Debate on Science

[citizenzen]

BTw, why is agreement of interest? It's the end of the exchange, isn't it?

Agreement is only of interest because IMO while we both understand the limitations of science, we also see the value of it.

This is not a debate against a Bible as word of God believer, young Earther or proponent of Intelligent Design. Any differences between our viewpoints are a matter of nuance and degree... at least as far as I can tell.

But, in the end do we have to agree? No. There is no such requirement. It is after all, like you say, just an exchange.

 

[Avi]

Right now I am having an out of body experience due to mind altering drinks and mushrooms so I am NOT in a state to answer; but secretly I love Science Geeks..I mean Mr. Spock was a hottie and his rational approach to life made me swoon but the western science paradigm leaves me wanting more. So I married a Physics Major who fell in love with the Tao of Physics..he is very metaphysical but his mind is a steel trap..he writes computer software for those communication satellites that orbit our earth. I really stand behind Path of One and my dear friend Lunamoth..I really admire women who can work as a scientist. I think their wisdom speaks volumes.
I like philosophy but just to think about not to discuss but I have had a DNE and I came back a stronger believer in the other side and it is all goood.

OK that is all for now folks.

Interesting post Janz, I agree with CZ, get some sleep, but when you wake up let us know if you had any interesting dreams, that sometimes happens when you go to sleep "in an altered state" (not that I would know about that, but I have read about it ). I hope you have the day off tomorrow .

 

[Tao_Equus]

The distinction is practically moot. Science as a business is the dominant form it has taken and it has surprisingly little to do with scientific truth as an ideal, as a goal, or as guiding principle.

I think you are wrong. There are certain fields that are financially high stakes, like the drug industry, where it is easy to quote the damning biases in publication you highlight. And there are trends that tend to favour research in certain directions based on little more than a reputation of a single individual that can make it difficult for innovation in a field to see the light of day. But on the whole I think science and scientists operate with integrity. If you spent as much time as I do reading science articles you would see that the majority of it leads to no pay-day. The information gleaned is of itself the only reward for the research done. Indeed a sizeable chunk of it can have no practical application outside expanding human knowledge. So I find your view skewed and cynical.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I think you are wrong. There are certain fields that are financially high stakes, like the drug industry, where it is easy to quote the damning biases in publication you highlight.

A site devoted to Chevron environmental impact research:
ChevronToxico | Chevron's Scientific Fraud

Here's an entire site devoted to Aspartame and Nutrasweet research:
Scientific Abuse and Possible Scientific Fraud in Monsanto Research

In a discussion of food safety research, it was suggested that the research should be designed to answer the appropriate questions, rather than favor a particular outcome."
Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity -- Rowe et al. 89 (5): 1285 -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
This is was at the top of the list of other suggestions. It struck me as somewhat naive since many food safety studies are funded by companies who have a vested interest in the outcome. A Google search will give you hundreds of reputable articles on product safety fraud in relation to food and cosmetics.

I did not make an statements about the scale of fraudulent science. This article sheds some light on it. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/opinion/30iht-eddas.1.14098960.html?_r=1

The author concludes: "While the survey limited itself to U.S. health and biological science, extrapolating the results suggests fraud in science is probably endemic worldwide." I suspect the highest rates of scientific fraud can be found in consumer product environments.

But on the whole I think science and scientists operate with integrity. If you spent as much time as I do reading science articles you would see that the majority of it leads to no pay-day.

If you look a little closer, you would find that much of the published research would simply not have been done without outside financial support.

The information gleaned is of itself the only reward for the research done.

Professional scientists who publish are usually paid for their work, so I disagree with your representation of the situation.

 

[lunamoth]

I think it is interesting that people seem to think that scientists should not get paid for their work, or if they do get paid then their science is not as trustworthy.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I suspect the highest rates of scientific fraud can be found in consumer product environments.

Which is exactly what I said. However you attempt to attack the integrity of science in general. Rather than be a hypocrite would it not be better to just switch of your computer, go climb a tree and live on nuts and caterpillars?

 

[citizenzen]

You could cite abuses in science all day long.

You could cite abuses in sports all day long.

You could cite abuses in government all day long.

You could cite abuses in finance all day long.

You could cite abuses in academia all day long.

You could cite abuses in journalism all day long.

 

[path_of_one]

But for what it's worth, the small amount of disagreement I have with you is easily overshadowed by my respect for your views. That is the last I will say on this subject. I do look forward to less personal discussions in the future.

It's OK to disagree with me, even vehemently. I still find you as amusing as ever. I hope you don't take my sense of sarcastic humor the wrong way- I am not deeply offended, but I am rather amused that you would get personal when I don't feel that you know me very well as a whole person. Generally, personal discussions online (in my experience) start off with informal chatting about one's personal life and only after time progress to critical analysis, after the two people know each other quite well. Otherwise, it does come across as a bit off-kilter.

