Unique Atheism

Dades

905 wrote: »

Science exists in the social sphere. This is a reality that ye seem to have a problem with. Laboratories exist in the real world; there is no escape. This is unfortunate for the principles of science but it is true nonetheless.

Are you saying that because scientists are forced to practice science in the Real World™ - i.e. a place they share with Society™, science is flawed somehow?

Can you sum up your point, because I ain't sure what it is!

pH

905 wrote: »

I'm saying that scientists have views on what is true and what is false, something denied on this thread.

I'm not sure who exactly is denying this, but for clarity:

I'll agree with your statement that "scientists have views on what is true and what is false"

Further clarify it by saying that of those views, they would consider a subset of them scientific and are prepared to provide you (or anyone( a detailed written explanation of how that view was formed and a way of replicating it for yourself so that you don't have to take their word for it.

And to further clarify, the views that scientists hold are completely irrelevant to science. Scientists aren't appointed by a body, they are the group of people who (on the face of it) employ the scientific method to investigate the world. They are just as human as the rest of us, with the same human flaws, anyone who takes a scientist's word on something is as big a fool as someone who takes a priest's word on something.

This is obvious from every science class in school, we don't say some chap called Ørsted has a view that electricity and magnetism are related, now onto the next lesson.

We stop and say, here's a compass, here's a wire - put some electricity through it and see if he's right. That's science, Ørsted's views on electromagnetism, poverty, God, music or anything else are completely irrelevant. That's not to deny that they don't exist or he doesn't have views, just that they don't matter.

905

Dades wrote: »

Are you saying that because scientists are forced to practice science in the Real World™ - i.e. a place they share with Society™, science is flawed somehow?

Can you sum up your point, because I ain't sure what it is!

They don't share it with society, they are a part of society. They don't exist ouside of society. Science is possibly flawed as a result (it's a human process after all), but that's not my point. My point is that scientists and their discipline are viewed and received within the framework of society. This can mean that they are viewed in a manner they might not be comfortable with from a scientific point of view - as possessors of the truth for example.

robindch

905 wrote: »

I'm saying that scientists have views on what is true and what is false, something denied on this thread. [...]This can mean that they are viewed in a manner they might not be comfortable with from a scientific point of view - as possessors of the truth for example.

The mistake you're making is assuming that what the public refer to as "truth" is the same as what researchers refer to as "truth", or at least, the few researchers that do use that word.

The two usages are not the same and your confusion is arising from that.

905

robindch wrote: »

The mistake you're making is assuming that what the public refer to as "truth" is the same as what researchers refer to as "truth", or at least, the few researchers that do use that word.

The two usages are not the same and your confusion is arising from that.

I'm gasping here. Scientists occasionally make public statements which are often regarded as truth by the public. I don't care, by a factor I'm unable to express, what scientists make of their statements. It is what the public thinks that is important in this debate.

The confusion, as far as I can see, is that some people expect the public to view the statements with all the scepticism of the trained scientist. I contend that they do not. I further contend that scientists should not - and probably do not - expect the public to be trained scientists and scepticists. This raises the question: how do the public regard these statements?

Scofflaw

Dades wrote: »

Science exists in the social sphere. This is a reality that ye seem to have a problem with. Laboratories exist in the real world; there is no escape. This is unfortunate for the principles of science but it is true nonetheless.

Are you saying that because scientists are forced to practice science in the Real World™ - i.e. a place they share with Society™, science is flawed somehow?

Can you sum up your point, because I ain't sure what it is!

I second that...your point is presumably clear to you, but not to us.

The discoveries of science certainly have an impact in the public sphere - and the public sphere certainly has an impact on the pursuit of science (through education, funding and legislation). You can also argue that science (or rather the interpretation of science) informs part of the zeitgeist.

The point that is being attacked rather vociferously here, though, is your apparent claim that because science exists in the social sphere, the scientific method itself is a social phenomenon - a fashion of our times, if you like.

This is not a new claim, of course - it's a standard post-modernist claim, and leads on to the idea of 'feminist science' and the like. Curiously, 'feminist science' has yet to produce anything more than 'creation science'.

The confusion, it seems to me, is that because science has social impacts, it is therefore (purely) a social phenomenon, and can be 'deconstructed' as one. The social acceptance of science, and the social effects of scientific discoveries, certainly can be examined in such a way, but applying them to the scientific method itself is like applying them to pipe throughput calculation - there are social aspects, and social angles, but at the end of the day, a certain size of pipe will take a certain flow - the material truth is inelastic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

905 wrote: »

I'm gasping here. Scientists occasionally make public statements which are often regarded as truth by the public. I don't care, by a factor I'm unable to express, what scientists make of their statements. It is what the public thinks that is important in this debate.

