Anti intellectualism directed against science.

[Hans Blaster]

I think these ideologies have permeated into our Institutions and are influencing policies which are dumbing us down or as you say are promoting lies because they want to be seen as politically correct. Its no coincident that those who are complaining about the lies of Western Science are mostly the same identity groups or those supporting the same ideologies.

This is part of post modernism where all the grand narratives including scientific fact is being undermined by alternative ways of knowing which is fueled by the cynicism of people about science itself being the true arbiter of truth.

I'm not a big fan of "post-Modernism" generally, but I am less concerned (by a lot) by Post-Modernism and "Wokism" than I am pre-Modernism.

 

[sfs]

Studies of people are of course different as the subject are, you know, people. There is some serious concern (among others) in experimental psychology that too many studies have been published where all of the subjects were white, middle-class college students and just might not represent the full range of human psychological responses.

Ditto for human genetic studies, which have been heavily focused in certain (obvious) populations.

As for 'wokism' and Harvard... I'm not exactly at Harvard but I'm pretty close(*) and I haven't noticed any trace of scientific standards being relaxed because of politics. There are lots of efforts to make science and academia generally less sexist, racist, and generally inhumane, but I think those are good things.

(*) I work at a research institute affiliated with Harvard, working for two Harvard professors and with a Harvard appointment of my own.

 

[sjastro]

But knowledge of scientific facts are only as good as the standards we set in gaining that knowledge. If the standard if reduced to accommodate politically correct ideology then we are dumbing ourselves down. Those standards are set by universities like Harvard.

What are you going on about?
You don’t get to change scientific terminology to suit your narrative.
A scientific fact is based on empirical evidence not some standard that is chopped and changed.

I look up in the night sky and see that star Alpha Centauri as a single star, if I use a telescope I find it is a binary star, using astrometry to measure the precise position of stars I find Alpha Centauri is in fact a ternary star system.
The advancement of my knowledge of Alpha Centauri is due to empirical evidence and based on the technology I used to make the observations.

Yes I agree that its the scientist that is being anti-intellectual. But I think what is happening in post modernist society is more than just subjective influences on science. Its more about epistemology, how we can know what is a fact in this world. People are questioning the science method is the only way to know facts about the world.

So though science can reveal objective facts about the world but in the context of an all inclusive view of reality (complete theory) people claim they are not the only facts or truth about the world. Now scientific facts are being measured against alternative ways to know reality such as Indigenous knowledge or individual and group truths about reality and now the science is disputed and often giving way to these alternative truths or facts about the world.

In other words its not about disputing scientific facts but disputing that scientific facts are the true facts that constitutes reality. We can see this happening with climate change, gender and transgender ideology, genetics, biology and even physics. Primarily I think about the Hard problem of integrating the subject and observer into the equation. What role and influence they have on the world.

Once again let me reiterate scientific facts are based on empirical evidence.
Your argument doesn't make sense because of your skewed definition of scientific fact.
If scientific facts are subjective then it makes the use of empirical evidence to support a theory or disprove it completely redundant.

Using the Alpha Centauri example a naked eye observation supports the theory of a single star but disproven when alternate technologies are used for the observation.
Science would be rendered completely useless if empirical evidence did not provide a point of reference.

No actually just as I tried to explain above its not about religion though I think post modernist deconstructive ideologies are like religious belief in that they impose beliefs and ideological assumptions about the world as the 'Truth' in how we should order society. For example the idea that there is no fixed nature and we can reconstruct nature in accordance with our ideals of how society or the world for that matter should be ordered. Like how its considered wrong to refer to there being 2 sexes and genders (male and female). That use to be a scientific fact.

I think these ideologies have permeated into our Institutions and are influencing policies which are dumbing us down or as you say are promoting lies because they want to be seen as politically correct. Its no coincident that those who are complaining about the lies of Western Science are mostly the same identity groups or those supporting the same ideologies.

This is part of post modernism where all the grand narratives including scientific fact is being undermined by alternative ways of knowing which is fueled by the cynicism of people about science itself being the true arbiter of truth.

