4 ms·

Favoring science myself in such debates, I do think often it becomes too similar to a religious belief, uncritically consumed and needlessly polarizing—even a

Favoring science myself in such debates, I do think often it becomes too similar to a religious belief, uncritically consumed and needlessly polarizing—even as itself it’s relatively narrow in its scope, building different models of reality that tend to be highly useful but are ultimately never complete (nor are they claimed to be). > This new “scientist,” stipulated Whewell, was not merely an observer of nature, but an active participant. He — for the scientist was most definitely male — was disciplined and rigorous, but also creative and intuitive. Wasn’t this term coined literally in a review of a woman’s work?

mannykannot 5y ago
I increasingly see the claim that science is becoming too similar to a religious belief, but I'm not seeing where this is happening - if anything, I am seeing an increase in skepticism towards science that is not paralleled in attitudes towards religion. Maybe that's just a consequence of my milieu. When you compare attitudes to science with religious belief, it is useful to note that there is a significant difference between how religion is taught to the masses and how it is approached by theologians (caveat: I am much more familiar with the distinction in the Christian tradition than any other, but I think it it is the case, more or less, in many others.) While the latter debate what one should believe, the former are essentially told what to believe. A dogmatic approach to science, while pedagogically the easy option, is particularly harmful, because science is particularly demanding that beliefs should follow the evidence - look at how quickly evolution was accepted within biology, plate tectonics in geology, or how quickly dark energy became an acceptable hypothesis. This can be confusing, not only to anyone from a dogmatic tradition, but also (slightly paradoxically) to anyone brought up to believe that their opinion on anything is just as good as anyone else's. I am curious about your suggestion that Whewell coined 'scientist' in reference to a woman's work, and, in particular, who - I would like to learn more.
- goblin89 5y ago
  I believe part of it comes from disenchantment with religion, then subconsciously seeking for science to replace it: fit the same mindways and fill the same existential hole that previously caused religion to arise. Our minds demand an explanation for what this thing that we all are in is and why, but the only part of science that could bear an explanatory burden comparable to that of a religion is philosophy. Philosophy is sidelined, however, considered by the STEM masses to be hand-wavy and wishy-washy and not “hard science”, and so hard science becomes misappropriated to some degree. Thus a STEM-minded person, in a hypothetical discussion with a Christian, unknowingly starts to pit “hard science” against religion (which naturally causes strong pushback, as the religious person is now dealing with someone effectively testing their faith or something) and ridicules distrust in science (forgetting that a model offered by science fundamentally cannot be complete, can be wrong at any level, can have competing models, etc.—the STEM person could in fact do better by distrusting it a little more themselves). Now amplify this all over mass media and social media. > I would like to learn more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist#19th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist#19th_century
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    > Now amplify this all over mass media and social media. All over? I'm not seeing it. With the exception of creationism, where it is the theologically-motivated who are attempting to impose their dogma on society (and then mostly confined to parts of the USA), this appears to be a niche concern. WRT 'scientist': thanks for the information. Going back to the article, it is unclear to me whether it was Cowles or Rossi who introduced that largely irrelevant aside about scientists (then) being "most definitely male".
    - goblin89 5y ago
      > All over? I'm not seeing it. One example was given by TFA, if you read it: the vax/anti-vax argument. From my limited exposure to this (I am vaccinated but increasingly not into arguing whether either choice is right or wrong), the vax side tends to refuse to acknowledge that the science may not be perfect, and the debate ends up reverting to whether one believes in science or not.
      - mannykannot 5y ago
        I have, in fact, read TFA, and possibly more diligently than you have. Stop insinuating that I have not. I'm still not seeing cases where claims that vaccines (or the science behind them) are perfect, are being made to a significant degree. On the other hand, irrational, evidence-ignoring anti-vax claims and arguments, such as the one analyzed in the article, are commonplace.
        goblin89 5y ago
        We must live in different worlds. I’ve watched US left-wing mass media a lot in the past year or so (news media like CNN and late night infotainment comedy), and saw this happening with some frequency. Hosts rarely claimed outright that science is perfect, no—they just ridiculed, scorned and separated into the outgroup of science-disbelievers those who didn’t want to get a jab under the argument that vaccines may have unknown side-effects. (Go figure the difference.) Saw similar sentiment in social media, too (jokes about having to deal with anti-vax relatives over the holidays and so on).

