Real science vs cultist science

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Real science vs cultist science

Postby edy420 on November 30th, 2016, 1:46 pm 

Real science is conducted by real scientists.
I like to think they have a great understanding of their works, understand the limits, and can visualize the potentials for further hypothesis.

But then we have the educated science, a single minded fact infested, brain wash.
People educated in science, use a large amount of faith in science, and use scientific fact to evaluate the world around them.
The extremists are atheists who will argue that there is no god, based on scientific fact. (Ive had Richard Dawkins work quoted, but even he wont say hes an atheist)
But thats a can of worms right there, back to science.

When nothing travels faster than the speed of light, the cultists of science will say this is a fact.
Then when scientists think they may have discovered the opposite, it becomes another fact.

I say its a cult, because I dont have access to the same equipment, data or work sites that real scientists have.
I cant look over a data sheet on particle collision and say to my friends, look, heres the Higgs Boson.
Instead I have to have faith in the real scientists, and believe everything they tell me.

Me personally, I don't care either way, unless I can use this data to somehow make mankinds life a little better.
But, the cultists out there who cant read a particle collision data sheet will say to me, this is FACT!
Coming from Don Lincoln, I like to think he knows what hes talking about, but coming from my neighbor, Im amazed at the level of faith they have.

Ive said this before, but IMO real science in education wouldn't have single minded limits.
For example, universities would have a division for studying Einsteins atomic theory, and a separate division for Tesla's atomic theory in relation to electricity.
At least that way we could reinvent and master Nichola's wireless electricity controlled boats and other great technology.
But Tesla's theory is ignored and mostly lost, this is what happens when cults are in control, they ignore or even destroy any knowledge that goes against their teachings.

Another example, is a controversial soft tissue found in dinosaur remains.
The data suggests that man walked with dinosaurs.
Funding was pulled and the evidence ignored because the finder was religious.
Non scientific evidence exists in the bible, in legends and in mythology.
Many cultures talk of dragons, some breath fire some are spiritual but if you strip down all the over hype they are just dinosaurs. (If I were a dinosaur slayer, I'd say mine breathed fire too to show off to my other dinosaur slaying friends)
Now I dont have access to the digsites, nor do I have access to the data and samples so I can't really comment on the findings, but I like to think I can reserve my right to skepticism.

Fellow non scientists however, will say to me that its either a conspiracy theory or Im just wrong.
Coming from Forest_Dump, I'd probably laugh but then acknowledge that he has a better idea than I do when it comes to archaeological finds.
But coming from a work mate, he's just another cultist!

Am I looking into this a little too far, or am I on to something?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1187
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Real science vs cultist science

Postby BioWizard on November 30th, 2016, 5:51 pm 

I don't know if my generation is different (disillusionment? self delusion? exaggerated self worth?), but I would say disdain might be an apt description of how we generally feel about much of mainstream science. We all seem to think we can do better, all the freakin time! Granted, I accept the tools and methodology and a minimum amount of well verified core principles - otherwise what do I have to work with? But the image of brainwashed drones huddling in an echo chamber is stupid and desparately needs reform. Can you help me figure out how to do that? Field trips to the lab? Shadow a scientist for a week in the summer programs? Audit a science meeting?

Now of course there's funding pressures, here and there corruption, and lots of stupidities in the rewards system. But those should not be confused with the intentions of individual scientists and/or their perceived role in the state of scientific knowledge. I don't know of any other belief system where most are constantly working to change it. Does anyone?
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12763
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Real science vs cultist science

Postby BioWizard on November 30th, 2016, 5:59 pm 

Maybe Forest and Eclogite can tell us if my impression is cross generational (and generalizable) or not. My experience may be relatively limited.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12763
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Real science vs cultist science

Postby BioWizard on November 30th, 2016, 6:10 pm 

Edy, your post (more like my response to it) made me think of another thing that's potentially important. Gym calls right now but will try to say something about it later.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12763
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Real science vs cultist science