But its a real movement. I'm not saying I agree but these ideologies seem to have weight. They do creep into government and effect policy. They do shut down the facts and truths, close down free speech, spread fake news, emotionally blackmail, distort and misrepresent the facts/truth and it works. Its undermining long held traditions and truths.

There are so many points wrong here, I will only concentrate on your comment about political correctness leading to a dumbing down of science.
The objective of inclusion is to have a student intake for higher education which reflects the demographics of the population.

Women represent 51% of the population but are grossly underrepresented in mathematics and physics due to centuries of gender stereotyping.
Addressing this imbalance is a good thing and will have a positive effect as more women are encouraged to enter these fields.

The end result is people generally are losing their faith in science. There's a high % of junk science presented in peer review which shows the level we have been reduced to. In some ways people are becoming more skeptical of scientists than salesmen.

If you want to make bold claims a high percentage of junk science makes it through peer review I suggest you back it up with evidence.
Peer review is designed is to filter out junk science so you are casting aspersions on the credibility of the reviewers.
What I am seeing is your own anti-intellectualism in action.

 

[SelfSim]

...
You don’t get to change scientific terminology to suit your narrative.
...
Once again let me reiterate scientific facts are based on empirical evidence.
Your argument doesn't make sense because of your skewed definition of scientific fact.
If scientific facts are subjective then it makes the use of empirical evidence to support a theory or disprove it completely redundant.

Totally agree there.

What I see happening so often, is scientific terms used out of the painstakingly researched and evidenced contexts in which they acquire their objective meanings (and impact). Pseudoscientists do this all the time.

Science's overall purpose too, is to be of practical use .. which has nothing to do with the idea that its about 'discovering the truth' .. (the latter of which, is yet another external imposition upon science by pseudoscientists and anti-intellectuals).

There are lots of concepts to keep in mind when making claims about what science is about and what it isn't about .. which is, of course, completely ignored by those attempting to undermine its objectivity.
I often wonder whether its the inability to hold these multiple things in mind, simultaneously, that initiates the whole anti-intellectual mindset(?)

 

[sfs]

Science's overall purpose too, is to be of practical use

Wait -- what? When did that happen and why weren't scientists told about it?

 

[SelfSim]

Wait -- what? When did that happen and why weren't scientists told about it?

Its a secret trap .. deliberately designed to only trigger during peer reviews when/if they've actually produced something of recognisable value.

 

[Halbhh]

Science's overall purpose too, is to be of practical use .. which has nothing to do with the idea that its about 'discovering the truth'

Ah, you have a language usage difference between different people there.

Some will say it's a "truth" that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, not flat, and they definitely are not saying some odd 'pseudoscience'.

Heh, I just searched up an example of Karl Popper using the word "truth" because he explains things well.

It's actually a great quote and a fantastic summary of something I've been trying to get across, but he says it more lucidly.

“Our aim as scientists is objective truth; more truth, more interesting truth, more intelligible truth. We cannot reasonably aim at certainty. Once we realize that human knowledge is fallible, we realize also that we can never be completely certain that we have not made a mistake.” -- Karl Popper

(I didn't see this from Popper before, though perhaps I might have absorbed it from his basic proposition about falsifiability and science. But it's also just evident if you read thousands of science reports -- you can't help but notice this from thousands of science reports over time)

This review has a useful paraphrase/summary:

"Second, while Popper is a realist who holds that scientific theories aim at the truth (see Section 4), he does not think that empirical evidence can ever provide us grounds for believing that a theory is either true or likely to be true."

Popper, Karl: Philosophy of Science | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[SelfSim]

Science's overall purpose too, is to be of practical use ..

So for all those who seem to dispute this, are you folk seriously claiming that reliable, objective predictions are of no practical use and that you see no evidence of objectively formed predictions, with subsequent testing of them, throughout the history of the development of science?

.. which has nothing to do with the idea that its about 'discovering the truth' ..

