The Public Understanding of Science

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi all,

I'm writing an essay about the public understanding of science and I am intending to include a section about the JREF, or more specifically about how your averager JREFer would view the situation. I was thinking of including the lines:

Quote:

It is probably not controversial to claim that [JREFers, "Brights", scientific skeptics] see themselves as defending modern society from the evils of irrational belief systems, and they believe their primary tool for doing so is promoting the values of science and the attempt to increase the public understanding of science. The attitude might be summed up as: "if science hasn't demonstrated it, then I have no conceivable reason to believe it, and neither have you."

Any comments on the validity of the above characterisation would be appreciated, either approving or disapproving, as would any comment on the connection between the public understanding of science and the proliferation of non-naturalistic belief systems, from the POV of JREFers.

NB: Obviously I have my own views on the above, but I am particularly interested in the responses I would get from people who post at the JREF, because I believe it is people like JREFers who most often complain that the public don't understand science, and I am interested in what they see as underpinning and motivating their viewpoint and activities.

Geoff

[Suggestologist]

If science hasn't demonstrated it? What about the extraordinary claims clause?

[Rob Lister]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
...see themselves as defending modern society from the evils of irrational belief systems,...

Were you going for subtle irony?

A better word might be 'disadvantages' or 'detriments'

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by Suggestologist
If science hasn't demonstrated it? What about the extraordinary claims clause?

Ah yes, I might add that. "Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence".

Ta.

[Darat]

"It is probably not controversial to claim that [JREFers, "Brights", scientific skeptics] see themselves as defending modern society from the evils of irrational belief systems, and they believe their primary tool for doing so is promoting the values of science and the attempt to increase the public understanding of science. The attitude might be summed up as: "if science hasn't demonstrated it, then I have no conceivable reason to believe it, and neither have you."

Apart from being replete with “labelitis”? I would say this part isn’t true: “ promoting the values of science”. That seems to be saying that science is some monolithic belief system like say Christianity that everyone must buy into (of course if that is your intent fair enough).

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Were you going for subtle irony?

A better word might be 'disadvantages' or 'detriments'

There is certainly an ironic theme running through the essay, yes. But I think I'll accept your modification, yes.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi Darat,

Quote:

Originally posted by Darat
Apart from being replete with “labelitis”? I would say this part isn’t true: “ promoting the values of science”. That seems to be saying that science is some monolithic belief system like say Christianity that everyone must buy into (of course if that is your intent fair enough). [/b]

Well the "promoting the values of science" seems to be what people like Dawkins are about, yes? What I am interested in is the motivation for complaints that the public understanding of science is a problem. I would say that most JREFers do not see science as "monolithic". "Monoliths" are old, heavy and unchanging apart from slowly weathering. Surely nobody actually sees science like that. But maybe some people of a JREF-persuasion do see science the ultimate arbiter of what it is legitimate to believe in, yes? And what about the methods and philosophical foundations of science? Are these also open to change and development....or is that a line that can't really be crossed?

[Suggestologist]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Ah yes, I might add that. "Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence".

Ta.

Actually, my complaint is that normal claims don't require "science to demonstrate" them to be believed. Otherwise, a skeptic would never learn how to write words, there's nothing particularly scientific about it.

Parent: "If you learn how to write, you'll be able to communicate with others on paper."

Child: "Prove it scientifically."

Parent: "Well, if you learn how to write, you'll see that for yourself."

Child: "I'm not going to learn something as unscientific as that. Prove it, and then I'll learn it if your proof is scientific."

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Actually, my complaint is that normal claims don't require "science to demonstrate" them to be believed. Otherwise, a skeptic would never learn how to write words, there's nothing particularly scientific about it.

Parent: "If you learn how to write, you'll be able to communicate with others on paper."

Child: "Prove it scientifically."

Parent: "Well, if you learn how to write, you'll see that for yourself."

Child: "I'm not going to learn something as unscientific as that. Prove it, and then I'll learn it if your proof is scientific."

OK, I see. So how would you define "extra-ordinary claim"? How do you distinguish between non-scientific claims that should be challenged and tested by science and non-scientific claims that can be allowed to stand unchallenged? Where do you draw the line? How do you make the decision? (NB: It's clear some people don't draw the line at all, but obviously you do).

[Jeff Corey]

I'd drop the "brights" label. A lot of us at TAM 1 and 2 thought it was offensively snotty.
I don't see people using it much, if at all.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I'd drop the "brights" label. A lot of us at TAM 1 and 2 thought it was offensively snotty.
I don't see people using it much, if at all.

