I’m new here; painfully new. It’s difficult for me as a newbie to write about my work, send it off into steemitspace, and then wonder whether anyone will talk to me about it.
One person did, and that was painful too! She informed me of her opinion that my first post was not “scientific” enough to rate the use of the steemstem tag. Of course I didn’t argue; it was clear that I was being told off.
However, I don’t want to think that her one vote should direct my future actions. I need to inquire about what goes on here so that I’ll know what I should do.
So now I’m wondering two things. First, is there a standard definition of science that I should follow, something that’s authoritatively dictated by some stemsteemites? And (if so), do those people get together to decide whether a specific post conforms to the rules and is thus appropriate for the thread?
I hope that that’s not what’s going on; if it is then of course I’d be obliged to conform. I’d rather think that at least most steemstemites are more open than that. I request that someone with knowledge of this procedure will let me know what I ought to be doing!
I hope that most of you understand the idea that there’s no authoritative definition of science, and that what’s considered “scientific” by the authorities on science fits under some rather broad guidelines.
My academic history includes two science degrees in neuropsychology, a BSc from Mcgill (physiological psych) and a Master’s from Caltech in biology (James Olds was my faculty advisor). So I have some experience in the field. (I also finished first in my class when I graduated in philosophy at age fifty-two; my main interests in that field are philosophy of science and ethics. My doctorate is in education).
So I quote from https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/ :
Scientific methodology includes the following:
• Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
• Evidence
• Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
• Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
• Repetition
• Critical analysis
• Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment
My particular area of expertise is sixth on the list: critical analysis. I'm also familiar with the other items.
That’s my history. I’d like very much to discuss my future with folks who hang out here.
In my dissertation I proposed a pedagogical model for higher order thinking; here’s the two-dimensional (over-over-simplified) diagram:
(To attribute this I’d need to wreck my anonymity – I’m not comfortable with that at this point)
So here’s the other question on which I need some authoritative declaration:
Is steemstem strictly about research in science, or does it also engage in topics which are relevant (perhaps even important) to scientists??
If deep critical thinking and the development of broadly coherent networks of aren't of interest to steemstemites, then I won't use the tag. Maybe I’ll find someone who wants to talk about my stuff; maybe I won’t. I have no way to tell.
The person who talked to me should stick to her field, of course. She doesn’t need to deal with philosophy of science, ethics or critical thinking; she already knows what’s important to her; she isn't concerned about those things. She even knows what I’m doing, and to her it’s not science. I understand. She’s not wrong, she’s opinionated – as am I!
So I write this in the hope of learning what other people think.
I attempted to create a tag - #higherorderthinking – it doesn’t seem to have worked.
Oh, well…
It would be kind of people to communicate with me, wouldn’t it?
Mike
Oh, you can use the "science" tag as much as you want. But we, the steemSTEM community would prefer to have only actual STEM (= Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) content in our tag. Philosophy doesn't fall under any of those terms.
We can't keep you from using the steemSTEM tag, and we're not a community that comes rushing in and starts flagging you. We just ask that you don't use our tag for unrelated or just vaguely related topics.
By the way: The moment you use a tag, it is created. But only the highest ranking tags are shown in the list. So, go ahead, spread your "highorderthinking" tag, whatever it's supposed to be. But don't expect scientists to want to read posts about how science sucks...
Suesa! Thank you for talking to me! (or "at me, or whichever...)...lol
I didn't say that science sucks!! I don't think that, quite the opposite. It's the best way to justify ideas about scientific things!
Do you actually do science? I've worked at it since 1970.
What I said is that the scientific definition of science is broader than most people think, and that science has its limits . Do you disagree with that? Either way is fine with me.
Anyway, thanks for communicating. You're not the only one who disagrees with my ideas! My concern is justification. If that's not science then who does it better?!
Mike
I've got to back @Suesa up on this one- as interesting as philosophy is, philosophy articles aren't really the kind of content the steemSTEM community is looking for.
I think there's a room for a very small amount philosophy in steemSTEM, but only under the proviso that it's only a part of a science oriented article, is relevant to the scientific topic, and/or is specifically philosophy of science related. It should play second fiddle to the actual STEM content of the specific article. It's the same principle that applies to anecdotal stories or humor in steemstem posts- they're acceptable additions to an article, but can't be its focus. However useful Thomas Kuhn's ideas on scientific revolutions are, for instance (and they are super useful), they really don't fit super well in the types of content the steemSTEM community and curators look for. And they do have a definite image of their ideal content.
