The anti-science movement.

McDermotX

UCDVet

Manach wrote: »

Rather odd by atheists who continuous flog the horse of Region and Science being mutually opposed. The latter at its core is about the physical world while the latter is about the meta-physical. As the great science writer SJ Gould stated, these magisteriums are complementary and not hostile.

In theory maybe. But as long as religions insist upon literal interpretations of texts written thousands of years ago, well, it's easy to understand where they are coming from.

Nevermind the countless times an organized religion has flat-out disagreed with science and was willing to imprison/kick out/kill people who continued to research or publish findings that disagreed with them.

'Hey - we haven't murdered any scientists in a while, so we're cool' is kind of a hard thing for some people to accept.

Even today, for just about any major religion, you can find some pretty strong opposition to either generally accepted scientific facts or new research.

Robbo

hfallada wrote: »

I think the problem lies with the internet. Any idiot can write a blog and people will believe it. There is thousands of sites against vaccines, etc. But even when the smallpox vaccine was introduced, people were against it. Now smallpox is completely gone

I dont think there is a rise in anti-science. But more people hear about it, as its more acceptable.

I can't remember where I saw it but recently there was one of these mental-midget autodidacts all over the media in the States declaring herself an expert on vaccines despite no actual training or qualifications in science or medicine. But she was allowed to call herself an expert because "she'd spend over 1,000 hours researching the matter".

Someone replied, does that make James Bond a gynaecologist?

Duggy747

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The former can have all the logic and evidence in the world but the later can just say its what they think and all your evidence is wrong and if you dont respect it you are being intolerant, close minded or trying to remove their freedom of speech. They can be free to say whatever stupid ideas they have but by treating them as serious we give some sort of credibility.

This, it's so infuriating talking to someone when they use this angle to get themselves out of a corner when evidence is stacked up against them.

"Well, that's just my opinion on the matter" or "That's not fact, that's just your / some scientist's opinion!"

I'd much prefer someone to fight their side than to trout out these horseshít phrases.

You have the likes of Oprah allowing platforms for the likes of Jenny McCarthy, Dr. Oz and Deepak Chopra to exist where they get free reign to pollute scientific terminology and confuse people's perception of what qualifies as science.

Then you have a popular site like NaturalNews putting itself out as an authority on scientific matters, being vehemently against established science and medicine....................while peddling outrageous cures in it's advertisements without a hint of irony (Matrix transmitter that heals you through your speakers for a bargain at $40).

It's then no wonder you have the likes of Alex Jones associated with NN as he spouts his own anti-authority, anti-vaccines, etc, bullshít on both that site and his own while also peddling Male vitality supplements to help fight against the war of oestrogen on masculinity.

ScumLord

I think there's certainly a trust issue between people and politics and that politics see's science as a tool that they can use to get across particular agendas. Not as a way of getting and implementing knowledge. I don't think people really distrust science, they trust it enough to have their houses full of technology and to run to a hospital at the first sign of trouble.


Our country (well most democratic countries) are basically running around like headless chickens, the people are technically in charge in a republic but what training do we get to carry out this job? Even if we had the training what chance have we to get involved with our job taking up so much of our time? Part of the reason I have no interest in getting involved in protest groups is because I don't see the point in protesting if you're not championing an alternative. There's no plan for reconciliation, it's just a two sided argument where one side must win and one side must lose and no good will come from either outcome.


I think people will always mistrust the political system (and everything associated with it) as long as we're kept ignorant of it. I think they need to come up with a way of changing the education system so we get the critical thinking talked about in the thread, we understand the makeup of our government and are given opportunities to get involved to fix local problems. I think it's beyond this generation to fix it, our only hope is educating the next generation with the right tools for the modern world.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

magma69

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Have you a link for that? That doesn't sound correct to me.

Maximus Alexander

Zamboni wrote: »

Because the majority of the human species are fcuktards.

/thread

iDave

This website is all kinds of pathetic

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Maximus Alexander

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I think science can seem quite esoteric to laypeople, even if they are intelligent.

