The Folly of Scientism

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Pissing in the wind . .

Post by Parodite »

Marcus wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Marcus wrote:3) Better said, Christianity has been—in parts, times, and places—infected with Greek philosophy à la Augustine, Origen, St. Thomas and more.
But Jesus himself was very much infected with Judaism. :?
He was indeed, Rhap, and in Jesus, Judaism blossomed and came into its own.
Maybe. But then he in turn infected Saul/Paul and others.. who then infected even more others.. then Jesus turned into a resurrected Christ... and so on and on.. RCC, Reformation.. and on and on.. and here we are. Before Jesus it was no different... a never ending trail of infections and evolutions. Not trying to be funny.. just the way it is. And a lot is good.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Pissing in the wind . .

Post by Marcus »

Parodite wrote:. . [Jesus] in turn infected Saul/Paul and others.. who then infected even more others.. then Jesus turned into a resurrected Christ... and so on and on.. RCC, Reformation.. and on and on.. and here we are. Before Jesus it was no different... a never ending trail of infections and evolutions. Not trying to be funny.. just the way it is. And a lot is good.
That is assuredly one way to look at it, Rhap, but surely you are aware that such a view is loaded with presuppositions.

Did Jesus "infect," or did Jesus "reveal"? Presuppositions . . please . .

Did Jesus "turn into" or did He indeed rise from the dead? Presuppositions . . please . .

Is there even such a thing as "revealed" truth? If so, is revealed truth incremental? . . one Church . . then two Churches (Orthodox & RC) . . then the Reformation? Presuppositions . . please . .
Last edited by Marcus on Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Pissing in the wind . .

Post by Marcus »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:It is only Christianity which has codified belief to mean intellectually accepting a specific creed. There are no Islamic, Judaic or Mormonic creeds.

All good Muslims, Jews and Mormons are assured of a pleasant afterlife if they do what is expected by the community. Internal cognitive notions are irrelevant.

Your concept of religion is too limited, Marcus. Religion is how a community relates to the unknown. Buddhism, Scientology and scientism do not even postulate a divine being but they are religious because they developed in community.
Gotta disagree again, Nonc, and I think it is you whose concept of religion is far "too limited."

One's religion is, in essence, that set of more-or-less systematic, propositional truths in terms of which one understands the cosmos and in terms of which one orders one's life. That is not to say that people are fully aware and epistemologically self-conscious of why they believe what they believe, they just "believe."

The most fundamental division between religions is Theism/Materialism, and they are mutually exclusive. All Theistic religions are grounded in propositional truth as are all versions of Materialism.

Moreover, Christianity confesses no universal, codified, specific creed . . the Apostle's Creed is as close as it comes. Islam's Allahu Akbar serves the same purpose for Muslims (Sunni & Shia) as does the Shema Yisrael for Jews (Orthodox, Reformed, etc.).

Finally, community does not form religion, religion forms community:
"All men are born into some particular bond of loyalty to family, race, country. But all finite forms must die,...

"A myth is a form of mental life which pretends to be deathless; its kernel is alway a fixing of the mind on some transient thing which thereby is immortalized. Nothing on earth is good or forever. The myth pretends it to be. In this pagan fragmentation of mankind by myths every community was enclosed in a private time and space....

"Christianity came into a world of divided loyalties -- races, classes, tribes, nations, empires, all living to themselves alone. It did not simply erase these loyalties; that would have plunged men into nihilism and cancelled the previous work of creation, and Jesus came not to deny but to fulfill. Rather, by its gift of a real future, Christianity implanted in the very midst of men's loyalties a power, which, reaching back from the end of time, drew them step by step into unity."

—Rosenstock-Huessy (I've lost the exact reference)
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

The subject is the secular religion of scientism.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:The subject is the secular religion of scientism.
Could've fooled me . . ;)
Nonc Hilaire wrote:It is only Christianity which has codified belief to mean intellectually accepting a specific creed. There are no Islamic, Judaic or Mormonic creeds.

All good Muslims, Jews and Mormons are assured of a pleasant afterlife if they do what is expected by the community. Internal cognitive notions are irrelevant.

Your concept of religion is too limited, Marcus. Religion is how a community relates to the unknown. Buddhism, Scientology and scientism do not even postulate a divine being but they are religious because they developed in community.


