What is "anti-science"?

[Joel]

No, the problem isn't a lack of resources. It's refusal to accept evidence. By your standards, every physicist would have to rebuild their own personal LHC before they'd accept the evidence that the Higgs boson exists. That's not how science works.

They would need to do so if they want to come to an acceptance of it by doing empirical science. (Of course that's not the only way to come to accept something.)

Yeah, it really is when it gets to the point of "i refuse to believe anything done by anyone."

Modern physical science always involved people independently attempting to reproduce the experiments and results of others. That is an important check-and-balance if you will, part of peer review. I've heard that in some fields, such as psychology, it has become a serious problem where nobody attempted to reproduce the experiments of others, and now people are finding that lots of the recorded experiments in the field are in fact not reproduce-able.

In the Enlightenment praise of empiricism, a main selling feature was the ability to try and see for yourself, as opposed to having to rely on an authority. I recall reading that Feynman was a big advocate of replicating experiments, and that a failure to do so causes serious dysfunctions in science.


One can argue that seeing for yourself has limits. But that gets into a broader discussion of the limits of empirical science. And those who examine or talk about the limits of empirical science often get accused of being anti-science, though I'd say it's really anti-scientism.

[Carrikature]

For such a person, it would not be unreasonable or unscientific for them to be questioning and want to see some (extraordinary?) evidence for those extraordinary claims.

On the contrary, it's very unreasonable. There's such a thing as humility, and admitting that one might not know as much as someone who does it for a living is a perfect example of it. That goes double when it's something you're encountering for the first time. 'Questioning' to understand better is one thing. 'Questioning' because you don't believe it is quite another. The latter is what you're defending.

[TheLurch]

They would need to do so if they want to come to an acceptance of it by doing empirical science. (Of course that's not the only way to come to accept something.)

Newsflash: all practicing scientists accept evidence produced by other scientists all the time. The fact that these guys don't suggests... wait for it... they're not doing science. And, in fact, that they're rejecting its practices. Which is the point here.

Modern physical science always involved people independently attempting to reproduce the experiments and results of others. That is an important check-and-balance if you will, part of peer review. I've heard that in some fields, such as psychology, it has become a serious problem where nobody attempted to reproduce the experiments of others, and now people are finding that lots of the recorded experiments in the field are in fact not reproduce-able.

See, that's the version of things that people who have never practiced science tend to promote. It's not actually how it's typically done - even in the physical sciences. One, peer review never involves reproducing results. Two, reproduction of results almost never involves repeating the same exact experiment.

Instead, reproducibility is generally practiced by doing related experiments that test the consequences of a given result. So, if one experiment says that two particles end up entangled under specific circumstances, its reproducibility will generally be tested by seeing if the particles behave as entangled in some different context. Or if the result is that gene A regulates gene B, then the reproducibility will be tested by checking whether gene A is involved in the same biological processes as B.

This is for two specific reasons: scientists are generally interested in finding new stuff, and funders are generally interested in promoting new work. And, in the end, work that can't be reproduced will be caught if it's significant enough to be followed up on.

It's certainly worthwhile to consider whether direct reproduction should be tried more often, or whether it's a problem to have irreproducible but insignificant results lingering in the literature. But that doesn't avoid the larger point: all scientists accept evidence produced by others. And, without that acceptance, science would never progress.

[shunyadragon]

One can argue that seeing for yourself has limits. But that gets into a broader discussion of the limits of empirical science. And those who examine or talk about the limits of empirical science often get accused of being anti-science, though I'd say it's really anti-scientism.

One could argue anything, but is it meaningful? I do not consider this a real issue and more a smoke screen for the real problem of 'anti-science.' The fundamental philosophy of Methodological Naturalism does limit science to what may be falsified as theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence. This would by its nature exclude philosophical and theological beliefs and assumption of 'other worlds,' and beliefs and hypothesis that are not supported by objective verifiable evidence. Being skeptical and questioning science is healthy and exactly what the attitude of scientists have, and this does require the effort to have a reasonable amount of knowledge as to what you are questioning. and what your motives are for your skepticism.

The elephant in the room concerning 'anti-science' remains fundamental versions of Creationism that reject the conclusions of science concerning the science of evolution and the age of the earth and universe. Variations of this world view are supported by ~45-55% of America, and less than ~2% of the scientists.

[rogue06]

In my experience, I have found that one of the best ways to investigate and come to deeply understand something is to mentally wrestle with conflicting ideas/arguments. Including in science. Even in interacting with flat earthers. Thus I'm persuaded that teaching a "controversy", if done right, is an excellent way to teach. I certainly think it is far superior to teaching facts from an authority, for the goal of developing a real understanding. It also provides additional motivation/interest. It has many of the same benefits as John Stuart Mill enumerated as the benefits of freedom of speech and inquiry. That's not anti-science.

The problem with the teach the controversy idea is that all too often it ends up giving the impression that all views are equal. That they all have strong corroborating evidence behind them when in the vast majority of cases this is not even close to being accurate.

Think of it this way, would anyone be okay with teaching "both sides" to whether or not the Holocaust took place and then leaving it up to the children to decide which is right? The point of an education, at least in the earlier years, is to teach the facts and what is true. Not muddy it up.

[KingsGambit]

Think of it this way, would anyone be okay with teaching "both sides" to whether or not the Holocaust took place and then leaving it up to the children to decide which is right? The point of an education, at least in the earlier years, is to teach the facts and what is true. Not muddy it up.