Postby Forest_Dump on November 30th, 2016, 7:24 pm 

I think there are a lot of valid points raised here and I can add to or elaborate on some of them. For example, there are the questions of who counts as a scientist and what is science? I could give my opinions but I am not sure that would solve anything even if I were correct. In fact I think we would be better off if we could constantly debate that (partly because I think it is constantly changing.) And one set of issues might well be that I think science is actually practised by a very select few but many, many more claim it for a variety of reasons and one result is that we expect scientists to be like dispassionate, ideally objective judges of "facts" or knowledge but in fact they are often more like hired lawyers arguing for their clients (and of course, even Supreme Court judges are chosen based on their political affiliation). So, if we know that something with literal every-day importance to everyone such as the law is subject to corruption, political bias, needs barriers to entry that are constantly scrutinized but still routinely fail (and lets not get into the even more important job of safe-guarding our immortal souls that also sometimes falls into the capable hands of fraudsters, demogogues, political extremists and pedophiles), how can we expect "science" will remain pure from people who pursue taudry political and economic agendas, make claims outside their area of expertise, develope over-inflated egos, etc? I think the problem is that in the end science is something created and populated by humans.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8775
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region
edy420Scruffy Nerf HerderBioWizard liked this post


Re: Real science vs cultist science

Postby edy420 on December 7th, 2016, 12:11 pm 

I can think of 2 major influences on why this subculture is so prominent in our society, other than human bias.
1 The economy
2 Factual thinking

With the economy we have funding from people with big bucks.
But those big buck people are making an investment, they want some kind of return and so only invest in certain areas of science.

Our factual thinking is seemingly harmless.
Facts are necessary building blocks for any scientist, but as long as the facts are fully understood, the person using them can either research using facts to predict an outcome or take those facts with a grain of salt and expect a different outcome.
A very handy tool.

But when the general population hears about facts, they are concrete truths.
Our non-scientist atheists are building this subculture around the idea that facts are ultimate truths.

I wonder what kind of economy could build a free roaming research platform for scientists.
One that has no influence on the direction of scientific research.
IMO a resource based economy would have a negative impact, as it revolves around having less to do.

And can we find a similar free roaming platform for our way of thinking.
Can we do away with facts and accept that all ideas are plausible, just some are more plausible than others.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1187
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ
Forest_Dump liked this post


Re: Real science vs cultist science

Postby Forest_Dump on December 7th, 2016, 1:25 pm 

edy420 wrote:And can we find a similar free roaming platform for our way of thinking.
Can we do away with facts and accept that all ideas are plausible, just some are more plausible than others.


For the most part that was a good post and summary. I got a bit confused about about the roaming platform idea but no biggy. The line I quoted I could also agree with to some degree but noting that some ideas are more plausible than others might be too much of an understatement. I would say that it is more plausible that I will win a major lottery this weekend than that some of the ideas out there are correct.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8775
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Real science vs cultist science

Postby BadgerJelly on December 7th, 2016, 2:24 pm 

I am on my own "crusade" to try and shake up science a bit.

By this I mean that "science" simply has bad press. I don't blame the press though (although they don't help by sensationalising things), I surprisingly don't blame "education" either (although I cannot help complaining about education in general and how it solves all potential problems if funded and managed well).

My problem is with science not being political and with scientists not being politically active. I don't mean creating political parties or opposing creationists. I mean actively engaging with non-scientists and undertsanding the lack of understanding. I know what a "scientific fact" means, but sadly others take it as an absolute truth of reality or as a form of belief, like believing in the tooth fair because it conveniently fits the evidence.

Science in the public domain has the edifice of this huge rigid structure unbreakable and unchanging. Religious people opposed to science generally see it as a threat against their beliefs because they view it as a religious structure.

People talk about the human spirit and thought. Science presents a distanced emotionless objectivity to people clutching at understanding humanity and what it is to be human. Science offers so much but I can see how bad the packaging can look from the outside. The moat pressing job of the scientist in our time is to show the "human" side of science not some emotionless diatanced machine that people do generally see it as.

I remember saying to my friend back in secondary school that I preferred math and phsyics because you could put the work in and get an answer out, whereas in other areas you had to guess or be vague (he liked chemistry). At the time I lacked the ability to explain that I meant that physics and math gave me the tools to view not simply one guess or two, one vague picture or another, but many possible guesses and pictures based on a common understanding.

If people have issues with science in general then that is not governments problem nor the problem of education, it ia the problem for the scientist and I really think it needs addressing given that vast swathes of the population of this Earth have been dragged into technologies that modern society has troble keeping up with.

Just having watched the Michio Kaku vid I see the problem in the US is much worse than I thought! I was quite shocked.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5312
Joined: 14 Mar 2012



Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron