It has become more and more popular over the last couple of decades to quote scientific facts and research just to make a point. There is nothing wrong with the idea of seeking objective truth through systematic examination and observation. The problem begins when we start confusing the narrative of science with actual scientific enquiry.
Doing science has always been a challenging task because it involves meticulous and repetitive actions in order to understand how something in this world works. The scientific method is a very specific ritual that involves systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the thereafter formulation, repetitive testing, and modification of hypotheses.
In this time and age, unless one is bound to engineering, the scientific process rarely applies. More and more experiments fail to replicate and this is true across all fields. The situation is even more dangerous to fields that impact us directly like in the case of medicine, sociology and psychology where studies are rarely replicable and many practices that affect millions of lives are rarely questioned.
Perhaps the most prominent use of the “authority” of science is when it comes to debates. People defending a position always know how to google a research that favors their point of view but rarely care to reference a similar research that contradicts it. Even worse, the so-called research is more than often a cheap click-bait summary that has nothing to do with the original research.
In this way people have become more and more accustomed to used words like “fact” and “proof” as if science proves anything. Science never proves anything. Science demonstrates something under specific premises that falls under an even more specific timeline. What is demonstrable today might not be next year. Most likely every single fact you know today about specific topics will be debunked in the next decade. For example we might know that today there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates that e-cigarettes, GMO's, electromagnetic fields from cellphones and wifi's or modern vaccines cause any harm but this was also true about cigarettes and radiation just a century ago.
The word science is being used today much like religion in order to demonstrate moral and factual absolutism about how things should be. The matter of fact is that most industries and professions that claim to be bounded by science are not. They rather use the word as a meme for credibility. Whether we talk about psychologists, doctors, sociologists, marketers, chiropractors, financial analysts, life coaches, alternative medicine and many, many others they are all mostly bullshiters who nitpick specific truths to sell their product. Most jobs that exist today will be a joke in 100 years from now because simply they fail to even address basic statistical correlation in their core practical foundation. They have stuck around because people have incorporate them into their lives and have found some sort of usefulness—not because they are demonstrably true.
The education system might be the core problem for this situation. During the first 15 years humans shouldn't be taught any subjects about how other humans have experienced this world. I mean nothing. Zero subjects. Children should only be taught how to think and not what to think. Right after the young padwans should teach their masters, not the other way around. There are rarely any "facts" around us. What exists as reality is mostly one facet of a truth — one shade we get to glimpse temporality until even that becomes obsolete.
The reason the Renaissance and Enlightenment had such a massive impact on the world, was because people decided to challenge everything they used to know about their world. This is how we came to make a revolution in knowledge and discovery. Same thing that worked in the classical world was applied anew.
Today we have become too complacent with our scientific state of enquiry. Even if our engineering ability slowly surges forward, we are merely making more and more toys based on more or less the same old principles. Scientists don't spend their life savings to invent or make something extraordinary like back in the day. Scientists today wait for a grant to be approved so they can stretch their post-doc and assistant professor crapmanship for the next 3-4 years—publishing useless papers or catering to intellectual tourists.
Invoking science should be done very carefully and delicately and only under premises that allow other scientific findings to be presented. Science is first and foremost a tool, not an end to itself. It cannot be used as a handicap to an online argument, formulate social policy or dictate how we should treat another human being. Much like everything else in life, the issue is never about the word or concept itself but about how we all choose to use it. We live in a world of abundance in regards to everything. Critical thinking can give us more answers than any set of scientific facts ever will.
Hello @kyriacos,
Your post has been chosen by the communities of SteemTrail as one of our top picks today.
What do you love to write about? Join us on SteemTrail today and find others who share your interest!
The SteemTrail Community looks forward to more great stuff from you. So, please keep up the great work!
Keep on Steemin!
thanks man.
Speaking of teaching children.
The way people used to be taught was called the Trivium.
Reading, Logic, Rhetoric.