When I student taught, I observed my cooperating teacher mentioning that some people didn't think the Holocaust ever happened. He didn't bother going further into it and as he hadn't provided specific evidence for the Holocaust, I knew that some of the kids would probably wonder if maybe there was something to it; that it was maybe just another point of view.

So when I took over the class and did my lesson on the Holocaust, I didn't pretend to be neutral; I did mention Holocaust denial but emphasized that it was just total crap and flew in the face of everything we knew. I think my approach was better, even though it was a deviation from my normal policy of neutrality. I just didn't see any reason to give a weight to a position that had no supporting evidence.

[TheLurch]

In my experience, I have found that one of the best ways to investigate and come to deeply understand something is to mentally wrestle with conflicting ideas/arguments. Including in science. Even in interacting with flat earthers. Thus I'm persuaded that teaching a "controversy", if done right, is an excellent way to teach.

You do realize that there's an entire research discipline that looks into how students process information, right? And that "teach the controversy" isn't on the recommended list for bettering student understanding?

[shunyadragon]

You do realize that there's an entire research discipline that looks into how students process information, right? And that "teach the controversy" isn't on the recommended list for bettering student understanding?

There are indeed controversies in science particularly in Cosmology and Physics.

Questions that are necessary for "teach the controversy"

(1) What is the motive for presenting controversial views?

(2) Does the controversy represent alternative views potentially falsifiable by scientific methods?

(3) Does the controversy contribute to the better understanding of the student for scientific methods and the falsification of theories and hypothesis?

[Joel]

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've been thinking about this more. I think the key part here is "not realizing". If someone were consciously and intentionally doing what you say, then I think a case can be made that they are anti-science. Otherwise, it seems you are talking about their ignorance, and not an antipathy toward science.

[Joel]

The problem with the teach the controversy idea is that all too often it ends up giving the impression that all views are equal. That they all have strong corroborating evidence behind them when in the vast majority of cases this is not even close to being accurate.

Yes, it has to be done properly. I don't mean just say that some people think X and some people think Y, and leave it at that. That would not have any of the benefits I described. The strongest evidence and arguments on all sides need to be presented. And I don't think anyone has to pretend to be neutral. If that results in one side being obviously true, then that will be seen. If it doesn't make one side obviously true, then all the more reason not to simply indoctrinate the students in only one side.

Think of it this way, would anyone be okay with teaching "both sides" to whether or not the Holocaust took place and then leaving it up to the children to decide which is right? The point of an education, at least in the earlier years, is to teach the facts and what is true. Not muddy it up.

I'm not sure I agree with that philosophy of education. Also, by the time students are old enough that telling them about the holocaust is appropriate, I'd think they are old enough that they should primarily be studying and practicing reason.

You do realize that there's an entire research discipline that looks into how students process information, right? And that "teach the controversy" isn't on the recommended list for bettering student understanding?

No, I wasn't aware of such research. Please tell me more. Do they take into account the distinction I made above in this post?
What I do know is that in my experience, it is one of the best ways for me personally to learn and develop deep understanding. I suppose it is possible that different people are different in that regard.

At any rate I don't think that teaching a "controversy", as a means to practice reason and evaluation of evidence etc., is anti-science.

[TheLurch]

No, I wasn't aware of such research. Please tell me more.

A good (if somewhat out of date) resource for applying it to science education is here:
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9853/how...panded-edition

Note that you can get a free PDF (links towards the upper right) - you don't have to buy it.

The key thing is that, if we know how children process information (we do), we can design lesson plans to work with their abilities, rather than relying on the "well, this worked for me" approach you seem to be advocating.

[Joel]

A good (if somewhat out of date) resource for applying it to science education is here:
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9853/how...panded-edition

Note that you can get a free PDF (links towards the upper right) - you don't have to buy it.

The key thing is that, if we know how children process information (we do), we can design lesson plans to work with their abilities, rather than relying on the "well, this worked for me" approach you seem to be advocating.

Thanks. I briefly scanned the book. I'll have to take a closer look later.

I'm not seeing anything that I didn't already agree with. It doesn't seem to say anything against what I said. And it doesn't contain the word "controversy" in our context. I did see at one point that it praises the use of debate in a history classroom. Which is similar to what I'm saying. Wrestling with a controversy is a good way to learn for similar reasons that debating or teaching a subject are good ways of learning.

I see I may have misunderstood what you said before. I assumed you meant that there has been research on students grappling with a controversy and that that has been found wanting as a method of learning and developing understanding. And I was asking for more information about that. But I reread and see that you only said it "isn't on the recommended list for bettering student understanding". Which could be just because it hasn't really been studied or considered.


Saying just "this worked for me" seems like stating it too weakly. It's that of all methods I've experienced, it's one of the best (up there with debate, teaching a subject, and learning by doing/trying) and much better than many others. (Though I would not say that any one method is best and should be used to the exclusion of all else.) And yes, you make a fair point that I alone am much too small of a sample size. But surely there are others like me in this regard, and they shouldn't be neglected.

And again, going back on topic, grappling with a controversy is not anti-science.

[HMS_Beagle]

And again, going back on topic, grappling with a controversy is not anti-science.

Spreading the lie there is a scientific controversy where none exists just to push your political agenda is both anti-science and anti-honesty.

[rogue06]

And again, going back on topic, grappling with a controversy is not anti-science.

It is if there really isn't any actual controversy.

[Roy]

The flat earthers I've closely interacted with do concede points where they see clear evidence.

The flat earther here didn't - he simply announced that the evidence was faked.