I have a science degree, I did well at it but it wasn't easy. It took a lot of work, of training my mind to understand many different theories. And I'm someone who studied it.

It'd no wonder the general public can find it so bamboozling. A little recognition of this would be helpful, I think.

The thing is though, you only really need to understand the scientific method (which is straight forward) in order to be able to read through source material and see if the conclusions make sense. I don't really buy the idea that science is too complicated.

Sure, doing science is hard, but understanding how somebody arrived at a conclusion isn't really.

magma69

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Depressing.

Wibbs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Damned hippies.

Additionally, so indoctrinated are they by anti-capitalist sermonizing that they can't see past the profit motives of pharmaceutical companies, Monsanto, etc. Combine these things and you get people prone to regarding drugs, vaccines, and GMO foods as ploys by pillaging capitalists to line their pockets by polluting our bodies with "unnatural" substances.

Aye but for me these can be slightly different topics and arguments. Sure your hippie will tend to be anti progress and follow the above credo, but on the other hand you have those who blindly see all science as progress, especially when big money is behind it. I'd also reckon that this is more an American way of thinking. Very black and white. Monsanto baaaad/Monsanto goooood[delete as personally applicable]. It's easier for those who want easy answers, but reality is played out in shades of grey. EG I'm no hippie, but would have serious issues with some of Monsanto's practices and some of the pharmaceutical companies have had dodgy "science" masquerading as fact for years and have even hidden/bent the numbers on drug trial results. This does not mean I think all drugs or companies are bad, nor all GMO is bad. It's not so wise to blindly accept just one side or t'other.

Permabear wrote: »

Yes, here's the Gallup poll.

58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats also hold this position.

Jesus. No pun. *shakes head* That's scary reading. Funny enough for the first time in our evolutionary history as hominids our brains are shrinking and have done since about 20,000 years ago. Those folks who painted caves in France 30 odd 1000 years ago were modern humans like us but with bigger brains. They well have been more clever overall and if you brought up a kid from that time in today's society they may have been extremely bright compared to the average today.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Unbelievable.

Saipanne

Wibbs wrote: »

Damned hippies. Aye but for me these can be slightly different topics and arguments. Sure your hippie will tend to be anti progress and follow the above credo, but on the other hand you have those who blindly see all science as progress, especially when big money is behind it. I'd also reckon that this is more an American way of thinking. Very black and white. Monsanto baaaad/Monsanto goooood[delete as personally applicable]. It's easier for those who want easy answers, but reality is played out in shades of grey. EG I'm no hippie, but would have serious issues with some of Monsanto's practices and some of the pharmaceutical companies have had dodgy "science" masquerading as fact for years and have even hidden/bent the numbers on drug trial results. This does not mean I think all drugs or companies are bad, nor all GMO is bad. It's not so wise to blindly accept just one side or t'other.

Jesus. No pun. *shakes head* That's scary reading. Funny enough for the first time in our evolutionary history as hominids our brains are shrinking and have done since about 20,000 years ago. Those folks who painted caves in France 30 odd 1000 years ago were modern humans like us but with bigger brains. They well have been more clever overall and if you brought up a kid from that time in today's society they may have been extremely bright compared to the average today.

Really? The brain one, I mean.

expectationlost

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

where you going with leftwing?If anything they are capitalists.
Most of the muppets that are against flouride and vacinations have an agenda..ie peddling bollox as an alternative for $$$$$.


Take our own special fuktard aisling fitzgibbon aka The Girl Against Flouride.She repeatedly repeats debunked studies(peer reviewed I might add) to back up her fuktardness.Shes a qaulified angel healer,nutritionist(not a dietician,similar to the difference between a toothologist and a dentist) .The campaign manager for her anti-flouride campaign is her mother and she believes the pill can cause homosexuality.

