3 ms·

Not OP, but I will point out one example that should not be too controversial: "Science!". Note that label of science has been as politicized ( to the detrimen

Not OP, but I will point out one example that should not be too controversial: "Science!". Note that label of science has been as politicized ( to the detriment of all of us ) as pretty much everything else. If you dare to question "Science!", you are, by default, backwood white trash racist or something along those lines, which happens to ignore that science encourages healthy debate and constantly questions underlying assumptions. This is literally how we get progress. Now, there is an argument to be made that words of a PhD carry more weight than FB educated person, but I think everyone here met a person with no formal education, who was still sharper than most people in the room ( and vice versa, an educated person arguing that black is white and getting himself killed crossing the next pedestrian crossing ). TLDR; "Science!" is one such orthodoxy.

mumbisChungo 6y ago
In the orthodoxy discussed in the article, people are taking it for granted that their beliefs are true and working diligently to ridicule those who don't agree. In science, people hold many beliefs that have already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and are working diligently to prove others.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  > beyond a reasonable doubt This might be true for things like the conventional laws of physics. But there are many things scientists do not agree or argue over. Quantum physics and string theory are two examples. The 1994 book The Bell Curve is another example from social sciences. And today, we have grave reproducibility crises in science. We have people trying to apply rules about the psychological and metaphysical worlds into the doctrine of hard science. In the current crisis, we have conflicting papers published almost every week, and there is a deep political climate that cannot be denied behind much of the current research. Even for thing that we can agree on work under experiment, like a certain class of drug, we can't explain WHY it works. We can say drug x will stop a heart attack 99% of the time and is generally considered safe in 99% of human beings, but often we're guess at the very specific interactions, based on what we see in labs, because we have no real introspection into all the complex things happening at the micro-level within the incredible complex cell systems inside of us. Maybe one day we'll be able to see what happens at that microlevel in human bodies, and that could lead us to discover the drug isn't working at all the way we thought it was. Science is iterative.
  - mumbisChungo 6y ago
    >and are working diligently to prove others
  - oasisbob 6y ago
    _The Bell Curve_ is not an academic treatise, and was near-universally derided. If anything, it itself was an anti-orthodox work trying to restore the basis of ethnicity as an explainer for many different phenomenon. Maybe I'm confused. Are you using _The Bell Curve_ as an example of pseudo-scientific pop publication gone wrong, or as a worthy scientific viewpoint which is worthy of debate and was unfairly crucified in academia?
djsumdog 6y ago
James Corbett did some great videos years ago on the weaponization of science. It is very true. Science should be debate and argument and reproducibility problems, working back and fourth until we get the methodology right and every student can follow the instructions and get the same results. Today, science has certainly become a new belief system over certain publications and ideas over others. In the US, there is no constitution protection for "science," only for religion. Many of the things currently placed under the umbrella of science are really religious beliefs (you could even argue to some extent that all scientific beliefs are religious; even if some things, like the laws of physics, can be proven to be absolutely true 100% of the time) and should be looked at under the lens of the 1st amendment, when they're clearly not.
oasisbob 6y ago
If the COVID crisis has highlighted anything, it's that science literacy in the US is so bad that nobody really debates issues of science, they grab the label and bludgeon people with it. What I find really distasteful is when people start with an argument like yours, then use it to argue their pet issue. eg to rail against the central dogma of genetics, the impossibility of evolution, or complain about "reproducibility/observability" and try to tear down whole areas of scientific research.

mumbisChungo 6y ago

In the orthodoxy discussed in the article, people are taking it for granted that their beliefs are true and working diligently to ridicule those who don't agree. In science, people hold many beliefs that have already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and are working diligently to prove others.

djsumdog 6y ago
> beyond a reasonable doubt This might be true for things like the conventional laws of physics. But there are many things scientists do not agree or argue over. Quantum physics and string theory are two examples. The 1994 book The Bell Curve is another example from social sciences. And today, we have grave reproducibility crises in science. We have people trying to apply rules about the psychological and metaphysical worlds into the doctrine of hard science. In the current crisis, we have conflicting papers published almost every week, and there is a deep political climate that cannot be denied behind much of the current research. Even for thing that we can agree on work under experiment, like a certain class of drug, we can't explain WHY it works. We can say drug x will stop a heart attack 99% of the time and is generally considered safe in 99% of human beings, but often we're guess at the very specific interactions, based on what we see in labs, because we have no real introspection into all the complex things happening at the micro-level within the incredible complex cell systems inside of us. Maybe one day we'll be able to see what happens at that microlevel in human bodies, and that could lead us to discover the drug isn't working at all the way we thought it was. Science is iterative.
- mumbisChungo 6y ago
  >and are working diligently to prove others
- oasisbob 6y ago
  _The Bell Curve_ is not an academic treatise, and was near-universally derided. If anything, it itself was an anti-orthodox work trying to restore the basis of ethnicity as an explainer for many different phenomenon. Maybe I'm confused. Are you using _The Bell Curve_ as an example of pseudo-scientific pop publication gone wrong, or as a worthy scientific viewpoint which is worthy of debate and was unfairly crucified in academia?

djsumdog 6y ago

James Corbett did some great videos years ago on the weaponization of science. It is very true. Science should be debate and argument and reproducibility problems, working back and fourth until we get the methodology right and every student can follow the instructions and get the same results. Today, science has certainly become a new belief system over certain publications and ideas over others. In the US, there is no constitution protection for "science," only for religion. Many of the things currently placed under the umbrella of science are really religious beliefs (you could even argue to some extent that all scientific beliefs are religious; even if some things, like the laws of physics, can be proven to be absolutely true 100% of the time) and should be looked at under the lens of the 1st amendment, when they're clearly not.

oasisbob 6y ago

If the COVID crisis has highlighted anything, it's that science literacy in the US is so bad that nobody really debates issues of science, they grab the label and bludgeon people with it. What I find really distasteful is when people start with an argument like yours, then use it to argue their pet issue. eg to rail against the central dogma of genetics, the impossibility of evolution, or complain about "reproducibility/observability" and try to tear down whole areas of scientific research.