Not disagreeing, just adding that companies don’t think, only their people do. And most of the people near the top know that and yet collectively the system does insane things anyway.
If anything, that is even more depressing, unfortunately.
6 Likes
Of course.
1 Like
Not really, they are completely different domains of thought. The problem is when people try to mix them - that religion functions as science, or science explains religion. That is only ever a pissing contest. It’s like arguing with somebody that they can’t possibly go to a Spider-Man movie because Spider-Man isn’t “real”. The whole argument is pure ontological fail. Modern people have grown up steeped in metaphysics, but they are blind to most of it and like to pretend that they are materialists.
I would describe religion functionally as an art, and is no more incompatible with scientific method or results than storytelling, music, painting, or any other art. Just like if people ranted that “science has disproven painting” I would approach that with extreme skepticism. Same applies to painters claiming to have a breakthrough in cosmology. Any apparent conflict easily demonstrates that some people are unaware of what one or both disciplines are and how they work.
2 Likes
One big issue is that Geography is not taught as a core subject alongside English, Maths, History like it is in most other countries. That leads to many Americans’ appalling ignorance of geographical issues (where things are, how the world is connected) but also the total lack of the physical science side of the subject. So, even when people think about environmental issues they tend to have very linear, mechanistic ways of looking at things rather than the actual way that natural systems work. One year of “Earth Science” taught by a biology or chemistry teacher in grade 8 is not enough.
On the other hand, there does seem to be an improvement in geographic knowledge (physical and human) among the internet generation as they are much more likely to be “friends” or interact with people overseas or be concerned with environmental issues. Unfortunately the woefully scientifically ignorant generations will be in charge for a few more years.
3 Likes
The main problem with science I find among most USians is that they fundamentally misunderstand what it is, so all of their issues with it tend to be straw men. When I have asked people, hardly anybody mentions anything to do with actual scientific methodology. Some people (as @anon24181555 mentioned) associate the term purely with technology. But to most of them I have asked, “science” is simply some sketchy role in society - basically, a job. Because fitting in and getting others to recognize your social status is the end-all be-all of existence. So scientists are cheaters who claim to be able to somehow know things, without having done the “real work” of becoming the most popular monkey in the zoo.
7 Likes
That and the basic culture being based upon that the Puritans, Whigs, and others of that sort.
1 Like
Don’t buy it.
I think the main reason is that there are powerful groups making anti-science propaganda that simply don’t exist anywhere else. Although Americans do seem weirdly gullible. I mean, I just read about people not vaccinating dogs because of fear of autism.
There are also anti-scientific and stupid controversies everywhere else around the world. Not about climate change, but mostly because nobody is lobbying Peruvian politicians to deny climate change, or buying news reports in Cambodia about it.
4 Likes
Dogs can get autism?
Can cats? How would you know if your cat was autistic?
Cats are definitely on the spectrum, their general assholery is a clear sign.
3 Likes
I think that’s because here in the US we have this accursed cult of individuality, where “Ah’m right cause I’m a ‘Merican, and those scientiss don’t know nuthin.’” We celebrate inventors like the Wright brothers and Thomas Edison, but think science is a waste of time and money because the $$$ isn’t immediate.
sigh
5 Likes
And Tesla, but usually for the wrong reasons, turning him into an anti-Scientist used to justify any cockamamie over-unity widget because … Tesla!
Few people celebrate him for all the damned things he did invent, only all the stuff suppressed by The Conspiracy.
4 Likes
Wow
This is the crap that passes for journalism these days
You use a premise that is never mentioned or even eluded to and that would be that you assume that anyone you disbelieves climate change also is a non respecter of science
Nonsense
I am a very big believer in science but a non-believer in climate change it all has to be tempered with common sense as does everything in life
For you being a believer in science I find you and your agreed cohorts here very short-sighted and close-minded
A little ironic don’t you think?
Pardon my lack of attention to punctuation here
I’m afraid I must point out that the entire “non-competing domains” fantasy hasn’t had any intellectual respectability for some time now. Like maybe two hundred years or so.
3 Likes
Why is that? Do you feel that you should be more reserved in your opinions, for some reason?
Respectability is a matter of politics, rather than intellectual rigor. Speaking of which, you haven’t offered any refutation, but suggesting that other people have sounds like the stuff of some pissing contest I am not interested in. It doesn’t take any fantasy (imagination) to point out that a discipline with a wholly objective purpose and a discipline with a wholly subjective purpose are not going to have much of anything in common. And I contend that nearly every “clash” we could point out between them is directly as a result of trying to mix these domains. Of some trying to explain objective phenomena based upon their subjective feelz, or explain away subjective meaning by pointing out some objective facts.
