Anti intellectualism directed against science.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I see - rather than being in the imagination, God is the imagination...

Fair enough; as Shakespeare said, "What's in a name?"

 

[sjastro]

The last few posts were about teaching not preaching.
The words might rhyme but they are not the same.

 

[sjastro]

The spread of COVID-19 is a good example of the destructive effects of anti-intellectualism.
The video has become rapidly out of date but is still a poignant example.

 

[SelfSim]

The spread of COVID-19 is a good example of the destructive effects of anti-intellectualism.
The video has become rapidly out of date but is still a poignant example.

The people shown in that video have chosen ignorance as their way of life because they've never held positions of community responsibility, or have never accepted such responsibilities. Such responsibilities force the development of the intellect.

It takes intellect to devise strategic approaches to community-wide problems.

Such problems can't be solved by having a penchant for carrying concealed weapons.

 

[Astrid]

Nothing wrong with science trying to reverse engineer God. What is bad is science shooting itself in the foot by rallying for (more often) or against that which is only theory and not established fact. Sometimes it is better to go back to the beginning and start fresh.

Science does not do facts.

 

[sjastro]

The people shown in that video have chosen ignorance as their way of life because they've never held positions of community responsibility, or have never accepted such responsibilities. Such responsibilities force the development of the intellect.

It takes intellect to devise strategic approaches to community-wide problems.

Such problems can't be solved by having a penchant for carrying concealed weapons.

In a paradoxical way ignorant people are exercising a crude form of intellectualization through making a choice of either accepting the science or the non scientific arguments.

Accepting the science through understanding is a lot harder than not having to tax one's brains and relying on personal bias and bigotry when choosing non scientific arguments.

 

[Astrid]

Our lakes are a weedy, algae filled, stinky mess. Scientist earn $billions 'studying' the lakes for the purpose of 'cleaning them up'. However, they get worse all the time, and the scientists laugh all the way to the bank.

Thanks to the social scientists our society is also a mess. Almost all of the recommendations they make worsen the problems.

Doctors make a fortune from the illnesses of society and have little desire to change that. There's also a rich harvest for them treating the side effects of the drugs they prescribe. The nation's health is in the toilet. I was in school for 12 years and never had a 'health lecture' from a doctor (school is where you go to learn useful things).

Law enforcement is a social science as well and it's a mess. No need to elaborate on that.

I heard that all those megachirch preachers are pure honesty
and holiness.

 

[SelfSim]

Science does not do facts.

Sure it does .. Consistent, repeatable, independently verifiable empirical laws, for instance, are regarded as being scientific facts, no?

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'facts'?

 

[SelfSim]

In a paradoxical way ignorant people are exercising a crude form of intellectualization through making a choice of either accepting the science or the non scientific arguments.

Interestingly, those people are often very quick to use their 'crude intellectualizations' to then put down others they don't consider as being up to their own levels, too.

I find the more 'intellectual' I get however, the more I recognise my own shortfalls in 'intellect'!

Accepting the science through understanding is a lot harder than not having to tax one's brains and relying on personal bias and bigotry when choosing non scientific arguments.

Perhaps scientific thinkers need to do a better job in letting others know just how much effort and stuggle is sometimes required in forming their own scientific arguments, whilst also attempting to remove personal biases(?)

 

[Astrid]

Sure it does .. Consistent, repeatable, independently verifiable empirical laws, for instance, are regarded as being scientific facts, no?

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'facts'?

Not in science it doesnt.

Pop science, news papers etc use the word for reasons
of convenience and / or ignorance.
A law isn't a fact, its a law. Provisional.
Degree of confidence, probabilities.
A law can never be established as a fact for the simple reason
that you cannot run every test
Likewise a theory could always have an exception.
Impossible to PROVE, another word that is not a
part of science

A scientist may well have good data, but he is ill advised
to use the word "fact" beyond " its a fact that this is my data".

Surely you know this, so I'm putting in detail for
those who don't.