The mother/daughter pair are also making money selling a cure for autism.
http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2014/03/gaps-in-thinking-irish-times-promoting.html

It would be funny if it wasnt peoples health they fukking about with.

there are lefty,hippy elements to it. Not them they seem to be catholic conservative background.

steddyeddy

One of the many reasons I dislike the terms right and left is that they're rarely accurate descriptive terms. The vast majority of people don't see things so black and white Imo.

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus. No pun. *shakes head* That's scary reading. Funny enough for the first time in our evolutionary history as hominids our brains are shrinking and have done since about 20,000 years ago. Those folks who painted caves in France 30 odd 1000 years ago were modern humans like us but with bigger brains. They well have been more clever overall and if you brought up a kid from that time in today's society they may have been extremely bright compared to the average today.

Maybe our brains are just getting more efficient and better at dealing with the information. There are some very effective small brains in the natural world. If our social engineering lead to some more energy efficient ways of thinking we didn't need our brain to be as large and having a smaller brain would come with it's own advantages.

I don't know though, it seems odd that our brains would get smaller as our society became more complex.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Obama issue is an example of confirmation bias the Sinn Fein issue is not. I'll have to reiterate my opinion that the vast majority of those I encounter who are anti vacc or GMO are on the right. In this country and Britain at least. It's probably different in America though.

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

One of the many reasons I dislike the terms right and left is that they're rarely accurate descriptive terms.

But you were earlier quite happy to pin the current rise of scientific ignorance of right wingers until it was pointed out that that's not all that accurate. Now you don't like the terms right-wing and left-wing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Saipanne wrote: »

Really? The brain one, I mean.

Yep.

ScumLord wrote: »

Maybe our brains are just getting more efficient and better at dealing with the information. There are some very effective small brains in the natural world. If our social engineering lead to some more energy efficient ways of thinking we didn't need our brain to be as large and having a smaller brain would come with it's own advantages.

Sure SL size aint everything. EG Neandertals had the largest brains of any humans ever, but weren't a patch on us in the thinking dept. Though that's also down to their size and brain to body size ratio. In that case they had slightly smaller brains comparatively. However even when accounting for brain/bodymass ratio, our brains are still shrinking.

There are all sorts of theories as to why this is happening. Though funny enough you rarely hear about in the mainstream. The mainstream idea is that our brains got ever bigger. Nutrition could be part of it. There was a drop in brain size when we first started farming. Hunter gatherers generally have better nutrition and more varied diets. Problem with this idea is populations who had never farmed also showed a reduction in brain size over time. Another theory is that we're in the process of domesticating ourselves(by removing more aggressive individuals etc) and domestic animals have smaller brains than their wild cousins(though if history is anything to go by we're just as aggressive as we were in the distant past).

I don't know though, it seems odd that our brains would get smaller as our society became more complex.

Actually that's another theory trying to explain this and it comes from a different angle than expected. Yes society has become more complex, but the human population has also grown exponentially. This means that an individual can rely on more and more people to cover areas of complexity that they personally don't understand. So most people using their PC's to read this don't know quite how they work at a lower level and couldn't build one from scratch, but others do and can. Although there would have been specialised individuals among a tribe of French CroMagnons, the individual would have needed a more complete understanding of the world around them and how to navigate that world, so this might explain the need for their larger brains. Sure Joe might be the best flint knapper in the cave, but you'd also have to be able to knap to survive and so on. The individual would need to be a jack of all trades and master of most just to survive. It might explain why and how people from this period while living through an extremely harsh climate basically invented art, culture, religion, iconography etc as we came to know it.

Again the problem with this theory is modern hunter gatherers who still live similar lives also show reduction in brain size.

IMH it's a mix of diet over time, self domestication and increasing population sizes that is doing it.

OldNotWIse

Maybe because some people are so arrogant that their pea sized intellect wont accept that when you're dead, that's it.

Akrasia

Saipanne wrote: »

Really? The brain one, I mean.

The brain is getting smaller on average but this does not mean that people living today are less intelligent than people 20,000 years ago.