Reading came first, and was taught by reading the great works.
Then you learned logic and how to reason with the information you had.
Finally, you learned about how to tell your idea to other people.
Today, we teach rhetoric first. We teach children what to think, not how to think. We don't even teach logic until college now.
And we teach in a process that says you will not pass this grade until you give us the answers we expect. And furthermore much of the "science" books we teach children are wrong. The examples were proven wrong long ago, but they are still used.
So, kids are indoctrinated into "science" (as master), not into scientific thinking.
Exactly. Finland started a new system already with a no subject matter teaching. Let's see how it goes.
Science is not like religion. Religion denies new evidence, but science embraces it. Science is about the best we know now. It can never be perfect, but if it doesn't explain what we see then a good scientist will look for new answers. Of course there are commercial pressures and they are just hunan, but we should not dismiss all science and experts. 'Alternative' science generally means it's not really proven.
Of course there are areas that science cannot answer, e.g. should I help that poor person. That's for religion/philosophy or just personal choice.
Science is not like a religion but surely acts like it sometimes. For example the tradition of tenured professors is much like religion since nobody can dethrone them unless they die. Another example is that academic institutions and academic circles are sometimes so closed, reinforcing peer review on each other than nothing can shake their foundations.
Also religion does evolve. This is how you get heresies.
That is an issue with people, not with science. There are scientific heretics too, but they have to produce proof to get recognised. The scientific world has issues, but it's given us the world we have now. Politics and entrenched ideas can hold up progress. Nobody is perfect
Doesn't science consist of people, though? It's a man made concept.
Of course it is, but the whole peer review system is intended to remove personal bias. Nothing is perfect, but I think most scientists are driven by a desire to understand how things work. They have to be prepared to be wrong.
What if all the peer reviewers have the same bias?
Science = the scientific method. The scientific community = people. Those two things are not remotely the same thing.
Νο, science has not given us the world we have now. That is an overgeneralisation. Much like you don't credit Science with Hiroshima and Nagasaki your should be similarly careful when crediting only the "wins".
Science and Religion and.... are tools used by people. Some use them good some not so good.
Well we wouldn't have the technology, food, healthcare, atchitecture... without science. It's not all good as it created weapons too. It's up to people to decide how to use them.
Sorry, not looking to argue. It's just that science seems to get dismissed by people who should know better
Yes but this science was also developed in monasteries from people who also believed in God. Most importantly they didn't only use the scientific method to produce what you see.
Most medicine and even chemical discoveries happened by accident, not because of planned scientific methods. Science should be addressed only when it is "scientific" not when people try to create something.
Indeed the term has been misused a lot and this is exactly why we see so many people confused. Debates are good. they help us learn.
My pet example is how the field of economics, which could be studied in a scientific way, has turned into a set of belief systems which are adhered to in a religious way; no amount of failed predictions is allowed to impact the entrenched theories, and other theories are seen as "evil". Reviews are done only within the specific economic church, because outsiders aren't considered "peers" but "lost sheep". I'm not just talking about main-stream economics here, it applies first and foremost to the economic theories defended religiously on Steemit.
yes. spot on @orcdu
I read an article that said a serious problem with peer review is that so few people do it, as it is basically volunteer basis. just another reason 'peer reviewed' study doesn't mean anything's been rigorously proven.
exactly. The circles they maintain is also worrying since a few people usually end up peer-reviewing each other
I especially don't like evolutionary dogma. There should be a new logical fallacy called 'because monkeys' or 'appeal to hunter/gatherer.'
Young people should be well schooled in history and religion/mythology of all kinds. Not because of the goal of 'inclusion/diversity' that predominates today. Rather that we can best challenge our existing dogmatic narratives by seeing how things were and came to be. How our existing narratives affect our interpretation of evidence from the past is very important, as looking to the past gives us much information, but it quickly becomes food for dogma.
most arguments that stem from evolutionary dogma are really appeal to nature fallacies to begin with.