The closest science ever comes to a concept of 'truth', is never better than its last best tested theory.

If none of the above claims were so, then science would cease to be science and would be about something completely different .. (ie: along the lines of yet another religious pursuit).
I seriously doubt any scientist worth their salt would line up in support of that(?)

This notion that science is 'discovering' things which exist independently from the scientific minds, (minds which have, nonetheless, left abundant evidence that they been intricately involved in all stages of observations/measurements, meticulous definitions on the basis of objectively sourced evidence, collaborations, hypotheses, theories, tests and forming conclusions), might be a belief people seem to like and use as their motivation .. but that motivation/belief forms no part of the end predictive conclusions resulting from the scientific method. It never makes an appearance in properly formed conclusions.
There are also other initial motivations/beliefs possible, which can just as easily be used in initiating the process, yet the same end conclusive predictions will still result, provided the method is consistently applied.

This is all part of what distinguishes the intellectual pursuit of science from the other way .. ie: the belief based way. One only has to look at history to see how impractical predictions based on those premises, have ended up.

 

[stevevw]

What are you going on about?
You don’t get to change scientific terminology to suit your narrative.
A scientific fact is based on empirical evidence not some standard that is chopped and changed.

I look up in the night sky and see that star Alpha Centauri as a single star, if I use a telescope I find it is a binary star, using astrometry to measure the precise position of stars I find Alpha Centauri is in fact a ternary star system.
The advancement of my knowledge of Alpha Centauri is due to empirical evidence and based on the technology I used to make the observations.

You missed the point. I am not disputing scientific facts. I am saying that universities are lowering the qualification levels of science based courses due to political correctness. In doing so they are reducing the overall level of knowledge and dumbing things down.

Once again let me reiterate scientific facts are based on empirical evidence.
Your argument doesn't make sense because of your skewed definition of scientific fact.
If scientific facts are subjective then it makes the use of empirical evidence to support a theory or disprove it completely redundant.

Not completely redundant but viewed with suspicion and skepticism. Its not so much the obvious facts which we can observe in front of our eyes and measure. Though people are still disputing some. There are many so called scientific facts that are not so obvious especially in the social sciences. But even in the hard sciences people are dubious because there is often more than one interpretation of the evidence. Look at QM for example. Science findings are also often wrong. What is a so called fact 10 or 20 years ago is no longer. So what may be a fact today may not tomorrow.

Many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong

There has been a lot of poor and even false results in science due to bias and poor standards. This has caused people especially those with an agenda to dispute science facts. Throw enough fake facts out there are people begin to believe just about anything. So its a wonder people have become skeptical of science.

So these ideological groups dismiss the science and come up with their own version of facts and truths. I think this is the result of a post modernist society where the broad idea is that there are no absolute facts or truths in the world. Everything is open to interpretation. if you notice the main dispute about scientists and peer review being biased is about the subjective creeping into science.

Expert bias in peer review
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1185/03007995.2011.624090

The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts are losing their truth. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/is-the-scientific-method-seriously-flawed/

Using the Alpha Centauri example a naked eye observation supports the theory of a single star but disproven when alternate technologies are used for the observation.
Science would be rendered completely useless if empirical evidence did not provide a point of reference.

Yes I agree its hard to dispute. But its a bit like the Flat Earthers or conspiracy theorists who still believe they are right and that the science is wrong. Now there is a growing number of ideologies as mentioned that think the same due to political correctness. If any science disagrees with their beliefs it is disputed and alternative facts are provided. For a lot of science there is no clear facts. Science is not about facts but rather best guesses subject to verification and much is not verified but tentative or has conflicting data which puts so called facts on shaky ground.

There are so many points wrong here, I will only concentrate on your comment about political correctness leading to a dumbing down of science.
The objective of inclusion is to have a student intake for higher education which reflects the demographics of the population.

Women represent 51% of the population but are grossly underrepresented in mathematics and physics due to centuries of gender stereotyping.
Addressing this imbalance is a good thing and will have a positive effect as more women are encouraged to enter these fields.