The failure of "the Brights" even to appeal to what should have been it's natural supporters is something I have mentioned. From what I saw it split the sceptic movement between a majority who thought it was OTT, condescending and likely to create the wrong reaction and a small minority of people with more extreme views who considered it representative of their own feelings on the issue.

Maybe "the Brights" fiasco points to a failure on the part of some people within the sceptic movement to understand how they are viewed by outsiders to that movement. I think there may be a communication problem here - although it is part of a much more complicated set of problems straddling the borders of science, religion, philosophy, psychology and 101 other things.

[Suggestologist]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
OK, I see. So how would you define "extra-ordinary claim"? How do you distinguish between non-scientific claims that should be challenged and tested by science and non-scientific claims that can be allowed to stand unchallenged? Where do you draw the line? How do you make the decision? (NB: It's clear some people don't draw the line at all, but obviously you do).

I think the problem is that you're coming from a frame of BELIEF, whereas I see science as a source of SUPPORT for the efficacy of our actions, and not necessarily as representing a radical "truth" to believe in. Science builds models that "fit" experience, and can be depended upon to help structure our environment, it doesn't discover "truths" to believe in. If basing our actions on the idea that ghosts exist had more utility in support of our actions, than not acknowledging the existence of ghosts, then ghosts would have some sort of scientific support, whether ghosts were "true", "real entities or not.

[Jeff Corey]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
... OTT...

I don't know what that means and it annoys me when people throw some ideosyncratic acronym into an otherwise readable communication.
Kumar is an entirely different case.

[H3LL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I don't know what that means and it annoys me when people throw some ideosyncratic acronym into an otherwise readable communication.
Kumar is an entirely different case.

Over The Top.

It is a very common acronym for me. Maybe it's a Brit' thing.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by Suggestologist

I think the problem is that you're coming from a frame of BELIEF, whereas I see science as a source of SUPPORT for the efficacy of our actions, and not necessarily as representing a radical "truth" to believe in. Science builds models that "fit" experience, and can be depended upon to help structure our environment, it doesn't discover "truths" to believe in. If basing our actions on the idea that ghosts exist had more utility in support of our actions, than not acknowledging the existence of ghosts, then ghosts would have some sort of scientific support, whether ghosts were "true", "real entities or not. [/b]

I'm trying to demonstrate there is a connection between the claims made by some people that the public have a deficient knowledge of science and the fact that much of the public embrace belief systems which aren't naturalistic. So "belief" is of central importance.

There are some interesting philosophical questions regarding your description of what gives something "scientific support", but I think it will take the thread off-topic if I go there.

I suppose the obvious response to your view would be to point to Huxleys "Brave New World" as an example of where such a view might ultimately lead us, if adopted by everyone. I use this example because in Huxley's world science, rationalism (and capitalism) have truly triumphed, and the human race has achieved total control - to the point of deliberately brain-damaging potentially perfect human beings in order to make sure there are people happy to do low-status jobs. Yet something important has gone wrong or is missing, and I wonder whether one might argue that many of the belief systems that do not obviously help us to "structure our environment" are of use to us in a more subtle way - and that only in their abscence could "Brave New World" happen. Maybe the question I am asking is not about the usefulness of science, but about whether science is sufficient on it's own as the guide to how humans should act, or whether a healthy human society also needs things that science can't really deliver?

Edit:

i.e. perhaps the tendency of the public to engage in non-scientific ways of thinking and deciding what to do isn't entirely useless? And if so, perhaps there isn't really a problem with the public understanding of science (even if there are problems with some of the things they choose to believe instead - since some of them seem to cause more harm than good).

[H3LL]

Geof, it's not a belief, dogma, political position or a faith, although all or some may play a part for some individuals.

Any description which used the language for the above is likely to draw fire.

As to the motivation....it works....nothing else works quite so well nor can be demonstrated to do so in such volume.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by H3LL

Geof, it's not a belief, dogma, political position or a faith, although all or some may play a part for some individuals.

Well then for some individuals, it is a belief or a dogma. And what "it" are you refering to? Science? Naturalism? scepticism? the JREF?

Quote:

Any description which used the language for the above is likely to draw fire.

I take this to mean that any description of JREF-type people as adherents to a belief system or to some sort of dogma will draw fire from those people, yes?

It's not surprising that this is the case, given that JREFers see themselves as the opponents of dogma, faith and belief, yes?

