5 ms·

If I've understood what's said about Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', even science is all about consensus. I'm fond of Max Planck's “a

If I've understood what's said about Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', even science is all about consensus. I'm fond of Max Planck's “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”, or its pithy summary "science advances one funeral at a time."

verisimi 3y ago
You think science is what the consensus says it is, even if you cannot personally verify it? If that's it, what exactly is the difference between science and religion?
- anonymous_sorry 3y ago
  Science is primarily a methodology, and secondarily a body of provisional knowledge discovered and tested via that methodology. As non practitioners, if we trust in the methodology, then to some extent we have to take a shortcut and make decisions based on the consensus judgement of expert practitioners. And, unlike some religious people, accept we can never act in absolute certainty.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    I absolutely hold to the scientific method. But do you think you find that method in science? In science journals, academic departments? I don't think you do, and I for one don't trust. Science, like religion, like academia, like government - and all those individuals therein - are all in thrall to money, not truth. I don't think there is any doubt that the proclamations we receive from whichever institution are about providing us with information that is expedient for us to believe (not verify). The provided information is about control of minds. If whatever-it-is does have a relation to the underlying reality (and who checks?), that relationship is accidental/beneficial for whatever story we are currently being sold.
    - anonymous_sorry 3y ago
      Yes. Science is a human institution, with all of the mess that entails. But at least the ability to challenge authority with evidence is science's central dogma (rather than "this book is infallable"). It means one way to find fame and fortune in science is to conclusively disprove some accepted wisdom, in a way that others can repeat and see for themselves. That's not to say you won't meet resistance, partly because of human nature, and partly because, heuristically, most unexpected results turn out to be flawed on further examination. I'm interested in specifics of which scientific institutions you think are trying to influence us in what way, and to what purpose.
      - verisimi 3y ago
        Do you ever challenge any evidence? Have you even tried to put information out there that is outside the norm? I have and can confirm that most places - eg HN - is an echo chamber. This specific environment is cultivated by the administrators. Now, I don't mind administration, but it is clear to me that on certain hot button topics there is only one direction of discussion allowed - it is a controlled conversation. > which scientific institutions you think are trying to influence us in what way, and to what purpose Its a bigger issue than a specific institution. When you think about science in the US - it is all funded by one of 2 (or 3) sources - government (military) and corporations. If you then consider that government and corporations are really the same overarching control structure (eg FDA officials will go to work for pharmaceuticals, corporate lobbyists write the legislation for government officials to approve) you can argue that, in a sense there is only 1 source of funding! Funding is centralised. Say you then want to prove/'have it widely believed' that helium is beneficial (I'm making a ridiculous hypothesis up to show the methodology in play) and you undertake 10 studies. The results are that 2 studies are supportive, 6 are neutral, and 2 are against. If you then promote the 2 that are supportive in journals, and fund more similar studies, and repeat that process for a while, you will soon end up with reams of supportive evidence. I think this shows any agenda can be promoted by funding alone, regardless of the assumed good intentions of the scientists who receive the funding. Does that method help understand truth? No. Will your agenda appear to be very well supported - yes. Now think, if it is your business to administer people in general - isn't it better to have those people desire for themselves the solution that you already have in mind? That it is better to engineer people's consent? If so, why wouldn't you use science, history, academia or whatever to engineer people into wanting whatever you have to sell? Why not provide the studies that move the people in the direction you want them to move to? You could say the studies are to get the turkeys voting for Christmas.
- skydhash 3y ago
  Science tells you there's a truth and gives you the methods to find it. Religion says it's the truth, and wants you to follow it. It's the same thing as giving a fish or teaching how to fish. Receiving a fish is convenient, but I'd rather not depend on someone for food.
  - swasheck 3y ago
    i disagree. i’d posit that science finds the truth about the cosmos. religion offers a lens through which you can interpret and apply the truths that science has discovered. i think what you’re describing is how various practitioners of each have traditionally presented the tools of science and religion.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      I think science and religion are even less coupled than that. The newest gravimesobaryon discovered through the LHC probably doesn't have any bearings on religion, and rituals such as Ramadan aren't performed for a benefit based in science. One's moral values/axioms and one's factual understanding of the universe can largely be separated, but a lot of people nowadays seem to heavily conflate them.
      - skydhash 3y ago
        I think it’s because some people wants to impose their values on others, especially if it gives them an advantage in society. Moral values are fluid and can be manipulated, facts are not. Religion used to shroud values into fictions and present them as the truth. But, because science are demystifying most of them, leaving only the moral parts, people are starting to see that moral values are relatives, not absolutes, and it involves only oneself. So now, they want to dress science as one of the other religions, something that is wrong.
        vacuity 3y ago
        Real! I mean uhhhhh well said. Many people absolutely twist facts though.
- PawgerZ 3y ago
  Religion is a black box. Science is FOSS.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    It's somewhat better in FOSS than in science-land because there are generally at least a few people who find a new FOSS project genuinely interesting and worth supporting, whereas scientific conformity is much less forgiving.
- swasheck 3y ago
  i believe the point is that the consensus is the verification. repeat the assay under the same conditions and record the results to verify the original findings. repeat. it deliberately creates a monoculture to generate results. the “religion” of it all is interpreting the results
- pjmorris 3y ago
  > You think science is what the consensus says it is, even if you cannot personally verify it? Well, no, but I might be able to see how you got that. I'm all for falsifiable hypotheses, empirical data, repeatable experiments, and revisions as we find limits to our collected hypotheses and data. I do think that others(e.g. Planck, Kuhn) have observed the effects of consensus in science, and to treat science as though those effects are not present is a form of religion.

