The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

[buckeyegrad]

This is the place I come from, when it comes to "science."

But the definition you use eliminates other forms of knowledge creation, which is what science in its most fundamental form is. By relying solely on empirical assumptions, it fails to account for other sciences.

After all, theology was once called the queen of the sciences. Baconian science rejected the idea of hypothesis testing. Modern qualitative research (e.g., phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, historical) is deductive in nature and questions the object-subject dichotomy empiricism assumes. Yet, if science is the the process of knowledge creation, all of these are different forms of science.

 

[MaxBuck]

But the definition you use eliminates other forms of knowledge creation, which is what science in its most fundamental form is. By relying solely on empirical assumptions, it fails to account for other sciences.

After all, theology was once called the queen of the sciences. Baconian science rejected the idea of hypothesis testing. Modern qualitative research (e.g., phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, historical) is deductive in nature and questions the object-subject dichotomy empiricism assumes. Yet, if science is the the process of knowledge creation, all of these are different forms of science.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're clearly in the minority of educated folk when it comes to how you define "science."

 

[buckeyegrad]

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're clearly in the minority of educated folk when it comes to how you define "science."

I would question how "educated" those people are then. Anyone with even the most elementary understanding of epistemology would likely be in agreement with me.

And just out of curiosity, I went to the OED to determine the definition of science, here are the entries:

1. The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute. Contrasted or coupled with conscience, emphasizing the distinction to be drawn between theoretical perception of a truth and moral conviction.

2. Knowledge acquired by study; acquaintance with or mastery of any department of learning. Trained skill.

3. A particular branch of knowledge or study; a recognized department of learning. Contradistinguished from art. (The distinction as commonly apprehended is that a science (= ἐπιστήμη) is concerned with theoretic truth, and an art (= τέχνη) with methods for effecting certain results. Sometimes, however, the term science is extended to denote a department of practical work which depends on the knowledge and conscious application of principles; an art, on the other hand, being understood to require merely knowledge of traditional rules and skill acquired by habit.)

4. In a more restricted sense: A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.

5 (Finally getting around to your definition): The kind of knowledge or of intellectual activity of which the various ‘sciences’ are examples. In early use, with reference to sense: What is taught in the schools or may be learned by study. In mod. use chiefly: The sciences as distinguished from other departments of learning; scientific doctrine or investigation. Often with defining adj. In modern use, often treated as synonymous with ‘Natural and Physical Science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use. Formerly applied to the portions of ancient and modern philosophy, logic, and cognate subjects, included in the course of study for a degree in the school of Literae Humaniores.

 

[MaxBuck]

Anyone with even the most elementary understanding of epistemology would likely be in agreement with me.

What a broad net you cast.

 

[buckeyegrad]

What a broad net you cast.

Well, you have caught me in some of my own elitism, as I don't consider one as truly being educated unless they understand the basic epistemological assumptions of their discipline/field.

 

[Gatorubet]

Well, you have caught me in some of my own elitism, as I don't consider one as truly being educated unless they understand the basic epistemological assumptions of their discipline/field.

Which is philosophy. Philosophy is not science. Philosophy cannot provide the foundation for petroleum geology, absent saying a working hypothesis in a scientific inquiry while one searches for empirical date to substantiate that theory is philosophical - which I would not.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Which is philosophy. Philosophy is not science. Philosophy cannot provide the foundation for petroleum geology, absent saying a working hypothesis in a scientific inquiry while one searches for empirical date to substantiate that theory is philosophical - which I would not.

Sigh. Did you miss the other posts in the discussion? Do you think I am advocating that epistemology is an empirical or positive science? Are you arguing that empirical science does not hold epistemological assumptions?

If the answer is no to these three questions, I don't know what the purpose of your statement is to the current conversation as it really seems off-target.

 

[MaxBuck]

Sigh. Did you miss the other posts in the discussion? Do you think I am advocating that epistemology is an empirical or positive science? Are you arguing that empirical science does not hold epistemological assumptions?

If the answer is no to these three questions, I don't know what the purpose of your statement is to the current conversation as it really seems off-target.

Let me not speak for Gator, but I've been waiting three pages now for the "science of why we don't believe in science" to start getting discussed, as opposed to more philosophical ramblings. If in fact there WERE some science that had been done on this topic, I'd be very interested in it. Theology, philosophy and epistemology not so much.

So when you're saying, "off target," that seems pretty ironic to me.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Let me not speak for Gator, but I've been waiting three pages now for the "science of why we don't believe in science" to start getting discussed, as opposed to more philosophical ramblings. If in fact there WERE some science that had been done on this topic, I'd be very interested in it. Theology, philosophy and epistemology not so much.

