3 ms·

I wish that more people understood the difference between science and scientists. It is a shame that so many people give a bad name to science and the scientifi

I wish that more people understood the difference between science and scientists. It is a shame that so many people give a bad name to science and the scientific method - the best way we know how to discover truth. It's engineered to discover truth. That's all that it's about, the only thing. It's independent of (and unfortunately, quite possibly beyond) any one human scientist's ability to correctly employ it.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago
Sometime back in the 70s, some scientists tried to popularize science by becoming quasi-famous people themselves. Sagan comes to mind, but I'm not trying to single him out. I'm not so sure this was such a good move. Science is a wondrous thing and amazing. Scientists are just a bunch of normal schmucks like the rest of us. Once you start playing the hero-worship game, it's easy to start drifting from science promotion to self-promotion. The lines get blurry. Likewise, it's easy to start drifting from where the science is currently to what your opinion of the science is currently. Most media consumers are not savvy enough to pick up on that difference. Most science promoters are not so great at pointing out the provisional nature of science and the humbleness required when addressing the history of how science is actually carried out. I saw one of these science promoter guys on the net the other day answering questions. One question was something like "Is there a God?" Since I spent some hours on epistemology and philosophy, especially around this topic, I was intrigued. I wasn't too impressed by his answer, but what really astounded me was the fact that he was more than willing to answer a question like "Is there a God?" right alongside one about the speed of light, without making any caveats about the different kinds of information he was relating. This is not a good thing.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

Sometime back in the 70s, some scientists tried to popularize science by becoming quasi-famous people themselves. Sagan comes to mind, but I'm not trying to single him out. I'm not so sure this was such a good move. Science is a wondrous thing and amazing. Scientists are just a bunch of normal schmucks like the rest of us. Once you start playing the hero-worship game, it's easy to start drifting from science promotion to self-promotion. The lines get blurry. Likewise, it's easy to start drifting from where the science is currently to what your opinion of the science is currently. Most media consumers are not savvy enough to pick up on that difference. Most science promoters are not so great at pointing out the provisional nature of science and the humbleness required when addressing the history of how science is actually carried out. I saw one of these science promoter guys on the net the other day answering questions. One question was something like "Is there a God?" Since I spent some hours on epistemology and philosophy, especially around this topic, I was intrigued. I wasn't too impressed by his answer, but what really astounded me was the fact that he was more than willing to answer a question like "Is there a God?" right alongside one about the speed of light, without making any caveats about the different kinds of information he was relating. This is not a good thing.