The Encroachment of Fact-Free Science 962
G3ckoG33k writes "Fact-free science is not a joke; it is very much on the move, and it is quite possibly the most dangerous movement in centuries, for the entirety of mankind. One can say it began as counter-movement to Karl Popper's ground-breaking proposals in the early 20th century, which insisted that statements purporting to describe the reality should be made falsifiable. A few decades later, some critics of Popper said that statements need peer acceptance, which then makes also natural science a social phenomenon. Even later, in 1996, professor Alan Sokal submitted a famous article ridiculing the entire anti-science movement. Now New York Times has an article describing the latest chilling acts of the socially relativistic, postmodern loons. It is a chilling read, and they may be swinging both the political left and right. Have they been successful in transforming the world yet? How would we know?"
Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's agree not to call this a "Republican" or "Democratic" position. The problem is that there are adherents to scientific claims who don't know the truth on both sides. I don't claim to know much about climate science, evolution, natural history or reproductive biology. So me claiming a "scientific" position on global warming, creationism, evolution or abortion is to some extent who I want to have faith in. Generally I choose respected scientists, but its still faith on my part because I haven't done the research myself.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not that someone is ignorant, it's that people who are ignorant and unqualified to make any decisions, make those decisions based entirely on ideology, and present their ideologically-inspired beliefs as "truth".
What, I guess, is a step up from doing the same with religion instead of political ideology (hi, "pro-lifers" and evolution deniers), but not by much.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a problem with ideology being thrust into issues that are not ideological. Which is why I found it a bit strange you lump "pro-lifers" in with people who deny evolution. Doctors and other qualified medical people are not entirely on one side of the abortion debate. And it is often the case where two people can be well-informed on reproductive biology and still arrive at different positions on the issue.
This is because abortion is fundamentally an ideological issue, incorporating morality, reproductive freedom, and value of life. Which is wholly different from taking an ideological stance on an issue that is not at all ideological, like evolution. In contrast to abortion, with evolution it is very rare for two people who are well-informed of the facts to arrive at different positions on the issue.
So while I agree with you that ideology does get thrust into situations where it should not be, the reverse of that; taking an ideological issue and demanding that it be evaluated purely on scientific grounds, is equally problematic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really not strange to lump pro-lifers in with those anti-science nutters. They frequently take the position that a fetus is a person complete with all that entails and that a fetus exists from conception. Such a clumping of cells isn't any more a person than that wart I had removed was.
A person is entitled to have an opinion on that issue, but rewriting our knowledge to suit somebody that's probably too stupid to recognize that IVF results in far more embryos being disposed of than abortion on a per instance basis.
Re: (Score:3)
This is because abortion is fundamentally an ideological issue, incorporating morality, reproductive freedom, and value of life.
Ideologies and morality do not spontaneously emerge from nothing. They are also the products of context and evolution (in a wider sense). Science can bring new points-of-view and shed light on things not previously known.
For example, we now have a fairly rough idea about this thing primitive humans called "soul" for lack of better understanding. We can make - still rough, but substantiated by evidence - guesses at the point, or rather phase, in which a cluster of rapidly duplicating cells within a female bo
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Insightful)
Pro-lifers get lumped in with creationists because they tend to be busy bodies.
Proper "pro-lifers" are all about interfering with other people's choices and playing the role of Puritan.
They also tend to be the same sort of evangelical fundie types that can't leave people alone in general.
Pro-lifers and Creationists both are all about "I don't like this choice and I won't let you make it either".
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
If the anti-abortion position was all about "protecting babies" then you'd have a point. But it's not.
The "tell" is the legislation that anti-abortion people get passed. It always punishes the doctor, never the woman. If it was all about "saving babies" then the woman should be treated as if she hired a hitman. Instead, she's treated like she has no agency. The evil doctor waved something shiny in front of her so she had an abortion.
The organized anti-abortion position is about controlling women. "Saving babies" is their marketing.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
i would imagine that his libertarian viewpoint informs him that while he has come to that conclusion, reasonable people may possibly disagree. since he acknowledges that his conclusion is a philosophical one, and his ideology values individuality and independence, then it is not necessarily logical to make abortion illegal even though the individual is opposed to abortions.
This is in fact one essential pillar of pro-choice that people forget. one can be opposed to abortion itself and still be pro-choice. for example, if one believes that the individual, and not the state, is most qualified to wrestle with such fundamental philosophical questions.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the law goes, if you got your girlfriend pregnant, you have absolutely shit-all to say in the matter. It's entirely her choice.
You're willing to take the kid, go, raise your son/daughter, and willing to sign off that she never has to pay any child support or bother to see the kid if she doesn't want to? Too bad. She can abort anyways. You don't have any "parental rights" till the kid is actually born.
Counterpoint - you don't want kids, never did, she lied about being on the pill? She decides to proceed anyways and you're on the hook for 18+ years of child support.
Third point - family court is fucked up. You two have a falling-out later? Chances are the judge gives her sole custody, even if you have a solid job and house and she's a waitress who's been through 3 jobs in 2 years and now is shacking up with a pot-smoking loser. (Not joking, happened to one of my best friends). She decides to run off to two states away with the kids? Good luck even getting an out of state court to enforce a custody/visitation order - but oh boy will they ever go after you if you don't manage to keep up with the child support payments.
The law is terribly fucked up in many respects. Don't think it ends just at the abort/nonabort decision.
Re: (Score:3)
Face it women know the dangers of having sex before engaging. Don't let them about face when shit gets real. /flame
Really? Then why do the same general group of pro-lifers insist on not having proper sex education?
http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/24/abstinence/index.html [salon.com]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/20/george-bush-teen-pregnancy-abstinence [guardian.co.uk]
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-02-11/news/17229994_1_abstinence-comprehensive-sex-education-sexual-and-reproductive-health [sfgate.com]
Face it, the issue is religious and political and not about what's good for society.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
An abortion is not pro-choice, it's pro-regret. I am not forcing you to be pregnant no more than I am forcing you to be in prison after committing a crime.
That is the argument that I always have a problem with. I hate the idea of a child being a punishment. That is not concurrent with my religious beliefs at all. I hear so many stories on the news and internet about people who are just crappy parents. I would be more in favor of technologically locking people's gonads until they prove that they can be a good parent. To argue that we should punish people who have shown themselves to be irresponsible and poor decision makers by giving them the responsibility of looking after the precious life of a child seems illogical. I do not believe in life for the sake of life. I believe that quality of life is important. And, if you are brought into this world as a punishment for your parents, I do not believe you will have a high quality life (or at least a high quality childhood).
Re: (Score:3)
You don't want to get pregnant, then DON'T FUCK. I choose not to have sex because I don't want a baby.
Why, why, why, why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't wanna fuck in the first place? Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ahem. My abortion was due to a broken condom, not to being unaware of the consequences of sex. Awareness of the consequences of sex are why I had a small pile of cash ready in case said condom broke. Pills were not suitable for me at the time due to medical contraindications. So thanks, but keep your ideology off of my body.
Re: (Score:3)
I really wish you hadn't included the "pro-lifers" in your comment. The abortion debate is not even remotely similar to being an AGW or evolution denialist. Whereas global warming and evolution allow for testable hypotheses and have sound science backing them and those denying it are ignoring science because of their ideology. Abortion, on the other hand, is not a debate over acceptable science, but rather it is strictly a moral debate as to when a fetus becomes a human with a right to life, and further, wh
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We think we have a pretty good handle on it, but we don't know.
This is true of ALL scientific statements. Scientific knowledge can never be known 100%, its always just the best explanation of observed data, with varying degree of strength (based on the amount of observed data).
This is sciences main strength, that the system is always open, and always self-correcting, at least when the process is working as it should. This is its main weakness, though, when it comes to the public aspect of science. As a scientist, you can never say "I know that...", which leaves open
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Because there has to be just a single cause for all vaguely similar events.
Caution: FALLACY! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well my "casual" observation shows there was another global warming period during the time of Ancient Egypt (circa 3500 BC) and again in the Roman Empire (circa 300-1300).
Clearly those global warming periods were not caused by cars, so there's no reason to think the present period is either. We need to find the REAL cause for these three Warming periods, which are not man-made.
Also Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC, long before firearms were invented.
Clearly he was not killed by a firearm, so there's no reason to think someone could die as a result of being hit by a gunshot.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Informative)
Didn't you used to call yourself commodore128_lurv or something? It would be odd to see two commodore aficionados who are also ultra right wing climate change denialists on the same board. Why'd you change your name to something almost identical?
Re: (Score:3)
This is the most bizarre thing I've ever read. There was never any evidence of a geocentric solar system.
You clearly do not know the meaning of the word "evidence". It doesn't mean "ignorance".
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, when you ONLY take this observation into account and NOT the movement of the other planets, this seems quite correct. But when you look at the other planets and how they'd have to go around in looping circles that run along a spiral across the sky, you'll soon notice that it's much more "elegant" to just move the sun into the center. Now they all circle around in (more or less) circular motions.
Does this "elegance" make it right? No. Of course not. But it makes it a very valid theory that should be dis
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
See my reply to the GP below. Then please tell me, why do you believe in evolution?
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention -- one is presented as plausible explanation with evidence, and another is "believe in what I said, or my imaginary friend will tell my imaginary enemy to burn you in hell after you die!".
If I was a biologist, I would be qualified to analyze the evidence deeper and in more details, however being merely an educated person capable of thinking, I have to do with this.
Just like so-called "Intelligent Design" (Score:5, Interesting)
We need science policy based on fact - not fantasy. This creationist crap is what leads to bad policies for the country as a whole too and impacts global warming and energy policy just as much as science funding.
Keep the nut jobs out of science.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep them out? So can the religious get a tax refund proportional to the amount of government money spent on science?
Given that churches aren't taxed, religion already receives more government funding than science. So, I guess the answer is "it will be proportional when they start paying some taxes".
P.S: I love the fact that he said "keep the nut jobs out", and you automatically read that as "keep the religious out".
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Interesting)
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is? And the two are not necessarily in complete conflict... so, what if parts of both are correct?
Sigh... (not directed at parent post) this is one of the subjects on Slashdot where people can completely lose their claimed open-mindedness. From the other side, it probably seems as though the people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant. So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
Re: (Score:3)
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is?
With evolution, it can only be the case that animals do evolve, or they don't. With religion, the deities involved either exist or they don't. Of course the two are not mutually exclusive, but with evolution it is indeed one way or the other. You accept the evidence that species evolve, or you deny it because of some act of "faith".
people here are just as ignorant and closed-minded because they believe anything from a person labeled "scientist" as true and inerrant. So it's like faith, but it's faith in the works and claims of people.
People here are always looking for holes in scientific studies. The whole point in science is that you think critically, you observe, you test, you repeat tests that others have
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying we must believe either evolution OR intelligent design with no other theory being possible? I personally believe it's neither so I'm ignorant? Here's a really ignorant belief... "We just don't know and that's OK with me". Just keep on searching and someday the proof will come out.
Yes. If I ask "do you believe that 2+2 equals 4?" and you say "We just don't know and that's OK with me", you are ignorant.
Now, ignorance in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Ignorance is curable, as long as you're willing to learn. However, when you start pulling the "we don't know" card for one of the best supported theories in science, it becomes obvious that you're not just ignorant, you're willfully ignorant. And that, my friend, is a bad thing.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations?
What, you have a third explanation?
Note that he mentioned AVAILABLE explanations, not possible conjectures. You are welcome to create a new explanation for biological diversity and present credible evidence for that, please!
on Slashdot where people can completely lose their claimed open-mindedness.
Being open-minded does not mean the same as being feeble-minded. The fact is that science progresses towards the truth [tufts.edu], even if the absolute truth may never be reached.
Being open-minded does not mean one should reject all the facts that have already been discovered. If and when stronger evidence becomes available, only then will the open-minded scientist abandon current ideas that have been proved plausible through experimental observations.
Being open-minded means one might do further testing on known truths, in order to discover possible errors in experimental data, in order to refine the model, or in order to close the gaps in current theory.
Being open-minded does NOT mean one should give equal time to ideas that are complete bullshit, that have no evidence for them.
Re: (Score:3)
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations? What if neither is correct, but some alternative is?
Entirely possible. Would you like to present some or is this just a purely hypothetical argument? I will be happy to debate anything you provide based on the facts. The fact that no one brings up other theories to debate with me does not make me closed-minded. It probably means that other people do not have enough FACTS to support their positions.
And the two are not necessarily in complete conflict... so, what if parts of both are correct?
I believe that parts of both are correct. I believe that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for how life on earth ended up where it is now. I al
Re: (Score:3)
People don't need to "believe" in evolution. It is an observable and testable phenomenon.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument is precisely what TFA is talking about, you don't provide any evidence that evolution isn't real, instead you say that it might not be by asserting that someone has seen no evidence for it, when in reality what you're actually saying is "How do you know evolution is real? I'm too lazy to research it myself, so why should I believe you have?"
Well here's a shock for you, I have seen evidence for it, I can even replicate it in my greenhouse. I can take a set of plants and sow seeds from them, say 10 out of 1000 seeds germinate in the first 5 days, if I take these 10 seedlings and grow them on to produce seeds themselves cross pollinating between each other I can get a higher proportion within 10 days from those seeds- maybe 50 in 10 days, if I repeat this then over just a few generations I can get high germination rates within 10 days- I can personally select for certain characteristics.
Similarly in a species of plant with multiple flower colours if I continuously cross pollinate plants with the same colour flowers I can select for a certain colour creating a population where pretty much only this colour ever comes through when the plant flowers. In nature this may occur where there is an abundance of a pollinator that is attracted to certain coloured flowers, meaning that colour is selected for and thrives more than plants with other coloured flowers.
There are plenty of easily reproducible (albeit sometimes time consuming) examples like this where you can force selection, and it's not hard to see how your artificially forced selection might come about naturally in the wild. If you're really interested, it's not even hard to go and find some examples in the wild.
You aren't calling anyone out, you're illustrating the problem precisely, you're demonstrating that rather than use science to prove your point you'd rather insist that your viewpoint is valid, even though you have not an ounce of evidence to back your viewpoint. Your method is entirely anti-science, and it is based on nothing more than pure laziness. Yes there's little we can prove without a doubt but you have to make your choices on the balance of evidence, yet people like you wont even look at the evidence, you'll just claim your opinion holds equal merit when it simply does not because you have not done the groundwork to warrant equal treatment for your viewpoint.
This is what fact free science is, you speculate and question but you do not add to the discussion, you do not provide evidence counter to the viewpoint you disagree with. This is the kind of idiocy that we need to wipe out, if you're going to imply someone might be wrong, provide some degree of evidence beyond your simple preference that it is wrong to back up that point, and most importantly, be willing to accept that YOU might be wrong. If you have a hunch that something is wrong and can't prove it then state that, but do not under any circumstances claim you are definitely right when you don't have the balance of evidence to back up your assertion, else if you do that you are simply put, a fucking idiot.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention the linked article clearly aligns Republicans with fact-free science by providing several examples of Republicans' actions and statements.
I'm sure there are some on the Democratic side, but by affiliation, theirs are fewer.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
We are constantly dismiss non-probably events like invisible leprechauns hidden in the server room. Yet when it comes to your "invisible dad in the sky who gives eternal life" suddenly we're all concerned about the possibility. Biased much? Humans use a mechanism like Occam's razor constantly and its philosophically defensible.
Its very, very, very likely that the magical beings described in 1st century Jewish writings aren't real. The same way its very, very likely that Gandalf doesn't exist.
God does not exist because you can't prove it and the ONUS OF PROOF IS ON YOU. You're making an extraordianry claim with ZERO EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. Everytime we look into the validity of miracles or other religious claims we see nothing but falsehoods. Get over it. If you accept god(s), then you must accept all fictional beings including Gandalf and Arthur Dent.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Informative)
God does not exist because you can't prove it and the ONUS OF PROOF IS ON YOU.
As an open minded skeptic, I do want to point out that our ability to provide proof (for or against) God's existence has absolutely no bearing God's existence. As scientists we like to assume the null hypothesis until it is disproved. That's just good science. But simply because we make the assumption doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:3)
There are no unicorns.
Does that mean I am a god, or do you think there are unicorns?
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's agree not to call this a "Republican" or "Democratic" position. The problem is that there are adherents to scientific claims who don't know the truth on both sides. I don't claim to know much about climate science, evolution, natural history or reproductive biology. So me claiming a "scientific" position on global warming, creationism, evolution or abortion is to some extent who I want to have faith in. Generally I choose respected scientists, but its still faith on my part because I haven't done the research myself.
It most certainly is a Republican/Democrat position. The difference is that Republicans who don't understand something dismiss is altogether, while OTOH as the Sokal incident pointed out, some Democrats held too much faith in scientists. I would hope that, in matters of science, politicians have more faith in scientists and in, say, religion. I mean, this is pretty chilling.
As John Shimkus of Illinois, who also sits on the [House Energy and Commerce Committee]— as well as on the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment — has said that the government doesn’t need to make a priority of regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, because as he put it late last year, “God said the earth would not be destroyed by a flood.”
This kind of ignorance is dangerous and baffling. It's not as if he's arguing against anthropogenic global warming using science. Hell, maybe he believes in global warming and that it really is man-made. But he refuses to accept what will happen because the Bible says otherwise. What. The. Fuck.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Interesting)
This kind of ignorance is dangerous and baffling. It's not as if he's arguing against anthropogenic global warming using science. Hell, maybe he believes in global warming and that it really is man-made. But he refuses to accept what will happen because the Bible says otherwise. What. The. Fuck.
He actually misunderstands the scripture he references. God says "never again will I curse the earth because of man...". This entirely precludes man himself doing it.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Insightful)
But he refuses to accept what will happen because the Bible says otherwise. What. The. Fuck.
It's not that surprising actually. That is precisely what the Christian faith teaches from day one. You are born, raised by Christian parents, brought to a Christian school once a week (more if you're extra special), and told continuously when you make an inquiry that, "God works in mysterious ways," "Well let's see what the Bible has to say about that," and, "The Bible tells us that if our faith is true, then God will protect us," and other stuff along those lines.
When you are fed an ideology like that continuously for the first 18 years of your life, and then you see your mentors (parents) react violently or offensively if anyone else comes along and proposes a different viewpoint, then by the time you are an independent adult, you may well consider statements like those made by the representative above to simply be fact, a given, as natural as 2 + 2 = 4.
That was the final straw that turned me away from my own faith when I hit my young adult years. I realized just how close to outright brainwashing religion was. The fact that some of my otherwise intelligent friends absolutely refused to dig deeper on certain paths of thought (evolution, big bang theory, etc.) simply because they were taught from day one that such types of thinking are, "dangerous," or "unacceptable." Personally, I couldn't force myself to support an institution that actively suppressed curiosity and the quest for knowledge. It just went against everything I felt was important.
Of course, such teachings aren't exactly the same across the entire religious spectrum. There are some sects of Christianity that actively promote coexistence with scientific research. There are also a lot of intelligent Christian folk out there. But when it comes right down to it, they type of thinking displayed by the representative is not that surprising or baffling to anyone that was raised in the church. It's pretty par for the course for someone of the Christian faith to turn to the Bible on matters or problems that are vexing or frustrating or even scary.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it remembers me of the very appropriate joke my daughter told yesterday evening:
One rainy night, a priest walked into a hotel and asked for a room. About an hour later there was a knock on his door. "Quick, Quick!", screamed the hotel manager. "There's a terrible flood happening. Get yourself out into the rescue boat before you drown!" But the priest remained calm. "The Lord is my Saviour, and He will save me."
Not long afterwards, the water had risen to the second floor. A second boat sailed past the priest's window and the captain looked inside. "Good God man, jump in here before you die!", the captain screamed. "The Lord is my Saviour, He will save me."
Soon enough, the flood raged higher and higher, until the priest was forced out onto the hotel roof. A nearby helicopter saw the man's plight and dangled a rope ladder down to him. "Hurry up!", yelled the pilot. "Grab onto the rope!". The priest smiled. "The Lord is my Saviour, He will save me."
The flood rises even higher, and the priest drowns. Then the priest enters heaven and meets God himself. "My Lord!", he wailed. "Why did you forsake me?" "Forsake you? I sent you two boats and a helicopter !!!!"
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's agree not to call this a "Republican" or "Democratic" position.
Have you read the article? It clearly states that the vast majority of Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates are against global warming. So, yes, this is clearly, first and foremost, a "Republican" problems -- though I'll be the first to admit Democratic politicians also trade in "woo".
So me claiming a "scientific" position on global warming, creationism, evolution or abortion is to some extent who I want to have faith in.
First of all, how can you have a scientific position on abortion? It's a moral issue, not a scientific one.
Second, Abortion is pretty much a clear-cut case: the vast majority of abortions take place while the foetus is several millimeters long. They are not human beings, don't even have a brain let alone pain centers, and don't even remotely look like a child. You may still be against abortion -- and I am even willing to admit there is a moral component to this -- but it definitely require a bit more than the fuzzy statement given above.
Third, evolution is also pretty much a clear-cut case: we have evidence of evolution happening right now, under our very noses. Evolution has been proven true, again and again, since Darmin formulated it in the 19th century, and only the brainwashed religious masses still contest it. There are even 'sophisticated' theologians who are perfectly willing to admit that evolution and the existence of God are perfectly compatible, for Pete sake!
Fourth, pretty much everything I said about evolution is also true about global warming: this is not a scientific problem: it is a political problem and a problem of corporate propaganda (meaning: there are some very very rich, powerful and influential people who still want to pollute unhindered by rules and regulations). Period.
Generally I choose respected scientists, but its still faith on my part because I haven't done the research myself.
No, you are just propagating Republican talking points. if you have nothing to offer to this discussion, please, by all means remain silent and let other debate with more ideas and facts on both sides.
There, i have finished my rant, feel free to mod me down to the center of the Earth...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, evolution is just a theory, just like general relativity. You're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. Science isn't really about true or false; Newtonian physics is an accurate description/model of reality, up to a certain point.
Theories are tools for making sense of the world. Equating the theory with reality is probably a bad thing to do, given the process. Theories tend to be simplified models - which by definition aren't reality.
"The theory of evolution is true" is a statement of belief.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, evolution is just a theory, just like general relativity. You're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. Science isn't really about true or false; Newtonian physics is an accurate description/model of reality, up to a certain point.
Theories are tools for making sense of the world. Equating the theory with reality is probably a bad thing to do, given the process. Theories tend to be simplified models - which by definition aren't reality.
"The theory of evolution is true" is a statement of belief. "The theory of evolution seems to account for the different variations of life" is probably a more accurate (or maybe a more careful and precise) way of presenting it.
The problem is the agenda of the people discounting evolution. It is not about just finding loopholes in evolutionary theory (scientists welcome that, it makes the theory stronger or just kills it if it's wrong), it's about pushing a completely different agenda to non-scientific folks with no basis in science or those with agendas themselves(politicians). Intelligent design is not even a theory, it's like someone claiming that we're living under the Matrix, there's really no way to find out if we are. Science does not even come into the picture, and even theories from scientists like the 'String theory' have been called out for making wild claims with no evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Have you read the article? It clearly states that the vast majority of Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates
> are against global warming. So, yes, this is clearly, first and foremost, a "Republican" problems -- though I'll be the
> first to admit Democratic politicians also trade in "woo".
I suppose that depends if "against global warming" is the problem here. Or, perhaps I should say openly against the unscientific plans the Democrats make to "deal" with global warming? But that sound
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/3772.pdf [nrel.gov]
Its an older study but the first I found on google. I'm sure there are much better sources out there though. Page 33 of the pdf shows a chart I think boils it all down.
NREL is part of the DOE btw.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Above is the first comment that mentions Postmodernism in the entire discussion. That may tell us something about the way the /. community understands the world at large.
Postmodernism is obviously the problem. It is a fundamentally flawed philosophy that has severely damaged the university environment in the west. Further, the post-modernist ideals have been co-opted by the conservative Christians to justify their preference for 2000 year old parables over modern science.
Fundamental problems with Postmod
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, this is Slashdot. You're among friends.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But as a non-Republican conservative I think it is high time that the Republicans try to rope in some of the elements of their party that have not only shown them in a bad light but has also let some ideals get in the way of the facts.
Science on conservatism need not be at odds. Basing our entire future on prophecy of any nature is a failing. Morals need not be defended by reli
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Quick, lets ban tritium exit signs like the city of Berkeley so more people die in fires. We wouldn't want a weak beta emitter to cause no measurable increase in radiation levels to possibly get out!
Give me a break. The anti-science hippies on the left have been just as damaging, if not worse. Most of the technology we have today is a result of defense spending and research. Who do you think it is that supports defense spending and research? Here's a hint: not the people who jihad against nuclear batteries in deep space probes.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why it is unwise to simply accept big subjects with many parts, like evolution, as true and inerrant. You wind up believing work from a scientist who may or may not have exhaustively researched the work, combined with many others, and accepting it all without question since it sounds reasonable and either agrees with your assumptions, or disagrees with a belief you dislike.
I'll take the word of a scientist who may or may not have exhaustively researched the work above that of a random guy who most certainly has not done any research at all.
The reason science requires theories to be falsifiable is exactly because scientists know they will never ever get to 100% truth. By making sure everything is falsifiable, atleast they can be certain that they get closer to the truth every time a theory is disproven.
"The whole truth" is a holy grail that'll never be attained, but a good model that can predict reality closely is a pretty good substitute.
you hit a major pet peeve of mine there you did (Score:5, Informative)
it's like believing that the earth is flat, which was widely held by even scientists centuries ago.
No, it wasn't. That's a fallacy.
"There never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology." -- Stephen Jay Gould
Reference: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/WS06/pmo/eng/Gould-FlatEarth.pdf [fu-berlin.de]
Re: (Score:3)
Really, cite some... And no, I don't mean some Creationist website's mad blurbs, I'm talking about actual scientific literature; primary publications, peer reviewed journals. You have made a helluva claim, basically stating at least six a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Short version of TFA: "Republicans are anti-science because many of them don't believe empirical data that goes against their world-view and doesn't pander to their folklore addicted, anti-intellectual base."
With that, I admit I am a Republican. I can't help it if my party left me.
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, wouldn't a real Luddite glom on to AGW as proof that technology is going to destroy us?
Re:Before we start the flame wars (Score:4, Interesting)
Gravity is also a theory...
And it's a wrong one, too! What we experience as "gravity" is nothing more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster pushing down on us.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I first heard about this in Richard Dawkin's book "The Greatest Show On Earth". A very impressive E. Coli experiment that pretty much shows evolution in action, specifically strains of bacteria evolving the ability to digest a citrate that their ancestors were previously unable to.
E Coli Long-Term Evolution Experiment [wikipedia.org]
String theory comes to mind (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:String theory comes to mind (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, String Theory isn't a theory - it is a hypothesis. It becomes theory once we have evidence for it.
theory: [princeton.edu] (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Unfortunately, in common use a theory is something not yet proven. But in science, a hypothesis is something that has not been proven while a theory is something that has been proven (or at least, has significant evidence in favor of it.)
(posted AC since I moderated this thread)
Re: (Score:3)
Peer review is broken (Score:3, Insightful)
Peer review seemed like a good idea at the time, but these days it increasingly seems to be a way for the most powerful clique to ensure their papers get published and no-one else does.
Ultimately consensus is worthless in science because it's so often been wrong.
Re:Peer review is broken (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, as a student in research who only just had his first-ever paper accepted and published, I'd have to say your blanket statement about the "most powerful clique" ensuring their papers get published and "no one else"s is patently false. There are always going to be bad apples in research, just like any other field, but that doesn't make the whole process broken.
Re: (Score:3)
Peer review is not perfect of course, but it does work reasonably well. The overwhelming success of science. which rests in part on peer-review, is evidence of this.
I'm not sure you put enough emphasis on the competitiveness of research. Competition between scientists for grants is intense and getting grants depends on getting good papers out and (optionally) taking apart the work of your rivals. It just isn't possible for a good idea to be suppressed for very long or for a false idea to gain wide accepta
Re:Peer review is broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it is wrong - science is always wrong. It is simply a process of iteratively reducing the amount of error by which you are wrong. And, quite frankly, the current scientific margin of error in most fields is far beyond comprehension. How far is it from LA to NY? How precisely do you want the answer? We have scientific theories in many fields that can give you answers in their respective fields that are equal to giving you the LA-NY distance in millimeters, with the margin of error meaning they're not quite sure about the numbers after the decimal point.
Science is not a status quo. Science is a method by which to improve the status quo. We had times when the ether was a scientific theory, then it was replaced by a better theory. Any and all current theories are up for grabs - if you can come up with a better one.
That includes peer review. If you have a method that can be proven to provide better results, show it.
Re:Peer review is broken (Score:4, Insightful)
Things are getting more difficult to prove.
Depending on what you mean by "prove". It's all too easy to present an argument and have it taken seriously, because the rigor in filtering out bad science is lacking, so it's easy to get something published that "proves" a position. Of course, when the proof/review system starts allowing proofs of all sorts of contradictory things, people's faith in the inscrutability of the proof system goes out the window.
Now, when you have several thousand people doing scientific research into one subject, you're going to get some dissenting results, either as a result of the "law of averages"-kind of thinking, or because sloppy methodology will creep in. It doesn't matter how rigorous the review system is, this is going to happen occasionally. So we need to figure out how to prevent people from latching onto the one result that shows what they want it to show, as opposed to the thousands that show the opposite.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess one of the issues is with the scope of the results.
Like the main media saying "blah cures cancer", when the studies say "pacients with Blasphyliomilioma who took blah had a % better cure rate"
It's all too easy to present an argument and have it taken seriously, because the rigor in filtering out bad science is lacking
And the rigor of finding bad science is lacking as well when bad science is part of the mainstream thought.
I love how the article is equally fact-free (Score:5, Interesting)
I love how the article is equally fact-free, but makes sure to include several opinion polls.
No link (Score:5, Insightful)
A) There are lots of climate change deniers out there
B) Postmodernism has caused lots of people to think that science is all relative, and the folks in A) have adopted that banner.
I'll really argue the link here- I doubt that *anyone* in A has really, seriously read the literature from B. A is comprised primarily of folks who are either highly religious and refuse to adopt a scientific worldview at all (and would be totally horrified by the philosophy of B if they actually read it) or people who have massive financial incentives to believe that climate change isn't true. The fact that A people argue against science has far more to do with those two factors than anything a bunch of academic nutcases wrote about.
There is no such thing as fact-free science. (Score:4, Insightful)
Call it what it is: religion. And no, that does not exclude the "Left".
Re:There is no such thing as fact-free science. (Score:4, Interesting)
Call it what it is: religion. And no, that does not exclude the "Left".
If you see this as only religous blowback, you're having a serious underestimation as to what's at stake for the climate deniers. To accept idea of human-influenced climate change threathens the economic foundations of powerful economic interests who would have thier applecarts severely upset by the changes we'd have to make if we started taking our carbon footprint more seriously as a civilisation. Humans have a profound capability for self-denial that is hardly limited to matters of religion.
A literature professor? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why the hell does this article quote a literature professor on the topic of the quality of scientific research? How the fuck would he know?
Happens in the UK too (Score:5, Informative)
Professor David Nutt uses science in a paper against prohibition of drugs, and is fired the next day. Article from 2009 [guardian.co.uk]
Popular opinion and straw men are the new trusted sources of facts, guys! Science and statistical analysis are for fringe nutjobs and quacks!
Climate change (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What wasn't been definitively established is to what extent this change is due to the activities of man versus to what extent it is due to the Earth's natural cycles and was going to happen anyway.
Nonsense. See section "The role of human activity" here [nasa.gov]:
"90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."
challenging scientific assumptions =/= fact free (Score:3, Informative)
Fact free article? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there are bozos out there who push their illogical political. views. There always have been. And some people want to deny science and/or critical thinking, to push a political agenda.
But I do not see where this is impacting actual scientific research.
This article is a liberal democrat biased "news" source, trying to smear the republicans. I am not repub myself, and I am not trying to defend the repubs. But, to say this article is shallow, and biased, would be understatements.
It never ceases to amaze me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Tons of smoke into the entire atmosphere probably wouldn't be that big a deal, and the ocean is about 1.37
billion km^3, so millions of gallons probably isn't going to do much either.
But as a reply to your question, they believe it because its not a political tool of their opposing political party. Republicans pretty much latched on to religion in this country right? Well, democrats just so happen to have latched onto the issue of global warming. As a result many of the global warming people hate religion, a
Re: (Score:3)
This really isn't new at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Have they been successful in transforming the world?
Anti-intellectualism, anti-science, or anti-whatever-else has been prevalent in at least the United States for a very, very long time. And it starts when you're very young.
I remember being in school, in first grade. I was smarter than a lot of other kids in my class, and because of that I was ostracized. I wasn't allowed to be an intellectual; stupidity was celebrated. Acts of buffoonery were promoted and lauded.
Is it any coincidence why the most socially-outgoing people, in the history of K-12, are typically *not* the intellectuals? The "nerds" and "geeks" are always kept from ever rising above the "jocks" on the social ladder.
When you make it to college/university, it doesn't change very much. The nerds are at least not the brunt of jokes, and they're allowed to sit in the science and engineering buildings well into the night, silently doing their nerdy sciency and engineery things.
But the loud ones -- in sports, and poli-sci -- are still the non-intellectuals of the high school years. And these are the ones who grow up to be politicians.
So when articles like this act surprised that the majority of the government is filled with anti-elitist and anti-intellectuals, I have to wonder – were they paying attention any, growing up? This sort of conditioning –letting people know that being smart is NOT COOL – starts from a very young age.
But these people became successful? So they must be smart, right? Oh, if only. It's not about what you know, but rather about who you know. Nerds don't really socialize; we focus on our work, because that makes us happy. The others schmooze and network like crazy, with like-minded anti-science colleagues, who later become leaders, while we're the ones left wondering where the world is heading.
They become rich and powerful, and spread their ideas to the next generation. Of course, not all of them are successful. Many of them are not. Many of them remained dumb because they didn't realize the importance of knowledge, since it was ingrained to them from a very early age to think that knowledge and intellect are ELITIST and UNCOOL. And so they raise their kids that same way.
And we're back to square one.
I've experienced this first hand, and I am sure many have here as well.
It sucks; it's terrible. It shouldn't be like this. But it is. And I really have no idea what to do to stop it, but the article is right about one thing – it's terribly dangerous.
Doesn't matter, china will pick up the slack (Score:4, Insightful)
The West is already on its way out as a manufacturing and innovation base , most of which has headed east. Soon the chinese will be doing most of the science too and the west will be free to degenerate back into superstition and ignorance once more.
Summary at odds with linked article (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary is talking about the evils of postmodernism, cultural relativism, and deconstructivism.
The New York Times article linked is about head-in-the-sand data denial.
These two things have nothing to do with each other. The Republican congressmen in question don't give a damn about postmodernistm or cultural relativism. They don't believe that the truth depends on your perspective, or that morals and ethics are culturally informed. They believe that their ideal of the traditional American way of life is the only truth, and that anything that contradicts that must not be true.
TFS author is trying to shove a square peg down his favorite round hole.
Idiocracy is ever more prophetic (Score:3)
However, as a wise man once said:
"Don't call a man a fool, borrow money from him."
Who understands science? (Score:3)
The NYT article does a good job of displaying some of this elitism. For example, "Opposing the belief that global warming is human-caused has become systematic, like opposition to abortion,' [Weiss] says. 'It’s seen as another way for government to control people’s lives. It’s become a cultural issue." Sure, this quote is out of context but many of the AGW critics (deniers exist but they are a vocal minority) simply state that not all global warming (is it global warming or climate change?) is caused by humans. Isn't this a rational questioning of the science? This should drive (and has driven) scientists to demonstrate the reliability of their findings. The problem is that people who question AGW are called "deniers" without much thought taken for their arguments or lack thereof. A lot of people have very serious questions about global warming science, as they should - it's the kind of science that has huge political, social, and economic consequences. Many are simply opposed to governments imposing penalties and would rather the free(ish) market to decide. If enough people value green technologies then the markets will go that way eventually. I'm not arguing either way with my post, I'm merely pointing out that many of the oppositions to AGW are in fact opposition to political policy and not the science per se. Further, including abortion in with AGW is a cheap shot because being opposed to or in favor of abortion is about moral values, not science.