Also, it is fairly predictable that the minority for whom "it" really is another kind of dogma are likely to be among the loudest and most noticeable and most active. The same is true of your opponents. The ones you notice tend to be the extreme cases.

Quote:

As to the motivation....it works....nothing else works quite so well nor can be demonstrated to do so in such volume.

You say that "it works" is the motivation? I was asking what was the motivation for claiming the publlic understanding of science was deficient, and what motivates skeptic activitists. Your answer is to a different question: "what is the motivation for understanding science?" That question and your answer to it aren't really being disputed. We all know why science is useful, I think.

[H3LL]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Well then for some individuals, it is a belief or a dogma. And what "it" are you refering to? Science? Naturalism? scepticism? the JREF?

If you are going to focus on individuals, you should say so. Your OP indicated a broader brush. You will find individuals that will support any argument with ease.

Dogma? What part of science or skepticism is proclaimed as true without proof or accepted as so from authority? Or do you have a different definition of dogma.

Belief is an unfortunate word as there is a difference between "I believe my chair will support my weight" and "I believe an imaginary pixie plans my every action". One is a belief from past evidence, the other not. To avoid confusing the issue you should avoid its use when referring to science or skepticism. "The evidence has shown that....", or "x indicated that...", or "experimentation has shown that..." would be better. If your intention is to cloud the issue and perpetuate misunderstanding with science and skepticism use belief. You may as well throw in the term "theory" to mean a guess while you are at it.

If you do not wish to shoe-horn a description of science and skepticism into a form similar to religion, don't use their language.

There are perfectly good, clear and comprehensible words and phrases that are used in science and skeptical thinking. Use them. "I have faith/I believe that water consists of hydrogen and oxygen atoms" is not scientific, not acceptable and sounds ridiculous. Why use it.

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It's not surprising that this is the case, given that JREFers see themselves as the opponents of dogma, faith and belief, yes?

That is not all, and I cannot speak for every JREFer (I'll use your term). 1inChrist is a JREFer if you are referring to forum members.

To say that JREFers are opponents to dogma, faith and belief is not so and shows a deep lack of understanding of what is being attempted here. The JREF is attempting to see evidence for the claims of some dogma, faiths and beliefs. That is the whole point of the $million challenge. It's a challenge and captures the skeptical and scientific spirit of "Show Me!".

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Also, it is fairly predictable that the minority for whom "it" really [iris[/i] another kind of dogma are likely to be among the loudest and most noticeable and most active. The same is true of your opponents. The ones you notice tend to be the extreme cases.

Again, are you wishing to focus on 'outstanding' individuals or a broader topic? If you wish to focus on individuals at the extremes of a group, say so, state who they are and get on with it. That did not seem to be the intention of your OP in my understanding.

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You say that "it works" is the motivation? I was asking what was the motivation for claiming the publlic understanding of science was deficient, and what motivates skeptic activitists. Your answer is to a different question: "what is the motivation for understanding science?" That question and your answer to it aren't really being disputed. We all know why science is useful, I think.

No, you asked, "I am interested in what they see as underpinning and motivating their viewpoint and activities?". IMHO the primary motivation is that science and skeptical thinking get results and work, other ways do not. Feed starving millions with science and technology, not prayer. Be skeptical when an authority figure says something. Look for the evidence.

Weasel words, obfuscation and appeal to emotions are the tools of those seeking to destroy science and skepticism. It's not science and it's not skepticism.

If you wish to join the ranks like those in my signature, continue as you are.

[UndercoverElephant]

Helllo H3LL

Quote:

If you are going to focus on individuals, you should say so. Your OP indicated a broader brush. You will find individuals that will support any argument with ease.

I am interested both in individuals and the skeptical "movement" (which is comprised of individuals). I am interested in the mind-set which leads to complaints about the public understanding of science.

Quote:

Dogma? What part of science or skepticism is proclaimed as true without proof or accepted as so from authority? Or do you have a different definition of dogma.

Perhaps I am simply less confident than you about how one unproblematically defines what science is and what is meant in this case by "skepticism". From the POV of a student of the philosophy of science these things are considerably less simple than many people suppose they are. The more attention you pay to actually pinning them down, the more obvious it becomes that they are more slippery than you thought they were. However, I think that these things are outside the scope of this thread.

Quote:

Belief is an unfortunate word as there is a difference between "I believe my chair will support my weight" and "I believe an imaginary pixie plans my every action". One is a belief from past evidence, the other not.

Well, here is a good example. What you are talking about is inductive inferencing, and the fact that is an unsafe means of coming to conclusions was pointed out a long time ago by David Hume.

For example, take a turkey which has realised that every morning at dawn the farmer's wife comes down the path and feeds it. It inductively infers that when it is dawn and the farmer's wife is coming down the path then it is about to be fed. And it is right, until Christmas day, when something different happens.... It was in an attempt to get round this problem that Karl Popper claimed that science was based upon falsifiability, not induction. Popper's position was later also seriously undermined. What I am trying to say is that trying to provide a sound philosophical justification for some of these things is actually much harder than some people think it is.

Quote:

To avoid confusing the issue you should avoid its use when referring to science or skepticism. "The evidence has shown that....", or "x indicated that...", or "experimentation has shown that..." would be better. If your intention is to cloud the issue and perpetuate misunderstanding with science and skepticism use belief. You may as well throw in the term "theory" to mean a guess while you are at it.

Well, I sincerely hope that I am not "clouding" any issue at all.

But....there are even bigger philosophical problems with the term "theory", or the claim that it is possible to provide theory-free observation statements as evidence.

Quote:

If you do not wish to shoe-horn a description of science and skepticism into a form similar to religion, don't use their language.

I am not sure that the word "belief" is restricted to refering to religious faith. It is actually very difficult indeed to live your life without any sort of beliefs at all, and I certainly don't believe that most scientific sceptics can make such a claim. We need some sort of basic framework whereby we can start to understand our experiences, and whatever that framework is, it is not based upon any rock solid foundational "facts". Therefore it must be based upon some sort of belief. The relevant question is whether or not that belief can or cannot be considered justified. To answer that question depends on what precisely you choose as your framework and how you think you can justify it. As I said, nothing is simple here.

Quote:

There are perfectly good, clear and comprehensible words and phrases that are used in science and skeptical thinking.

Unfortunately, they turn out to be very hard to define.

Quote:

Use them. "I have faith/I believe that water consists of hydrogen and oxygen atoms" is not scientific, not acceptable and sounds ridiculous. Why use it.

Actually, this claim isn't so much of a problem. The reason for this is that given your usage, this is an analytical truth-claim rather than a synthetic one. It is true by definition, rather like the statement "no bachelors are married." By "water", what you mean is "a chemical compound composed of one atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen." At least, if you mean something else then you will run into more trouble with definitions.

If I said "Paleontologists believe that Neanderthals died out about 32,000 years ago" then what I would be saying is scientific, acceptable and in common and non-controversial usage. The problem is where you draw the line between what are scientifically-valid belief and what are not, especially in problem cases where the answer isn't obvious.

Quote:

That is not all, and I cannot speak for every JREFer (I'll use your term). 1inChrist is a JREFer if you are referring to forum members.

I was refering to the ones who are in broad agreement with Randi, not the ones who are here as targets.

Quote:

To say that JREFers are opponents to dogma, faith and belief is not so and shows a deep lack of understanding of what is being attempted here. The JREF is attempting to see evidence for the claims of some dogma, faiths and beliefs. That is the whole point of the $million challenge. It's a challenge and captures the skeptical and scientific spirit of "Show Me!".

Actually, I genuinely believe that many JREFers really do believe they are are like that - and what's more in many respects I think they succeed in that objective. I'd be interested in some other opinions on that.

Your description is interesting, though. I think it is a little unrealistic though. I know very few people on either side of the debate who actually believe that Randi & co. are "trying to find evidence of [paranormal/supernatural]". Surely, if we are being strictly accurate here, they are trying to demonstrate that it is impossible to provide such evidence...? I mean...you seem to be portraying Randi and the JREFers as neutrals in this debate, and in all honesty I don't think anything could be further from the truth. It is perfectly obvious which side of the fence you are on, and I don't think that is a controversial claim either!

Quote:

Again, are you wishing to focus on 'outstanding' individuals or a broader topic? If you wish to focus on individuals at the extremes of a group, say so, state who they are and get on with it. That did not seem to be the intention of your OP in my understanding.

Both. Movements are composed of individuals.

Quote:

Weasel words, obfuscation and appeal to emotions are the tools of those seeking to destroy science and skepticism.

If you wish to join the ranks like those in my signature, continue as you are.

I can assure you that I am not trying to destroy science! I'm here on a mission to collect primary data to include in a philososophy essay. I am interested in how JREFers view science and scepticism, and I appreciate that you have taken the time to help me.

[Zep]

It's fairly simple.

The Australian Skeptics have a motto: "Seek the evidence!". This is what skeptics do, in an ideal world. Why they seek the evidence is that the theories being propounded as "science" do not, to the skeptic, have sufficient or even any support to be viable. It then falls on the proponent to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.

In a way, we are all "skeptics" to some extent. When we decide on who to vote for by evaluating their policies, which car is better, what soap-powder to buy, etc, some form of evidence evaluation is employed and decisons reached therefrom. Formal science employs the same mechanism to evaluate a phenomena, except that the method is far more regulated, consistent, and (hopefully) bulletproof. The major difference is that it removes subjectivity - what the evaluator would like or fear to be the outcome of the evaluation is removed from the process, unlike, say, choosing a car.

Consequently, scientists have developed very precise terminology using words that, to people who do not know this process very well, have different and subjective meanings. One example: the word "theory" is frequently misemployed by lay folk to denigrate science, simply because they fail to appreciate that it has a very precise and different meaning in scientific context.

Further, scientists have built up a body of knowledge that has a proven track record. Sometimes some of the pieces get changed for good reasons, but it doesn't go backwards. All changes and additions to that body of knowledge are progressive - each new discovery is supported by what has gone before and is tested against it constantly. So proposals that contradict previous knowledge will find themselves facing a significant number of high barriers if they are to be accepted - this is the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" paradigm.

So when it comes to the public understanding of science, it's been unfortunate that few people have actually been exposed to, let alone performed, a scientific examination process. They are simply not educated about it. This doesn't mean they are stupid, simply uninformed. And herein lies the problem. Without this understanding of how science really does work, there is instead a simplified and often highly incorrect view of the situation. And from this, comes the misconceptions so prevalent in the common media (who are usually equally ignorant of the subject), and these get promulgated quickly and widely.

Skeptics as commonly understood by the public are naysayers, denigrators, party-poopers, anti-religious, etc. In fact, that is more the definition of a cynic than a skeptic. A cynic would say to the proponent of a new theory, "No, you are clearly wrong." A skeptic would say, "You may be right, but you will need to show me extremely good evidence that proves you are before I will agree." This difference is what is not understood by the public.

I think Thomas the Doubter should be our patron saint...

[H3LL]

Ah, philosophy.

Haven't a clue.

In my experience you can philosophise about every word and punctuation mark of anything written, and get nowhere practical. I agree with the view expressed in Douglas Adams' writings on philosophy and philosophers and perhaps I'm the least able to contribute anything useful out of most people here.

The only thing I can add on philosophy is a quote by Friedrich Nietzsche, which may be apposite:

Quote:

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

All I can say is that if your description "feels" like it is written comparing science and skepticism to a religious belief, it smacks of the techniques used by those to undermine those things and I have a low tolerance for such word-smithing.

I will be interested to see your final philosophy, but feel that one paragraph is a little short of the mark as, continuing the DA theme, it's a bit like "Mostly harmless" to describe Earth.

Good luck.

[H3LL]

Ah, philosophy.

Haven't a clue.

In my experience you can philosophise about every word and punctuation mark of anything written, and get nowhere practical. I agree with the view expressed in Douglas Adams' writings on philosophy and philosophers and perhaps I'm the least able to contribute anything useful out of most people here.

The only thing I can add on philosophy is a quote by Friedrich Nietzsche, which may be apposite:

Quote:

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

All I can say is that if your description "feels" like it is written comparing science and skepticism to a religious belief, it smacks of the techniques used by those to undermine those things and I have a low tolerance for such word-smithing.

I will be interested to see your final philosophy, but I feel that one paragraph is a little short of the mark. Continuing the DA theme, it is a bit like "Mostly harmless" to describe the Earth.

Good luck.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi Zep

Quote:

Consequently, scientists have developed very precise terminology using words that, to people who do not know this process very well, have different and subjective meanings. One example: the word "theory" is frequently misemployed by lay folk to denigrate science, simply because they fail to appreciate that it has a very precise and different meaning in scientific context.

Except this is wrong....scientists may think they know what they mean by "theory" but if they take the time to investigate the philosophical foundations of their claims they may be in for a disapointment. It's a very slippery concept. For example, within cognitive science and neuroscience you get people like Patricia Churchland who try to argue that "folk psychology" is a theory - she needs to do this in order to try to demonstrate that eliminative materialism makes more sense than functionalism, which is really a "family row" within naturalism. But when asked how she actually defines "theory" she side-steps the question by stating that only when we have a completed neuroscience will we be in a position to know what "theories" really are!