A large part of our brain is dedicated to regulating bodily processes that are not related to intelligence. Bigger bodies need bigger brains. Humans are less physically strong and bulky now compared with 30k years ago

Also, the fact that we live in large groups in relative security with social safety nets means that there isn't the requirement for every individual to be clever enough to provide for all of his/her survival needs, we just need to specialise in specific tasks and use economic trade to provide for ourselves.

And to top things off, we have developed tools that mean we can use our brains much more efficiently and accomplish the same ends without the requiremnent for larger brains. By tools, I include things like language, mathematics, logic as well as information storage and processing systems from books to modern computers.

A modern human can use our thinking tools to solve problems that a human from 20000 years ago would never hope to solve, so we can do much more thinking with less wasted effort. Everything we encounter a new problem, we don't have to re-invent the wheel so to speak

Saipanne

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep.

Exactly the response I expected from you.

steddyeddy

Tarzana2 wrote: »

But you were earlier quite happy to pin the current rise of scientific ignorance of right wingers until it was pointed out that that's not all that accurate. Now you don't like the terms right-wing and left-wing.

No I don't like right and left wing as political phenotypes. I Think the words have been used as an insult too many times to have a concise meaning free from loaded meaning. I should have said conservative regarding recessive views on science (a progressive enterprise). As I said previously many of those whom the right would describe as left wing hold views contrary towards science.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But attributing Sinn fein support to wishful thinking is opinion. Not fact. I don't have time for Sinn Fein's economic policy either but I can't say people who go against my opinion are in denial of facts. That's my opinion and nothing more. That is completely different than someone claiming the MMR vaccine doesn't work.

Yea it's my opinion. Also as a scientist I find most other scientists to have left rather than right leanings. As I said I think left and right have minimal meaning outside personal opinion anymore but those (left or right) who conflate political belief with opinion are the guilty culprits in all matters anti science.

Wibbs

Saipanne wrote: »

Exactly the response I expected from you.

Try reading the rest of it.

Akrasia wrote: »

A large part of our brain is dedicated to regulating bodily processes that are not related to intelligence. Bigger bodies need bigger brains. Humans are less physically strong and bulky now compared with 30k years ago

Even allowing for that our brains have shrunk.

Also, the fact that we live in large groups in relative security with social safety nets means that there isn't the requirement for every individual to be clever enough to provide for all of his/her survival needs, we just need to specialise in specific tasks and use economic trade to provide for ourselves.

And to top things off, we have developed tools that mean we can use our brains much more efficiently and accomplish the same ends without the requiremnent for larger brains. By tools, I include things like language, mathematics, logic as well as information storage and processing systems from books to modern computers.

Pretty much this.

steddyeddy

Saipanne wrote: »

Exactly the response I expected from you.

He gave you the science it's up to you to draw your own conclusions from it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

conorhal

I'd highly reccomend Francis Wheen's very insightful 'How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World'.
It's a breezy funny read that takes a pot shots at such diverse topics from Horoscopes to how 'management speak' infected politics with ineficency (when Thatcher started hiring 'management consultants' to drive performance during the 80's she began a trend for highly paid outside consultants that reached it's epoch under Blair, spoiler alert, they didn't manage make things run more efficently, they just created a new tier of middle management in the public sector that didn't actually seem to do anything other then write reports about 'blue sky thinking', spoke gibberish and pocketed massive salaries)
The best chapter on the subject (bit dated as the book is quite old at this stage) is his absolutely venomous chapter on "the demolition merchants of reality" which takes a swipe at the university culture that promotes relativism. I'll cut and paste some good quotes from a review that's well worth a read:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/how-mumbo-jumbo-conquered-the-world-by-francis-wheen-570206.html
In it describes how, since Michel Foucault's writings captured the intellectual mood in the early 1980s, many students in the humanities have been taught "that the world is just a socially constructed 'text' about which you can say just about anything you want, provided you say it murkily enough." He quotes the left-wing American Barbara Ehrenreich, who explains that her daughter was marked down for using the word "reality" without quotation marks.
This led to an insane form of relativism and folly. Michel Foucault's praise for the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran (which would have happily decapitated him for being homosexual), and his apologism for it on the grounds that it does not have "the same regime of truth as ours", is a particularly grotesque example. My own favourite from this book, however, is postmodern priestess Luce Irigaray's attack on E=mc2 as a "sexed equation", since "it privileges the speed of light over other less masculine speeds."