If you're actually looking for a precise definition of science used by steemSTEM... I dunno, go with a Popperian definition of science that relies on falsifiability via empirical data? That basically works fine here, and explains well enough why philosophy doesn't count. That's not the definition explicitly used by steemSTEM, (I haven't really seen one of those), but like much of the scientific community, they're... just not that worried about philosophy, and I don't think they're wrong not to be. Philosophy of science doesn't really help that much in, say, studying the specific rates of mineral leaching from granite in tropical climes. It's more of use in helping philosophers and others understand what scientists are actually doing.
It sounds like your content would actually do pretty well under the philosophy tag, I highly recommend it.
I would also recommend not questioning peoples' credentials to their face as you did to Suesa below- yes, she certainly does science, as you could probably figure out with a few minutes perusing her profile. It's a little rude.
I have to say, I didn't get 'science sucks' from anything I've read here.
I appreciate that, sd, thanks. I'm questioning the value of insisting that people should claim that our beliefs are certainly true, that is, whether science (or any language) provides the last word on the unseen mysteries of the universe. There's no last word in science, as Kuhn demonstrated in his master work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions!
Of course the use of tags is free in Steem. I mean, anyone is free to use any tag.
Which was the post in which you received that message? Because I check all 3 posts and couldn't find it. Or perhaps it was a private message in the chats?
The @steemstem community also has a discord group here https://discord.gg/9c7pKVD (let me know if the link is working)
In there you can speak with members of the community and consult any doubt you might have.
Thanks for replying, dg. I appreciate your participation.
As it happens, it was a private chat on the discord line.
I invite you to discuss the content of my posts with me - of course I invite any relevant comments and questions about my topics from people here.
This a question I've been thinking about for a while too.
I'm a philosopher and have only a slight amount of formal science education. But have been involved in teaching university courses that investigate the foundations of psychology as a science, taught a stack of introductory logic, and even inflicted some of the (contested) foundations of mathematics on my unsuspecting students. I've also helped run a course on the ethics of engineering and design which was a part of the requirements for students wishing to qualify as professional engineers in Australia.
It's the latter that I thought might be of interest to #steemstem. Design, whether it's in an engineering context or not, is an activity that involves making decisions about value and ethics. As I've written elsewhere there are a whole host of engineering disasters that had distinct ethical failures attached to them.
These are all decisions that can be made in an engineering, design, or even scientific context. They all involve value judgements (usually poor ones). Value judgements are not strictly science, but they are part of the scientific and engineering process in the real world.
I was curious to hear if anyone in the #steemstem community was interested in this sort of thing. The conversation here doesn't bode well, but I should probably try for a larger sample than just @suesa ;)
" I should probably try for a larger sample"
lol...sounds scientific to me, sd!
My inquiry deepens; right now, all I can do is ask rhetorical questions for you and me to think about!
Of course ethics (social philosophy) isn't engineering or science, but is it relevant in their own minds to the people who practice those disciplines? Is it (or should it be?!) within their range of interests? Does it makes them better engineers or scientists?
And what about philosophy of science, and critical thinking? I’m sure that the professionals in those fields claim that they are expert critical thinkers, no matter whether they understand critical theory or not! As I wrote in my blog, I’ve actually worked with hundreds of professors, and few of them hold practical wisdom as a value. They pay lip service to social flourishing, but do they understand that it’s not the result of technology, but rather of careful attention to moral values?
As for deeply coherent thinking, most academics with whom I’ve worked are intensely focused on their own specific disciplines, with little to no regard for deep thinking in other areas. Most have had little practice in integrating moral values, philosophical wisdom or critical theory in their habits of thinking and behaving. Human relating, personal motivation, and psychological self-regulation are subjects that most people don’t seem to want to hear about. Of those who do, many are already convinced of their beliefs, so confirmation bias applies and they need to ignore any idea which contradicts their already- understandings.
People are tough, right? Life can be very tough, can’t it?
John Rawls (A Theory of Justice) wrote that the ideal model for the best (but of course unavailable) system of human understanding (wide dynamic reflective equilibrium) is “a hypothetical process of continually balancing a broad range of observations and conceptions in the process of forming and reforming the beliefs and the policies according to which we regulate our behavior...Taking this process to the limit, one seeks the conception, or plurality of conceptions, that would survive the rational consideration of all feasible conceptions and all reasonable arguments for them. We cannot, of course, actually do this, but we can … characterize the structures of the predominant conceptions familiar to us from the philosophical tradition, and … work out further the refinements of these that strike us as most promising.”
