33 ms·

“Science is entirely a populist thing,” Robinson says again. “It’s a way of using the individual human mind. That means one man can be right, and everybody else

“Science is entirely a populist thing,” Robinson says again. “It’s a way of using the individual human mind. That means one man can be right, and everybody else can be wrong." What an interesting quote. I've never considered science in this light but... it's true!

tacomonstrous 9y ago
I'm surprised by this reaction. To me, the quote sounds like gobbledygook. Populism and the power of the individual mind are almost at cross-purposes.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  If you think of populism as "of the masses", then yes, it doesn't make sense. If you think of populism as "opposed to the established power structure", though, it actually makes sense.
  - bllguo 9y ago
    The problem is that only the first of those definitions of populism is technically correct..
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      From dictionary.com: > populism > noun > 1. the political philosophy of the People's party. > 2. (lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies. > 3. (lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism. > 4. (lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.: populism in the arts. So no, I disagree that "only the first of those is correct".
- QAPereo 9y ago
  It’s basically Juche philosophy, so yes, gobbledygook.
- roenxi 9y ago
  People have very limited amount of time to learn new things; and the scope of human knowledge is vast beyond any individual's ability to test even a meaningful subset of it empirically. Because of this, science is disseminated in the same way as religion, political action, superstition and gossip - an authority figure says something, and we take it as true. No differences. Same mechanism for all knowledge, correct or spurious. Society has special mechanisms for science to be tested against reality every so often (especially through the PHD system of selecting authority figures). Knowledge from a 'scientific' authority is more likely to be based on objective fact than anything else. However, there is still massive scope for error, especially in what the public believes if something is mis-identified as a scientific fact. I'm thinking things like dietary science. The public perception on what the science says seems to be somewhat malleable.
  - heurist 9y ago
    We have to blindly accept scientific findings sometimes because we don't have the capacity to know everything, but in general "blind acceptance" is a loose connection that we acknowledge could and probably change. The fact that people don't understand that or hold too firm of a grasp on any particular finding is a failure of scientific education.
- conistonwater 9y ago
  I think that maybe if you read it really (like, really) literally, then it sounds okay: "one can be right, the rest can be wrong" could be a really literal (though somewhat wrongheaded) way of saying that the merit of scientific ideas rests on the process (experiments, logic, etc.) by which you get them, so if you (and only you) got the process right, and you can see an error in what everybody else did, then it's okay to say that. But that's only half the quote, and the populism half would throw that interpretation out. I think it would have been nice if the reporter asked him a little bit more about the scientific method and how he understands it.
- emmelaich 9y ago
  Cross-purposes only in theory. Scientists are made of people.
CalChris 9y ago
populism - support for the concerns of ordinary people No and I don't think science is elitist either. Neil deGrasse Tyson said "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." Robinson gets it pretty much exactly wrong or maybe he just doesn't understand what populism means.
- icelancer 9y ago
  >>Neil deGrasse Tyson said "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." Like a lot of things NdGT says, this is ridiculous. Science is not "true" for any value of "true" that makes sense. It is a process, the results of which may or may not accurately describe truth as we know it today. NdGT thinks he is making science cool with his pithy quotes and his one-liners on Twitter showing how smart he is, but I fear he is doing long-term damage on how difficult science really is, and what the sausage factory really looks like behind the curtain. (Source: Am a scientist with published papers who can't stand the industry sometimes)
  - Diederich 9y ago
    > I fear he is doing long-term damage on how difficult science really is Just to be clear, if I may ask: do you believe NdGT is causing people to believe that science isn't difficult?
    - DonbunEf7 9y ago
      Another, different, scientist. No, but I think that he makes people believe that science is more definitive, unbiased, magically an accurate reflection of reality (that is, "true" or "real" or "correct"), and agreed-upon than it really is. I also worry that because his fields, which are relatively "hard sciences", are not being hit very hard by the replication crisis, that he is callous to the danger that the "soft sciences"' collective failure has done to science's mainstream image.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Thank you. I also cringe at that quote, because its actually completely unscientific.
vonnik 9y ago
The great thing about science, and the whole process of looking for truth in natural phenomena as opposed to the Bible and mysticism, is that it's about more than "using the individual human mind." This quote makes it sound like science is some kind of personal relationship with God, where nobody can be righter than anyone else. Science is only science if it can be reproduced and shared. Everything else is BS, including a lot of the causes that Robinson is involved in.
coliveira 9y ago
It's not surprising to see this coming from a conservative. In fact, the whole conservative belief system is that society is not important and only individual attributes have any value. Pick any conservative original idea and you can pinpoint the moment when it tries to make the public/social irrelevant and the individual worthy and perfect. Especially when it comes to science this view is stupid: there is no scientific knowledge that is based on individual achievement. Newton already knew this: "standing on the shoulders of giants". In isolation, the smartest person in the world wouldn't be able even to start grasping what we already have in terms of scientific development, and the situation is even worse for scientists of the future. Exactly the same can be said of most technology fields such as computing. The whole idea that there is any individual merit outside of participation in the scientific and technological community is just baloney.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > Pick any conservative original idea and you can pinpoint the moment when it tries to make the public/social irrelevant and the individual worthy and perfect. This doesn't mesh with the abortion issue. Or opposition to gay marriage.
  - coliveira 9y ago
    Not if you understand the "god's will" is lingo for "my personal will/individual values" as opposed to the rest of society.
- api 9y ago
  I think you are conflating conservatism with libertarianism and anarchism. Conservatism tends toward traditionalist communitarianism. There is a disdain for top down imposed collectivism but not for bottom up faith/family/community collectivism.
emmelaich 9y ago
It's in the same vein as Plank's quote: > A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. aka "science advances one funeral at a time" But of course the "entirely" is taking it way too far.