Relax . . go with the flow . . :) . . besides, you addressed me personally and called my concept of religion "too limited." I had to reply to that . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

So, what would Rosenstock-Huessy have to say about scientism?
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:So, what would Rosenstock-Huessy have to say about scientism?
"[Rosenstock-Huessy] is also a radically anti-rationalist thinker, but was equally hostile to ignorant hostility to science. Science, he says, is really good at studying dead things. Dead things are predictable, and you can do repeatable experiments. Living things are illogical, unsystematic, unpredictable, uncontrollable. Studying dead things is a useful endeavor, and it is one of the great achievements of the West to give space to a sub-community devoted to science and given the right to 'systematic error.' More broadly, he dismisses the rationalism of the Greeks and of the Enlightenment as an adolescent obsession: 'Natural reason is a very special reason sprouting in the unfulfilled mentality between 14 and 25. It is the Reason of the classroom student. Greek philosophy, eighteenth century enlightenment, America common sense or pragmatism, are gigantic superstructures of these uprooted minds and unloved bodies in their in-between age.'"

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusiv ... en-rosenst
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Pissing in the wind . .

Post by Parodite »

Marcus wrote:
Parodite wrote:. . [Jesus] in turn infected Saul/Paul and others.. who then infected even more others.. then Jesus turned into a resurrected Christ... and so on and on.. RCC, Reformation.. and on and on.. and here we are. Before Jesus it was no different... a never ending trail of infections and evolutions. Not trying to be funny.. just the way it is. And a lot is good.
That is assuredly one way to look at it, Rhap, but surely you are aware that such a view is loaded with presuppositions.

Did Jesus "infect," or did Jesus "reveal"? Presuppositions . . please . .

Did Jesus "turn into" or did He indeed rise from the dead? Presuppositions . . please . .

Is there even such a thing as "revealed" truth? If so, is revealed truth incremental? . . one Church . . then two Churches (Orthodox & RC) . . then the Reformation? Presuppositions . . please . .
When we don't know, anything, well almost anything... is possible...I suppose

To me it is a virtue to not presuppose more than absolutely necessary. But I respect those in greater need of such. At least life is less boring then..?
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote: . . .
Bottom line, you cannot reproduce in a lab therefore it is not science.
Not even wrong.

Observational evidence and measurements are also part of science.

A few examples:

Astronomy. Planets, Planetary Systems, Galaxies, and Galactic Clusters. We cannot recreate galaxies in the lab, but are confident that they exist based on observation and measurement with telescopes.

Astrophysics.
2.7K cosmic background radiation. We cannot recreate, in the lab, the conditions that created this thermal background radiation,
but it had been precisely measured and is strong evidence for the BIg Bang model.
Solar dynamics. We cannot recreate, in the lab, the sun, but the physics of how it produces heat and light [and neutrinos*] through nuclear fusion is now well understood.

Geology. Plate tectonics. We cannot recreate continental drift in a lab, but observational measurements have established that it occurs.

As for the theory of evolution, there is no alternative hypothesis that can account for the observational [fossils in the field and speciation] and experimental [genetics in the lab] evidence.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Typhoon »

My interpretation of "scientism" and any "folly" associated with it is any of the following:

* an appeal to presumed scientific authority to stifle informed questioning and open debate

* promotion of a tenuous hypothesis as an established theory when in fact it is not

* misapplication by claiming that something is scientific when, in fact, it is well outside the domain of science and the scientific method

However, these are a drop in the ocean of ignorance and stupidity.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

Typhoon wrote:. . Observational evidence and measurements are also part of science. . .
Another example with which we deal every year—managing our salmon runs for sustained yield.

Our Fisheries biologists collect observational evidence and technical measurements in an ongoing effort to put enough fish on the salmon beds to ensure sustained yield while at the same time maximizing harvest of the excess.

Due to the inescapable and inherent uncertainties of the natural sciences (see the R-H quote above), biologists' best efforts often produce flawed results, inaccurate forecasts, and more. That said, Alaska's wild salmon fisheries are the envy of the world.

Given the caveats listed by Typhoon immediately above, scientific investigation, reproducible or not, is part and parcel of mankind's best efforts to exercise responsible dominion over the natural world.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Typhoon wrote:My interpretation of "scientism" and any "folly" associated with it is any of the following:

* an appeal to presumed scientific authority to stifle questioning and open debate

* promotion of a tenuous hypothesis as an established theory when in fact it is not

* misapplication by claiming that something is scientific when, in fact, it is well outside the domain of science and the scientific method

However, these are a drop in the ocean of ignorance and stupidity.
I see it as primarily an oversimplification of science followed by linear extrapolation. It's the same process which produces fundamentalism in religion. Creationism and scientism are twin sons of different mothers.

