Science is schizophrenic

[Underhill]

Whuh?

That would be a yes...

 

[Milton Platt]

People frequently say things like "science shows that..." or "science can't tell us..." and otherwise attribute cognizance and agency to a concept. Schizophrenia comes from the Greek words for "divided in twain" and "mind" (or "divided mind"). In every scientific field, there are at least some contradicting, mutually exclusive, or incompatible theories, from the embodied cognition and massive modularity theories in neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and evolutionary psychology, to quantum physics and general relativity.
"Science", it would seem, disagrees about the proper methods to use, what conclusions it makes, what the dividing lines between it and other research areas or academic fields are, and more. It is, indeed, a mind quite divided.
Alternatively, perhaps it would be better to STOP empowering a concept with scientific authority almost equal to whomever the "they" or "its" is behind claims like "they say that yellow number 5 causes cancer" or "they've proved smoking reduces gun violence" or "it's the reason the economy is in the toilet", etc.
Metonymy is a useful linguistic device (metonymy is why sentences like "table number 3 wants their check" are grammatical; the "table" stands for the people sitting at it). But this particular misconceptualization tends not only to dominate discourse but pedagogy (including science classes) and popular understanding of the scientific enterprise and its nature. It presents as unified what is diverse; grants as singularly capable what only diverse methods, frameworks, etc., can and do achieve; props up as authoritative what is internally divided, and renders bereft of value many a would-be defense of the sciences themselves.

It is short hand instead of bothering to always use the phrase "the scientific method", or some such. Your post is much ado about nothing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is short hand instead of bothering to always use the phrase "the scientific method", or some such. Your post is much ado about nothing.

The phrase "the scientific method" is even worse. The AAAS (the largest association of science, at least general science, and perhaps the association most involved with advancing general scientific knowledge) as well as the National Academy of Sciences have been fighting to change science education to rid it of such inaccurate concepts for years.

 

[Revoltingest]

The phrase "the scientific method" is even worse. The AAAS (the largest association of science, at least general science, and perhaps the association most involved with advancing general scientific knowledge) as well as the National Academy of Sciences have been fighting to change science education to rid it of such inaccurate concepts for years.

Inaccuracy is inherent in dang near all words.
Even if meaning were clear & unambiguous at one point in time, it will change.
The "scientific method" is well enuf defined to be useful.
Our problem is that many lack even a basic understanding of how it works.
You face a continual & eternal battle.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Inaccuracy is inherent in dang near all words.

Not only that, words are not really the basic units of speech. Constructions are (and these are also contextual). However, despite ubiquitous polysemy and the contextual semantics of speech, we know that usage not only shapes language but cognition and conceptualization (through grammaticalization, chunking, conventionalization, exemplars, etc.). Even so, there would be no problem were science education not so poor.

The "scientific method" is well enuf defined to be useful.

It's well-defined, and wrong. Hence the actions and efforts of the most important scientific organizations and societies in the world that have sought and continue to seek to eradicate it from the educational system.

You face a continual & eternal battle.

Battles. This isn't my only gripe I futilely rant about knowing full well there isn't any point to doing so.

 

[psychoslice]

I'm schizophrenic, but I'm not a scientist, or am I ?, ha ha.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not only that, words are not really the basic units of speech. Constructions are (and these are also contextual). However, despite ubiquitous polysemy and the contextual semantics of speech, we know that usage not only shapes language but cognition and conceptualization (through grammaticalization, chunking, conventionalization, exemplars, etc.). Even so, there would be no problem were science education not so poor.

Whuh?

It's well-defined, and wrong.

Nuh uh!

Hence the actions and efforts of the most important scientific organizations and societies in the world that have sought and continue to seek to eradicate it from the educational system.

Obsessive pedants all!

Simple common definition....
Observation, theory formulation, testing (either verify or disprove), modification, & so on

Have a better alternative?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

We can go even further, to the limitations of language itself. Language is symbols with meanings, that not everyone can agree upon. Language is an outward expression of subjective thought. I'm not even sure that we can really understand language from one person to the next. Now when you add epistemology to the mix...