Slashdot Mirror
The Encroachment of Fact-Free Science
G3ckoG33k writes "Fact-free science is not a joke; it is very much on the move, and it is quite possibly the most dangerous movement in centuries, for the entirety of mankind. One can say it began as counter-movement to Karl Popper's ground-breaking proposals in the early 20th century, which insisted that statements purporting to describe the reality should be made falsifiable. A few decades later, some critics of Popper said that statements need peer acceptance, which then makes also natural science a social phenomenon. Even later, in 1996, professor Alan Sokal submitted a famous article ridiculing the entire anti-science movement. Now New York Times has an article describing the latest chilling acts of the socially relativistic, postmodern loons. It is a chilling read, and they may be swinging both the political left and right. Have they been successful in transforming the world yet? How would we know?"
The problem is not that someone is ignorant, it's that people who are ignorant and unqualified to make any decisions, make those decisions based entirely on ideology, and present their ideologically-inspired beliefs as "truth".
What, I guess, is a step up from doing the same with religion instead of political ideology (hi, "pro-lifers" and evolution deniers), but not by much.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
When I think about about fact free science...
What's up with this box everyone has to think inside of or outside of? Why does there have to be a box?
I love how the article is equally fact-free, but makes sure to include several opinion polls.
Let's agree not to call this a "Republican" or "Democratic" position. The problem is that there are adherents to scientific claims who don't know the truth on both sides. I don't claim to know much about climate science, evolution, natural history or reproductive biology. So me claiming a "scientific" position on global warming, creationism, evolution or abortion is to some extent who I want to have faith in. Generally I choose respected scientists, but its still faith on my part because I haven't done the research myself.
It most certainly is a Republican/Democrat position. The difference is that Republicans who don't understand something dismiss is altogether, while OTOH as the Sokal incident pointed out, some Democrats held too much faith in scientists. I would hope that, in matters of science, politicians have more faith in scientists and in, say, religion. I mean, this is pretty chilling.
As John Shimkus of Illinois, who also sits on the [House Energy and Commerce Committee]— as well as on the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment — has said that the government doesn’t need to make a priority of regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, because as he put it late last year, “God said the earth would not be destroyed by a flood.”
This kind of ignorance is dangerous and baffling. It's not as if he's arguing against anthropogenic global warming using science. Hell, maybe he believes in global warming and that it really is man-made. But he refuses to accept what will happen because the Bible says otherwise. What. The. Fuck.
Let's agree not to call this a "Republican" or "Democratic" position.
Have you read the article? It clearly states that the vast majority of Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates are against global warming. So, yes, this is clearly, first and foremost, a "Republican" problems -- though I'll be the first to admit Democratic politicians also trade in "woo".
So me claiming a "scientific" position on global warming, creationism, evolution or abortion is to some extent who I want to have faith in.
First of all, how can you have a scientific position on abortion? It's a moral issue, not a scientific one.
Second, Abortion is pretty much a clear-cut case: the vast majority of abortions take place while the foetus is several millimeters long. They are not human beings, don't even have a brain let alone pain centers, and don't even remotely look like a child. You may still be against abortion -- and I am even willing to admit there is a moral component to this -- but it definitely require a bit more than the fuzzy statement given above.
Third, evolution is also pretty much a clear-cut case: we have evidence of evolution happening right now, under our very noses. Evolution has been proven true, again and again, since Darmin formulated it in the 19th century, and only the brainwashed religious masses still contest it. There are even 'sophisticated' theologians who are perfectly willing to admit that evolution and the existence of God are perfectly compatible, for Pete sake!
Fourth, pretty much everything I said about evolution is also true about global warming: this is not a scientific problem: it is a political problem and a problem of corporate propaganda (meaning: there are some very very rich, powerful and influential people who still want to pollute unhindered by rules and regulations). Period.
Generally I choose respected scientists, but its still faith on my part because I haven't done the research myself.
No, you are just propagating Republican talking points. if you have nothing to offer to this discussion, please, by all means remain silent and let other debate with more ideas and facts on both sides.
There, i have finished my rant, feel free to mod me down to the center of the Earth...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Because there is a huge amount of evidence available to even a casual observer, and the opposition has no answer that is even remotely convincing. This is not a statement of faith, this is a statement of reason. To deny that this position is the correct one is to deny that there is any such thing as truth or reason and that we might as well give up trying.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
There is a problem with ideology being thrust into issues that are not ideological. Which is why I found it a bit strange you lump "pro-lifers" in with people who deny evolution. Doctors and other qualified medical people are not entirely on one side of the abortion debate. And it is often the case where two people can be well-informed on reproductive biology and still arrive at different positions on the issue.
This is because abortion is fundamentally an ideological issue, incorporating morality, reproductive freedom, and value of life. Which is wholly different from taking an ideological stance on an issue that is not at all ideological, like evolution. In contrast to abortion, with evolution it is very rare for two people who are well-informed of the facts to arrive at different positions on the issue.
So while I agree with you that ideology does get thrust into situations where it should not be, the reverse of that; taking an ideological issue and demanding that it be evaluated purely on scientific grounds, is equally problematic.