As the saying goes, everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by kmich »

Typhoon wrote:My interpretation of "scientism" and any "folly" associated with it is any of the following:

* an appeal to presumed scientific authority to stifle informed questioning and open debate

* promotion of a tenuous hypothesis as an established theory when in fact it is not

* misapplication by claiming that something is scientific when, in fact, it is well outside the domain of science and the scientific method

However, these are a drop in the ocean of ignorance and stupidity.
Agreed.

Modern science has been highly successful, and, at the same time, professionally developed to the point where often only a limited group of specialists are qualified to critique the literature. This leads to the problems you outline above, not necessarily from professional scientists, but often from people who will proclaim the authority of “science” with as much understanding as an Aztec priest proclaiming the authority of Tezcatlipoca several hundred years ago.

It is unrealistic to expect the general educated public to be able to adequately critique the massive, complex output of contemporary science. On the other hand, the best approach would be fundamental scientific education on its history, principles, methods, terminology, strengths and limits. Most any reasonably educated person should be able to grasp this basic body of knowledge if they wanted to. The problem is that there are too many people who already believe they are scientific literate when they are not and are basically too lazy and opinionated to learn. That is a serious obstacle to the advancement of scientific education for the general public.
Nonc Hilaire wrote:I see it as primarily an oversimplification of science followed by linear extrapolation. It's the same process which produces fundamentalism in religion. Creationism and scientism are twin sons of different mothers.
Yes. To develop seriousness and depth in religious life open minded study and contemplation of its history, principles, methods, terminology, strengths and limits is also required. Science is the art of how to ask the right questions and test for evidence. Religion is the art of how to pray and open the heart to revelation. Neither, IMHO are about prepackaged answers and formulae. An open, inquiring mind is required for science; both an open mind and heart is required for religious life.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Parodite »

Scientism only makes claims about the scientific method being superior to other methods of generating knowledge. People critical of Scientism seem only able to point to general human fallacies, weakness, poor performance that obviously applies to all human beings in a safe average over a big number of people that engage in whatever noble activity. Nonc's dog is still not hunting :P
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Typhoon wrote:My interpretation of "scientism" and any "folly" associated with it is any of the following:

* an appeal to presumed scientific authority to stifle questioning and open debate

* promotion of a tenuous hypothesis as an established theory when in fact it is not

* misapplication by claiming that something is scientific when, in fact, it is well outside the domain of science and the scientific method

However, these are a drop in the ocean of ignorance and stupidity.
I see it as primarily an oversimplification of science followed by linear extrapolation. It's the same process which produces fundamentalism in religion. Creationism and scientism are twin sons of different mothers.

As the saying goes, everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler.


I see Scientism as a metaphysical/philosophical statement pure and simple, not at all an oversimplification/extrapolation of anything. Nor, do I think, is Christian Fundamentalism anything more than a literal hermeneutic.

Nor is there any conflict between Creationism and Science. Ninety percent of the objections to evolutionary theory are in reality objections to Materialism being dishonestly peddled as Science. All Creationism says is that what is was created . . it didn't just happen willy-nilly. Too many Materialists cite evolutionary theory as proof of their Atheism when in fact evolutionary theory asserts no such thing.

Six-day/young-earth Creationism is a whole 'nother matter.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Parodite »

I reread Austin L. Hughes article at the beginning of this thread wondering if I missed anything. Don't think so. The dubious nature of his writing again shines through. His criticism on Scientism is not a criticism on the scientific method and its claimed superiority, but on people who he feels don't apply it properly, have premature ejaculations when they find the latest toy model about this or that and miss-apply it in ways and areas without the rigor needed. So in fact what he is doing, is applying the spirit and method of science itself to correct those who are led astray. Many acolytes of Scientism will love him for doing that and invite him to the next congress of Scientism Inc! 8-)

He touches also on some other issues, that are however of a more general nature. His framework is one where science threatens to conquer territory on philosophy and religion. The scientific method and the technological revolutions going with it have - even without Scientism's crazy-babies - conquered a lot of territory on philosophy and religion. And if not conquered.. generated a great force causing philosophy and religion to adapt, to continuously having to reconsider on what ground they are standing.

To deny this would be odd. Ideas, beliefs, models, morals and mores.. that for a long time remained unchecked and protected by authorities all too willing to throw you at the fire stack or threaten you with a virtual one in the hereafter if you dared to be an unbeliever. And as for philosophy... free thinking is always a part of life and certainly of science. I would distinguish between philosophy that wants to help create new scientific models that may be tested and as such are also the activity of any scientist, and philosophy that sets no particular goal; knitting coherent word salads with strains of poetry and surreal notes, followed by occasional self-defeating implosions while still finding meaning in the illusion of permanence.