SpaceTime

Zamboni wrote: »

Because the majority of the human species are fcuktards.

That can be proven scientifically too!

Valmont

The OP is clearly trying to slap the label of 'anti-science' onto those who do not share his political philosophy but unfortunately every single human being on earth has an individual set of beliefs, biases, and opinions that influence to some extent how they act in relation to what others would consider 'scientific fact' - even the endeavour of science itself is based on a set of metaphysical speculations which were pointed out to the OP in another thread.

You can't talk meaningfully about an 'anti-science' movement until there is some definitive philosophical conclusion about the nature of the scientific method. And the word 'movement' is nonsense as it implies a group of people who share the goal of 'denying' what scientists tell them; in reality we have different groups of people who 'deny' what scientists tell them for religious or moral reasons. The whole thread is a bit of a straw man to be honest.

Paul Feyerabend wrote:

Everywhere science is enriched by unscientific methods and unscientific results, ... the separation of science and non-science is not only artificial but also detrimental to the advancement of knowledge. If we want to understand nature, if we want to master our physical surroundings, then we must use all ideas, all methods, and not just a small selection of them.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

All economic frameworks deny basic arithmetic in the long run

The neoliberal framework is seeing massive wealth consolidation into the pockets of a wealthy elite.
What do the mainstream political parties plan to do about the fact that more and more of the worlds resources are being concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/how-unequal-is-ireland-1.2105668

Akrasia

Valmont wrote: »

The OP is clearly trying to slap the label of 'anti-science' onto those who do not share his political philosophy but unfortunately every single human being on earth has an individual set of beliefs, biases, and opinions that influence to some extent how they act in relation to what others would consider 'scientific fact' - even the endeavour of science itself is based on a set of metaphysical speculations which were pointed out to the OP in another thread.

You can't talk meaningfully about an 'anti-science' movement until there is some definitive philosophical conclusion about the nature of the scientific method. And the word 'movement' is nonsense as it implies a group of people who share the goal of 'denying' what scientists tell them; in reality we have different groups of people who 'deny' what scientists tell them for religious or moral reasons. The whole thread is a bit of a straw man to be honest.

I don't think there are many people out there who would describe themselves as 'anti science'. There are however professional denialists who are paid by certain political, religious and economic interests to front campaigns of misinformation

Climate change denialism is no different to the denialism that accompanied the 'tobacco causes cancer' debate in the 70s. They use almost the same tactics and many of the individuals involved are the same.

The reason why so many people embrace climate change denialism is the same reason they were happy to go along with the tobacco denialists. The science tells us things that we don't want to hear, so we'll happily latch onto any uncertainty that allows us to continue as before

Regarding Vaccine denialism, I blame the media. Every newspaper has lifestyle sections that constantly go on about how 'natural' and 'organic' is best and that these supplements are filled to the brim with half baked advice on detox programs and superfoods and alternative medicine to help people live better lives.

These are billion dollar industries selling overpriced products that make claims verging on false advertising (often with disclaimers nullifying any claims for legal purposes). Part of the way these companies market themselves, is by breeding mistrust in mainstream foods and pharmaceuticals and lifestyles, and by convincing these people that they are in a select group of informed healthy people who are better than the average slob on the street.

ancapailldorcha

Akrasia wrote: »

Regarding Vaccine denialism, I blame the media. Every newspaper has lifestyle sections that constantly go on about how 'natural' and 'organic' is best and that these supplements are filled to the brim with half baked advice on detox programs and superfoods and alternative medicine to help people live better lives.