Yes I agree its a good thing but not when its achieved by lowering the overall level of qualification and thus knowledge to achieve this. As mentioned universities like Harvard are lowering the accreditation in subjects like math to accommodate inclusiveness.

Not even mathematics, the most rigorous and least ideological of the STEM disciplines, is unscathed. Harvard’s math department is currently implementing suggestions from last year’s town hall concerning “diversity and anti-oppression.” It is suggested to no longer require the GRE for graduate admissions, and, shockingly, to “reform Math 55 culture and content” for the sake of “promoting equity.”

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/06/30/is_harvard_sacrificing_science_to_wokeness_783577.html

If you want to make bold claims a high percentage of junk science makes it through peer review I suggest you back it up with evidence.
Peer review is designed is to filter out junk science so you are casting aspersions on the credibility of the reviewers.
What I am seeing is your own anti-intellectualism in action.

Ideally that should be the case. But being humans involved its hared to take the bias out and other peer pressure associated with funding and reputation.

Believe It Or Not, Most Published Research Findings Are Probably False
Ten years ago, a researcher claimed most published research findings are false; now a decade later, his claim is stronger than ever before.

Believe It Or Not, Most Published Research Findings Are Probably False

Ten years ago, a researcher claimed most published research findings are false; now a decade later, his claim is stronger than ever before. How can this be?

bigthink.com

Is the scientific method seriously flawed?
The peer review process is flawed. Peer review is ultimately tilted to positive results.
Publication bias. Journals and scientists aim for being statistically significant and this leads everyone aiming for positive results.
Selective reporting. Researchers may make subtle omissions and misperceptions as they try and explain their results. Scientists look for ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/is-the-scientific-method-seriously-flawed/

 

[stevevw]

I'm not a big fan of "post-Modernism" generally, but I am less concerned (by a lot) by Post-Modernism and "Wokism" than I am pre-Modernism.

I think its a big problem. Big enough to undermine long held truths even in science. The idea that there are no grand narratives and everything is up for interpretation and that the only true interpretation comes from the individual or group the individual belongs is a concern because truths get turned into lies and then we don't know what's up or down anymore. That just caters to crazies coming out of the wood work and not just through religion.

That is the difference with post modernist ideologies they are like religion yet seem as mainstream so can be more acceptable by mainstream society on the surface. After all its all about equality and inclusiveness so it must be good. But that's just a guise for almost religious like ideas to be enforced on society in how we should be ordered.

The rise of post modernist ideologies is the result of a perceive disempowerment by Western colonialist nations who often used science and knowledge as the basis for their ordering of society. Now that's being rejected as an oppressive regime in favor of a new ideology of alternative knowledge and interpretations that seeks to dismantles Western ideas including economics, language, science and tech.

 

[sfs]

So for all those who seem to dispute this, are you folk seriously claiming that reliable, objective predictions are of no practical use and that you see no evidence of objectively formed predictions, with subsequent testing of them, throughout the history of the development of science?

No, not at all. Why would you ask that? Can you not see the difference between 'The purpose of science is to be useful' and 'The purpose of science is to create accurate models of physical phenomena. Some of those models will turn out to be useful'?

 

[Hans Blaster]

[On post-modernism/wokeism, you wrote:]

I think its a big problem.

And based on your response, I can not see that you possess any real insight into the progress or practice of science. You keep talking about "truth" ...

Big enough to undermine long held truths even in science.

Given the way you use the word "truths" (and I'm almost surprised you didn't capitalize it), then I don't think it is a word I want to use. In science we deal with evidence, facts, and explanitory frameworks. These "truths" of the notion you seem to be mentioning are philosophy and despite having the word appear on my CV, I don't do "philosophy" nor do I care about it.

The idea that there are no grand narratives and everything is up for interpretation and that the only true interpretation comes from the individual or group the individual belongs is a concern because truths get turned into lies and then we don't know what's up or down anymore. That just caters to crazies coming out of the wood work and not just through religion.