On the other hand, any theory is preferable to "appeal to higher being".
always. Appeal to higher being does not answer any questions. It rather stops you from making any.
LOL There is more probability of being struck down by Thor than any miracle from an abrahamic god.
You just can not bring on the topic I would disagree with. Man, you really read my minds. I was thinking I`m alone.
I think you have it a bit upside down. How science is used in general discussion is a completely other thing than trusting science in general. Psychology, sociology and other soft sciences are hard to prove, have the problem that bias in many forms can and do affect the outcome. But that is simply a thing you have to take into consideration, especially in political discussions. But that is really just an integrated part of science. A thesis is not proof in the philosophical sense (not much is actually... See David Hume :)
Critical thinking needs empirical data, just as it need an understanding of logic and an awareness of fallacies.
What you really can criticise is this:
What I am saying is rather an extension of the picture you posted. More and more people get into science because it is simply pretty. We have created a culture of science today that revolves around public acceptance and understanding since funding is rather limited. This is how and why you get meme popularizers of science like Tyson to leading the new wave when his biggest accomplishment was to linguistically declassify an astronomical body.
I don't think psychology is part of science more than alchemy or gambling. At some point we have to accept what passes as science and what doesn't. I am a Popperian myself in regards to how the whole thing is approached theoretically and a hardcore engineer when it comes to practicality.
Meanwhile the new scientists are really just people who think science is pretty. This is why and how they pay their way into college and this is how we end up with crap research spoiling the rest. We have a science pollution that mingles between the spectrum of pseudoscience and epistemology.
OK. Then you do not have it upside down :) I agree.
Edit: Or partly agree. History, theology, sociology and psychology is still Science. You just have to remember that bias and fallacies are part of the fabric of every thesis in these fields, whereas connecting mathematics and empirical observation is less prone to that problem.
I agree that people use and abuse science. Just look at climate: supporters of the catastrophic warming theory constantly quote the supposed consensus to try and shut up ANY debate, even though there are clear proofs that their theory has many failures.
As for "social" sciences: they may have some constants (supply/demand), but they are usually not "hard" sciences because they don't have any objective standards that EVERYONE agrees upon. Just look at discussions about the US Civil War...
They simply shouldn't be called "science" to begin with. That's where the problem begins
They ARE sciences; they follow a very similar methods and conclude things based on the evidence. One of its main faults might be that the majority of its researchers a skewed on one side
when you don't have replicability you don't have science. The reason they lack replicability is because humans are vastly complicated entities and it is impossible to replicate settings and contact controlled experiments.
Some experience have been repeated... unwittingly: hyperinflation, bubbles, regulations, etc. They all show that laws of economics are called so for a reason: incentives matter and you can't create wealth out of thin air.
There are no laws in economics. What you describe it is not necessarily scientific (e,g bubbles) but the results of a system that we already set up based on some rules.
that is actually the definition of pseudoscience.
supply and demand has been pretty steady through history. THe housing bubble of the 2000s was so obvious that Austrian economists (including Ron Paul) saw it coming as early as 2003. As for the present bubble, anyone with basic knowledge of markets could have know that quadrupling the monetary base CANNOT create sustainable growth.
Mark my words: when the present bubble explodes, it<s going to be even uglier.
Great points. The only "proofs" are in mathematics. Everything else is dependent on a body of evidence and interpretation of data which is always going to be limited by human perception, bias and incompetence.
For some people Science has become a religion of sorts. Much as I love Science I think that is a mistake.
Real proofs only exist within a closed mathematical system. Outside mathematics itself, mathematics is used for modelling, but doesn't prove anything. Also note that not everything is necessarily provable within a closed mathematical system, as a spoil-sport called Gödel proved.
Actually, Gödel proved that a system can not be both complete (closed) and consistent, i.e. logical fallacies necessarily arise in a complete system.
The best one could hope for is to be incomplete and consistent solely because inconsistency would be madness!
