Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What is "anti-science"?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What is "anti-science"?

    I note that the meaning of "anti-science" depends on the meaning of "science", which people disagree on. But it seems like the popular use of "anti-science" in recent years means something like "disagreeing with, or even skepticism of or agnosticism of, a particular scientific conclusion that I agree with" (according to however the speaker defines "scientific"). Or "questioning a particular proposition that currently has a consensus among scientists."

    That seems like a bad use of terminology. I suppose it can just be meant idomatically or hyperbolically (similar to saying that those who want to repeal the "Affordable Care Act" want to "repeal health care".) But the people using the term are usually self-professed lovers of science, and yet using the term in that way seems to undermine a healthy understanding of science and reason.

    Firstly, if someone questions or even denies a particular conclusion, does it not seems strange to conclude that the person is anti-science. As if to question a particular proposition is to reject everything that is science. It doesn't follow that they reject all of physics, including say Newton's laws, or any fundamental principles or practices of science. For example, the flat earther's that I've encountered (and I have friends who are flat earthers, though I am certain they are mistaken) don't reject the scientific method. They are eager to make observations and experiments to test both their own hypotheses and the claims of others. They just usually happen to not have much resources. Also this all-or-nothing way of putting it gives the impression that "science" is a set of dogmas, and if you question any of them at any point, then you are against, and have violated the whole.

    Which is related to the second point, that it gives the impression that it is improper to ever question scientific conclusions. But surely the whole point of the physical sciences is to have free and open inquiry, including skepticism, acknowledgement that you might be wrong, openness to potential falsification, submission to the review and questioning of others, etc. A process of checking and questioning one another's conclusions helps us toward the truth. Which, supposedly, produces conclusions so good that it's not permitted to question them? That seems self-contradictory. Science is constantly shifting and changing. We've all seen lots of propositions that had scientific consensus at one time and then rejected by scientific consensus at another time. Also many major advances/shifts in the physical sciences have arisen as challenges to the scientific consensus of the day (E.g. Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein). Also, the best way for a person to learn in the sciences is to question, challenge, test and reason for one's-self. Without that, one doesn't truly know or understand.

    Now, I think there have been people who genuinely are anti-science. For example, subjectivists including some Marxists, who see science as merely the subjective thoughts of particular people or a particular class (e.g. the bourgeoisie). Or certain strains of Romanticism that questioned the relevance of reason. But I'm skeptical of the claim that there is a mass anti-science movement today. I understand that polls show that science is really popular with the vast majority of Americans, for instance.

  • #2
    You hit a lot of different points in one post, so don't expect all of them to be dealt with.

    It's not improper to question a scientific idea or theory, what's improper is to question them with no physical evidence, and to not even understand the science you are questioning to begin with. You can question any idea you like, but you must produce evidence for your conclusions, and you must be able to better explain current data. If you are unable/unwilling to do that, then your ideas do not deserve to be taken seriously, and most will see you as a crank, or somebody trying to poison the well.

    Consensus IS how scientific ideas become established. You will never get every single scientist to unanimously agree on pretty much anything. But what you can do is win 99.9% of them and establish what to teach the public that way. It's the best we can do. Yes, scientific consensus have been overturned in the past and will be in the future, but it's changed dramatically since the days of the pioneers you mentioned -- whom themselves were fallible. Today an idea has to meet more scrutiny than ever before, and people are reluctant to take even the most well established conjectures and teach them; one might think of string theory, inflation, and the holographic principle as examples. Even so it is still important for those questioning a consensus to give good reasons for doing so. Sometimes the problems people raise with scientific theories are often not problems at all, but something they were told was problem from someone else.

    The right to not believe the finding of scientific inquiry does not mean you have a right to have your idea treated equally as an established one. That is something that is earned, not something an idea is entitled to. Demonstrate you are knowledgeable, produce evidence, fight for the respect of your peers, and your idea will win in the end.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Joel View Post
      I note that the meaning of "anti-science" depends on the meaning of "science", which people disagree on. But it seems like the popular use of "anti-science" in recent years means something like "disagreeing with, or even skepticism of or agnosticism of, a particular scientific conclusion that I agree with" (according to however the speaker defines "scientific"). Or "questioning a particular proposition that currently has a consensus among scientists."

      That seems like a bad use of terminology. I suppose it can just be meant idomatically or hyperbolically (similar to saying that those who want to repeal the "Affordable Care Act" want to "repeal health care".) But the people using the term are usually self-professed lovers of science, and yet using the term in that way seems to undermine a healthy understanding of science and reason.

      Firstly, if someone questions or even denies a particular conclusion, does it not seems strange to conclude that the person is anti-science. As if to question a particular proposition is to reject everything that is science. It doesn't follow that they reject all of physics, including say Newton's laws, or any fundamental principles or practices of science. For example, the flat earther's that I've encountered (and I have friends who are flat earthers, though I am certain they are mistaken) don't reject the scientific method. They are eager to make observations and experiments to test both their own hypotheses and the claims of others. They just usually happen to not have much resources. Also this all-or-nothing way of putting it gives the impression that "science" is a set of dogmas, and if you question any of them at any point, then you are against, and have violated the whole.

      Which is related to the second point, that it gives the impression that it is improper to ever question scientific conclusions. But surely the whole point of the physical sciences is to have free and open inquiry, including skepticism, acknowledgement that you might be wrong, openness to potential falsification, submission to the review and questioning of others, etc. A process of checking and questioning one another's conclusions helps us toward the truth. Which, supposedly, produces conclusions so good that it's not permitted to question them? That seems self-contradictory. Science is constantly shifting and changing. We've all seen lots of propositions that had scientific consensus at one time and then rejected by scientific consensus at another time. Also many major advances/shifts in the physical sciences have arisen as challenges to the scientific consensus of the day (E.g. Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein). Also, the best way for a person to learn in the sciences is to question, challenge, test and reason for one's-self. Without that, one doesn't truly know or understand.

      Now, I think there have been people who genuinely are anti-science. For example, subjectivists including some Marxists, who see science as merely the subjective thoughts of particular people or a particular class (e.g. the bourgeoisie). Or certain strains of Romanticism that questioned the relevance of reason. But I'm skeptical of the claim that there is a mass anti-science movement today. I understand that polls show that science is really popular with the vast majority of Americans, for instance.
      To answer your question what is anti-science see all posts by Jorge
      A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
      George Bernard Shaw

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
        you must be able to better explain current data
        I'm with you except for this point. It's perfectly valid to point out issues without having a better explanation, particularly if one is claiming that the data we have doesn't justify a given conclusion. One could even grant the current explanation as a best fit without claiming its correct.
        I'm not here anymore.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
          I'm with you except for this point. It's perfectly valid to point out issues without having a better explanation, particularly if one is claiming that the data we have doesn't justify a given conclusion. One could even grant the current explanation as a best fit without claiming its correct.
          I think that one of the problems here is that for many proponents of this or that pseudo-science they labor under the mistaken belief that if they can show that current models cannot answer every single possible question that this somehow validates their generally thoroughly refuted alternative model.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            I think that one of the problems here is that for many proponents of this or that pseudo-science they labor under the mistaken belief that if they can show that current models cannot answer every single possible question that this somehow validates their generally thoroughly refuted alternative model.
            Agreed. The best it would do is validate the search for an alternative model.
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
              You hit a lot of different points in one post, so don't expect all of them to be dealt with.
              Fair enough.

              It's not improper to question a scientific idea or theory, what's improper is to question them with no physical evidence, and to not even understand the science you are questioning to begin with. You can question any idea you like, but you must produce evidence for your conclusions, and you must be able to better explain current data. If you are unable/unwilling to do that, then your ideas do not deserve to be taken seriously, and most will see you as a crank, or somebody trying to poison the well.
              I think if one lacks evidence and understanding of a science, then they should be questioning it, as opposed to accepting it as dogma handed down from an authority, yes? I can think of cases in science and elsewhere, when I critically questioned something that we all had been taught in elementary school, identified and questioned its presuppositions, challenged myself to show it to be either true or false, and in the end came to a far better understanding of the matter than before--in some cases realizing that I didn't actually understand it all before and only supposed that I had. (This also makes me question the method and order we teach things to elementary students.)

              As I said before, even the flat-earthers I know have an active community of coming up with new hypothesis, new models, and coming up with experiments to be done to test them. Sure, they lack the resources to carry out all these experiments, and thus lack the evidence they need. And their models don't better explain current data. So that means they aren't going to be at all persuasive to mainstream scientists. But that's different from being anti-science. They are engaging in scientific inquiry.