I'm not sure what "grand narratives" have to do with this. We use "theories" instead. Scientific interpretation has to do with evidence.

That is the difference with post modernist ideologies they are like religion yet seem as mainstream so can be more acceptable by mainstream society on the surface.

Perhaps (I would argue) society should reject both.

After all its all about equality and inclusiveness so it must be good. But that's just a guise for almost religious like ideas to be enforced on society in how we should be ordered.

And what exactly is wrong with diversity and inclusiveness? I never get any satisfactory answers. In education these things are about literacy -- becoming scientifically (or mathematically) literate. It is a good thing for more students to get educated and if the style of teaching doesn't match the students learning styles or the examples and content make the students feel excluded, the learn less. (That's bad by the way.)

Let me give you an example: Newtonian mechanics. It's pretty basic as science goes, but many traditional teaching methods and examples focus on applying the simple machines only to large machines (cars, trucks, rockets, cranes). This can be a turn off to students who aren't intl large machines and like it or not, female students are less (collectively) into large machines than male students. This can reduce the interest of some students in the course and its content and in this case impacts female students more acutely. The last time I taught that class I didn't have the time or resources to replace all of the car examples adequately, but I did chose and craft examples that covered aspects of driving we all need to know like how friction allows us to drive (and especially turn), what goes wrong on slippery roads, and car-pedestrian collisions.

Some of the "equity" parts are about not treating out groups as subjects of research. Negotiating to place research stations on their sacred mountains, respecting the bones of their ancestors, not using them as source material for genetic testing, etc.

This is what you will see if you actually read those articles you keep posting and stop viewing them as an assault on your cultural position.

The rise of post modernist ideologies is the result of a perceive disempowerment by Western colonialist nations who often used science and knowledge as the basis for their ordering of society. Now that's being rejected as an oppressive regime in favor of a new ideology of alternative knowledge and interpretations that seeks to dismantles Western ideas including economics, language, science and tech.

I think you've picked the wrong thread/board for this fight. Don't go fighting against "post-modernism" on behalf of science. WE DON'T WANT YOUR HELP.

 

[SelfSim]

No, not at all. Why would you ask that?

Just trying to correct any misunderstandings I might have had about the apparent surprise about science's track record of practicality.
I'm happy that we seem to be in general agreement.

Can you not see the difference between 'The purpose of science is to be useful' and 'The purpose of science is to create accurate models of physical phenomena. Some of those models will turn out to be useful'?

Sure .. although I couldn't think of a good example where an accurate scientific model wasn't, (or couldn't), be used for practical use .. until I remembered the mighty Ig Nobel Prize Awards .. but the satire/parody there, I think, serves a very practical purpose, no(?)

 

[sfs]

Sure .. although I couldn't think of a good example where an accurate scientific model wasn't, (or couldn't), be used for practical use

The Standard Model? The Big Bang? Black holes?

 

[sjastro]

You missed the point. I am not disputing scientific facts. I am saying that universities are lowering the qualification levels of science based courses due to political correctness. In doing so they are reducing the overall level of knowledge and dumbing things down.

Your posts have made it perfectly clear you think scientific facts are subjective and can vary from person to person.

Not completely redundant but viewed with suspicion and skepticism. Its not so much the obvious facts which we can observe in front of our eyes and measure. Though people are still disputing some. There are many so called scientific facts that are not so obvious especially in the social sciences. But even in the hard sciences people are dubious because there is often more than one interpretation of the evidence. Look at QM for example. Science findings are also often wrong. What is a so called fact 10 or 20 years ago is no longer. So what may be a fact today may not tomorrow.

Many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong

There has been a lot of poor and even false results in science due to bias and poor standards. This has caused people especially those with an agenda to dispute science facts. Throw enough fake facts out there are people begin to believe just about anything. So its a wonder people have become skeptical of science.

So these ideological groups dismiss the science and come up with their own version of facts and truths. I think this is the result of a post modernist society where the broad idea is that there are no absolute facts or truths in the world. Everything is open to interpretation. if you notice the main dispute about scientists and peer review being biased is about the subjective creeping into science.

