A light in science, hidden and people repelled from it by clouds of smoke and dust

[icehorse]

If you did not feel that they would be open to that, would you just say to them “Your ideas about that are unscientific,” without any other explanation? If so, what do you think that word by itself would communicate to them, that might change their decision?

If you did explain to them what you mean by it, then what more besides that would you be trying to communicate to them, by calling their ideas “unscientific”?

I might say: I think you're making a dangerous decision and my claim is based on using ordinary math

 

[Jim]

Ah, so apparently you think that when I feel an "impulse" to call something unscientific, I should refrain from doing so and should embark instead on an exercise in teasing out what my interlocutor thinks "scientific" means. Is that what you are saying? Well, it's an idea, though it might be a long exercise if the person in question had no idea of how science actually works

I’ll try again. In the OP I said that I think that calling some views “unscientific” is part of what is hiding the light in science and repelling people from it. I thought you were asking me what people can do if they think that some view is unscientific. There might be a multitude of answers to that, depending on the circumstances. The only general answer I can think of is to find some other way to do whatever you feel impelled to do, without calling any view “unscientific,” The example I gave was just an example, and it was not to go off into a philosophical discussion about the meaning of “scientific.” I might ask the person specifically about what they’re saying that they’re calling “scientific,” questions like “How is it scientific?” “What’s scientific about it?” “What makes it scientific?” or “What are your reasons for calling it “scientific?”

 

[Jim]

I might say: I think you're making a dangerous decision and my claim is based on using ordinary math

Good. I would like that.

 

[exchemist]

I’ll try again. In the OP I said that I think that calling some views “unscientific” is part of what is hiding the light in science and repelling people from it. I thought you were asking me what people can do if they think that some view is unscientific. There might be a multitude of answers to that, depending on the circumstances. The only general answer I can think of is to find some other way to do whatever you feel impelled to do, without calling any view “unscientific,” The example I gave was just an example, and it was not to go off into a philosophical discussion about the meaning of “scientific.” I might ask the person specifically about what they’re saying that they’re calling “scientific,” questions like “How is it scientific?” “What’s scientific about it?” “What makes it scientific?” or “What are your reasons for calling it “scientific?”

I did ask you that, true, in post 2. However I suppose I was expecting you to reply with an alternative term, rather than proposing a whole enquiry into the reasoning of my interlocutor.

My difficulty in this thread is that I am still at a loss to understand WHY you think that pointing out when an idea is unscientific "hides the light in science" or repels people from science. This is your assertion, but you have not explained your reasoning.

Can you explain this?

 

[exchemist]

I see a possible misunderstanding there about what I think.

OK so why not clear it up for me by explaining what you think, then?

 

[Jim]

I did ask you that, true, in post 2. However I suppose I was expecting you to reply with an alternative term, rather than proposing a whole enquiry into the reasoning of my interlocutor.

That was just an example. Use your imagination. Another example would be, if someone is saying that they have scientific reasons for thinking that their God is only possible explanation for “intelligent design,” you could say that you have scientific reasons for not thinking that, and explain what they are.

My difficulty in this thread is that I am still at a loss to understand WHY you think that pointing out when an idea is unscientific "hides the light in science" or repels people from science. This is your assertion, but you have not explained your reasoning.

Can you explain this?

Understanding that might require a lot more time and effort than you would need or want to put into it. Look at all the time and effort you put into just trying to understand what I’m proposing, and still not understanding it very well, from what I can see.

 

[Jim]

My difficulty in this thread is that I am still at a loss to understand WHY you think that pointing out when an idea is unscientific "hides the light in science" or repels people from science.

Another way of saying a part of my objections to calling views “unscientific” is that it helps perpetuate and intensify prejudices on all sides,

 

[exchemist]

That was just an example. Use your imagination. Another example would be, if someone is saying that they have scientific reasons for thinking that their God is only possible explanation for “intelligent design,” you could say that you have scientific reasons for not thinking that, and explain what they are.

Understanding that might require a lot more time and effort than you would need or want to put into it.

Regarding the first part, on ID, the first point to make is that it is an unscientific idea and then to explain why.
It does not much matter what God is being presumed to be the supernatural actor that ID claims to have evidence for.

Regarding the second, refusing to explain why you think "unscientific" has the bad effects you allege is pathetic. It is what your thread is all about, for goodness sake!

But now I see your second reply does in fact address this after all. You maintain it perpetuates and intensifies prejudices on all sides.

Well I suppose it sometimes may. But often it is simply a surprise for a person to discover that what they thought was scientific is not. I have had that exact experience with a Catholic priest, who innocently, with no axe to grind, thought ID was good science and that those objecting to it had to be agenda-driven atheists!

It can be the same with things like the alkaline diet. People innocently trust these things, not knowing any better. They may be initially shocked to hear they are unscientific, but that way one gets their attention and can then explain the problems with the idea.

 

[Jim]

My difficulty in this thread is that I am still at a loss to understand WHY you think that pointing out when an idea is unscientific "hides the light in science" or repels people from science.

It might take a lot more time and effort to understand my reasons for it, than to just try not putting any stigmatizing labels on anyone’s views for three weeks. If there’s any truth in ny reasons, then three weeks of practice might be enough for you to understand my reasons, better than you would from dozens of hours discussing them.

 

[exchemist]

It might take a lot more time and effort to understand my reasons for it, than to just try not putting any stigmatizing labels on anyone’s views for three weeks. If there’s any truth in ny reasons, then three weeks of practice might be enough for you to understand my reasons, better than you would from dozens of hours discussing them.

My hovercraft is full of eels.

 

[Jim]

@exchemist Please don’t play with my heart. If all you want do is look for flaws in what I’m thinking, stop bothering me. If you honestly, sincerely think that there might be some truth in it, then I’ll try to explain it to you, but I’m warning you that it might take dozens or even hundreds of posts back and forth between us, to learn what you could learn better and more easily by trying, for three weeks, to never put any stigmatizing labels on anyone’s views,

 

[Jim]

You maintain it perpetuates and intensifies prejudices on all sides.

Well I suppose it sometimes may. ... but that way one gets their attention and can then explain the problems with the idea.

If you don’t see any problem there, then I have no more to say to you on this topic.

 

[Road Less Traveled]

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.3566

I see a light in science that I think the world needs, that I think can be seen in the human stories behind modern physics. I see a lot of what people on all sides are saying about science, in media stories and Internet discussions, as clouds of smoke and dust hiding that light from people, and even repelling people away from it.

Part of what I see hiding the light in science and repelling people away from it, more than anything that its detractors could ever say or do, is calling reports of research in media and faction stories, statements of professional associations, and/or views of people with science degrees about public debate topics, “science,” and calling views contrary to those “unscientific.”

The word ‘science’ has an orthodox hive-mentality meaning in general. I personally don’t allow that to have any kind of monopoly when it comes to personal observations, experiments, experiences that lead to personal ‘knowledge’ or ‘knowing.’ That is at least how I see the term ‘science.’ As meaning knowledge or to know. In that regard, I am a scientist, as would be anyone else. I also personally don’t give two tosses as to what another renders as ‘unscientific.’ I also personally don’t give two tosses as to titles people give themselves or flashy degrees ‘when’ used in order to condescend, control, influence, or assume that they know better than others in some particular areas. It can get pretty magnified for some the guilt trips, and attempts to destroy one’s reputation for the slightest of things with going against the orthodox frame of mind and the idolized. Just a small example but a pharmaceutical drug of birth control that someone I knew once took. Their hair started falling out. They found a forum to see if this were a side effect of the drug that occurred in others who started taking it. Even acknowledged that it may not be the case for others, as everyone may have differing reactions to a particular drug. Then a few other women and the woman I knew were bombarded by others calling them ‘science deniers,’ ‘liars,’ etc. This is just one tiny example.

On the flip side, in many other areas that are perceived as sound, systematic, and legitimate in discovery or practical use for good...carry on ‘scientists’ in your careers and your scientific methods.

 

[Darkforbid]

I shouldn't comment really. I don't see how the fact that:

As far as scientific thinking goes everything is energy. So we are energy. Yet, energy being's are something. Atheists thinking would fictionalise! Just like they do with God, funny that, like I said shouldn't comment.

 

[ecco]

If you don’t see any problem there, then I have no more to say to you on this topic.

Gee. That was such an interesting back and forth between you and exchemist.

I thought he raised some good questions.

But you, being unable to answer them, decided to just shut the door.

Darn, now I have half a bowl of popcorn that's going to get stale.

 

[ecco]

I shouldn't comment really. I don't see how the fact that:

As far as scientific thinking goes everything is energy. So we are energy. Yet, energy being's are something. Atheists thinking would fictionalise! Just like they do with God, funny that, like I said shouldn't comment.

Feel free to comment anytime. If we don't like what you say we can let you know or we can just move on to something more interesting.

 

[exchemist]

If you don’t see any problem there, then I have no more to say to you on this topic.

@exchemist Please don’t play with my heart. If all you want do is look for flaws in what I’m thinking, stop bothering me. If you honestly, sincerely think that there might be some truth in it, then I’ll try to explain it to you, but I’m warning you that it might take dozens or even hundreds of posts back and forth between us, to learn what you could learn better and more easily by trying, for three weeks, to never put any stigmatizing labels on anyone’s views,

Play with your heart? Ugh, nothing could be further from my mind, I assure you.

I'm not looking for flaws, I'm just trying to understand what the hell you are on about. You have not gone out of your way to make this clear.

But perhaps now at last I have it. It could have been said in a few sentences right at the start. Your point, I think, is that describing an idea as "unscientific" is stigmatising it and this is a bad thing because it might upset the person advancing the idea, making them more resistant to changing their mind about it.

In some cases I agree this can be the effect. But you have to bear in mind that there are two types of person that advance unscientific ideas. One is the committed zealot or crank. You have no hope of convincing such a person anyway and so it makes no difference whether you antagonise him or not. The other is the person more like my example of the Catholic priest, or the woman who thought lemons were alkaline. Such people don't have much personally invested in the idea and are often quite open to finding out it is bogus, if the reasoning is properly explained. To such people, describing the idea as "unscientific" is a lot more diplomatic than saying it is "wrong" or "stupid" or rubbish". They, after all, are not the ones claiming the idea is science, so they don't find it particularly stigmatising when one explains that is isn't.

 

[Jim]

... the Catholic priest, or the woman who thought lemons were alkaline.

In those two examples, if your conversation with each person is private between the two of you, then I think that some of the harm in using the word “unscientific” would be avoided but not all of it.

It looks to me like you are genuinely trying to communicate with me, and possibly have a genuinely friendly interest in what I think. To be fair, I think I should tell you that I still can’t help being suspicious of your motives and intentions in trying to draw me out, and that might adversely affect communication between us. Not because of anything you’ve said or done, but because of 20 years of experience in Internet forums, including a few months of experience in these Religious Forums. Call that paranoia if you want to.

I’m willing to try to explain my reasons to you, but I will need to think some more about how to explain them. For now I just want to review and update part of what I was trying to say in the OP.

Metaphorically speaking, I see a light in science that I think the world needs. Everything I see people saying about science in public debates about current issues and events looks to me like foul-smelling clouds hiding that light from people and repelling people away from it. Another another analogy would be like a flood of counterfeit money that would destroy everyone’s trust in all money. Some of those clouds are in things that people say against science, but the clouds that I see doing the most to hide the light of science and repel people away from it are what people say trying to use it as a stamp of authority on their own views, and to stigmatize the views of others. That includes labeling opposing views as “unscientific.” It also includes applying the label “science” to reports of research in media and faction stories, statements of professional associations, and/or views of people with science degrees about public debate topics. That is not intended to be an exhaustive list of how people try to use the reputation of science as a stamp of authority on their own views, and to stigmatize the views of others.