Aren't mathematics themselves though based on axioms which in turn come to prove themselves? Mathematics are a tool. They can make pretty good scientific predictions only when applied properly. e.g engineering
Not necessarily but I'm not the best person to explain it - I think a mathematician would be better placed.
Even applying scientific theory is restricted by the potential for our own perceptions to be altered and distorted so if you are looking at it from a philosophical standpoint nothing in the physical world can be proven as there is no means of ascertaining an objective reality. One can only look at probabilities and even those can be open to distortion and misinterpretation.
Indeed there is no way of knowing if an objective reality even exists.
All we can do is make models and alter or reject them if they don't predict well. All the rest is metaphysics, which I think is an interesting but useless pastime.
exactly :) . what are mathematical axioms but expressions of three dimensional beings bounded by the space-time continuum
Yes but don't let a mathematician hear you say that they won't accept it! This comes down to the religious belief thing again:)
I actually debated with mathematicians before on this very subject. They also seem to disagree with each other.
and this is good actually. debate and disagreement are very good. when we start being sure about things around us, this is when the trouble begins.
Spot on! We really must stop agreeing like this lol:)
Axioms are not proven by other axioms, by definition.
Indeed. This is where the philosophy of mathematics gets tricky and I am sure in no position to delve deeper into it.
There is nothing philosophical about it, actually. It is a matter of definitions and running with them.
Even crazier things start happening in logic when you start assuming certain set theoretic axioms and seeing which other theorems are proved or not proved under these axioms. Look into the Axiom of Choice.
Thanks, I will check it out
I would say that mathematics is the only science that has absolute replicability that can occur when using the scientific method, assuming that a theorem is proven properly.
And unfortunately, mathematics itself, is not proven.
There are indications that it may be wrong. (that its assumptions are wrong, and so arise incorrect conclusions)
What indications exist that certain assumptions of mathematics are incorrect?
The work of Goedel (for his Incompleteness Theorem) and Whitehead and Russel (for which the basis of logic was formalized) speak for themselves when the latter constructs logic from, literally, nothing!
You are making baseless accusations without any substance whatsoever.
Please provide evidence of your claims.
I am working on a post of this topic, but it is difficult going.
Its kinda like talking about pizza-gate three years ago. No one knew, or wanted to talk about it, and getting into it meant pulling in a LOT of disparate pieces.
Your reaction is also an example of what this post was talking about.
How, I would have responded was, "In what ways? Can you tell me more?"
I find that most people don't even know that mathematics is built on a bunch of assumptions. So, when you talk about challenging them, you either get outright denial, or blank stares.
Most of my theories come from people who be described as self-trained mathematicians. And so, in the "peer-reviewed" world, they are nobodies.
In the mathematics that I am working on (and others like me) PI is a rational number. It appears that several ancient civilizations (like the Mayan) also had this form of mathematics. (they encoded it into their pyramids)
All I can do is point it out, and anyone who wants to can go look for it.
Mathematics requires proof of claims or evidence. That is the very essence of mathematics. I saw only claims and nothing more.
I did respond that way. And I quote:
Even when I was amicable in my response asking you for any indication (which I meant to act as a synonym for evidence) that you had that the assumptions of math are false, you make a claim that my reaction is an example of what this post was about.
In short, I observed and stated that your claims were baseless and had no evidence. I asked for your sources and information, yet you sidestep the question.
I have some more questions that I am sure you will also choose to not answer.
Do you know that "1 + 1 = 2" is an assumption? It has not been proven yet.
I believe someone has come up with a proof of "2 + 2 = 4" but I am not sure.
There is another assumption that you can always add 1 to a number.
This assumption creates all kinds of problems. Infinity, not being able to divide by zero, etc.
Current mathematics assumes linear number lines. Everywhere in the universe we look, we do not see straight lines. We see circles, loops and spirals.
There are people working with circular number lines. And closed loop dimensions.