tacomonstrous 9y ago

I'm surprised by this reaction. To me, the quote sounds like gobbledygook. Populism and the power of the individual mind are almost at cross-purposes.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
If you think of populism as "of the masses", then yes, it doesn't make sense. If you think of populism as "opposed to the established power structure", though, it actually makes sense.
- bllguo 9y ago
  The problem is that only the first of those definitions of populism is technically correct..
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    From dictionary.com: > populism > noun > 1. the political philosophy of the People's party. > 2. (lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies. > 3. (lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism. > 4. (lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.: populism in the arts. So no, I disagree that "only the first of those is correct".
QAPereo 9y ago
It’s basically Juche philosophy, so yes, gobbledygook.
roenxi 9y ago
People have very limited amount of time to learn new things; and the scope of human knowledge is vast beyond any individual's ability to test even a meaningful subset of it empirically. Because of this, science is disseminated in the same way as religion, political action, superstition and gossip - an authority figure says something, and we take it as true. No differences. Same mechanism for all knowledge, correct or spurious. Society has special mechanisms for science to be tested against reality every so often (especially through the PHD system of selecting authority figures). Knowledge from a 'scientific' authority is more likely to be based on objective fact than anything else. However, there is still massive scope for error, especially in what the public believes if something is mis-identified as a scientific fact. I'm thinking things like dietary science. The public perception on what the science says seems to be somewhat malleable.
- heurist 9y ago
  We have to blindly accept scientific findings sometimes because we don't have the capacity to know everything, but in general "blind acceptance" is a loose connection that we acknowledge could and probably change. The fact that people don't understand that or hold too firm of a grasp on any particular finding is a failure of scientific education.
conistonwater 9y ago
I think that maybe if you read it really (like, really) literally, then it sounds okay: "one can be right, the rest can be wrong" could be a really literal (though somewhat wrongheaded) way of saying that the merit of scientific ideas rests on the process (experiments, logic, etc.) by which you get them, so if you (and only you) got the process right, and you can see an error in what everybody else did, then it's okay to say that. But that's only half the quote, and the populism half would throw that interpretation out. I think it would have been nice if the reporter asked him a little bit more about the scientific method and how he understands it.
emmelaich 9y ago
Cross-purposes only in theory. Scientists are made of people.

CalChris 9y ago

populism - support for the concerns of ordinary people No and I don't think science is elitist either. Neil deGrasse Tyson said "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." Robinson gets it pretty much exactly wrong or maybe he just doesn't understand what populism means.

icelancer 9y ago
>>Neil deGrasse Tyson said "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." Like a lot of things NdGT says, this is ridiculous. Science is not "true" for any value of "true" that makes sense. It is a process, the results of which may or may not accurately describe truth as we know it today. NdGT thinks he is making science cool with his pithy quotes and his one-liners on Twitter showing how smart he is, but I fear he is doing long-term damage on how difficult science really is, and what the sausage factory really looks like behind the curtain. (Source: Am a scientist with published papers who can't stand the industry sometimes)
- Diederich 9y ago
  > I fear he is doing long-term damage on how difficult science really is Just to be clear, if I may ask: do you believe NdGT is causing people to believe that science isn't difficult?
  - DonbunEf7 9y ago
    Another, different, scientist. No, but I think that he makes people believe that science is more definitive, unbiased, magically an accurate reflection of reality (that is, "true" or "real" or "correct"), and agreed-upon than it really is. I also worry that because his fields, which are relatively "hard sciences", are not being hit very hard by the replication crisis, that he is callous to the danger that the "soft sciences"' collective failure has done to science's mainstream image.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Thank you. I also cringe at that quote, because its actually completely unscientific.

vonnik 9y ago

The great thing about science, and the whole process of looking for truth in natural phenomena as opposed to the Bible and mysticism, is that it's about more than "using the individual human mind." This quote makes it sound like science is some kind of personal relationship with God, where nobody can be righter than anyone else. Science is only science if it can be reproduced and shared. Everything else is BS, including a lot of the causes that Robinson is involved in.

coliveira 9y ago

It's not surprising to see this coming from a conservative. In fact, the whole conservative belief system is that society is not important and only individual attributes have any value. Pick any conservative original idea and you can pinpoint the moment when it tries to make the public/social irrelevant and the individual worthy and perfect. Especially when it comes to science this view is stupid: there is no scientific knowledge that is based on individual achievement. Newton already knew this: "standing on the shoulders of giants". In isolation, the smartest person in the world wouldn't be able even to start grasping what we already have in terms of scientific development, and the situation is even worse for scientists of the future. Exactly the same can be said of most technology fields such as computing. The whole idea that there is any individual merit outside of participation in the scientific and technological community is just baloney.

humanrebar 9y ago
> Pick any conservative original idea and you can pinpoint the moment when it tries to make the public/social irrelevant and the individual worthy and perfect. This doesn't mesh with the abortion issue. Or opposition to gay marriage.
- coliveira 9y ago
  Not if you understand the "god's will" is lingo for "my personal will/individual values" as opposed to the rest of society.
api 9y ago
I think you are conflating conservatism with libertarianism and anarchism. Conservatism tends toward traditionalist communitarianism. There is a disdain for top down imposed collectivism but not for bottom up faith/family/community collectivism.

emmelaich 9y ago

It's in the same vein as Plank's quote: > A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. aka "science advances one funeral at a time" But of course the "entirely" is taking it way too far.