For more in depth, try oh, maybe "does science do facts"
Several articles will flesh out what I said.

Don't do ' 20 science fun facts" or the like. ;D

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I heard that all those megachirch preachers are pure honesty
and holiness.

You heard wrong.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Interestingly, those people are often very quick to use their 'crude intellectualizations' to then put down others they don't consider as being up to their own levels, too.

I find the more 'intellectual' I get however, the more I recognise my own shortfalls in 'intellect'!

Perhaps scientific thinkers need to do a better job in letting others know just how much effort and stuggle is sometimes required in forming their own scientific arguments, whilst also attempting to remove personal biases(?)

Yabut at some point you gotta stop thinking and start acting (most problems don't require all that much thought).

 

[SelfSim]

Not in science it doesnt.

Pop science, news papers etc use the word for reasons of convenience and / or ignorance. A law isn't a fact, its a law.

The statement: 'The Sun is a star', is as much an (astronomical) fact as any other 'fact' I could imagine. The statement is devoid of belief .. each term is operationally defined, and the verb 'is' then confers scientific objective reality.

There are other things to say about this, but this thread is about anti-intellectualism directed at science.

 

[SelfSim]

Yabut at some point you gotta stop thinking ..

Not possible for humans.

.. most problems don't require all that much thought.

All problem solving requires thought.

The only difference between the two views there is that in one instance, thinking is not distinguished (but still evident) and in the other instance, it is.

 

[Astrid]

The statement: 'The Sun is a star', is as much an (astronomical) fact as any other 'fact' I could imagine. The statement is devoid of belief .. each term is operationally defined, and the verb 'is' then confers scientific objective reality.

There are other things to say about this, but this thread is about anti-intellectualism directed at science.

If you feel that science has proved the sun is a star,
you've a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of
science as one or more of the linked articles explain
in more detail than I did.

Our creationists and other anti science sorts frequently
highlight a complaint about ToE being taught as a fact
when its " just" a theory. Before they go on to
identify more and more misconceptions, as of course
seen in this thread.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All problem solving requires thought.

Of course, but it must be integrated with action. Science proposes, but government too often doesn't dispose.

 

[SelfSim]

If you feel that science has proved the sun is a star, you've a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science ..

Either that, or you have adopted a fixed (absolute) meaning of 'fact' .. in this case, that 'a fact' is something which must acquire its meaning by some process of 'proof', (which I agree, is not what the scientific process does).

So, .. where 'prove' has no meaning in science, then it would be inconsistent to use this as the criteria for distinguishing a 'fact' in science (as you seem to require).

The meaning of 'fact' within the context of science, would be something like the existing set of data produced by testing some theory. This data then establishes the baseline for comparisons with any predictions made from that theory.

Our creationists and other anti science sorts frequently highlight a complaint about ToE being taught as a fact when its " just" a theory. Before they go on to identify more and more misconceptions, as of course seen in this thread.

Sure. They are then confusing science's meaning of 'theory' with the everyday meaning of that term.
See, if there's anything we can draw from Relativity its that 'truth' (or 'facts') are context (or observer) dependent. When 'fact' is used in science, it means something other than the proof concept, (which you have assumed above), is at play.
Proof is used in mathematics however, as it assumes the truth of its posits. Science doesn't work that way .. it works by inference and nothing is just assumed .. its all tested, or testable.

 

[SelfSim]

Of course, but it must be integrated with action. Science proposes, but government too often doesn't dispose.

Science doesn't just 'propose' .. it tests its ideas (or solutions).
I'd call that a deliberate action, yes?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science doesn't just 'propose' .. it tests its ideas (or solutions).
I'd call that a deliberate action, yes?

I meant that science proposes solutions, but leaves it up to others to implement those solutions.

 

[SelfSim]

I meant that science proposes solutions, but leaves it up to others to implement those solutions.

Cut to the chase .. you are referring to a specific instance .. climate change perhaps?
Generalisation from a specific case like that is just hyperbolizing.