Lets say you had a number, which equalled all of the possible atoms in the galaxy.
Then if you counted 1,2,3,4... all of the atoms, any number larger than all possible doesn't make any sense.
When you look at the universe through these different mathematics, the universe and its laws make much more sense.
You failed to address any of my questions regarding proof or evidence to your claims.
You then continue to make claims with no backing.
Before continuing with more baseless statements, please respond to my questions that ask for evidence of all of your previous statements.
What? That "1 + 1 = 2" is an assumption?
I know they don't teach that in your typical mathematics class, but it is well known to all who look for it.
I would reply to you, but it's not possible.
You never answered any of my questions. And there is really no reason to continue, however ...
As far as 1 + 1 = 2 being an assumption, you never read Whitehead and Russel's Principia Mathematica (which I referenced in my first comment).
You'll find that they prove that statement 1 + 1 = 2 starting with assuming the concept of nothingness, or in mathematical set notation terms, the empty set.
For your homework for this evening, read the first chapter and do all the exercises.
because it's a priori it's independent of experience
Indeed but even mathematics are based on axioms, which in turn have to prove themselves in order for them to work. Mathematical axioms in the spectrum of engineering though can give us pretty good scientific results.
You misunderstand the definition of axioms.
Axioms do not have to be proven in a logical framework. They are assumed to be true and do not need to be proven.
math doesn't need to be based on axioms. it's INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE. the base of math is based on a priori knowledge or simply said the truth.
you just went full dogma there....
math is a tool inspired by humans..nothing a priori there. everything they measure is based on how humans perceive reality. ..and humans have very limited senses in perceiving everything that exists around them.
Up and foremost they help us create relations ..when we run short though, we throw negative numbers, infinity, zero so we can make sense of things.
Same thing applies to language. We say "nothing" but every time there is something. We just omit the details, we overgeneralize, so we can communicate.
bro what's the result of 2+2?
in some cases 4. In some others 5.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/775273/contradiction-prove-22-5
Here is another one
http://www.businessinsider.com/2--2-doesnt-always-equal-4-2014-6
great. in both cases there were used logical deductions : MATH. bye
thats a straw-man argument girl. How can you bring up logic when you are not using any in your argument? also
What a good post and discussion, most of which I shall bow to the superior knowledge of others. All I would say is that as a devotee of QI, Stephen Fry's panel show, which he has sadly retired from, something like 40% - yes, 78.6% of statistics are invented on the spot! About that number of their perceived correct answers are now incorrect. There is no such thing as a fact, that's a fact! And much of science is learned not by proof but by disproving a thesis, which the better scientists are more than willing to acknowledge. Forcing a wrong'un is a path to the abyss.
From the original post:
Would you agree to "children should be taught to question what was thought by those who came before them?"
On a large scale, if children were never taught what other people thought, would the United States exist today? Most countries in history were bound by a religion taught in the home (and church) throughout childhood. Indeed, raising a child is nearly synonymous with teaching what you and your community believe.
The founding of the US with a seperation of church and state as a core tennant was a risk. To provide the glue needed to unify the nation, children were taught what to think. About underrepresentation, freedom of religion, equality, opportunity, and all the other things that drove people to migrate to the US from countries where the primary community bond was religion. I'm sure you have heard, "those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it," and without knowing why the U.S. was founded, what would stop one community bound by their religion from breaking off and building laws that impose the will of their religion?
On a small scale, younger minds are simply more inclined to be selfish and gravitate towards immediate rewards or solutions. Romeo acted against how he was told to think, which is pretty equatable with acting how he wanted as if he had not been told how to think. Fiction, but could you not not picture a similar outcome (at least 5 dead) if a whole generation was raised to beyond the start of puberty without any moral guidance?
I am sure you would agree that even if you know history (the version someone decided to teach anyways) people repeat those mistakes anyways.
so at the end it is pointless. each country teaches its own history by emphasizing on the goods and avoiding the bads. History is mostly fiction.