Narrow reflective equilibrium means that one is continually working at justifying one’s beliefs within a relatively narrow range of mutually justifying ideas, and not working as hard to figure out the other stuff. That describes most people, but of course some people work harder to understand more and better.
That’s you and me, right?
Excelsior!
A science of wonder puts emphasis on questions rather than answers as opposed to a science of certainty which is all about answers; are answers really more useful than questions? I think the steemSTEM community could benefit from a science of wonder and living with a good question (and the tension it brings) rather than answering it and storing it in a box to never look at it again.
Ref. https://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/science_cosmicreligion.htm
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9406.html
Thanks for your support, vc. Great suggestions by Al and Bill, also.
Why do people take such great care in distinguishing 'science' from 'humanities'? Have you noticed (of course you have!) how people who practice so-called 'hard' science believe that their works (and, of course, their oh-so-true beliefs) are truly superior to those of people who practice social science and arts? We all operate according a common set of human functionalities; some perform better than others, and some are more judgmental than others. We express ourselves differently due to variations in learning histories, but we operate in the same ways. That's why psychological science is so useful to those who understand cognition and motivation.
I don't accuse people of misdeeds or immorality; I do want people to examine their discourses and their actions for their own benefit and for the benefit of those around them. So without being personal, I note that arrogance, hypocrisy and bigotry are familiar to everyone who practices cognitive psychology, because we understand how those processes operate. They're less well understood by people who haven't explored the mysteries of cognitive functionality. Everyone has one's own interests.
We can't help that. We can deal with our historical limitations in various ways, but if we think in terms of truth then we can never reconcile intrapersonal conflicts without becoming wrong about something, and we can't deal with interpersonal conflicts with any other people who also can't change
their minds about stuff.
Metacognition guides critical coherency. If one isn't committed to reforming one's presumptions according to evidence and reason then the possibilities for learning are more limited than if one applies critical theory and critical analysis. (Is that correct, do ya think?)
It seems to my eyes, Mike, that you deliberately chose to provoke the curators of @SteemSTEM for your own benefit. This is a group that gives their time and energy to promote STEM topics and to ensure that content written with that tag lives up to standards that include authenticity, accuracy, and education. Scientists, and non scientists alike, read SteemSTEM over other tags, such as Science, because they know the quality of the content will be high.
While your questions are valid when questioning in general what belongs inside STEM, on Steemit, SteemSTEM has built its own definition that revolves around research. There is a value given to laboratory work and research studies over personal experience and empirical observation. Is this the only definition, of course not, but it is probably the most widely desired for this one tag.
My own work oscillates between plant neurobiology, philosophy, social innovation, and biomimicry. As such, I also find myself using the SteemSTEM tag in specific instances, which I find correct given the I believe it is important to respect the community environment the curation team puts so much energy into supporting.
As you probably know better than I do, if you want to change something, it is best done from the inside out. Before you can expand the definitions of SteemSTEM, which it feels like you are pushing to do at all costs, have you thought about becoming an active part of the community? By integrating into what has been created at first, you can understand how and why the standards evolved. As an active member of the community, if you still feel like the standards are too narrow and it would be better for the community's development for them to be more broad, then can you make an argument for their expansion as a contributor.
Throwing around credentials and expecting someone to listen because of them doesn't work so well in community environments. There are so many here with credentials, and by putting yours on display, the effect is a feeling that you believe your credentials must be higher than those of the others. Not sure that is the effect you wanted. The best way to get people to read your posts is not to rely on the tag used, but instead to become and active contributor to the community through comments and upvotes on the content of others. This will give you visibility for your own work, regardless of the tag chosen.
Well, I do intend to tone down my style if I'll continue to play. I've already promised to conform once I was informed.
I understand and appreciate everything that you've written here, yvesoler, except for the beginning where you described your inference about my motives. What you said about that doesn't match my values, purposes or commitments, and I wonder what your purpose was in writing that.
The rest was clear, and it was consistent with everything else that I've learned to understand about this place.
I appreciate your participation.
Fair enough--I should not have inferred your motives, I apologize for that. Thank you for listening to the rest, in spite of the bag beginning.