See my reply to the GP below. Then please tell me, why do you believe in evolution?
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention -- one is presented as plausible explanation with evidence, and another is "believe in what I said, or my imaginary friend will tell my imaginary enemy to burn you in hell after you die!".
If I was a biologist, I would be qualified to analyze the evidence deeper and in more details, however being merely an educated person capable of thinking, I have to do with this.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Professor David Nutt uses science in a paper against prohibition of drugs, and is fired the next day. Article from 2009
Popular opinion and straw men are the new trusted sources of facts, guys! Science and statistical analysis are for fringe nutjobs and quacks!
That's the whole idea of the scientific process, though, in that being wrong drives change. The fact that we've "so often been wrong" I think proves the process works: someone publishes a paper, others peer review it and find it ok but with a few nagging yellow flags, other independent labs perform the same experiment and publish different results, consensus breaks down and alternate, more feasible theories are produced instead. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Also, as a student in research who only just had his first-ever paper accepted and published, I'd have to say your blanket statement about the "most powerful clique" ensuring their papers get published and "no one else"s is patently false. There are always going to be bad apples in research, just like any other field, but that doesn't make the whole process broken.
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
If your idea of a "not completely decided science" is one in which we "get new information daily" then there is no completely decided science. I haven't seen any information contrary to the hypothesis of AGW. I see lots of claims of this evidence, just like I see lots of claims that evolution is not how the variety of species came to be, or claims that the theory of relativity is all wrong. These are all examples of "fact-free science", in that they do not involve scientific evidence. What scientific evidence contrary to AGW do you think you've seen?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
That's why it is unwise to simply accept big subjects with many parts, like evolution, as true and inerrant. You wind up believing work from a scientist who may or may not have exhaustively researched the work, combined with many others, and accepting it all without question since it sounds reasonable and either agrees with your assumptions, or disagrees with a belief you dislike.
I'll take the word of a scientist who may or may not have exhaustively researched the work above that of a random guy who most certainly has not done any research at all.
The reason science requires theories to be falsifiable is exactly because scientists know they will never ever get to 100% truth. By making sure everything is falsifiable, atleast they can be certain that they get closer to the truth every time a theory is disproven.
"The whole truth" is a holy grail that'll never be attained, but a good model that can predict reality closely is a pretty good substitute.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Don't worry, this is Slashdot. You're among friends.
It's really not strange to lump pro-lifers in with those anti-science nutters. They frequently take the position that a fetus is a person complete with all that entails and that a fetus exists from conception. Such a clumping of cells isn't any more a person than that wart I had removed was.
A person is entitled to have an opinion on that issue, but rewriting our knowledge to suit somebody that's probably too stupid to recognize that IVF results in far more embryos being disposed of than abortion on a per instance basis.
Yes there are bozos out there who push their illogical political. views. There always have been. And some people want to deny science and/or critical thinking, to push a political agenda.
But I do not see where this is impacting actual scientific research.
This article is a liberal democrat biased "news" source, trying to smear the republicans. I am not repub myself, and I am not trying to defend the repubs. But, to say this article is shallow, and biased, would be understatements.
but we can attribute those periods to natural phenomenon not as influential during out current warming trend, while we can also show evidence that man made phenomenon are most likely the cause of the current trend which is rising MUCH faster than the ones you cited.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
it's like believing that the earth is flat, which was widely held by even scientists centuries ago.
No, it wasn't. That's a fallacy.
"There never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology." -- Stephen Jay Gould
Reference: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/WS06/pmo/eng/Gould-FlatEarth.pdf
This is not even a thinly disguised attack piece. Yet another "if you don't subscribe to the current global warming facts you are an idiot" . As in, there is no room for debate, it has been decided, any contrary view is automatically wrong. Any discussion which does not state full agreement is wrong. Any facts not in the approved list are wrong.
I don't like the article either, it casts aspersions and doesn't say much. However, I don't like your comment either.
If you don't subscribe to the current facts, then you are an idiot.
Global warming is happening. We have hard evidence that the global average surface temperature of the earth has risen between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees C in the past 100 years, and that the majority of this increase can be attributed to human activity.
This has been under sustained scrutiny for years, and while there have been plenty of improvements in the accuracy, nobody has provided credible evidence that the contrary is true; that AST is not increasing, or that its not primarily attributable to human activity.
You are free to debate what we should do about it, you're free to model what you think the localised effects of global AST increase will be, you're free to critique the methodology used for data collection, you're even free to throw out the "conclusions" section of any paper and come up with your own conclusions based on the same facts. You're just not free to make up your own "facts".
Does my bum look big in this?
Can someone tell me how the same people who believe that pumping tons of smoke into the air and pouring millions of gallons of oil into the ocean has no effect on the environment and that the Earth is 6000 years old, are willing to buy off on at least basic atomic theory? Is it because the atomic theory gives them weapons?
This kind of ignorance is dangerous and baffling. It's not as if he's arguing against anthropogenic global warming using science. Hell, maybe he believes in global warming and that it really is man-made. But he refuses to accept what will happen because the Bible says otherwise. What. The. Fuck.