My intended audience for this thread is people who have some awareness of the light that I see in science, and who might possibly be able to understand what I’m thinking about foul-smelling clouds hiding it from people and repelling people away from it, and counterfeit currency destroying people’s trust in it. In spite of my suspicions about your motives and intentions in trying to draw me out, I see a possibility that you might be a person like that, aware of the light and possibly able to understand what I’m thinking if you really want to.

I’ll be thinking about how to explain my reasons for what I’m saying. First I’ll need to think about how to explain what I mean by a light in science. One thought that comes immediately to mind is the joy of discovery. Another is the beauty that people sometimes see in what they’re discovering. Another is the fellowship that is sometimes associated with that.

I want to say again that if you really want to understand my reasons for what I’m saying, I think you would do much better to try my way for three weeks, rather than trying to understand it by discussing it with me. I’m quite sure that it won’t get any easier for you. You can blame me for that all you want to, but blaming me might only make it harder for you.

 

[Darkforbid]

In those two examples, if your conversation with each person is private between the two of you, then I think that some of the harm in using the word “unscientific” would be avoided but not all of it.

It looks to me like you are genuinely trying to communicate with me, and possibly have a genuinely friendly interest in what I think. To be fair, I think I should tell you that I still can’t help being suspicious of your motives and intentions in trying to draw me out, and that might adversely affect communication between us. Not because of anything you’ve said or done, but because of 20 years of experience in Internet forums, including a few months of experience in these Religious Forums. Call that paranoia if you want to.

I’m willing to try to explain my reasons to you, but I will need to think some more about how to explain them. For now I just want to review and update part of what I was trying to say in the OP.

Metaphorically speaking, I see a light in science that I think the world needs. Everything I see people saying about science in public debates about current issues and events looks to me like foul-smelling clouds hiding that light from people and repelling people away from it. Another another analogy would be like a flood of counterfeit money that would destroy everyone’s trust in all money. Some of those clouds are in things that people say against science, but the clouds that I see doing the most to hide the light of science and repel people away from it are what people say trying to use it as a stamp of authority on their own views, and to stigmatize the views of others. That includes labeling opposing views as “unscientific.” It also includes applying the label “science” to reports of research in media and faction stories, statements of professional associations, and/or views of people with science degrees about public debate topics. That is not intended to be an exhaustive list of how people try to use the reputation of science as a stamp of authority on their own views, and to stigmatize the views of others.

My intended audience for this thread is people who have some awareness of the light that I see in science, and who might possibly be able to understand what I’m thinking about foul-smelling clouds hiding it from people and repelling people away from it, and counterfeit currency destroying people’s trust in it. In spite of my suspicions about your motives and intentions in trying to draw me out, I see a possibility that you might be a person like that, aware of the light and possibly able to understand what I’m thinking if you really want to.

I’ll be thinking about how to explain my reasons for what I’m saying. First I’ll need to think about how to explain what I mean by a light in science. One thought that comes immediately to mind is the joy of discovery. Another is the beauty that people sometimes see in what they’re discovering. Another is the fellowship that is sometimes associated with that.

I want to say again that if you really want to understand my reasons for what I’m saying, I think you would do much better to try my way for three weeks, rather than trying to understand it by discussing it with me. I’m quite sure that it won’t get any easier for you. You can blame me for that all you want to, but blaming me might only make it harder for you.

What informative bit of light of science. Is most hidden, in you opinion?

 

[Jim]

What informative bit of light of science. Is most hidden, in you opinion?

I don’t think of the light in science as being composed of informative bits. All I can think of, that I could think of as informative, would be results of research, and some reports of those results. I don’t think of any of those as being any more hidden than any others, and actually that wasn’t part of the light in science that I was thinking of. Now that I think of it though, I can see it that way. Thank you.