I look forward to reading your thoughts. The sociology, philosophy, and psychology tags could use a little more energy and citations. Who knows, maybe you will go on to found a curation group for #higherorderthinking?
One suggestion, purely my own feelings which you are free to ignore (in reality, you are free to ignore everything I say): be a little more generous with your upvotes. If something captures your attention enough to reply, then part of building that community relationship is also upvoting to show your support of that person. Even if the original argument is flawed, an upvote could help show the person that you value them giving it the good 'ole "college try", while the reply itself could suggest a counter argument or correction. Just a thought. :)
Perfect. Thanks very much for your apology and for your advice.
I updated my farewell post to include my appreciation of your wisdom and kindness.
Well, I dropped a substantial article under education yesterday; I hope that you'll talk with me some more.
Thanks again for caring.
I saw it. I have not had a chance to finish reading it, as I have been caught up in a series of philosophical essays about the (possible) minds of plants.
If I can speak honestly... I do not always feel comfortable responding to your posts. I am trying my best to continue because I genuinely like the argumentation. I am not one to hold fast to my belief systems. Even things we once considered "truths" can change over time with new discoveries and layers of understanding. Truth is complex, not just because of the amount of permutations to an argument, but because each permutation is filtered through the experiences of the presenter and the receiver.
When I read your words, I get the uneasy feeling that no matter what I write, you will be able to morph it into the argument you want to make. On one side I admire it, as I do not have the skill to manipulate another's words in such a way. On the other hand, without the benefit of truly knowing you and seeing your body language, I get this feeling that what I understand in your words is not the message that lies behind them. As such, I feel like I am silently being teased, like a cat playing with a mouse. Even if the mouse thinks it can get away, the cat knows that he can let him run for a bit because he has the ability to recatch and devour him at will.
I don't see this as something necessarily directed AT me. But regardless of the motivation, it makes me double check every word I write in the hopes of not giving you any ammunition to use against me, something that becomes tedious after a while. Maybe as you said this is the curse of being extremely intelligent and educated? Maybe there are other psychological factors behind it? Or maybe I am just plain wrong and my feelings match in no way your experiences. Either way, for now, that is how I feel, and until I get over it, I will have a difficult time discussing the nuances of your well-studied arguments because I will fear that if I leave out a citation or do not correctly state my case, your response will be felt as an attack on my education and intelligence.
Hope this gives you a little window into why I find it hard to respond to your posts.
Beautiful. Thank you very much for sharing this. It's very clear.
You've provided terrific insight into people's reactions to me, and I'd like to discuss it with you, if you're willing. Since you brought it up, I infer that you will...
I'll take some time to think about it and get back to you. Meanwhile, would you explore your experience of avoidance and how it relates to our fears? They're common to all of us, and many people don't understand them very well...
I'm touched by your willingness to communicate. I appreciate it very much.
Most definitely willing to explore, but can we make it a two way street? I have laid my cards out on the table for you to see. I would love to hear from you your true feelings as you wrote your various messages and comments. I would be curious to see where intention and interpretation match.
Meanwhile, the "truth is complex" part is important for me to refute! (Ouch!!!! Should I apologize??)
Aarrghh.
Anyway, please rethink that claim: In my perspective, 'truth' is extremely simple: it's black and white; binary; it's nominal. And that's the problem with it!
The world is complex; people are complex, and language is complex. That's why truth is an inadequate metric for understanding! That's why coherency is relevant to critical thinking and to argumentation and truth is not.
Is that clear enough yet, Yves;? I'm hopeful. There seems to be a breakthrough available here...maybe...what do you think?
And here we can agree to disagree, since I have a feeling we will not find a suitable meeting point. In the school of thought I study, there is no such thing as truth in the World of Form. Truth is always a crystal made of many different faces. Your personal truth can be simple, but contained within it is your personalized perception of reality, and the words used are merely agreed upon codes that can only tell one part of the story you wish to tell. The rest remains hidden behind layers of consciousness, unconsciousness, fear, education, culture, language, and so much more.
In the words of Falco Tarassaco, "Truth is Being, but to be Truth you must listen to yourself. Listening to yourself is to travel inward and overcome the appearances created by the self, from the character we have defined as personality, that is simultaneously an element of connection and repulsion of others. It is the skin that communicates. It is the skin that defends me from others, from those that are similar to myself. To the human race."[1]