mannykannot 5y ago

I increasingly see the claim that science is becoming too similar to a religious belief, but I'm not seeing where this is happening - if anything, I am seeing an increase in skepticism towards science that is not paralleled in attitudes towards religion. Maybe that's just a consequence of my milieu. When you compare attitudes to science with religious belief, it is useful to note that there is a significant difference between how religion is taught to the masses and how it is approached by theologians (caveat: I am much more familiar with the distinction in the Christian tradition than any other, but I think it it is the case, more or less, in many others.) While the latter debate what one should believe, the former are essentially told what to believe. A dogmatic approach to science, while pedagogically the easy option, is particularly harmful, because science is particularly demanding that beliefs should follow the evidence - look at how quickly evolution was accepted within biology, plate tectonics in geology, or how quickly dark energy became an acceptable hypothesis. This can be confusing, not only to anyone from a dogmatic tradition, but also (slightly paradoxically) to anyone brought up to believe that their opinion on anything is just as good as anyone else's. I am curious about your suggestion that Whewell coined 'scientist' in reference to a woman's work, and, in particular, who - I would like to learn more.

goblin89 5y ago
I believe part of it comes from disenchantment with religion, then subconsciously seeking for science to replace it: fit the same mindways and fill the same existential hole that previously caused religion to arise. Our minds demand an explanation for what this thing that we all are in is and why, but the only part of science that could bear an explanatory burden comparable to that of a religion is philosophy. Philosophy is sidelined, however, considered by the STEM masses to be hand-wavy and wishy-washy and not “hard science”, and so hard science becomes misappropriated to some degree. Thus a STEM-minded person, in a hypothetical discussion with a Christian, unknowingly starts to pit “hard science” against religion (which naturally causes strong pushback, as the religious person is now dealing with someone effectively testing their faith or something) and ridicules distrust in science (forgetting that a model offered by science fundamentally cannot be complete, can be wrong at any level, can have competing models, etc.—the STEM person could in fact do better by distrusting it a little more themselves). Now amplify this all over mass media and social media. > I would like to learn more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist#19th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist#19th_century
- mannykannot 5y ago
  > Now amplify this all over mass media and social media. All over? I'm not seeing it. With the exception of creationism, where it is the theologically-motivated who are attempting to impose their dogma on society (and then mostly confined to parts of the USA), this appears to be a niche concern. WRT 'scientist': thanks for the information. Going back to the article, it is unclear to me whether it was Cowles or Rossi who introduced that largely irrelevant aside about scientists (then) being "most definitely male".
  - goblin89 5y ago
    > All over? I'm not seeing it. One example was given by TFA, if you read it: the vax/anti-vax argument. From my limited exposure to this (I am vaccinated but increasingly not into arguing whether either choice is right or wrong), the vax side tends to refuse to acknowledge that the science may not be perfect, and the debate ends up reverting to whether one believes in science or not.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      I have, in fact, read TFA, and possibly more diligently than you have. Stop insinuating that I have not. I'm still not seeing cases where claims that vaccines (or the science behind them) are perfect, are being made to a significant degree. On the other hand, irrational, evidence-ignoring anti-vax claims and arguments, such as the one analyzed in the article, are commonplace.
      - goblin89 5y ago
        We must live in different worlds. I’ve watched US left-wing mass media a lot in the past year or so (news media like CNN and late night infotainment comedy), and saw this happening with some frequency. Hosts rarely claimed outright that science is perfect, no—they just ridiculed, scorned and separated into the outgroup of science-disbelievers those who didn’t want to get a jab under the argument that vaccines may have unknown side-effects. (Go figure the difference.) Saw similar sentiment in social media, too (jokes about having to deal with anti-vax relatives over the holidays and so on).