              Consensus IS how scientific ideas become established. You will never get every single scientist to unanimously agree on pretty much anything. But what you can do is win 99.9% of them and establish what to teach the public that way. It's the best we can do. Yes, scientific consensus have been overturned in the past and will be in the future, but it's changed dramatically since the days of the pioneers you mentioned -- whom themselves were fallible. Today an idea has to meet more scrutiny than ever before, and people are reluctant to take even the most well established conjectures and teach them;
              It happens often today too. During my lifetime at various points I've seen health and dietary recommendations retracted, for example.

              The right to not believe the finding of scientific inquiry does not mean you have a right to have your idea treated equally as an established one. That is something that is earned, not something an idea is entitled to. Demonstrate you are knowledgeable, produce evidence, fight for the respect of your peers, and your idea will win in the end.
              Sure. A questioning beginner will encounter difficulties that an expert has already understood and addressed, and the expert isn't going to consider it a serious difficulty. But I wouldn't say that that questioner is anti-science. They are engaged in a beneficial process. Or to my flat-earth friends, I'd encourage them in their eagerness to question and investigate and further develop their models and test them and compare them to mainstream models, while seeking a better understanding of the mainstream models, etc. If they do that, then, I'd say they are doing science, and whatever conclusions they reach in the end, they will have a far greater understanding and be more scientific than those who simply accept whatever they are told is the scientific consensus.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                I think if one lacks evidence and understanding of a science, then they should be questioning it, as opposed to accepting it as dogma handed down from an authority, yes?
                Can't speak for anyone else but the cases where I've seen the term "anti-science" used are against professionally run organizations with websites put up by Creationists, AGW deniers, anti-vaxxers, etc. The people running these site know and understand the science but choose to lie about it anyway to push their political agendas.

                I can have the patience of a saint trying to explain science to someone who honestly doesn't understand and shows a sincere desire to learn. I have zero tolerance for professional anti-science liars who are doing their best to undermine the scientific understanding and science education of this country.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                  Can't speak for anyone else but the cases where I've seen the term "anti-science" used are against professionally run organizations with websites put up by Creationists, AGW deniers, anti-vaxxers, etc. The people running these site know and understand the science but choose to lie about it anyway to push their political agendas.

                  I can have the patience of a saint trying to explain science to someone who honestly doesn't understand and shows a sincere desire to learn. I have zero tolerance for professional anti-science liars who are doing their best to undermine the scientific understanding and science education of this country.
                  How is it determined that a particular organization is lying as you say? (Like maybe the Institute for Creation Research honestly believe that they are doing scientific research, while Answers in Genesis know the truth but are liars?)

                  Given people who are lying as you say, what is their motivation? Like people who know vaccines save lives, but want people to die? Perhaps they are secretly over-population alarmists who think that more people being killed off by preventable illnesses would be a good way to achieve the end of shrinking the population? But they can't persuade people of their actual ends (shrinking the population via deaths by illnesses) so they lie about vaccines? And then they also seek to undermine scientific understanding and education in general, so that people don't discover this one particular truth?

                  And if they know and understand the science and the truth, how are they anti-science? If they were truly anti-science, wouldn't they also doubt/reject that truth and the science by which the knowledge is obtained? In which case they wouldn't be lying?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Joel View Post
                    Firstly, if someone questions or even denies a particular conclusion, does it not seems strange to conclude that the person is anti-science. As if to question a particular proposition is to reject everything that is science. It doesn't follow that they reject all of physics, including say Newton's laws, or any fundamental principles or practices of science.
                    I think one key issue here is whether the person is rejecting an individual finding, or rejecting the process that produced it. To take climate change as an example, i've seen people reject the ability of CO2 to cause greenhouse warming, which involves rejecting everything from quantum mechanics to astronomical observations. Similarly, i've seen people suggest you can't model complex systems, which would involve rejecting astronomy, ecology, geology, and more.

                    The challenge is that the person doing the rejecting thinks that they're just rejecting a single small aspect of some field of science because they don't understand how different fields are connected through common understandings and methods. So, there's a gap between motivation (they're not trying to broadly reject science) and the reality of what's going on.