You can certainly find examples of history repeating itself, but I do not accept that it is the rule instead of the exception particularly in cases where the actors know the history in question. Pennsylvania breaking off into a quaker-run country of its own is not in history because history did not repeat itself. Finding an example where it did repeat itself is easy because what did not happen did not get written up nearly as often -- your pool of samples is biased.
In addition, the quoted statement is to not teach children what to think. I started with history being close to the definition of a school's history class, but the "what" we teach our children might be more along the lines of "historic information" including everything ever written or discovered.
Although the shoulders of giants idea goes back farther than Isaac Newton, he said "If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." If the giants he stood on were mostly fiction, how come he saw farther than those before him and those after him have seen farther than he did?
For instance, I believe Einstein was writing about the influence of magnetic fields by the age of 16 -- but he had been taught what to think about why apples fell instead of floating. Had he not been taught anything of electricity and physics before the age of 15, how could he have been so advanced at the age of 16? Would he have reached the same heights by the end of his live?
If we go 'post-history' -- not teaching our children what to think -- we would not stand any chance of it being appropriately questioned. Children would come to their own conclusions by the age of 15, and those conclusions would be as primitive as any from pre-history.
Bro, because science came into light and scientists were not killed by the church anymore. you discuss like a sophist, not the best truth seekers mind you LOL
Well, you discuss like a neo-atheist.
Ancient Egyptians had science, ancient greeks did as well and they all had pretty vicious religions. Monasteries and religion did advance science. They builded ships that colonized the modern world for example. They just didn't accept some tenants of astronomy and evolution.
I think you need to lay off some Dawkins girl...I am an atheist but I can smell your noob-ness on the subject from a mile.
nope. I am agnostic
There is no such thing as agnostic because we are all agnostic. It is like saying "I am human".
An atheist merely assumes the premise that every God concept that has been invented so far cannot possibly exist due to logical limits. etc. who created God.
if the question does not bring answers but raises another level of the same question then what is asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence.
"agnostic" is a meme. an expired one. You either believe that there is evidence of some magical deity to exist based on some evidence or you don't. its like I am asking you "Are you pregnant?". You can't say "a little".
you can't say that a Christian or a Muslim is agnostic. they accept the fact that there is a god and his name is God or Allah. Me, as agnostic, on the other hand: "An agnostic knows that just because there is no physical proof of the existence of a higher being, it dose not automatically mean that one does not exist."
it's a meme? that's your perception but it's your own reality, not EVERYBODY's. but because it's your OWN perception it doesn't mean it's the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
They are somewhat agnostic in regards to the nature of their God . For example Christians would say "αγνωσται οι βουλαι κυριου ημων" meaning, " the will of the god is unknown". All in all, we are all agnostic in regards to something.
Are you also agnostic in regards to pixies? birds with elephant tasks? 20 finger chickens? flying spaghetti monster?
Just because you choose to be "agnostic" in regards to something popular and accredited from democratic belief, doesn't mean it applies since you disregard trillions of other possibilities that are not so popular.
I think you need to work on your logic girl.
i cant reply to the other comment.but yes, you merely make some statements and claim that some of my "premises" do not make sense to you. My fault or you are too narrow-minded and do not like discussion?
and by the way, by default the shadow of a cilinder is like this : not exactly a rectangular.
are you talking on behalf of ALL CHRISTIANS? i dont think so.
I don't need to work with my own logic. in fact, I prefer to think that there are still things I don't know, unlike you that you KNOW everything
I agree, and have seen too many specific instances of silencing. Many first hand.
The words that really get my goat is "peer reviewed", which used to hold great weight with me, back in school, now it is the words of the enemy. In order to become a "peer" you have to think like all the other reviewers. So, if you think different, you are not a peer, and will not be peer reviewed.
No, it's not.
Indeed the evidence is there even for short term studies that only involve one human generation.