The confusion, as far as I can see, is that some people expect the public to view the statements with all the scepticism of the trained scientist. I contend that they do not. I further contend that scientists should not - and probably do not - expect the public to be trained scientists and scepticists. This raises the question: how do the public regard these statements?

As something to be accepted because the mainstream agrees that science is correct, or dismissed because the mainstream agrees that science is correct, depending on orientation.

Further, as something to be actively combated through the creation of uncertainty where it disagrees with profoundly held views or commercial interests. And...?

By the way, whatever gives you the idea that scientists think non-scientists have any apprehension of science? Should have, yes, ideally - do have, no.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

So some members of the public are gullible and uneducated? Fair enough. Now can we please move on to something important?

robindch

905 wrote: »

This raises the question: how do the public regard these statements?

Like creationists who understand the word "theory" in the colloquial, rather than scientific, sense, they're hearing what they want to hear. This isn't helped by the media who tend to report scientific stories in a black and white way, which is rarely how the issue is presented in the scientific arena. Personally, I tend to avoid placing much credence in what the media says about science, and instead read journal articles where I can. If other people don't do that, then that's really their problem.

As far as I can make out from my experience of these forums is that most people don't really care about physical reality and prefer instead to exist in a symbolic reality, either their own if they're imaginative, or a religion's if they're not.

Dades

I think the media are to blame for much disinformation. You regularly read puff-pieces in (non-peer-reviewed!) tabloid papers - "Top Scientists Discover Human Skull Inside Dinosaur Ribcage" - or whatever. How the media, or the public as a result, perceive scientific claims is therefore flawed.

But none of this is the fault of the scientific 'method', which remains constant.

EDIT: just overlapped Robin!

905

Scofflaw wrote: »

I second that...your point is presumably clear to you, but not to us.

The discoveries of science certainly have an impact in the public sphere - and the public sphere certainly has an impact on the pursuit of science (through education, funding and legislation). You can also argue that science (or rather the interpretation of science) informs part of the zeitgeist.

The point that is being attacked rather vociferously here, though, is your apparent claim that because science exists in the social sphere, the scientific method itself is a social phenomenon - a fashion of our times, if you like.

This is not a new claim, of course - it's a standard post-modernist claim, and leads on to the idea of 'feminist science' and the like. Curiously, 'feminist science' has yet to produce anything more than 'creation science'.

The confusion, it seems to me, is that because science has social impacts, it is therefore (purely) a social phenomenon, and can be 'deconstructed' as one. The social acceptance of science, and the social effects of scientific discoveries, certainly can be examined in such a way, but applying them to the scientific method itself is like applying them to pipe throughput calculation - there are social aspects, and social angles, but at the end of the day, a certain size of pipe will take a certain flow - the material truth is inelastic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well put Scofflaw. But my interest is in your 'social acceptance of science, and the social effects of scientific discoveries', not in the deconstruction of science itself. I said at the outset I didn't want a discussion of scientific method.

robindch

Scofflaw wrote: »

Curiously, 'feminist science' has yet to produce anything more than 'creation science'.

Something that I can heartily second, having had, a few years back, to help edit and proof the term essay of a foreign friend of mine who was studying under a certain prominent feminist professor from Trinity College. Outside of creationism, I've never seen such a load of complete pigs bollocks dressed up as silk.

robindch

905 wrote: »

But my interest is in your 'social acceptance of science, and the social effects of scientific discoveries.

In that case, you might do better posting in the science forum, rather than in A+A.

Dades

905 wrote: »

But my interest is in your 'social acceptance of science, and the social effects of scientific discoveries', not in the deconstruction of science itself. I said at the outset I didn't want a discussion of scientific method.

How much of an interest can you take in something without de-constructing it?

905

Looks like the meeja's in for a rollicking. But surely if the scientists countered the media then there wouldn't be a problem? If policy is based on these distortions, then surely scientists have an obligation to counter them?

905

robindch wrote: »

In that case, you might do better posting in the science forum, rather than in A+A.

My original post was going to be on atheism rather than science. Oh the lucky atheist, free of illusions compared to the deluded religious etc. etc. Hence the title of the thread. I'm terribly sorry, to everyone, for getting sidetracked in my opening post.

905

Dades wrote: »

How much of an interest can you take in something without de-constructing it?

Err, none? I'm all for deconstructing society's take on science, not science itself.

JC 2K3

Please give us an example of policy being influenced by science being misinterpreted by the media....

905

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Please give us an example of policy being influenced by science being misinterpreted by the media....

Gosh, it was ye that said media, not me. Off the top of my head though: Darwin's book led to eugenic policies?

Dades

905 wrote: »

Looks like the meeja's in for a rollicking. But surely if the scientists countered the media then there wouldn't be a problem? If policy is based on these distortions, then surely scientists have an obligation to counter them?

Scientists can't be expected to get caught up in agenda waving, every time somebody uses some paper to further their particular cause. They are trained in science not PR. Just look at Dawkins when he emerged from his lab to the studio.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

Sadly some like Wicknight have been beaten down by the philosophers so much they're not happy with words like truth any more. Which is sad because the philosophical meaning of the word 'true' (definition - nothing is, one sec let me think of a real clever way of proving that to you) is useless and the one that we all use to make statements about the everyday world the statement "alcohol makes you drunk" is the truth (for example) is equally valid in science - AIDS is caused by the HIV virus - that's a scientific truth whether you or Wicknight like it or not.

At the end of the day it comes down to what a person means by "true", whether they are using it in the common sense or the specific sense.

For example, most people would agree that the statement "If I throw myself out of a 110 story building and hit the ground at high speed I will kill myself" is a true statement.

Now what does "true" in that context actually mean. What it means is that based on all our current understand of how the universe works, the physical processes that govern things like gravity and our understand of the human body, such an event will, in high likelihood, kill me.

So in essence that statement is true for the use of that word in common language.

Where "true" does not hold is the idea that we can be 100% certain that such an event will, and always will, happen. I could throw myself out of a window and some freak gust might catch me and I land without dying. Or even less likely, the way gravity works might alter for some unknown reason, and I will float safely to the ground.

Therefore you cannot say that such a statement is true in the context that it is impossible that anything else could happen thus making the statement false.

The reason it is important to stress this is because of the charge often thrown at scientists that they declared something "true" and then realized they were wrong. How can they be wrong when something is supposed to be true? The answer is that they probably weren't using the term "true" in the sense that it is impossible that they are wrong, only unlikely.

The statement that if I throw myself out of a 110 store building I will die is true, but given the context that someone would use the word it isn't so true that it is impossible that it is wrong, only that it is very unlikely that it is wrong, if that makes sense.

So ultimately before any of us can debate 905 on this topic he has to define what he exactly means by the word "true", because otherwise it ends up just being a stick to beat science with.

robindch

905 wrote: »

My original post was going to be on atheism rather than science..

You should have left science out of it then

robindch

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Please give us an example of policy being influenced by science being misinterpreted by the media....

Two words -- "vaccines" and "autism".

Zombrex

905 wrote: »

But surely if the scientists countered the media then there wouldn't be a problem?

How would they do that?

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote: »

So ultimately before any of us can debate 905 on this topic he has to define what he exactly means by the word "true", because otherwise it ends up just being a stick to beat science with.

Do you do the same when debating the "truth" of religion?

Words like: believe, know, truth are all used regularly on this forum without the poster defining what he/she means by them.

It all comes back to the same argument; what is truly objective?

Doctor DooM

Wicknight wrote: »

At the end of the day it comes down to what a person means by "true", whether they are using it in the common sense or the specific sense.

For example, most people would agree that the statement "If I throw myself out of a 110 story building and hit the ground at high speed I will kill myself" is a true statement.

Now what does "true" in that context actually mean. What it means is that based on all our current understand of how the universe works, the physical processes that govern things like gravity and our understand of the human body, such an event will, in high likelihood, kill me.

So in essence that statement is true for the use of that word in common language.

Where "true" does not hold is the idea that we can be 100% certain that such an event will, and always will, happen. I could throw myself out of a window and some freak gust might catch me and I land without dying. Or even less likely, the way gravity works might alter for some unknown reason, and I will float safely to the ground.

Therefore you cannot say that such a statement is true in the context that it is impossible that anything else could happen thus making the statement false.

The reason it is important to stress this is because of the charge often thrown at scientists that they declared something "true" and then realized they were wrong. How can they be wrong when something is supposed to be true? The answer is that they probably weren't using the term "true" in the sense that it is impossible that they are wrong, only unlikely.

The statement that if I throw myself out of a 110 store building I will die is true, but given the context that someone would use the word it isn't so true that it is impossible that it is wrong, only that it is very unlikely that it is wrong, if that makes sense.

So ultimately before any of us can debate 905 on this topic he has to define what he exactly means by the word "true", because otherwise it ends up just being a stick to beat science with.

To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, True = True for a given value of truth.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote: »

Do you do the same when debating the "truth" of religion?

No and that is the crucial difference between religion and science.

Religion makes claims to truth in the literal absolute sense. Homosexuality is immoral, that is the word of God, God is always correct. The world was created in 6 days, that is the word of God, God is always correct etc...

What religion does is shift the authority for a statement from humans, which can and are often wrong, to a deity that can't and never is wrong.