Yep. Wakefield has buggered off to the US and now has allies like Jenny McCarthy backing him. Now, he's able to play the "Big Pharma and corrupt government tried to silence me but I know the truth" card. It's one the media love as well hence the coverage. The original "study" involved him basically abusing half a dozen children with horrible and unnecessary tests like lumbar punctures. It was so flawed that I'm amazed the Lancet used it for anything other than toilet paper.

Akrasia wrote: »

These are billion dollar industries selling overpriced products that make claims verging on false advertising (often with disclaimers nullifying any claims for legal purposes). Part of the way these companies market themselves, is by breeding mistrust in mainstream foods and pharmaceuticals and lifestyles, and by convincing these people that they are in a select group of informed healthy people who are better than the average slob on the street.

The great thing about supplements is that you don't have to prove they work, just that they are what they say on the box, ie pills with 5mg Zinc must actually contain that amount of Zinc. In the EU, you must prove your ingredients are safe before you can sell 'em. In the US, someone needs to prove they're unsafe. It's insane.

Egginacup

steddyeddy wrote: »

In the last few decades we have made extraordinary advances in science. We can treat diseases more effectively, we know more about our evolutionary past and we know more about the world and universe around us.

Despite this there seems to be an increase in what I call anti-science (I'm open to debate on my labelling), Creationism in some countries is flourishing, measles in America is on the rise, NASA and meteorological agencies around the world have to argue the case for man made climate change and we still have the situation where scientists have to argue that science in itself has value and needs to be funded.

Why is there a growing mistrust of science in developed countries? It would be easy to say religion but I don't think religion plays a part in the climate change or vaccination argument.

It's a lot easier to control people (and make money off of them) if you can control them with fear. And the best way to keep them fearful is to keep them thick.
If science was encouraged more people would become smarter...or at least less dense and clueless and might actually be able to think for themselves and you can't have that. How would you control them, get them to agree to shit that flies in the face of their best interests? How would you get them to not bat an eyelid when you stick a coal-powered electricity plant in their area that will give them all cancer but will make you very wealthy?

No, you have to keep them thick.

KomradeBishop

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The thing is though, you only really need to understand the scientific method (which is straight forward) in order to be able to read through source material and see if the conclusions make sense. I don't really buy the idea that science is too complicated.

Sure, doing science is hard, but understanding how somebody arrived at a conclusion isn't really.

You have actual problems with science itself too though - it seems that even many scientists are not well grounded on when something is/isn't 'science' - even one of the most well respected sciences like physics, has significant problems which put in question, whether a lot of theoretical physics, can really be considered science anymore - as I posted about in another thread: (epistemology being, roughly, peoples beliefs on what knowledge is and how to determine what knowledge is/isn't valid)

This is even a central problem in the most respected/prominent field of science, physics, because (in a field where you'd expect scientists to have a rigorous/solid epistemological belief system) there are massive epistemological problems with the study of string theory.
The central problem with string theory, is that it shows no hope of being tested anytime within the next millennium(!), and shows no hope of any theoretical breakthroughs which may bring it closer to testing - so we have some of the best scientists in the world, working on a theory that (as far as we know) may have no application to reality whatsoever.

There has been a similar problem with economics now too, for a very long time - neoclassical economics is the base of mainstream economic teaching, yet while it has been thoroughly debunked by many people, and does not apply well to the real world, it is still the dominant form of economic thought, and (as a field) it is incredibly resistant to reform, despite plenty of examples of theories which better fit empirical data (which is why economics is known as the 'dismal science').

String theorists do not seem to be aware or accepting of the very simple/basic/obvious criticisms in their field, and how the dominance of string theory is unjustified, and economists likewise, often are not even aware of the deep faults/criticisms in the foundations of neoclassical economics (many aren't even aware that that is what they were taught), and how its dominance is also unjustified.

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Or it's that people can differentiate between individual good and bad actions by a company, instead of having a black/white view (either 'all good' or 'all bad') - and don't accept that "the benefits [] outweigh the drawbacks", as an excuse for giving companies carte blanche to engage in unethical (and often illegal) actions.