One particular thing he mentions a few times.. is the "fact-value" distinction. I can't imagine facts without value.. but will dig some more into that.

He also claims that there can be no science on 1st-person subjective experience because it is not available in the common environment where we all take a 3rd-person perspective in things and can do science on. This is a famous misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what is going on. But I don't dare to pick up that hot potato anymore here. :)
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

Parodite wrote:. . Ideas, beliefs, models, morals and mores.. that for a long time remained unchecked and protected by authorities all too willing to throw you at the fire stack or threaten you with a virtual one in the hereafter if you dared to be an unbeliever. And as for philosophy... free thinking is always a part of life and certainly of science. . .
I like this, Rhap . . this is what the Reformation was all about . . the diminishing of Specific Authority and the rise of General Authority . . religion was the catalyst.
Taken to its logical and political conclusions, then, specific authority results in the demise of intellectual, moral, and political freedom. That much, history shows, is undeniable. In an effort to restore those fundamental values, Polanyi turned to another branch of knowledge, one with which he was intimately acquainted. He turned to his own experience of scientific enquiry. There he found a self-organising community of thinkers whose activities were governed by the mutual exercise of general authority. The difference between general and specific authority is a matter of who defines and exercises it.

In specific authority, that is, we found a specific way of doing things dictated by a specific authority. General authority, on the other hand, offers a general approach to whatever activity needs organising, generally agreed upon by everyone involved. This means that, rather than being centralised, general authority is ‘atomised’, diffused throughout the community. As such, it is embodied by the collective and individual activities of everyone claiming membership of that community. General authority is, therefore, defined and exercised by all the members of a community on behalf of the community and all its members.

Being a matter of mutual agreement, defining and exercising authority is also, inevitably, a matter of conscience. The operations of conscience, Polanyi assures us, are underpinned by a basic commitment to certain assumptions and beliefs. These ground and shape the ideals and values which in turn ground and shape the community. Training the conscience to understand and exercise those commitments is the primary function of education. It begins when we accept certain individuals, books, and bodies of work as intellectual authorities. For the nascent scientist, this means the whole history and tradition of scientific discovery. We should remember, Polanyi advises, that there is nothing inevitable about this process.

Like all education, it is a question of faith. The student must believe that great thinkers like Galileo, Newton, and Einstein really did say something true about the world, that their discoveries really did uncover some aspect of the real world. This is not just a matter of intellectual integrity. Accepting the authority of her predecessors is an expression of the scientist’s faith in the beliefs and assumptions which drove them. It is an expression of faith in the methods and standards that shaped their investigations and, by extension, the entire field of scientific enquiry; and it is an expression of faith in the values and ideals of the community of scientists.

By accepting those standards and values as the guiding principle of her own enquiries, the scientist also accepts the responsibility to uphold them on behalf of the scientific community. She accepts the responsibility to act as an intellectual and practical authority for all other scientists. She must, in short, be willing and able to express an opinion on the work of others regarding its quality and significance. This she will do by fulfilling various professional duties: refereeing for scientific journals and participating in the distribution of resources through the funding grants, for example.

Most importantly, perhaps, she must pass on those standards, values, and ideals to the next generation of scientists through teaching and research. All scientists must accept these responsibilities if they wish to claim a place in the community. And there is a clear moral imperative in doing so. To become one authority among others entails an obligation to uphold, disseminate, and embody its principles to the best of one’s ability. The scientist commits herself to exercise the general authority bestowed on her by the community in good conscience. What Polanyi offered, then, was a picture of science, not as a body of knowledge, but as an independent community governed by shared faith-commitments.

He did so, I suggest, because the values and ideals of science reflect the values and ideals of a healthy and progressive society. Science truly flourishes, that is, only where its moral and intellectual commitments are seriously endorsed; where it’s obligations to truth and freedom of thought are unconstrained by political orthodoxy of any sort. In short, a self-governing community will only survive in a society where self-government is both respected and expected.The principles of general authority are, Polanyi believed, embodied by the institutions of free democracy. They are fundamental to education and healthcare; and they are essential to legal, penal, and social justice. — http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-672192
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Nature loves to strip

Post by Parodite »

Marcus, indeed it is nice when a community can freely agree that certain things are true for everybody. I would hesitate though to give people "general authority" because majorities can also start to behave hostile towards individual deviants.

