method has done its job. “Experts have been arguing about this for years,” he said. “But ultimately the question has to be not what the experts think but what the evidence tells us. We’re convinced the evidence finally has given us an answer: This serotonin gene does not have a substantial impact on depression, either directly or by modifying the relationship between stress and depression." (emphasis added) 1. https://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/ https://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/
eeZah7Ux 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
mikelyons 10y ago
You're not taking into account the illusory nature of thought and you're being dogmatic about reality and evidence. You can follow an infinite chain of proof of proof of the proof until you realize that you can't even truely trust that what any of your senses tell you is even real. This is what is meant by dogmatically placing your faith in science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg
- lutusp 10y ago
  > You're not taking into account the illusory nature of thought ... How ironic. You've just articulated the postmodern position -- that there are no objective truths that can be conveyed from one person to another, that everything is a subjective observation[1] -- in a message that, to serve any purpose at all, requires and presumes what it has just denied. You might as well have said, "This exchange serves no purpose, I'm merely exercising my wrists." So I'll take you at your word. > ... you can't even truely trust that what any of your senses tell you is even real. Correction: you can't do that. I can. One more thing: s/truely/truly/ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida

by lutusp 10y ago

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

> Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part. The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings. It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that anything a scientist says is true, and you need not understand or question it. That's dogmatic belief in science.

lutusp 10y ago
> The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings. Yes, and that's why science exists. If there were no "biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings," there would be no need for science -- we would be able to think rationally, we would have no need for the unnatural discipline imposed by science. > It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that anything a scientist says is true ... That's not science, that's religion. Science is based on skepticism and the rejection of all authority. The motto of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society still in existence, is nullius in verba, "take no one's word for it." The Society explains their motto this way: "It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment." > That's dogmatic belief in science. A dogmatic belief in science is something that fresh religious converts experience, and they've entirely missed the boat. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  "The motto of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society still in existence, is nullius in verba, 'take no one's word for it.'" That might be their motto, but that's certainly not their practice. It's simply impossible to personally reproduce every scientific study one reads about, for lack of time, money, staffing, knowledge, skill, etc. So even if some scientist wanted to reproduce every one exactly as it was done, they couldn't do it. Modern science is an edifice built largely on trust. Scientists mostly trust that what they read about in scientific journals and books (especially ones outside their specialty), or that someone somewhere has verified it, or could in principle. Like ants, scientists mostly focus on building their little bit of the whole, and not try to rebuild the entire anthill every day. Imagine if some physicist set out to try to personally reproduce every physics experiment in history to see if the results square up with what he's read about. Maybe if he lived a thousand years, had hundreds of billions in funding and mastery of every branch of physics he could do it. But realistically, it's not even conceivable as a possibility for a single human being. But even if this hypothetical physicist superman could do it, the "scientific world view" (if we may call it such) is based on so much more than physics. As soon as he was finished with physics, this superman would need to move on to every other branch of science, to personally verify the rest. Not bloody likely, to say the least. The skepticism that scientists do have tends to be at the local level, much like a couple of ants tugging at a little twig. They never tug at every grain of sand in the entire anthill. At best, they could maybe tug at a part of the foundation, and maybe the whole anthill will collapse and then they'll build themselves another one.
  - lutusp 10y ago
    > That might be their motto, but that's certainly not their practice. To whom does "they" refer? You're speaking as though scientists define science. That would be like arguing that, because murders are committed, therefore laws against murder serve no purpose. Because of how science is structured, properly trained practitioners know what to doubt (i.e. everything but empirical evidence) -- claims are assumed to be false until supported by empirical evidence (the null hypothesis). The alternative is pseudoscience, which uses the opposite presumption -- a claim is assumed to be true until proven false. In science, theories remain theories regardless of the evidence -- some theories have more weight than others, but all are open to falsification using new evidence. In pseudoscience, because ideas are assumed true until proven false, and because most things cannot be proven false, we have Bigfoot, alien abductions, and virgins claiming to have been raped and taken seriously[1]. Take your pick, but don't assume science is defined by how it's practiced. p.s. I was just reading a scientific paper and found this: (from https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/04/10/genetic-link-to-stress-and-depression-questioned/118890.html https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/04/10/genetic-link-to-str...) "Culverhouse noted that finally, when it comes to this gene and its connection to stress and depression, the scientific method has done its job. “Experts have been arguing about this for years,” he said. “But ultimately the question has to be not what the experts think but what the evidence tells us. We’re convinced the evidence finally has given us an answer: This serotonin gene does not have a substantial impact on depression, either directly or by modifying the relationship between stress and depression." (emphasis added) 1. https://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/ https://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology/

eeZah7Ux 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

mikelyons 10y ago

You're not taking into account the illusory nature of thought and you're being dogmatic about reality and evidence. You can follow an infinite chain of proof of proof of the proof until you realize that you can't even truely trust that what any of your senses tell you is even real. This is what is meant by dogmatically placing your faith in science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg

lutusp 10y ago
> You're not taking into account the illusory nature of thought ... How ironic. You've just articulated the postmodern position -- that there are no objective truths that can be conveyed from one person to another, that everything is a subjective observation[1] -- in a message that, to serve any purpose at all, requires and presumes what it has just denied. You might as well have said, "This exchange serves no purpose, I'm merely exercising my wrists." So I'll take you at your word. > ... you can't even truely trust that what any of your senses tell you is even real. Correction: you can't do that. I can. One more thing: s/truely/truly/ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida