Scientism and Critiques of Science

[Nonc Hilaire]

By definition, everything in politics is a conspiracy.

[Mr. Perfect]

JvemuO2mL14

[Mr. Perfect]

It is a self-correcting methodology.

This is a contradiction in terms. If a methodology may need future correction you can never be certain of findings in the present.

[noddy]

It is a self-correcting methodology.

This is a contradiction in terms. If a methodology may need future correction you can never be certain of findings in the present.

this is what commies say about capitalism.

life is full of unknown - always will be.

science doesnt have one infallible "pope" aka government controlling all its work

it has a free market of many different competiting opinions and just because in any given moment their are idiots with dumb ideas winning the popularity race it still has more scope for correction than any given alternative.

[Mr. Perfect]

this is what commies say about capitalism.

And...

life is full of unknown - always will be.

science doesnt have one infallible "pope" aka government controlling all its work

?

Who said it did. Science is about what can be replicated in a lab without deviation. It has nothing to do with what people say, whatsoever. I don't know what your belief system is.

it has a free market of many different competiting opinions

No it doesn't. I am an electrical engineer by education and there is literally no deviation from the foundations of the science, ever. I don't think you know what science is.

and just because in any given moment their are idiots with dumb ideas winning the popularity race it still has more scope for correction than any given alternative.

No, science is about what can be demonstrated repeatedly in a lab with no deviation. Eg evolution and the big bang are not science in any way.

[noddy]

i think we agree that evolution and big bang are not complete truths - the level of insight humans have into billions of years of time and billions of mile of space is very very small.

still, that tiny subset of things that we have found via our instruments and observations is infinitely more interesting than mythological tales and alternate explanations.

im perfectly happy for the entire thing to be thrown out the window as new discoveries reveal that older theories are bunkum.

this is the reason i compare you to a commie criticizing capitalism.

its all about frothing at the mouth about short term failings, claiming it reveals the entire system is broken.

if you trust in humanity to chug along and self correct, the "market" will fix the problems - maybe the SJW crew will ruin science for a century, i have no idea - humans can genuflect everything up if they are given half a chance.

free markets arent perfect - they just have a better chance of earlier correction than closed markets.

simples.

[Mr. Perfect]

Not simple at all. In my area of education the formulas were discovered once and haven't changed since and have a 0% failure rate after well more than a century. The same is true of the periodic table and other formula. The science is truly settled and there is not an instance of self correction, not one time.

Evolution OTOH constantly changes and has once again. It is not science and appears to be impossible.

Science is not about what is interesting or boring, it's about what we can demonstrate in a lab. Evolution fails that test in totality, yet at the point of a gun they take my money and teach something as science which is not science, and atheists use public dollars to promote their religion with it over mine.

No more.

Now, you are entitled to your fairy tales and myths, you just don't get any more of my money to promote them and you don't get to call them science. Because they aren't.

[noddy]

thats not true at all.

on a practical level those forumala and models still work, just like newtons laws of physics still work on a practical level.

science has long since moved past those models.

[Mr. Perfect]

Really. How has science moved passed these models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

I am starting to think you don't know what science is.

[noddy]

Since the mid-20th century, it has been understood that Maxwell's equations are not exact, but a classical limit of the fundamental theory of quantum electrodynamics.

the model isnt reality, we dont live in a simulation, the model is always open to new improved versions.

[Mr. Perfect]

im starting to think you cant even read.

Since the mid-20th century, it has been understood that Maxwell's equations are not exact, but a classical limit of the fundamental theory of quantum electrodynamics.

the model isnt reality, we dont live in a simulation, the model is always open to new improved versions.

Yeah, I'm starting to think you don't understand reality. Science is about what can be demonstrated in a lab, not what is "understood" by people who can't explain dark matter, dark energy, antimatter/matter asymmetry or a double slit experiment.

I asked you to demonstrate where those equations produce a failed result, you didn't, and still think you are right.

Beam me up.

[noddy]

no. beam me up.

you think research into improved models is over and we have no more to discover.

do you even comprehend how much crap we dabbled in and how many false roads we walked down to and how many stupid theories we funded to eventually work out those models you know and love ?

beam me up.

[noddy]

you say alot of smack about what "atheists" believe, its somewhat amusing sometimes to discuss the difference in perspective.

[noddy]

back to chasing our tails on your definition of belief, which contradicts the self correcting version of things, which you laugh at because its not a fixed belief.

this entire problem only exists because you want to ram science into a religion shaped hole.

anyway. back to work, enough distractions for me!

[noddy]

i think every secular atheist believes the self correcting science model of research into the physical world is the only model worth pursuing and the mythological model is a waste of time.

as such, anyone who says they believe in mythological sources of the physical world is not going to be taken seriously in public amongst the atheists. true.

(so far so good)

i also know that evolution is but a theory based on the research and if the research reveals it to be a lavender theory, then it will be dropped and very few secular atheists will suffer a crisis of belief.

(this may or may not take some time due to the usual human political problems and peoples careers being on the line)

[Simple Minded]

I think this was all settled in the documentary Contact.

HWyhHoRGeEo

[Typhoon]

im starting to think you cant even read.

Since the mid-20th century, it has been understood that Maxwell's equations are not exact, but a classical limit of the fundamental theory of quantum electrodynamics.

the model isnt reality, we dont live in a simulation, the model is always open to new improved versions.

Yeah, I'm starting to think you don't understand reality. Science is about what can be demonstrated in a lab, not what is "understood" by people who can't explain dark matter, dark energy, antimatter/matter asymmetry or a double slit experiment.

I asked you to demonstrate where those equations produce a failed result, you didn't, and still think you are right.

Beam me up.

Get ready to be transported.

Maxwell's classical equations of electromagnetism [EM] cannot account for the photoelectric effect.
Classically the probability of electron emission would be proportional to the intensity of the incident wave, instead it was found to proportional to the quantum of frequency (equivalently 1 / the wavelength) of incident photons.

Maxwell's classical equations of EM also cannot account for pair production, photon-photon scattering, Delbrück scattering, and vacuum polarization which is required for, besides the former phenomena, the running of the EM coupling constant [the higher the energy of a collision between two electrons, the stronger the repulsion between them] to name four, offhand.

One may also add the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of leptons (electrons, muons, and taus).

A quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics [QED], in the case of EM is required to explain the above lab-based experimental observations which have been repeated and confirmed countless times with record setting precision.

The first version of a quantum field theory of EM was developed by Paul Dirac in 1927.

QED was completed in its final form by 1949 through the work of Tomonaga, Schwinger, Feynman, and Dyson.

To sum up, Maxwell's equations are a classical approximation that works well for many applications,
but are not able to describe numerous physical phenomena discovered in the 20th century.
A new theory was required and that theory is now known as quantum electrodynamics [QED].

Also, EM is only one of the four know forces of nature.
The other being gravity, the weak nuclear, and the strong nuclear forces. Each of which have their own equations.

QED is required for the predicted and observed unification of the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces, electroweak unification along with spontaneousy symmetry breaking via the recently observed Higgs mechanism at the LHC.

What we currently know:

The quantum field Langrangian of the Standard Model.

[Typhoon]

im starting to think you cant even read.

Since the mid-20th century, it has been understood that Maxwell's equations are not exact, but a classical limit of the fundamental theory of quantum electrodynamics.

the model isnt reality, we dont live in a simulation, the model is always open to new improved versions.

Yeah, I'm starting to think you don't understand reality. Science is about what can be demonstrated in a lab, not what is "understood" by people who can't explain dark matter, dark energy, antimatter/matter asymmetry or a double slit experiment.

Much of science is lab-based, however, some science is observational: astronomy, astrophysics, and ecology to name a few.

One example. We have a fairly good understanding that the Sun shines due to gravity driven nuclear fusion without having visited.

Confirmed by spectroscopic analysis and neutrino observation consistent with theoretical predictions.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Doesn't this boil down to problems&attitudes of empiricism with a dash of oral/literature culture?

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

i think we agree that evolution and big bang are not complete truths - the level of insight humans have into billions of years of time and billions of mile of space is very very small.

still, that tiny subset of things that we have found via our instruments and observations is infinitely more interesting than mythological tales and alternate explanations.

It's not complete truths but it's organized narratives which make sense of the world around us....

...we have a word for that- myth

[noddy]

if we strike evolution from the list of legal biology classes we are still left with everything we know about life on earth, on a practical level - all the evidence, across all the fields, which so far has not found a deal breaking flaw in evolution and which backbones the need for a story to tie it all together.

(barring some contrarians who dont like it (tm))

do we also need to ban some of the more problematic ones like Paleontology and Biochemistry ?

how do we explain how the asian, middle eastern and african universities, which also study all these fields and who harbour zero good will towards colonial era english theories , have yet to come up with a explanation of how its wrong ?

what exactly does "stop teaching evolution" mean in the context of modern science.