The problem is not "lay folk denigrating science". The problem is philosphers of science not being able to define what "theory" means without getting into all sorts of unexpected difficulties.

Have a go! Define "theory". And what makes a theory scientific?

I have to emphasise that the philosophers who have grappled with these problem were NOT attacking science - in most cases they were trying to defend the claim that it was rational, and epistemologically priviledged.

Quote:

Further, scientists have built up a body of knowledge that has a proven track record. Sometimes some of the pieces get changed for good reasons, but it doesn't go backwards.

I'm not sure that claim can be supported either!

We seem to be losing the point here. I was never attacking science, neither was I questioning it's value (although I am questioning the security of its foundations, but only as a side-issue). I was asking questions about why sceptics like JREFers believe that the public understanding of science is deficient.

Quote:

All changes and additions to that body of knowledge are progressive - each new discovery is supported by what has gone before and is tested against it constantly.

ALL of them? Really?

Again, this is a claim frequently made by sceptics, less frequently by actual scientists and very hard to support philosophically or historically, especially post-Kuhn.

Quote:

So proposals that contradict previous knowledge will find themselves facing a significant number of high barriers if they are to be accepted - this is the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" paradigm.

In this case you have to be very careful about whether the contradiction is actually real. For a start there is the problem of "Radical meaning variance" - which is caused by the same term meaning different things in different theories. Secondly, you can't tell whether an anomaly is a real anamoly or whether it is due to one of an infinite possible number of unknown factors. For example, the orbit of Uranus, when discovered, appeared to contradict Newton's laws of motion. Did this mean Newton's theory was wrong? No, because the anomaly was being caused by Neptune, which was then unknown. In this case we have resolved the unknown factor, but in many other cases we probably haven't. As I keep saying - it isn't as simple as you might think it is.

Quote:

So when it comes to the public understanding of science, it's been unfortunate that few people have actually been exposed to, let alone performed, a scientific examination process. They are simply not educated about it.

There is a hidden implication to what you are saying here, and I'd like to tease it out. Are you suggesting that if the public understood more about science that they would be less inclined to adopt belief systems which lie outside the boundaries of science (which includes all sorts of metaphysical and religious systems)?

Quote:

This doesn't mean they are stupid, simply uninformed. And herein lies the problem. Without this understanding of how science really does work, there is instead a simplified and often highly incorrect view of the situation.

Perhaps here you have hit the nub of what I am talking about. I am not sure that the view of "how science really does work" that is generally held by scientists and sceptics is as watertight and objective as they think it is. "How science really works" is technically a problem for philosophy, sociology and psychology. It isn't actually a scientific question itself. Personally, I'd argue that very few people have a coherent definition of what science is and how it really works. The "simplified and often highly incorrect view" is widespread, including here judging by some of the comments in this thread. Many of the things that have been said here about science have been firmly rejected by philosophers and sociologists of science, but knowledge of philosophy and sociology of science within science tends to be quite poor.

[cbish]

Hi Geoff.
Who are you writing the paper for? It seems were discussing a philosophic stand point. Rudolph Carnap's The Philosophy of Science covers many of the questions you've put forth.

I know you like to discuss philosophy so my input may be a tangent, but I took your OP to mean something a little different. So here it goes.

Quote:

I'm writing an essay about the public understanding of science

My personal criticism of the publics understanding of science is based, on what I perceive, as an 'anti-intellectual climate' in this country (USA). My criticism is on a more basic level. That is, most of the populace doesn't know what science is or understand scientific methodology.

Most people view science as a list of vocabulary words they studied in school. They don't realize it is a process. They don't realize there is a system of checks and balances. Forget about debating the merits of that methodology. Let's educate people to at least know there is a process and that theories and studies are not some diabolical, grand scheme by some "egg-headed liberal". That's my criticism. We can discuss the points you bring up here. But, as far as "the public" goes, we're not there yet.

[H3LL]

Surely this thread should be in the Religion and Philosophy forum and the philosophical approach a bit clearer in the OP and title.

I wouldn't Tucker a philosophy thread with a ten Fichte Popper.

I'll only end up putting Descartes before the Husser.

Leaving ith thuch thweet Thoreau.








I'll get my coat.......

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi cbish

Quote:

Who are you writing the paper for?

The Informatics department at Sussex University. I am studying philosophy and cognitive science.

Quote:

It seems were discussing a philosophic stand point. Rudolph Carnap's The Philosophy of Science covers many of the questions you've put forth.

Somehow Carnap has stayed outside my radar for the time being, apart from being tacked on the end of Hume's claim that "all metaphysics is nothing but sophistry and illusion". So I can't comment in detail, but I do know he was a logical positivist and I think logical positivism, rather like behaviourism, is now seen as phase that has passed. Metaphysics seems to making a bit of a comeback.

Quote:

I know you like to discuss philosophy so my input may be a tangent, but I took your OP to mean something a little different. So here it goes.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm writing an essay about the public understanding of science
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My personal criticism of the publics understanding of science is based, on what I perceive, as an 'anti-intellectual climate' in this country (USA). My criticism is on a more basic level. That is, most of the populace doesn't know what science is or understand scientific methodology.

Most people view science as a list of vocabulary words they studied in school. They don't realize it is a process. They don't realize there is a system of checks and balances. Forget about debating the merits of that methodology. Let's educate people to at least know there is a process and that theories and studies are not some diabolical, grand scheme by some "egg-headed liberal". That's my criticism. We can discuss the points you bring up here. But, as far as "the public" goes, we're not there yet.

Thanks for that reply. I think you are highlighting a difference between the US and Europe here, and it may well be responsible for some of the difference between my perspective on this and yours. If extremist creationism was causing as much trouble in Europe as it does in the old slave states of the US the perhaps I'd be more worried about it. I think in Europe there is less of a tendency to allow religion to dominate areas it has historically been forced out of. To a certain extent this process never really happened in the US, not least because many of the religious extemists left Europe for the US as a result of the secularisation of Europe. I think I will add a bit to my essay which mentions this. I already put in a bit about creationists trying to get pseudo-science taught in schools, but I suppose I forget that there are large swathes of the US where this issue has resulted in significant numbers of people getting a very distorted view of why mainstream science is different from creationism. However - in this case they are getting a distorted view not because they don't get enough accurate information about science, but because they are deliberately being fed distorted information about science by people who are threatened by it. I think that in the abscence of that disorting factor, most Europeans have a healthier idea of what science is.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by H3LL
[b]Ah, philosophy.

Haven't a clue.

In my experience you can philosophise about every word and punctuation mark of anything written, and get nowhere practical. I agree with the view expressed in Douglas Adams' writings on philosophy and philosophers and perhaps I'm the least able to contribute anything useful out of most people here.

Funny you should say that. I was watching TV late last night and Hitchhikers came on. It happened to be the episode where two philosophers, portrayed as idiots, demanded that Deep Thought be turned off because it was going to come up with The Answer and put them out of a job. Somewhat ironic from my POV. There is a serious side to this, though. A great many people who hold the sorts of views that you hold about things like science and scepticism also share your opinions about philosophy and philosophers. Yet the areas of philosophy that have come up in this thread came up as a direct result of the responses you gave to me to the original question - in other words you were making claims which lie firmly within the realm of philosophy of science without really knowing that you were doing it, which is quite similar to what creationists do when they make claims which lie firmly within the realm of science without really knowing the are doing it? This is only possible because, as you say, you "haven't a clue" when it comes to philosophy, just as the creationists "haven't clue" when it comes to real evolutionary science. In fact, it is probably true to say that the lack of understanding of philosophy within science is as serious as the lack of understanding of science among the public, and I think the two problems are related.

[Jeff Corey]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
... I think logical positivism, rather like behaviourism, is now seen as phase that has passed...

What form of behaviorism are you referring to? In the US, radical behaviorism is still alive and well within experimental psychology. If fact, all experimental psychologists are at least methodological behaviorists.

[H3LL]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
...lack of understanding of philosophy within science is as serious as the lack of understanding of science among the public ..

I don't think it's very serious at all.

"Philosophy within science"? Philosophy seems to consider itself part of everything and nothing, the real, the imagined, the yet to be real, the yet to imagined, what is real, what is imagined, where, how, who, when, which, why, whatever.

With infinite variables (whatever they are) you will need an infinite amount of time to get an answer. Several thousand years of philosophy have yet to come upon anything agreed by all.

Let me know when they are done and then I will start to consider if it is serious or not.

[cbish]

Geoff wrote:

Quote:

Somehow Carnap has stayed outside my radar

I think you would enjoy the book.

