4 ms·

> This is exactly the source of the trouble. Hearing scientists project their value system onto everybody else destroys their credibility. > sticking to the fa

> This is exactly the source of the trouble. Hearing scientists project their value system onto everybody else destroys their credibility. > sticking to the facts and avoiding ideology and values I think a few different things are being confused here, but as far as value is concerned, the choice to do science, to take scientific findings into account and to decide what to investigate are themselves the result of value judgements. There is no fact-value dichotomy. There is no "clean" separation between fact and value (as if value were a dirty word contrary to fact). This fact-value dichotomy can be tied to the materialist worldview which denies objective value because it presumes a metaphysics that renders the world a kind of theater of senseless extension in space. Any value must therefore be a matter of subjective projection (and therefore delusion, putting to one side materialism's inherent inability to account for subjectivity). But this metaphysics is, to put it gently, problematic. The wish to separate fact from value (which I take to occupy one order, not two) is no doubt further encouraged by liberalism's pretensions to neutrality and the inherent tension within Lockean liberalism between science and liberty. But I do agree that the actual deciding of policy is not to be left to scientists but to politicians and the like. Scientists are specialists who can supplement our knowledge in specific ways that generalists can then take into account along with other data and understanding when making judgements.

Jensson 5y ago
The problem is when people aspire to be scientists because they want to be authority figures rather than find out facts about the world. And then once they become an authority figure as they always wanted they just push their agenda because they never cared about the facts in the first place. Of course lots of scientists cares about facts first, but the scientists with an agenda are much juicier for journalists to interview and write articles about so they are who we see. (I believe in climate change, I am pro vaccine. Just noting this here since many will think that me having the above view means I am a climate change denier and anti vax)
- danielam 5y ago
  The problem of correct motivation (and here I would argue understanding is the aim of science, not fact collection per se) is a separate problem, but it, too, is a matter of value judgement (what is the correct aim and motivation for science?). The concern for corruption cannot erase the essential value-ladenness of all activity, including scientific activity. Science is both shaped by and shapes value judgements and is itself suffused by them. You cannot escape from value. If you judge something to be valuable, you will act and shape reality according to that understanding of what is valuable. This is the essential nature of practical reason. All action is determined by value judgements.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > what is the correct aim and motivation for science I think you misunderstood, I am not saying that they try to discover facts to support them using science. I am saying that they want the credibility of a scientist. You know how people start to listen a lot to the views of a Nobel Laureate regardless if it is their field of expertise or not? That sort of authority is very attractive to a lot of people and they will work really hard to get it, I am saying lots of people go into science since they want that authority, they don't have any care at all about doing science.
    - danielam 5y ago
      No, I understood you. What I'm saying is that a) your concern for bad motives is separate from the question of whether science if value-laden (which it is), and b) the question of "what is the correct aim and motivation for science?", meant rhetorically, demonstrates that your judgement about what is a bad motive for entering a scientific field itself involves a value judgement.
      - Jensson 5y ago
        > demonstrates that your judgement about what is a bad motive for entering a scientific field itself involves a value judgement. Yes, I judge people who try to corrupt our view of science. I never denied that. > our concern for bad motives is separate from the question of whether science if value-laden (which it is) Science having value is exactly why I don't want people to corrupt it. If you agree with me that science has value then you should agree that we should try to stop people from corrupting it. If you argue that we can't judge who is corrupting, then I'd argue that you are so out there on the clouds with your definitions that we could just as well argue that a random youtube commenter is also doing science and that is a good thing and that we can't really say that youtube commenters are worse scientists than the people at universities since that is just a value judgement.

Jensson 5y ago

The problem is when people aspire to be scientists because they want to be authority figures rather than find out facts about the world. And then once they become an authority figure as they always wanted they just push their agenda because they never cared about the facts in the first place. Of course lots of scientists cares about facts first, but the scientists with an agenda are much juicier for journalists to interview and write articles about so they are who we see. (I believe in climate change, I am pro vaccine. Just noting this here since many will think that me having the above view means I am a climate change denier and anti vax)

danielam 5y ago
The problem of correct motivation (and here I would argue understanding is the aim of science, not fact collection per se) is a separate problem, but it, too, is a matter of value judgement (what is the correct aim and motivation for science?). The concern for corruption cannot erase the essential value-ladenness of all activity, including scientific activity. Science is both shaped by and shapes value judgements and is itself suffused by them. You cannot escape from value. If you judge something to be valuable, you will act and shape reality according to that understanding of what is valuable. This is the essential nature of practical reason. All action is determined by value judgements.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > what is the correct aim and motivation for science I think you misunderstood, I am not saying that they try to discover facts to support them using science. I am saying that they want the credibility of a scientist. You know how people start to listen a lot to the views of a Nobel Laureate regardless if it is their field of expertise or not? That sort of authority is very attractive to a lot of people and they will work really hard to get it, I am saying lots of people go into science since they want that authority, they don't have any care at all about doing science.
  - danielam 5y ago
    No, I understood you. What I'm saying is that a) your concern for bad motives is separate from the question of whether science if value-laden (which it is), and b) the question of "what is the correct aim and motivation for science?", meant rhetorically, demonstrates that your judgement about what is a bad motive for entering a scientific field itself involves a value judgement.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      > demonstrates that your judgement about what is a bad motive for entering a scientific field itself involves a value judgement. Yes, I judge people who try to corrupt our view of science. I never denied that. > our concern for bad motives is separate from the question of whether science if value-laden (which it is) Science having value is exactly why I don't want people to corrupt it. If you agree with me that science has value then you should agree that we should try to stop people from corrupting it. If you argue that we can't judge who is corrupting, then I'd argue that you are so out there on the clouds with your definitions that we could just as well argue that a random youtube commenter is also doing science and that is a good thing and that we can't really say that youtube commenters are worse scientists than the people at universities since that is just a value judgement.