We should never stop holding companies to extremely high ethical and legal standards (in the latter case: by not allowing them to be effectively above the law) - and this in no way involves impeding the beneficial effects and progress from companies (it just stops them actively harming the rest of society, on the path to progress).

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As you say in your next sentence: "Do you have any basis for that claim other than your personal opinion?"

Valmont

How do people propose to challenge the anti-science movement as it's been described in this thread? What is at stake and what improvements can we expect? As it stands I don't see any problem with a company selling someone a supplement of questionable nutritious value if that person wants it - is this sort of 'anti-science' even bad? Taking nutrition as an example surely there is considerable disagreement among scientists as to what even constitutes 'nutritious' food? How can one theory be chosen 'scientifically' among others to be promoted by the government? Is this process not always going to become political?

Let's take nutrition as a scientific case study. I live in the UK and the NHS provides scientific advice that if you want to lose weight you should drink low-fat milk and switch to low-fat dairy products (among other things). However, my own empirical study found that eating more full-fat dairy and animal fat (among other things) actually made me healthier and leaner and I lost body-fat. Do my eating habits now make me a 'science-denier'? I point this out only to illustrate how problematic it would be in trying to promote the 'scientifically-supported' was as the only way that can be advertised or promoted legally. So what if some dodgy supplement has no evidence behind it? Technically someone can experience wonderful benefits because the very strong meaning response (formerly the placebo effect).

I just think that 'science-denying' runs the risk of having shoddy science being promulgated only because of the authority of the scientists promoting the ideas. The more opponents of certain theories are tarred and feathered as being 'deniers' (the modern day heretic really) the smaller chance that contrarian scientists may find a new, better theory for some particular phenomena - call it the politicisation of science.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Or it's that people can differentiate between individual good and bad actions by a company, instead of having a black/white view (either 'all good' or 'all bad') - and don't accept that "the benefits [] outweigh the drawbacks", as an excuse for giving companies carte blanche to engage in unethical (and often illegal) actions.

We should never stop holding companies to extremely high ethical and legal standards (in the latter case: by not allowing them to be effectively above the law) - and this in no way involves impeding the beneficial effects and progress from companies (it just stops them actively harming the rest of society, on the path to progress).

A lot of people are well aware of this, it's just the morons and extremists who get attention from the media.

As for holding companies to high standards, when has this happened. Here in the UK, tax evasion is rife and the media have convinced people that the unemployed and immigrants are the real evils in society. Big Pharma companies don't publish studies which show their drugs to be unsafe, ineffective or both. It's not so much that they're above the law, just that their lobbying of politicians fosters an environment conducive to them flourishing.

KomradeBishop

Valmont wrote: »

You can't talk meaningfully about an 'anti-science' movement until there is some definitive philosophical conclusion about the nature of the scientific method. And the word 'movement' is nonsense as it implies a group of people who share the goal of 'denying' what scientists tell them; in reality we have different groups of people who 'deny' what scientists tell them for religious or moral reasons. The whole thread is a bit of a straw man to be honest.

Paul Feyerabend wrote:

Everywhere science is enriched by unscientific methods and unscientific results, ... the separation of science and non-science is not only artificial but also detrimental to the advancement of knowledge. If we want to understand nature, if we want to master our physical surroundings, then we must use all ideas, all methods, and not just a small selection of them.

This is a key tactic of a certain brand of anti-science sophists, who try to pour doubt on science by (as I pointed out in the other thread):
Trying to use specious reasoning to undermine the definition of science itself (and concepts underpinning it), until it can mean pretty much anything anyone wants.