Expert bias in peer review
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1185/03007995.2011.624090

The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts are losing their truth. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/is-the-scientific-method-seriously-flawed/

Yes I agree its hard to dispute. But its a bit like the Flat Earthers or conspiracy theorists who still believe they are right and that the science is wrong. Now there is a growing number of ideologies as mentioned that think the same due to political correctness. If any science disagrees with their beliefs it is disputed and alternative facts are provided. For a lot of science there is no clear facts. Science is not about facts but rather best guesses subject to verification and much is not verified but tentative or has conflicting data which puts so called facts on shaky ground.

What game are you playing?
Are you seriously suggesting there is an intellectual content to anti-intellectualism such as post modernism or is this simply a smokescreen for your own anti-science based agenda?
It's no coincidence the links you throw up probably reflect your own views on science as well as a post modernistic reaction against science.

The facts are individuals like yourself and anti-intellectuals engage in confirmation bias where the internet provides a ready made source to support any anti-science idea.

Yes I agree its a good thing but not when its achieved by lowering the overall level of qualification and thus knowledge to achieve this. As mentioned universities like Harvard are lowering the accreditation in subjects like math to accommodate inclusiveness.

Not even mathematics, the most rigorous and least ideological of the STEM disciplines, is unscathed. Harvard’s math department is currently implementing suggestions from last year’s town hall concerning “diversity and anti-oppression.” It is suggested to no longer require the GRE for graduate admissions, and, shockingly, to “reform Math 55 culture and content” for the sake of “promoting equity.”

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/06/30/is_harvard_sacrificing_science_to_wokeness_783577.html

You don’t seem to understand it is what comes out of the other end of the tertiary education system which counts.
What makes you think lowering the entrance requirements for students will automatically result in a production line of dumbed down postgraduate qualified scientists?
In Australia to qualify to do a PhD requires a first class or second class 2A honours degree irrespective of the number of undergraduates who go on to an honours degree.

Ideally that should be the case. But being humans involved its hared to take the bias out and other peer pressure associated with funding and reputation.

Believe It Or Not, Most Published Research Findings Are Probably False
Ten years ago, a researcher claimed most published research findings are false; now a decade later, his claim is stronger than ever before.

Believe It Or Not, Most Published Research Findings Are Probably False

Ten years ago, a researcher claimed most published research findings are false; now a decade later, his claim is stronger than ever before. How can this be?

bigthink.com

Is the scientific method seriously flawed?
The peer review process is flawed. Peer review is ultimately tilted to positive results.
Publication bias. Journals and scientists aim for being statistically significant and this leads everyone aiming for positive results.
Selective reporting. Researchers may make subtle omissions and misperceptions as they try and explain their results. Scientists look for ways to confirm their preferred hypothesis.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/is-the-scientific-method-seriously-flawed/

You made the claim there is a high percentage of junk science in peer review.
By definition junk science is fraudulent and none of your links indicates fraud is rife in science.

 

[SelfSim]

The Standard Model? The Big Bang? Black holes?

?

 

[Hans Blaster]

In Australia to qualify to do a PhD requires a first class or second class 2A honours degree

I was with you, but then you started talking gibberish.

 

[sjastro]

I was with you, but then you started talking gibberish.

A Complete Guide: Australian Grading System Explained | Study in Australia - Information Website for International Students - Overseas Students Australia

In this guide, we explain about the Australian grading system at various education levels including primary, secondary, vocational education and tertiary education.

overseasstudentsaustralia.com

 

[SelfSim]

The Standard Model? The Big Bang? Black holes?

?

Sanity check request, (my sanity that is):
Am I all alone in thinking the Standard Model, the Standard Cosmological Model and Black Hole model(s) are of practical use?

 

[sfs]

Am I all alone in thinking the Standard Model, the Standard Cosmological Model and Black Hole model(s) are of practical use?

Pretty much, yeah.