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

[Darkforbid]

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.

So when you say '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.' I see! What informative, information are most people repelled from or best concealed buy clouds of smoke and dust?

 

[Jim]

@exchemist I would like to tell you some more thoughts that have come to me, about the light in science. Part of it is in the experiences of discovery themselves. For example, planning and doing the experiments, what happens in them, and sharing the results. Part of it is in the beauty that unfolds in the models that we make, which can take on a life of their own, and be a world in themselves to discover. Part of it is in the ideas we get from all that, that can help us live better lives. Part of it is in the possibilities that all that opens up for all people. Part of it is in the fellowship between people doing the research. I might think of a lot more if I tried, but I’ll stop there for now. I’m grateful now, for you pulling this out of me. I would like to exchange thoughts about this with you, maybe for a few days, before I try to explain about the foul-smelling clouds that I see hiding it and repelling people away from it, and the counterfeit currency that I see destroying people’s trust in it.

 

[Jim]

So when you say '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.' I see! What informative, information are most people repelled from or best concealed buy clouds of smoke and dust?

All I can think of in science, that I could think of as “information,” would be in some reports of what was experienced in the research. I don’t have any ideas about how to be able to say that some of them are more hidden than others. Maybe, the ones that are stigmatized the most by sources that people trust the most? That would make it different for different people. That’s an interesting thought to me. Thank you.

 

[exchemist]

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.

I'm not at all sure why you seem to want to turn this discussion into something personal between you and me and to launch into speculations about my motives. I find this unnecessary and a distraction from the topic (not to mention being faintly creepy).

As for these metaphors about foul-smelling clouds and counterfeit currency, this indeed does sound to me a bit paranoid. Your talk of beauty and fellowship is all very noble, but I am afraid that in this world there is a limit to how productive a discussion of ideas can be, before one has to express the view that something, somewhere, is wrong and requires correction. This happens quite normally in any discussion of ideas and an educated person will be used to this and able to deal with it.

Criticising an idea as "unscientific" has a particular and specific meaning, namely that it does not arise from theories or hypotheses can be put to the test by reproducible observation. Many ideas of course do not set out to be scientific and for these, describing them as unscientific carries no stigma.
It only carries stigma when the idea being advanced claims to be scientific. If it does that, it deserves to be judged by the standards that science demands.

There are far too many people peddling notions that falsely claim to be science, in order to delude the public, often for financial or political gain. I therefore submit that use of the term "unscientific has a legitimate place in the discussion of ideas.

 

[sealchan]

All I can think of in science, that I could think of as “information,” would be in some reports of what was experienced in the research. I don’t have any ideas about how to be able to say that some of them are more hidden than others. Maybe, the ones that are stigmatized the most by sources that people trust the most? That would make it different for different people. That’s an interesting thought to me. Thank you.

I get the sense that you are wanting to keep clear the value of science and the experience of the process of discovery in science by avoiding labeling statements as either scientific or not. Instead we should engage in a dialog whereby one can re-experience with clarity that value.

The one question I ask when I hear something "unscientific" is "Where did you learn about that?" Hearing information and raising the mantra "check your sources" is a good start for revealing someone's sense of what passes for evidence. It also sets the conversation up for a dialog of discovery and a chance to test ideas through a process of dialog.

 

[charlie sc]

The one question I ask when I hear something "unscientific" is "Where did you learn about that?" Hearing information and raising the mantra "check your sources" is a good start for revealing someone's sense of what passes for evidence.

Raising your mantra helps you understand what is unscientific? Btw, I prefer the word pseudoscience.

 

[sealchan]

Raising your mantra helps you understand what is unscientific? Btw, I prefer the word pseudoscience.

Are you questioning my use of the word mantra or the act of determining the process by which someone cared to share some information as truth?

 

[charlie sc]

Are you questioning my use of the word mantra or the act of determining the process by which someone cared to share some information as truth?

No, I don't know anything about Mantra. If I got this right, I am curious how raising your mantra helps your identify(?) unscientific sources? I dunno.

 

[exchemist]

Raising your mantra helps you understand what is unscientific? Btw, I prefer the word pseudoscience.

The world is full of ideas that are unscientific but are not pseudoscience. The first issue is whether or not the idea in question is claimed to be scientific in the first place.

 

[exchemist]

No, I don't know anything about Mantra. If I got this right, I am curious how raising your mantra helps your identify(?) unscientific sources? I dunno.

The mantra in question is "check your sources". I can certainly see that asking someone to do that may help smoke out whether a claim is scientifically based or not.