I am not so much debating against you or Tao as I am debating against popular views of science that I feel are inaccurate and unhelpful, since I figured the discussion (by virtue of Tao starting it with other people's quotes) was wider than just the IO posters' views. Hope that explains a bit.

 

[seattlegal]

Of course. But science is now a business that involves marketing.

The distinction is practically moot. Science as a business is the dominant form it has taken and it has surprisingly little to do with scientific truth as an ideal, as a goal, or as guiding principle.

Thank you! Business is about persuasion, whereas pure science is about testing hypotheses in order to uncover and describe truth.

Intent is the keyword here, and is one reason why I really do tend towards the skeptical side when it comes to "scientific findings." If my skepticism is met with scorn, it makes me suspect that persuasion is more the intent than actually finding/uncovering the truth.

 

[path_of_one]

I think it is interesting that people seem to think that scientists should not get paid for their work, or if they do get paid then their science is not as trustworthy.

Yeah, it's a bit odd to me too. There's a definite balance to be had, since obviously people employed by pharmaceutical companies will feel a lot of pressure to do science in a way that benefits the private sector. However, not all private research institutes work this way- I've had the pleasure of working for one that was genuinely dedicated to scientific and technological advancement and whose people regularly said "This won't work" and saw that as a challenge to come up with something better.

However, considering that much of the research is conducted in universities and research institutes funded by relatively neutral organizations such as the National Science Foundation... it's not so much the funding that skews the research as the culture of academia itself, which is dynamic and not without hope.

I think there is a balance to be had between viewing science as some sort of approach immune to abuse (even consistent abuse) and viewing science as beyond hope for coming up with accurate and useful information. Not saying anyone here is in these two extreme camps, but the camps exist out there in the world. I think reality is closer to the middle- yeah, there is a lot of bad science done by drug and food companies, but there is a lot of good science done by people who genuinely are curious about the world and interested in advancing knowledge, application, and technology. Some of them make a lot of money, most make a middle class income. But just because someone makes a living doing science (even a good living), it does not indicate that they are a fraud.

I'd actually be a bit wary of anyone who purports to do science and has no intention of making it a career or profession. They are then free from any sort of check/balance such as peer review that makes their work reasonably legitimate. Since I myself find this idea tempting at times, and I recognize my own motivation behind it is being allowed to be sloppy and more opinionated than usual... I am wary of it. Not saying everyone would use it that way, but it's definitely a boring PITA to follow all the rules and procedures... but it's a boring PITA that tends to ensure safety and quality.

 

[earl]

Well my opinion is that you are as close to incapable of being rude as anyone I think things through with. CZ cannot help thinking like an orang-outang, and has only just evolved any language beyond "ook". Additional I can assure you that privately he flatters you

Of course I'm slippery. I'm a Pisces and have all the standard Pisces traits. Smelly, slippery and prone to get stuck in the throat if not meticulously carved up I do have positivistic tendencies and am refusing medication for it. But I do not ascribe to any school... I just make it up as I go along... could you not tell?

well Tao, I guess that makes us fishy brothers as I'm a Pisces too. earl

 

[nativeastral]

crikey so much for a debate on science when it degenerates into astrology
yes confession time l too am fishy as f###

didn't read the original article you posted tao, only the quotes, and just put my 2c after seeing kuhn being mentioned, which you have to admit science does progress due to paradigm shifts over a period of time bubbling under the surface so to speak; or as others here have mentioned, don't get a look in because of the prevailing model in vogue/financial backing involved. And then the body of knowledge/evidence becomes such that the accepted over arching hypotheses has to be overthrown due to too many anomalies.

no one in their right mind born and brought up from the mid to late 20th century would dispute the wonders and general veracity of science in pursuit of knowledge and its pragmatic application but we have also seen the horrors too [nuclear bombs and thalidomides]; one minute coffee/wine is good/next its not; seems cannibas is more carcinogenic than tobacco

so scientific 'matters of fact' can be more relativistic than absolute, and methodological naturalism cannot deal with teleological issues which humans are interested in, are you happy with nihilism?

Because of the [still] indeterminancy of deterimancy [or is that the other way round, 2 fishes!] the jury is still out, and science whether it likes it or not will be inviegled with meta physics and super naturalism until they nail proper the properties of space/time and consciousnesses place in this. Until then we can enjoy many more multiverse theories which purport to explain the truth more than the previous one.

 

[Tao_Equus]

well Tao, I guess that makes us fishy brothers as I'm a Pisces too. earl

crikey so much for a debate on science when it degenerates into astrology
yes confession time l too am fishy as f###

Seems like we are packed in like....erm....sardines here!