Anyway, the NYT article's author makes a number of good points (particularly that conservatives and liberals both have issues with science) but she doesn't even begin to get at the root of why so many people on all sides of the political spectrum might have issues with science: most people don't understand science. What's even ironic is that a lot of scientists do not understand science. They might understand how to do science but they do not understand science. Science is, after all, one way to discover facts. Facts are discovered (actually they are made - mauFACTured; fact comes from the Latin facio, facere, and factum {essentially the same word, just different forms}). However, facts are discovered through the biases of the methods (study epistemology and the philosophy of science for more on this) and the biases of the scientists. Facts also are != truth. Facts might be true but truth is independent from facts. People's biases strongly affect the research being conducted (by affecting what people choose to study or by affecting the funding or not funding of specific studies) as well as that being published (file drawer effect of research - in short, journals don't like publishing studies that fail to show anything seemingly meaningful but maybe the lack of a finding is what is meaningful). We were recently able to get an article published in which we had a null result only because it contradicted common beliefs in the medical field. Otherwise, our lack of results would not have been published.
I know how scientific journals work. The peer review process is sometimes a joke. People accept or don't accept work based on what they know. Sometimes what they know is wrong so articles can get rejected or accepted based on bad knowledge or assumptions of a reviewer. My research interests go against some of the conventional wisdom in my field precisely because I think most previous researchers have foc
Re:People don't seem to think science is important (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, well, even if we cause an ecological holocaust, wiping out all animals on earth larger than a mouse, the biosphere will adapt in the long run. I, for one, welcome our new cockroach overlords!
Re:People don't seem to think science is important (Score:4, Informative)
For what it's worth, string theory is firmly in "hypothesis" range, and even string theorists acknowledge that. The question, if it is a complete mental masturbation or not, is kind of undecided, but judging by the number of people involved and effect on anything practical, it's not important at this point.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Another drive by hit piece (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another drive by hit piece (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not even a thinly disguised attack piece. Yet another "if you don't subscribe to the current global warming facts you are an idiot" . As in, there is no room for debate, it has been decided, any contrary view is automatically wrong. Any discussion which does not state full agreement is wrong. Any facts not in the approved list are wrong.
I don't like the article either, it casts aspersions and doesn't say much. However, I don't like your comment either.
If you don't subscribe to the current facts, then you are an idiot.
Global warming is happening. We have hard evidence that the global average surface temperature of the earth has risen between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees C in the past 100 years, and that the majority of this increase can be attributed to human activity.
This has been under sustained scrutiny for years, and while there have been plenty of improvements in the accuracy, nobody has provided credible evidence that the contrary is true; that AST is not increasing, or that its not primarily attributable to human activity.
You are free to debate what we should do about it, you're free to model what you think the localised effects of global AST increase will be, you're free to critique the methodology used for data collection, you're even free to throw out the "conclusions" section of any paper and come up with your own conclusions based on the same facts. You're just not free to make up your own "facts".
Climate change was a republican invention (Score:4, Informative)
Actually 'climate change' was created by republican political consultants in the Bush era to sound less scary [wikipedia.org], not because of some nefarious scheme by climate scientists.
“Climate change” is politically correct nonsense [algorelied.com], but Republican pollster Frank Luntz and George W. Bush are to blame, not Al Gore. Luntz sold the phrase to Bush: “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” While “global warming” has catastrophic connotations attached, “climate change” suggests a more controllable challenge. Bush agreed. Republican political appointees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where I was a biologist, forced scientists to always use “climate change” instead of the accurate and alarming “global warming.”
Re:Another drive by hit piece (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet another "if you don't subscribe to the current global warming facts you are an idiot"
Well, yes, if they are facts, then 'not believing' in them makes you an idiot. You can still debate, but there are certain facts in the global warming debate that are not debatable.
The article is talking about those who completely deny all facts. The fact you get offended and consider it 'the voice of the democratic party' means you're probably more in the ideology camp than you are in the science camp.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As in, there is no room for debate, it has been decided, any contrary view is automatically wrong.
But from a scientific point of view it has been decided:
* There is compelling evidence for rapid climate change. [nasa.gov]
* With 90% probability we caused most of it. [nasa.gov]
I don't know what it will take to convince you, but if an approval by NASA isn't good enough, I don't know what will be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen this from both the religious and the ardently atheist. I used to work for a guy who was positive the world was 4000 years old. I explained to him several times how things like superposition work but he just never listened. I also have known several people over the years who were ardently atheist, and would gladly tell religious people how stupid they were, but at the same time believed just pharmaceutical companies are trying to trick them into giving their kids autism through poison vaccines.
It s
Re:So much fail in this article. (Score:4, Interesting)
Excellent point. Its funny how anyone who goes against Global Warming is instantly labeled as a perpetrator of "Bad Science", yet a lot of the initial politically funded and motivated research has turned out to be complete garbage.
I tend to believe that if the early research and consensus had been left to the scientists, and politicians like Al Gore had stayed out of it, it wouldn't be a political issue at all by this point.
When politics gets involved in science it ruins both.
Its just like rock music and religion.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why you say "we need to restrict [business] from doing [action]" late in the game.
Politics got involved way, way too early.
EU != "Rest Of World" (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, please. The climate summit farces in Copenhagen and Cancun show how seriously the rest of the world takes the issue. Most of the Kyoto treaty signers actually increased emissions, some by *more* than the US did. Your high horse is made of straw.