He actually misunderstands the scripture he references. God says "never again will I curse the earth because of man...". This entirely precludes man himself doing it.
Have they been successful in transforming the world?
Anti-intellectualism, anti-science, or anti-whatever-else has been prevalent in at least the United States for a very, very long time. And it starts when you're very young.
I remember being in school, in first grade. I was smarter than a lot of other kids in my class, and because of that I was ostracized. I wasn't allowed to be an intellectual; stupidity was celebrated. Acts of buffoonery were promoted and lauded.
Is it any coincidence why the most socially-outgoing people, in the history of K-12, are typically *not* the intellectuals? The "nerds" and "geeks" are always kept from ever rising above the "jocks" on the social ladder.
When you make it to college/university, it doesn't change very much. The nerds are at least not the brunt of jokes, and they're allowed to sit in the science and engineering buildings well into the night, silently doing their nerdy sciency and engineery things.
But the loud ones -- in sports, and poli-sci -- are still the non-intellectuals of the high school years. And these are the ones who grow up to be politicians.
So when articles like this act surprised that the majority of the government is filled with anti-elitist and anti-intellectuals, I have to wonder – were they paying attention any, growing up? This sort of conditioning –letting people know that being smart is NOT COOL – starts from a very young age.
But these people became successful? So they must be smart, right? Oh, if only. It's not about what you know, but rather about who you know. Nerds don't really socialize; we focus on our work, because that makes us happy. The others schmooze and network like crazy, with like-minded anti-science colleagues, who later become leaders, while we're the ones left wondering where the world is heading.
They become rich and powerful, and spread their ideas to the next generation. Of course, not all of them are successful. Many of them are not. Many of them remained dumb because they didn't realize the importance of knowledge, since it was ingrained to them from a very early age to think that knowledge and intellect are ELITIST and UNCOOL. And so they raise their kids that same way.
And we're back to square one.
I've experienced this first hand, and I am sure many have here as well.
It sucks; it's terrible. It shouldn't be like this. But it is. And I really have no idea what to do to stop it, but the article is right about one thing – it's terribly dangerous.
We are constantly dismiss non-probably events like invisible leprechauns hidden in the server room. Yet when it comes to your "invisible dad in the sky who gives eternal life" suddenly we're all concerned about the possibility. Biased much? Humans use a mechanism like Occam's razor constantly and its philosophically defensible.
Its very, very, very likely that the magical beings described in 1st century Jewish writings aren't real. The same way its very, very likely that Gandalf doesn't exist.
God does not exist because you can't prove it and the ONUS OF PROOF IS ON YOU. You're making an extraordianry claim with ZERO EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. Everytime we look into the validity of miracles or other religious claims we see nothing but falsehoods. Get over it. If you accept god(s), then you must accept all fictional beings including Gandalf and Arthur Dent.
i would imagine that his libertarian viewpoint informs him that while he has come to that conclusion, reasonable people may possibly disagree. since he acknowledges that his conclusion is a philosophical one, and his ideology values individuality and independence, then it is not necessarily logical to make abortion illegal even though the individual is opposed to abortions.
This is in fact one essential pillar of pro-choice that people forget. one can be opposed to abortion itself and still be pro-choice. for example, if one believes that the individual, and not the state, is most qualified to wrestle with such fundamental philosophical questions.
i could live a little longer in this prison
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations?
What, you have a third explanation?
Note that he mentioned AVAILABLE explanations, not possible conjectures. You are welcome to create a new explanation for biological diversity and present credible evidence for that, please!
on Slashdot where people can completely lose their claimed open-mindedness.
Being open-minded does not mean the same as being feeble-minded. The fact is that science progresses towards the truth, even if the absolute truth may never be reached.
Being open-minded does not mean one should reject all the facts that have already been discovered. If and when stronger evidence becomes available, only then will the open-minded scientist abandon current ideas that have been proved plausible through experimental observations.
Being open-minded means one might do further testing on known truths, in order to discover possible errors in experimental data, in order to refine the model, or in order to close the gaps in current theory.
Being open-minded does NOT mean one should give equal time to ideas that are complete bullshit, that have no evidence for them.
Speaking of anti-science, would you like to see a pitchblende sample? Hey wait, why are you running away, crying, and shaking hysterically?
Quick, lets ban tritium exit signs like the city of Berkeley so more people die in fires. We wouldn't want a weak beta emitter to cause no measurable increase in radiation levels to possibly get out!
Give me a break. The anti-science hippies on the left have been just as damaging, if not worse. Most of the technology we have today is a result of defense spending and research. Who do you think it is that supports defense spending and research? Here's a hint: not the people who jihad against nuclear batteries in deep space probes.
If the anti-abortion position was all about "protecting babies" then you'd have a point. But it's not.
The "tell" is the legislation that anti-abortion people get passed. It always punishes the doctor, never the woman. If it was all about "saving babies" then the woman should be treated as if she hired a hitman. Instead, she's treated like she has no agency. The evil doctor waved something shiny in front of her so she had an abortion.
The organized anti-abortion position is about controlling women. "Saving babies" is their marketing.