                    I'm not saying this is the only form of anti-science, it just seems to me that it's the easiest way for confusion and bad feelings to result.


                    Originally posted by Joel View Post
                    Which is related to the second point, that it gives the impression that it is improper to ever question scientific conclusions. But surely the whole point of the physical sciences is to have free and open inquiry, including skepticism, acknowledgement that you might be wrong, openness to potential falsification, submission to the review and questioning of others, etc. A process of checking and questioning one another's conclusions helps us toward the truth. Which, supposedly, produces conclusions so good that it's not permitted to question them?
                    What happens if someone keeps rejecting chemistry, and demanding we give phlogiston another look? You present them with evidence, and they keep coming up with ad hoc hacks to make phlogiston work in those circumstances (why yes, i am thinking of John Martin). Is that "free and open inquiry"? I'd say not - it certainly doesn't lead to greater understanding, or advance science in any way.

                    Most problems along these lines are far more subtle than John Martin's issue, but there is a lot of functionally equivalent stuff out there. I'm thinking of still seeing claims that evolution can't produce new information, or accusations that climate scientists aren't considering the sun's role (when it's right there in the IPCC reports).

                    In sum, i'd say it's easy to make a general case for free and open inquiry that, if phrased or interpreted uncritically, would excuse all sorts of counter-productive behavior.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      I think one key issue here is whether the person is rejecting an individual finding, or rejecting the process that produced it. To take climate change as an example, i've seen people reject the ability of CO2 to cause greenhouse warming, which involves rejecting everything from quantum mechanics to astronomical observations. Similarly, i've seen people suggest you can't model complex systems, which would involve rejecting astronomy, ecology, geology, and more.

                      The challenge is that the person doing the rejecting thinks that they're just rejecting a single small aspect of some field of science because they don't understand how different fields are connected through common understandings and methods. So, there's a gap between motivation (they're not trying to broadly reject science) and the reality of what's going on.
                      This is pretty much the case with those who reject evolution and support YEC. Most think that they're merely rejecting a small portion of biology not realizing that evolutionary theory is the G.U.T. (Grand Unifying Theory) of biology. But it isn't just biology that gets tossed aside it is things like astronomy, cosmology and geology that demonstrate that the earth and universe are far more ancient than the YEC model allows for. Physics which provides the means for determining just how ancient the earth and universe are. Genetics and paleontology which reveal the history of evolution are also tossed aside. As are many other scientific disciplines such as but not limited to zoology, botany, biogeography, comparative anatomy, anthropology, embryology, biochemistry...

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                        To answer your question what is anti-science see all posts by Jorge

                        No thanks. I treasure what little sanity remains to me.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                          You hit a lot of different points in one post, so don't expect all of them to be dealt with.

                          It's not improper to question a scientific idea or theory, what's improper is to question them with no physical evidence, and to not even understand the science you are questioning to begin with. You can question any idea you like, but you must produce evidence for your conclusions, and you must be able to better explain current data. If you are unable/unwilling to do that, then your ideas do not deserve to be taken seriously, and most will see you as a crank, or somebody trying to poison the well.
                          *emphasis mine

                          Um, you may wanna rethink that wording - observation is NOT physical evidence but most certainly is accepted evidence in scientific fields.

                          This diatribe doesn't make someone anti-science; you're actually making Joel's point here. You're quite correct that to successfully refute a given point, hypothesis or theory one need necessarily know what they are talking about and support the argument factually - but it's silly to require that merely for a question, even a really pointy one.

                          Originally posted by Sea
                          Consensus IS how scientific ideas become established....
                          Really? So, evidence need not apply?

                          Consensus is how ideas become commonplace - not how they are established - no matter what segment or field is in view. Consensus really just means most of us (with varying values of who 'us' are) accept this fact, idea, notion, theory, hypothesis, opinion, <insert noun here>, et cetera. It tells us most of whatever group agree with whatever the thing in view but it doesn't establish it and certainly doesn't establish anything as factual. Establishment, ideally, comes first.

                          As for the rest of that paragraph, I agree, with the caveat that you (general) shoot yourself in the foot if you over-react to any and all questioning. To refute, yeah, you better be darn well ready to support and prove your point but to question doesn't require being able to establish a counterpoint - making that requirement just makes you (again general) look paranoid. If the question is valid, then either answer it or find the answer to it - if it's not, snicker and move on.