Which is why you get such silly statements as the ones on Answers in Genesis which proclaim that the Bible cannot be wrong (neither it seems can their interpretation of that) and any evidence that contradicts a literal genesis must be reinterpreted or discarded.

One of the appeals of religion is that it deals in absolutes. People like that, they find it comforting. The same type of people view the fact that science flatly refuses to deal in absolutes as a flaw. Why would you turn to science to explain something, science can make mistakes and be wrong. You are better turning to God, God is never wrong.

pH

905 wrote: »

Gosh, it was ye that said media, not me. Off the top of my head though: Darwin's book led to eugenic policies?

It did what?????????????????????????????????????

Darwin's book says that species evolve through natural selection which is the process by which favourable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection )

How exactly does that lead to Eugenic policies?

At the end of the day it comes down to what a person means by "true", whether they are using it in the common sense or the specific sense.

I'm quite happy to accept statements such a "the earth orbits the sun" as true and "the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle" as false, without resorting to anyone's cunning definition of the words 'true' and 'false'.

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

Darwin's book says that species evolve through natural selection which is the process by which favourable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection )

How exactly does that lead to Eugenic policies?

It didn't...but I think that's 905's point. Science filters into popular culture, and is interpreted - and what do we think of that?

My own answer, which I suspect sums up the attitude of many scientists, is that it's extremely painful to watch, and by turns depressing, exasperating, or just ridiculous.

The problem, in a sense, is implicit within science. Science is not a top-down process, unlike most religions. Religions start from a truth, and work out from there - the organogram and process, if you like, is:

The Truth -> The Interpreters -> The Faithful

You can substitute "God" for "The Truth" there, of course, but usually God has Revealed The Truth, via the Bible or whatever. The Interpreters will usually be the hierarchy. We can also have self-interpretation by the faithful.

Science does not operate that way, and the result is that we get something else like this:

Science -> bits of probable truth -> the "interpreters" -> the "faithful"

Here we can assume the "faithful" as being people who accept the "primacy" of science. Who, though, are the "interpreters"? The answer would seem to be politicians, the media, self-appointed pundits, social scientists, etc, but very rarely scientists. Scientists are referred to by the interpreters only to add authority to the interpretation, even if in some cases this simply takes the form of an actor in a white coat in a shampoo ad, or someone with a qualification in a completely unrelated field in the case of Creationism.

Scientists, in general, have little or no interest in the social impact/meaning/interpretation of their work. They are interested in the scientific meaning - where the 'discovery' in question can lead, what questions it might answer, and so on.

This largely leaves the field wide open for those who wish to use "science" in the public sphere - there is no control over what gets said about something like evolution (outside science curricula), so someone is free to claim that evolution proves that one subset of humanity is inferior to another, or that it shows that we should weed out the "unfit".

How do I, as a scientist, feel about that? Well, much as I've outlined above. If Christianity were interpreted into popular culture by people with no background or instruction in Christianity, working off fragments of the Bible (in various versions and languages) that had been unearthed and reported on by other people without any knowledge of Christianity, you'd have as clear a view of Christianity as popular culture has of science.

That is, of course - and this is the point that I think we're all making - nothing to do with science itself. We may legitimately ask, however, whether science should take account of the social impacts/interpretations of its work? Should the precautionary principle be strictly observed?

There, I think, my own answer would be a straightforward "no". It is impossible to tell the actual impacts of any scientific discovery in advance, and even where some negative impacts are immediately predictable, the long-term balance may unexpectedly be overwhelmingly positive - and vice versa.

cordially,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Truth -> The Interpreters -> The Faithful

Science -> bits of probable truth -> the "interpreters" -> the "faithful"

But in a practical sense we're looking at the end result: the Faithful/"faithful"

And my question is, what's the difference?

When people are convinced of a truth, does it matter whether they came to it by a rational thought filled process or being told; "that's just the way it is".

I think a lot of us on this forum have the idea of what you mean by the "faithful". There's plenty of people on boards who we could relate this category to. People with little scientific knowledge who grasp onto half baked theories and quote them as fact in conversation, we've all met or know these types of people.

But in reality aren't we all like this? Maybe, if you're looking into a microscope or analysing a waveform from a spectrometer you're gonna be skeptical about using words like truth. But when faced with putting faith in these same scientific truths in your everyday life, you wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There, I think, my own answer would be a straightforward "no". It is impossible to tell the actual impacts of any scientific discovery in advance, and even where some negative impacts are immediately predictable, the long-term balance may unexpectedly be overwhelmingly positive - and vice versa.

But what if the effects of the short term experiments effect our judgment of the longterm. I think in a world where our scientific endeavors didn't effect us intrinsically you could make that argument, but that's not the case, so I have to disagree with that last point.