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.
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.
Comment