Anatomy – the study of organisms structures
Comparative anatomy – the study of evolution of species through similarities and differences in their anatomy.
Histology – the study of cells and tissues, a microscopic branch of anatomy
Astrobiology (also known as exobiology, exopaleontology, and bioastronomy) – the study of evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe
Biochemistry – the study of the chemical reactions required for life to exist and function, usually a focus on the cellular level
Biological engineering – the attempt to create products inspired by biological systems or to modify and interact with the biological systems
Biogeography – the study of the distribution of species spatially and temporally
Bioinformatics – the use of information technology for the study, collection, and storage of genomic and other biological data
Biolinguistics – the study of the biology and evolution of language.
Biomechanics – the study of the mechanics of living beings
Biomedical research – the study of health and disease
Biophysics – the study of biological processes by applying the theories and methods traditionally employed in physics
Biotechnology – the study of the manipulation of living matter, including genetic modification and synthetic biology
Synthetic biology – research integrating biology and engineering; construction of biological functions not found in nature
Botany – the study of plants
Phycology – scientific study of algae.
Plant physiology – concerned with the functioning, or physiology, of plants.
Cell biology – the study of the cell as a complete unit, and the molecular and chemical interactions that occur within a living cell
Chronobiology - the study of periodicevents in living systems
Cognitive biology – the study of cognition
Conservation biology – the study of the preservation, protection, or restoration of the natural environment, natural ecosystems, vegetation, and wildlife
Cryobiology – the study of the effects of lower than normally preferred temperatures on living beings
Developmental biology – the study of the processes through which an organism forms, from zygote to full structure
Embryology – the study of the development of embryo (from fecundation to birth)
Gerontology – study of ageing processes.
Ecology – the study of the interactions of living organisms with one another and with the non-living elements of their environment
Environmental biology – the study of the natural world, as a whole or in a particular area, especially as affected by human activity
Evolutionary biology – the study of the origin and descent of species over time
Genetics – the study of genes and heredity.
Genomics - the study of genomes
Epigenetics – the study of heritable changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence
Immunology - the study of the immune system
Marine biology (or biological oceanography) – the study of ocean ecosystems, plants, animals, and other living beings
Microbiology – the study of microscopic organisms (microorganisms) and their interactions with other living things
Bacteriology – the study of bacteria
Mycology – the study of fungi
Parasitology – the study of parasites and parasitism
Virology – the study of viruses and some other virus-like agents
Molecular biology – the study of biology and biological functions at the molecular level, some cross over with biochemistry
Nanobiology – the study of how nanotechnology can be used in biology, and the study of living organisms and parts on the nanoscale level of organization
Neuroscience – the study of the nervous system
Paleontology – the study of fossils and sometimes geographic evidence of prehistoric life
Pathobiology or pathology – the study of diseases, and the causes, processes, nature, and development of disease
Pharmacology – the study of the interactions between drugs and organisms
Physiology – the study of the functioning of living organisms
Phytopathology – the study of plant diseases (also called Plant Pathology)
Psychobiology – the study of the biological bases of psychology
Quantum biology – the study of quantum mechanics to biological objects and problems.
Systems biology – the study complex interactions within biological systems through a holistic approach
Structural biology – a branch of molecular biology, biochemistry, and biophysics concerned with the molecular structure of biological macromolecules
Theoretical biology – the branch of biology that employs abstractions and mathematical models to explain biological phenomena
Zoology – the study of animals, including classification, physiology, development, evolution and behaviour, including:
Ethology – the study of animal behaviour
Entomology – the study of insects
Herpetology – the study of reptiles and amphibians
Ichthyology – the study of fish
Mammalogy – the study of mammals
Ornithology – the study of birds

[Typhoon]

i think we agree that evolution and big bang are not complete truths - the level of insight humans have into billions of years of time and billions of mile of space is very very small.

still, that tiny subset of things that we have found via our instruments and observations is infinitely more interesting than mythological tales and alternate explanations.

It's not complete truths but it's organized narratives which make sense of the world around us....

...we have a word for that- myth

Myths typically persist despite evidence to the contrary. That's what makes them myths.

On the other hand, it was commonly held by medical doctors that an excess of gastric acid was responsible for ulcers and stomach cancer.

Two Aussie doctors discovered that the cause was in fact a bacterium, H. Pylori. This claim was first met with incredulity and disdain by medical specialist.

However, the evidence prevailed and killing H. Pylori is the standard treatment today.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Well, medicine is as much an art as anything...pick your poisons wisely before they cut you open and all that.

But to the point:

There is zero reason to buy into the famous notion that science is self-correcting, unless we're defining death itself as self-correction. It's mostly a fiction, albeit a necessary one to police the boundaries; but it provides no explanation of the true value of science or how we approach it. Theories last as long as languages and myths do: the lifespan the people and institutions which hold them, that's it. Past that point, if they are not absorbed [hey, sorta like myths!] into a rival theory, they become ossified curiosities, only very rarely touched upon.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

what exactly does "stop teaching evolution" mean in the context of modern science.

It roughly translates to Shaddap You Face

I-5EjG-6r9o

and listen to Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff

e7cry-4pyy8

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

science doesnt have one infallible "pope" aka government controlling all its work

Because the university system is just a free for all of dudes talkin' to other dudes with zero outside prejudices or received wisdoms, and the US gov't doesn't fund more of what bureaucrats believe in directing what a whole bunch of those dudes to what to look for and how to look at it and what received wisdoms to prejudice. And the Soviets never concurrently dreamed of Soviet science- which looked a lot like non-Soviet science with some fun house mirror, proletariat action going on. For a period of time we had two sciences going there, though there is only so much ideological tinkering you can do- at least to math and physics.