Here are a few ideas to chew on:
Nearly all materialist crusaders I encounter who have an axe to grind with religion either predominantly cite one particular religion (often Christianity), or else lump them all together as being “close enough” to being the same as each other. So, since people who are keen on scientific methodology would probably prefer robust samplings to get their data from, how about comparing 100 different religions in your metrics for cognitive bias, belief, etc. Likewise with gods - WTF exactly is a “god”, anyway? So compare 100 different gods with regards to their supposed claims and characteristics.
Another issue is to beware of cherry-picking your subjects. If you are using the institutions of organized religion as a basis for comparison, those are hierarchical organizations. Your average 99% who claim to “belong” to that group aren’t even actually initiated into what it’s core system is! So, intellectually that’s low-hanging fruit, like debating a 9th grade student who has at least seen and read some of a 12th grade physics text - they are not even truly a practitioner, never mind an expert in the field in question. Your average person can be expected to provide some naive views upon what religion is and how it works - and do the same with regards to the natural sciences as well.
So, are we talking about “science versus religion” in terms of their value as societal institutions? Or how they work as actual ontological practices in an individual or group who understand and use the techniques? Those are very different kinds of questions and corresponding answers. For many, the complaint is a rather understandable “So many people believe such utter crap!”, and I would not argue with this. It is also in no way unique to the domain of religion. There are also lots of crackpot scientists - but respectable scientists I am sure would point out that it would be disingenuous of me to include them, because they aren’t representative.
Anyway, it’s late, and I am going to bed soon!
1 Like
For a second I read “belieber”.
Which makes just as much sense.
Do you also believe in the red herring?
If people would learn the tiniest bit about the scientific method except being sceptical towards “authorities”, the problem of anti-science believes might be less grave, I suspect.
Just FTR, this thread is full of speculation, quick-and-dirty ideas (not really hypotheses, but anyway), and anecdotes. A lot of them are likely not wrong.
If I might add one observation: knowledge, and specifically scientific knowledge, has grown since Alexander and Wilhelm von Humboldt’s days in a way that it is simply not possible to keep up. Even back then, most savants couldn’t. So, our own ignorance in all the other fields and details makes us prone to believe in things outside of our knowledge. And hell yes, also scientists do this every single day. The more knowledge there is, the more un-scientific bullshit people are going to believe.
And all everyone including me does every day is “Jelly beans cause acne”. Most of the time, anyway.
Nerd culture makes fun of that, but is no fucking remedy. The time I laugh about XKCD et al. is spent laughing, and not learning to understand statistics. I can try to unterstand stats in the rest of my time, but it’s hard work, so I rather read another Boing Boing post and write a snarky and self-derogatory comment.
Oh, drat.
2 Likes
Don’t be sorry. It explains a lot.
(If the fact that there is near unanimous support among scientists in the field that man-made climate change is in progress and the most pressing concern for life on the planet short of nuclear annihilation isn’t enough to convince you even a little, then I rather doubt your commitment to science. Pardon my lack of punctuation.)
14 Likes
This is a series of conjectures about public educational policy ‘in science’ as opposed to public science in regulation, foreign exchange, short explanations of what we do, who breeds racehorses and tomatoes, and risk categories that pale on inspection unless spinoffs include global arms trade and glamor railways or something. Being Uber, but for taking the joy (and if the risk of fine art valuation is there, the art too) out of creativity looms pretty large and prettily anticonversational. Meanwhile bringing thirsty racing and bets closer to jurisprudence makes okay booking.
Cognitive dissonance needs to be closer to weird to get this weird, I think. The Medical Advice you can get in the scope of a Covered Encounter being thickest is one contributor, risk provisioning to 0 prospective buyers is one, strict liability and a maze of incumbents a distant one.
7 Likes
Now, now, the chief Soviet rocket scientists were called things like Sergei Korolev and Mstislav Keldysh. The chief American rocket scientists were calleded things like Wernher Von Braun or Ernst Geissler.
1 Like
As I often quote, “When The Holy One, blessed be He, was handing out stupid to the nations of mankind, He was equally generous to all”.
Anti-science and woo is hardly an exclusively American trait.
2 Likes