verisimi 3y ago

You think science is what the consensus says it is, even if you cannot personally verify it? If that's it, what exactly is the difference between science and religion?

anonymous_sorry 3y ago
Science is primarily a methodology, and secondarily a body of provisional knowledge discovered and tested via that methodology. As non practitioners, if we trust in the methodology, then to some extent we have to take a shortcut and make decisions based on the consensus judgement of expert practitioners. And, unlike some religious people, accept we can never act in absolute certainty.
- verisimi 3y ago
  I absolutely hold to the scientific method. But do you think you find that method in science? In science journals, academic departments? I don't think you do, and I for one don't trust. Science, like religion, like academia, like government - and all those individuals therein - are all in thrall to money, not truth. I don't think there is any doubt that the proclamations we receive from whichever institution are about providing us with information that is expedient for us to believe (not verify). The provided information is about control of minds. If whatever-it-is does have a relation to the underlying reality (and who checks?), that relationship is accidental/beneficial for whatever story we are currently being sold.
  - anonymous_sorry 3y ago
    Yes. Science is a human institution, with all of the mess that entails. But at least the ability to challenge authority with evidence is science's central dogma (rather than "this book is infallable"). It means one way to find fame and fortune in science is to conclusively disprove some accepted wisdom, in a way that others can repeat and see for themselves. That's not to say you won't meet resistance, partly because of human nature, and partly because, heuristically, most unexpected results turn out to be flawed on further examination. I'm interested in specifics of which scientific institutions you think are trying to influence us in what way, and to what purpose.
    - verisimi 3y ago
      Do you ever challenge any evidence? Have you even tried to put information out there that is outside the norm? I have and can confirm that most places - eg HN - is an echo chamber. This specific environment is cultivated by the administrators. Now, I don't mind administration, but it is clear to me that on certain hot button topics there is only one direction of discussion allowed - it is a controlled conversation. > which scientific institutions you think are trying to influence us in what way, and to what purpose Its a bigger issue than a specific institution. When you think about science in the US - it is all funded by one of 2 (or 3) sources - government (military) and corporations. If you then consider that government and corporations are really the same overarching control structure (eg FDA officials will go to work for pharmaceuticals, corporate lobbyists write the legislation for government officials to approve) you can argue that, in a sense there is only 1 source of funding! Funding is centralised. Say you then want to prove/'have it widely believed' that helium is beneficial (I'm making a ridiculous hypothesis up to show the methodology in play) and you undertake 10 studies. The results are that 2 studies are supportive, 6 are neutral, and 2 are against. If you then promote the 2 that are supportive in journals, and fund more similar studies, and repeat that process for a while, you will soon end up with reams of supportive evidence. I think this shows any agenda can be promoted by funding alone, regardless of the assumed good intentions of the scientists who receive the funding. Does that method help understand truth? No. Will your agenda appear to be very well supported - yes. Now think, if it is your business to administer people in general - isn't it better to have those people desire for themselves the solution that you already have in mind? That it is better to engineer people's consent? If so, why wouldn't you use science, history, academia or whatever to engineer people into wanting whatever you have to sell? Why not provide the studies that move the people in the direction you want them to move to? You could say the studies are to get the turkeys voting for Christmas.
skydhash 3y ago
Science tells you there's a truth and gives you the methods to find it. Religion says it's the truth, and wants you to follow it. It's the same thing as giving a fish or teaching how to fish. Receiving a fish is convenient, but I'd rather not depend on someone for food.
- swasheck 3y ago
  i disagree. i’d posit that science finds the truth about the cosmos. religion offers a lens through which you can interpret and apply the truths that science has discovered. i think what you’re describing is how various practitioners of each have traditionally presented the tools of science and religion.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    I think science and religion are even less coupled than that. The newest gravimesobaryon discovered through the LHC probably doesn't have any bearings on religion, and rituals such as Ramadan aren't performed for a benefit based in science. One's moral values/axioms and one's factual understanding of the universe can largely be separated, but a lot of people nowadays seem to heavily conflate them.
    - skydhash 3y ago
      I think it’s because some people wants to impose their values on others, especially if it gives them an advantage in society. Moral values are fluid and can be manipulated, facts are not. Religion used to shroud values into fictions and present them as the truth. But, because science are demystifying most of them, leaving only the moral parts, people are starting to see that moral values are relatives, not absolutes, and it involves only oneself. So now, they want to dress science as one of the other religions, something that is wrong.
      - vacuity 3y ago
        Real! I mean uhhhhh well said. Many people absolutely twist facts though.
PawgerZ 3y ago
Religion is a black box. Science is FOSS.
- vacuity 3y ago
  It's somewhat better in FOSS than in science-land because there are generally at least a few people who find a new FOSS project genuinely interesting and worth supporting, whereas scientific conformity is much less forgiving.
swasheck 3y ago
i believe the point is that the consensus is the verification. repeat the assay under the same conditions and record the results to verify the original findings. repeat. it deliberately creates a monoculture to generate results. the “religion” of it all is interpreting the results
pjmorris 3y ago
> You think science is what the consensus says it is, even if you cannot personally verify it? Well, no, but I might be able to see how you got that. I'm all for falsifiable hypotheses, empirical data, repeatable experiments, and revisions as we find limits to our collected hypotheses and data. I do think that others(e.g. Planck, Kuhn) have observed the effects of consensus in science, and to treat science as though those effects are not present is a form of religion.