It's a nihilistic form of 'postmodern' philosophising/sophistry, which can be used to attack anything, by trying to render words themselves meaningless, and redirecting debate into semantics - notable proponents of this type of reasoning (like the person quoted in the above post, Paul Feyerabend), have tried to bring astrology and creationism, under the definition of science, and are pretty much just cranks.

steddyeddy

Valmont wrote: »

How do people propose to challenge the anti-science movement as it's been described in this thread? What is at stake and what improvements can we expect? As it stands I don't see any problem with a company selling someone a supplement of questionable nutritious value if that person wants it - is this sort of 'anti-science' even bad? Taking nutrition as an example surely there is considerable disagreement among scientists as to what even constitutes 'nutritious' food? How can one theory be chosen 'scientifically' among others to be promoted by the government? Is this process not always going to become political?

Well first of all an unexplained phenomenon can have many supporting hypothesis. If you apply testing to disprove each hypothesis you should be left with a theory. Can you give me an example of two widely held theories which contradict each other?

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A lot of people are well aware of this, it's just the morons and extremists who get attention from the media.

As for holding companies to high standards, when has this happened. Here in the UK, tax evasion is rife and the media have convinced people that the unemployed and immigrants are the real evils in society. Big Pharma companies don't publish studies which show their drugs to be unsafe, ineffective or both. It's not so much that they're above the law, just that their lobbying of politicians fosters an environment conducive to them flourishing.

Agreed, most people are well aware of that, I was just picking at the black/white simplification in the post I was replying to.

On holding companies to high standards: It's not a statement of how things are, but a statement of how things should be: The principle is that we should never stop pushing for companies being held to higher ethical/legal standards (and the solution to that, should never be: removing all of the legal standards they are currently held to, and 'trusting' them to hold themselves to high standards) - there's a long way to go towards improving this.

Maximus Alexander

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You have actual problems with science itself too though - it seems that even many scientists are not well grounded on when something is/isn't 'science' - even one of the most well respected sciences like physics, has significant problems which put in question, whether a lot of theoretical physics, can really be considered science anymore - as I posted about in another thread: (epistemology being, roughly, peoples beliefs on what knowledge is and how to determine what knowledge is/isn't valid)

This is even a central problem in the most respected/prominent field of science, physics, because (in a field where you'd expect scientists to have a rigorous/solid epistemological belief system) there are massive epistemological problems with the study of string theory.
The central problem with string theory, is that it shows no hope of being tested anytime within the next millennium(!), and shows no hope of any theoretical breakthroughs which may bring it closer to testing - so we have some of the best scientists in the world, working on a theory that (as far as we know) may have no application to reality whatsoever.

There has been a similar problem with economics now too, for a very long time - neoclassical economics is the base of mainstream economic teaching, yet while it has been thoroughly debunked by many people, and does not apply well to the real world, it is still the dominant form of economic thought, and (as a field) it is incredibly resistant to reform, despite plenty of examples of theories which better fit empirical data (which is why economics is known as the 'dismal science').

String theorists do not seem to be aware or accepting of the very simple/basic/obvious criticisms in their field, and how the dominance of string theory is unjustified, and economists likewise, often are not even aware of the deep faults/criticisms in the foundations of neoclassical economics (many aren't even aware that that is what they were taught), and how its dominance is also unjustified.

I agree with you, and string theory is a useful example of what I was talking about. You clearly have doubts about its usefulness, and you don't need to be a theoretical physicist to do so (I mean, you might be one for all I know, but you don't need to be). All it takes is reading about the basis for it to think "Hey, is this even science?" If you've a theory that can predicts everything, it predicts nothing.

On the other hand, I don't think there are a lot of physicists out there who would claim that string theory does explain anything. But you have to go down theoretical roads and see where they lead so that you can find out if there's anything there - that's the way I view string theory.

macker33

Be fair, "science" changes its mind every too minutes

steddyeddy

macker33 wrote: »

Be fair, "science" changes its mind every too minutes

Science doesn't and scientific method doesn't change. Hypothesis change and more rarely theories change.

Maximus Alexander

macker33 wrote: »

Be fair, "science" changes its mind every too minutes

That may be true if you get all of your science through headlines, but rarely is if you read the research. Science is usually pretty clear about what it can and can't say, and what further research needs to be done.