So when you're saying, "off target," that seems pretty ironic to me.

Sorry, I didn't realize only your definition of "science" was allowed here.

 

[Gatorubet]

Sigh. Did you miss the other posts in the discussion? Do you think I am advocating that epistemology is an empirical or positive science? Are you arguing that empirical science does not hold epistemological assumptions?

If the answer is no to these three questions, I don't know what the purpose of your statement is to the current conversation as it really seems off-target.

I find the philosophical discussion quite interesting, especially the issues you brought out, despite my normal flip attitude. But I thought you began to veer off a bit when you spoke of theology as the "queen of the sciences". Now, that is certainly fascinating from a historical perspective, and quite apt for this, the philosophy thread, but my instinct is to read the title of the thread (the Science of why I do not believe in science) as at least touching on the "science" that is more empirical and - secular? - than the Queen of Science that is also the subject of the thread.

And while I do understand the whole point and discussion of subjective reality (what 70s college student avoided a class with assigned Carlos Castaneda ) - you have to realize that the "other" side in the discussion is the "hard" science, as it were, advocates. I think it a bit unreasonable - even if disappointing for you - to be surprised when we respond to the far more interesting philosophical aspects with an occasional re-centering that brings the second "science" of your thread title into the discussion.

I wasn't trying to [censored] in your cheerios bg.

 

[MaxBuck]

Sorry, I didn't realize only your definition of "science" was allowed here.

It would be nice if you could acknowledge that your own definition is highly idiosyncratic. The one I use came from a recognized, widely-used dictionary; yours appears to have been constructed of whole cloth.

Although Gator may not wish to piss in your Cheerios, I've lost the bladder control to avoid it. Old age is a bitch ...

 

[buckeyegrad]

It would be nice if you could acknowledge that your own definition is highly idiosyncratic. The one I use came from a recognized, widely-used dictionary; yours appears to have been constructed of whole cloth.

The OED is not a recognized, widely-used dictionary?

 

[Diego-Bucks]

Let me not speak for Gator, but I've been waiting three pages now for the "science of why we don't believe in science" to start getting discussed, as opposed to more philosophical ramblings. If in fact there WERE some science that had been done on this topic, I'd be very interested in it. Theology, philosophy and epistemology not so much.

So when you're saying, "off target," that seems pretty ironic to me.

One thing I've pondered for a while is if folks generally believe that science and the recommendations made by scientists are more heavily politically oriented or if people think that scientific studies are more objective and neutral.

If someone believes that science was biased, I'd anticipate that they would be more likely to vilify and deny a published study. I get angry when people deny what many others see as a valid study with unbiased results (not the same as unbiased recommendations or purposes to the study) and instead just put forward some op-ed piece that counter-argues a study.

By its essence, I think science tries to understand the objective world as best that it can; thus it will tend to be less biased than most other knowledge pursuers. And the way it is usually set-up, science debunks much of the bad science. When and at what stage will people tend to deny science? Is it wise to listen to folks that are uber-skeptical of all things scientific?

One of my biggest counter-stances to someone who is an anti-scientific mind is to point out the field of medicine and drug research. These research labs utilize the theories developed from scientific studies and evolutionary theory to create successful drugs, and they do so with the scientific method. If a woman takes her heart medication and believes in the results of that medication, does she have to also believe in the merits of science (not necessarily all science studies or projects, but their merits)? I submit that if she doesn't want to be hypocritical than yes, she does.

 

[Gatorubet]

The OED is not a recognized, widely-used dictionary?

FWIW, It looked to me like 2 and 3 were also in the general area of #4, with distinctions not wide enough to exclude then from Max's definition...using your definition of what Max's definition was. :p

 

[MaxBuck]

One thing I've pondered for a while is if folks generally believe that science and the recommendations made by scientists are more heavily politically oriented or if people think that scientific studies are more objective and neutral.

Science isn't biased. Scientists, being humans, are. That fact sets up the fallacies that are rife in the Mother Jones article that started this whole discussion IMO.

I regard psychology, properly studied, as a science. But the studies cited by the Mother Jones article did not, as presented therein, look like very good science.

I listened to a podcast on The Economist recently wherein the argument was made that the alchemists were, indeed scientists; they simply lacked sufficient knowledge to allow them to draw proper and unbiased conclusions from the experiments they conducted. Of course, I have not saved that podcast so cannot link it ...