 

[charlie sc]

The world is full of ideas that are unscientific but are not pseudoscience. The first issue is whether or not the idea in question is claimed to be scientific in the first place.

I don't disagree, but why would we need the distinction unscientific if the claim in question does not claim to be science? I suppose it could be used a sledgehammer to say it's probably nonsense lol. Though I've heard more of a phrase used, like, "It's not supported by science," or somesuch.

 

[charlie sc]

The mantra in question is "check your sources". I can certainly see that asking someone to do that may help smoke out whether a claim is scientifically based or not.

Oh, it's a saying. K.

 

[exchemist]

I don't disagree, but why would we need the distinction unscientific if the claim in question does not claim to be science? I suppose it could be used a sledgehammer to say it's probably nonsense lol. Thought I've heard more of a phrase used, like, "It's not supported by science," etc.

Well generally we don't, true enough, but there are occasions when there can be disagreement. The commonest areas on a forum like this one would be where religious ideas are thought by some to be scientific.

 

[charlie sc]

All I can think of in science, that I could think of as “information,” would be in some reports of what was experienced in the research. I don’t have any ideas about how to be able to say that some of them are more hidden than others. Maybe, the ones that are stigmatized the most by sources that people trust the most? That would make it different for different people. That’s an interesting thought to me. Thank you.

Here's some interesting science for you: Stanley Milgram performed a study on authority figures and obedience. He found a large portion of participants would kill someone else because they were ordered to and responsibility was placed on someone else. Good ol science at work.

 

[sealchan]

No, I don't know anything about Mantra. If I got this right, I am curious how raising your mantra helps your identify(?) unscientific sources? I dunno.

It helps because it means I'm asking someone what the source is of the information they are providing.

 

[tas8831]

The intended audience would be that person? Would you just tell that person that their view is unscientific, without explaining why you’re calling it “unscientific”?

I cannot speak for others, but I typically try to explain why their claims/beliefs are in error. The 'alkaline diet' thing comes to mind. I explain that the body has multiple means by which to keep pH within a narrow range, and altering your diet will not change that. They usually call me a shill for Big Medicine or some such stupidity. Most anti-science people do not actually WANT to understand things, they just want to be thought of as special.

And they aren't.

 

[exchemist]

I cannot speak for others, but I typically try to explain why their claims/beliefs are in error. The 'alkaline diet' thing comes to mind. I explain that the body has multiple means by which to keep pH within a narrow range, and altering your diet will not change that. They usually call me a shill for Big Medicine or some such stupidity. Most anti-science people do not actually WANT to understand things, they just want to be thought of as special.

And they aren't.

Ha, so you've had alkaline diet one, too.

Actually I researched this a bit after my experience with the woman at the dinner party.

It turns out that this is all a garbled version of what sort of ash you get from ashing various foodstuffs. With vegetable products you tend to get alkaline ash (due to Ca, K Na oxides I imagine), whereas with protein you tend to get acid ash (I suppose N and P oxyanions though I'm not sure). This bit about the ash gets lost in translation, so you end up with silly people claiming lemons are alkaline.

Of course even the notion that what sort of ash a food creates has damn-all to do with how your body metabolises it, but that's another barrel of snake oil.......

 

[gnostic]

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.”

Science is what is falsifiable and that can be rigorously tested while following the specifications of Scientific Method.

Such testings -

1. ...the evidences will either verify and validate, which will make the hypothesis probable, and thereby “scientific”,
2. or the evidences will refute or debunk the hypothesis, which mean the hypothesis isn’t probable, therefore “unscientific”.

I have no problem with that. Any new hypothesis or existing scientific theory, must be rigorously tested before it can be concluded as being “scientific” or “unscientific”. And that’s always determined by the amount evidences that are sufficient to conclude one way or another.

The real problem is when you have concept that cannot be tested in any way, and yet people pretend that it is “science”. I would call this, not only unscientific, but pseudoscience as well.

Creationism is unscientific and a pseudoscience, and so is Intelligent Design, and Michael Behe’s Irreducible Complexity.

All of parapsychology - the study of paranormal and psychic phenomena - are pseudoscience.

The transcendent Consciousness, unscientific and pseudoscience.

Alien abductions and alien invasions, all science fiction, and pseudoscience.

To me there is nothing wrong labeling those things to be unscientific and pseudoscience BS.

Science is all about testing any phenomena that trying to explain with evidences, not by people’s degrees or YouTube videos or media coverage or worse, social media coverage.

All you are doing, is nothing more than paranoia and conspiracy theory.