I think we should just humbly bow for reality (nature, God, God's creating, the CoosMoos do your pick) and remain curious and ready to be surprised by what and how she wants to reveal herself to us. Don't underestimate her.. she is a natural in revelation. ;)
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Parodite »

Ok, so apparently nobody feels hurt by the claim that science produces the most reliable information about ourselves and the world we live in. Good. That people can screw it up for various reasons.. check.

But what remains.

Are there areas where science cannot produce reliable information? That there is more too life than just reliable information? This seems to be the big divide. That there are areas where:

1. science has an extremely hard time producing reliable information because the stuff is extremely tough, or
2. domains where science can't even enter... like a fish trying to ride a bicycle...

Or perhaps where you just feel like yelling to science: "Get the f*ck outa my kitchen.. NOW!"

Q79Ddf0lL2E
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Or perhaps where you just feel like yelling to science: "Get the f*ck outa my kitchen.. NOW!"
Eugenics is a good example of this. Human and animal experimentation almost always has ethical committees and standards.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Parodite »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Or perhaps where you just feel like yelling to science: "Get the f*ck outa my kitchen.. NOW!"
Eugenics is a good example of this. Human and animal experimentation almost always has ethical committees and standards.
I think those ethical committees and standards are the result of sound scientific observation.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Parodite wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Or perhaps where you just feel like yelling to science: "Get the f*ck outa my kitchen.. NOW!"
Eugenics is a good example of this. Human and animal experimentation almost always has ethical committees and standards.
I think those ethical committees and standards are the result of sound scientific observation.
Observing Dr. Mengele?
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Marcus »

I dunno, guys, but this thread is starting to remind me of Steinbeck's The Wayward Bus . . a bunch of disparate strangers, all trying to get somewhere, on a bus stuck in the mud on a road barely traveled . . .
Unknown.jpeg
Unknown.jpeg (9.88 KiB) Viewed 1004 times
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: The Folly of Scientism

Post by Parodite »

Marcus wrote:I dunno, guys, but this thread is starting to remind me of Steinbeck's The Wayward Bus . . a bunch of disparate strangers, all trying to get somewhere, on a bus stuck in the mud on a road barely traveled . . .
Unknown.jpeg
:) Well, from the sunny side of it... to reflect and rethink stuck in the mud.. something good has to come out of it.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Scientists: We are the 1%

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

From Science magazine. Only a small percentage of science is funded or published. How accurate is the picture we get when all science comes from such a controlled, limited and inbred community?

The 1% of scientific publishing

By Erik Stokstad 11 July 2014 5:15 pm 114 Comments
Publishing is one of the most ballyhooed metrics of scientific careers, and every researcher hates to have a gap in that part of his or her CV. Here’s some consolation: A new study finds that very few scientists—fewer than 1%—manage to publish a paper every year.

But these 150,608 scientists dominate the research journals, having their names on 41% of all papers. Among the most highly cited work, this elite group can be found among the co-authors of 87% of papers.

The new research, published on 9 July in PLOS ONE, was led by epidemiologist John Ioannidis of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, with analysis of Elsevier’s Scopus database by colleagues Kevin Boyack and Richard Klavans at SciTech Strategies. They looked at papers published between 1996 and 2011 by 15 million scientists worldwide in many disciplines.

“I decided to study this question because I had seen in my life a large number of talented people who just did not survive in the current system and with the current limited resources,” Ioannidis wrote to ScienceInsider in an e-mail. He suspected that only a few scientists are able to publish papers year in, year out. But the finding that less than 1% do so surprised him, he says.

The ranks of scientists who repeatedly published more than one paper per year thin out dramatically.

Two or more: 68,221

Three or more: 37,953

Four or more: 23,342

Five or more: 15,464

10 or more: 3269

Many of these prolific scientists are likely the heads of laboratories or research groups; they bring in funding, supervise research, and add their names to the numerous papers that result. Others may be scientists with enough job security and time to do copious research themselves, Ioannidis says.

But there’s also a lot of grunt work behind these papers that appear like clockwork from highly productive labs. “In many disciplines, doctoral students may be enrolled in high numbers, offering a cheap workforce,” Ioannidis and his co-authors write in their paper. These students may spend years on research that yields, then, only one or a few papers. “n these cases, the research system may be exploiting the work of millions of young scientists.”

If he could pick one thing to do, Ioannidis wrote in an e-mail, he would recommend spreading resources "to give more opportunities to a wider pool of scientists, especially younger ones, to help them secure continuity of productivity and excellence."

http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-c ... hing?rss=1
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Post Reply