                          Originally posted by Sea
                          The right to not believe the finding of scientific inquiry does not mean you have a right to have your idea treated equally as an established one. That is something that is earned, not something an idea is entitled to. Demonstrate you are knowledgeable, produce evidence, fight for the respect of your peers, and your idea will win in the end.
                          Um, you're back to inadvertantly making his point. Joel wasn't arguing this at all - you seem to be conflating 'questioning' with 'refuting'. I don't think Joel would disagree with the thrust here - I know I don't (might quibble on wording, of course) - but it's off point of the actual argument.
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Joel View Post
                            Fair enough.
                            I think if one lacks evidence and understanding of a science, then they should be questioning it, as opposed to accepting it as dogma handed down from an authority, yes?
                            Lets be practical, shall we? We cant all be experts and know the technical details of everything, nor will everybody be able to understand science. Using the word 'dogma' to describe established science is poisoning the well. It's also perfectly acceptable to take the words of experts as truths when you don't understand the issue. Obviously there is a fine line between swallowing authority and hyperskepticism - both are dangerous.
                            As I said before, even the flat-earthers I know have an active community of coming up with new hypothesis, new models, and coming up with experiments to be done to test them. Sure, they lack the resources to carry out all these experiments, and thus lack the evidence they need. And their models don't better explain current data. So that means they aren't going to be at all persuasive to mainstream scientists. But that's different from being anti-science. They are engaging in scientific inquiry.
                            Ummm, no, they are absolutely not engaging in scientific inquiry. Frankly, if someone believes the Earth is flat then there is something seriously off about them mentally. It is literally the most ridiclous thing I could think of a grown adult saying, and I would have absolutely no interest in debunking such nonsense - it's a waste of time. You should consider suggesting professional help these friends of yours, as they're is something wrong with them.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Um, you may wanna rethink that wording - observation is NOT physical evidence but most certainly is accepted evidence in scientific fields.
                              You want to try and run this by me again, and explain how observing a phenomena predicted by a theory isn't regarded as physical evidence?

                              Really? So, evidence need not apply?
                              You have a talent for putting words in your opponents mouths.

                              Consensus is how ideas become commonplace - not how they are established - no matter what segment or field is in view. Consensus really just means most of us (with varying values of who 'us' are) accept this fact, idea, notion, theory, hypothesis, opinion, <insert noun here>, et cetera. It tells us most of whatever group agree with whatever the thing in view but it doesn't establish it and certainly doesn't establish anything as factual. Establishment, ideally, comes first.
                              Welcome to science, where there is no such thing as 'proof' I'm afraid.

                              Every idea in science, relativity, nuclear physics, cell biology, etc, are all consensus theories. None of them are 'proven' actually. That's because the word proof is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. There are cranks that do not accept the theories I just mentioned as established, yet I would think you probably accept them, and regard the people that don't as being idiots, and you'd be perfectly justified to say so.

                              And why do you accept them? Because you were taught the basics in school, learned a few other details, and accepted the facts. You may not know the experiments behind every idea, or every challenge that was/is argued against them, but you never the less accept them. You know this I'm sure, but are trying to justify this hyperskepticism that leads to everything from creationism to flat-earth beliefs for some odd reason. My guess is to justify your denial of global climate change as established science.

                              As for the rest of that paragraph, I agree, with the caveat that you (general) shoot yourself in the foot if you over-react to any and all questioning. To refute, yeah, you better be darn well ready to support and prove your point but to question doesn't require being able to establish a counterpoint - making that requirement just makes you (again general) look paranoid. If the question is valid, then either answer it or find the answer to it - if it's not, snicker and move on.
                              Actually, questioning established theories requires that one make counterpoints to current data, as does showing inconsistencies current theory has with said data. As an example, if one wants to question quantum mechanics, it is essential you better explain the wave-particle duality with your theory. It is perfectly reasonable to expect people that question current theory to have theories that better explain the data we have -- that's what Einstein, Newton, and Darwin had to do. This is just how the natural sciences work.
                              Last edited by Sea of red; 05-20-2017, 03:47 PM.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              136 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              48 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X