....which you have to admit science does progress due to paradigm shifts over a period of time bubbling under the surface so to speak; or as others here have mentioned, don't get a look in because of the prevailing model in vogue/financial backing involved. And then the body of knowledge/evidence becomes such that the accepted over arching hypotheses has to be overthrown due to too many anomalies.

Yes, a kind of punctuated equilibrium you could call it

are you happy with nihilism?

Certainly not into applying nihilism as a working truth but its logic I do find pretty compelling. Would make for an interesting thread where you and others could educate me on the moral arguments that I only ever briefly looked at some 20 years ago. I have still not got round to reading the links both you and PoO provided earlier.. perhaps that is a good place to start.

Until then we can enjoy many more multiverse theories which purport to explain the truth more than the previous one.

Yes! Wonderful isn't it!!

 

[Tao_Equus]

scientific methodology of the western kind - logical positivism, developed concurrently with einsteins theory of relativity, and was 'falsified' by karl poppers criticism, as well as kuhn's, then eventually the positivists themselves, eg carnap, helped by quine's demonstration that distinctions cannot be made between the analytic and synthetic, which the positivists had sought to demarcate [between sense and non sense].

since science uses conventions and models, 'assumptions', and only deals with what is, rather than any values or meaning or oughts it will never existentially satisfy the human mind. science cannot deal with 'explaining' the reason for phenomena; even its models, though successful as a continual developmental process, has not been able to explain even basic laws satisfactorily but uses them to further science in a kind of 'blind faith' way, much like religion, ie they 'trust' that science holds the answers to all questions [eventually].

The problem with logical positivism

True!......

 

[Netti-Netti]

You could cite abuses in science all day long.

You could cite abuses in sports all day long.

You could cite abuses in government all day long.

You could cite abuses in finance all day long.

You could cite abuses in academia all day long.

You could cite abuses in journalism all day long.

Do you have any favorites?

 

[Netti-Netti]

scientific methodology of the western kind - logical positivism, developed concurrently with einsteins theory of relativity, and was 'falsified' by karl poppers criticism, as well as kuhn's, then eventually the positivists themselves, eg carnap, helped by quine's demonstration that distinctions cannot be made between the analytic and synthetic, which the positivists had sought to demarcate [between sense and non sense].

since science uses conventions and models, 'assumptions', and only deals with what is, rather than any values or meaning or oughts it will never existentially satisfy the human mind. science cannot deal with 'explaining' the reason for phenomena; even its models, though successful as a continual developmental process, has not been able to explain even basic laws satisfactorily but uses them to further science in a kind of 'blind faith' way, much like religion, ie they 'trust' that science holds the answers to all questions [eventually].

The problem with logical positivism

Bryan Magee is a philosopher, not a scientist, and it shows.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Which is exactly what I said. However you attempt to attack the integrity of science in general.

I did not such thing. I was merely trying to introduce some realism into a discussion that indicated a tendency to equate the science enterprise with romantic notions about scientific validity.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thank you! Business is about persuasion, whereas pure science is about testing hypotheses in order to uncover and describe truth.

The question I'm raising is whether there is any such thing as "pure science." What comes of it is largely influenced, not only by the scientific community's pet theories, but also by social and historical circumstance, funding opportunities, and the demand for products that arise from a given line of scientific research.

It's very hard for science be objective, neutral, and free from private interest is very hard to fulfill in a marketing societies and knowledge-based economies. Historically, for example, scientific findings are byproducts of government funded military enterprises that were intended to achieve military advantage. As I understand it, the Internet is one of them.

Intent is the keyword here, and is one reason why I really do tend towards the skeptical side when it comes to "scientific findings." If my skepticism is met with scorn, it makes me suspect that persuasion is more the intent than actually finding/uncovering the truth.

Persuasion is also a possible intent among skeptics who take a dismissing position on scientific findings they don't like.

 

[citizenzen]

Do you have any favorites?

I favor the understanding that in every field of endeavor (I forgot to add religion) you'll find people who'll attempt to game the system, take short cuts and commit fraud.

Now you can focus on those folks — just like Creationists who still haven't gotten over Piltdown Man — and attempt to discredit the entire field if you wish (and I'm not saying you're trying to).

I think there's enough evidence to show that fraud is the exception, not the rule, and is usually exposed for what it is. That's why repeatability is so vital to science. Any one person can make a claim and enjoy short-term notoriety, but unless the results can be repeated, that fame is short-lived (see Fleischmann-Pons).

I think I'm a glass-half-full person on this subject. As Nativeastral said, one just needs to look at the achievements in the last couple of centuries to see that science is vibrant field of endeavor. If we could just see as much progress in human character, we might really go places.

 

[wil]

I think there's enough evidence to show that fraud is the exception, not the rule, and is usually exposed for what it is.

The question is, how large of an exception is acceptable?

How Many Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Research?

Medical Study: Don’t Trust Medical Studies