[John Bentley]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Hi all,

I'm writing an essay about the public understanding of science and I am intending to include a section about the JREF, or more specifically about how your averager JREFer would view the situation. I was thinking of including the lines:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is probably not controversial to claim that [JREFers, "Brights", scientific skeptics] see themselves as defending modern society from the evils of irrational belief systems, and they believe their primary tool for doing so is promoting the values of science and the attempt to increase the public understanding of science. The attitude might be summed up as: "if science hasn't demonstrated it, then I have no conceivable reason to believe it, and neither have you."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any comments on the validity of the above characterisation would be appreciated, either approving or disapproving...
Geoff

Speaking only for myself -- I am not trying to defend modern society from anything. I think irrational belief systems are fine as long as they don't lead anyone to try to force that belief system on me, or are used as justification for killing those who don't believe, or are used as a way to bilk my tax dollars away from gullible politicians, etc., etc. If you want to believe in pink unicorns, or that homeopathy can cure your cold, that's fine. As long as you don't try to force me to believe it or force me to finance it.

Secondly, I don't see "science" as a tool, but rather I see the scientific method as the best way to gather information about the world, and to investigate things we don't understand.

My attitude could be summed up: "You can believe whatever you want, as long as you don't expect me to believe it without offering any evidence."

As far as the general public, it has been my experience that most people have no idea how to evaluate a claim as to its probability of being true. I think courses in critical thinking should be part of every school curriculum.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by H3LL

I don't think it's very serious at all.

...and neither do the creationists think their lack of understanding of science is serious. They don't even understand it enough to know why they need to understand it. They rely on the more senior thinkers in their movement to do the hard work of actually understanding it: "Hey - Michael Behe is an anti-evolutionist, and he's pretty smart...so why do I need to do the legwork?"

Quote:

"Philosophy within science"? Philosophy seems to consider itself part of everything and nothing, the real, the imagined, the yet to be real, the yet to imagined, what is real, what is imagined, where, how, who, when, which, why, whatever.

I meant knowledge of philosophical issues relevant to science, within the scientific and sceptical communities. Where philosophy starts and ends is another question.

Quote:

With infinite variables (whatever they are) you will need an infinite amount of time to get an answer. Several thousand years of philosophy have yet to come upon anything agreed by all.

That is exactly the sort of myth that would be laid to rest if people bothered to look at philosophy themselves, instead of relying on caricatures from people like Douglas Adams. It's simply isn't true. You have a black and white opinion here : science gives us answers, philosophy gives us nothing. I suspect the situation isn't quite so simple. The answers science gives aren't quite as objective and reliable as you think they are, and philosophy provides considerably more insights than you give it credit for. But you have to do the legwork, and you have to be prepared to accept that some of your own beliefs might need revision - or in your case you might have to accept that you do rely on some beliefs after all, instead of thinking you don't.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by John Bentley
[b]Speaking only for myself -- I am not trying to defend modern society from anything. I think irrational belief systems are fine as long as they don't lead anyone to try to force that belief system on me, or are used as justification for killing those who don't believe, or are used as a way to bilk my tax dollars away from gullible politicians, etc., etc. If you want to believe in pink unicorns, or that homeopathy can cure your cold, that's fine. As long as you don't try to force me to believe it or force me to finance it.

I feel exactly the same way.

Quote:

Secondly, I don't see "science" as a tool, but rather I see the scientific method as the best way to gather information about the world, and to investigate things we don't understand.

Everything we don't understand, or is science particularly suited to certain types of mystery? NB: I personally do not have a hard definition of where science stops; I think it has fuzzy edges - it is defined by a set of ideals to be aimed for, including things like "trying to be as objective as possible. " Different sciences succeed in different degrees. Not every science can be physics.

Quote:

As far as the general public, it has been my experience that most people have no idea how to evaluate a claim as to its probability of being true. I think courses in critical thinking should be part of every school curriculum.

I agree with that too. But I'd make sure I seperate my definition of "critical thinking" or "free thinking" with "science", "scepticism" or "naturalism". Put bluntly: "Freethinker" doesn't mean "atheist (and claiming such doesn't imply that "freethinker" means "theist" either). It means "someone who thinks critically for themselves and independent of what anybody-else thinks.

[John Bentley]

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Everything we don't understand, or is science particularly suited to certain types of mystery? NB: I personally do not have a hard definition of where science stops; I think it has fuzzy edges - it is defined by a set of ideals to be aimed for, including things like "trying to be as objective as possible. " Different sciences succeed in different degrees. Not every science can be physics.

I guess I would have to say, yes, everything. But I am pretty much a materialist. Even though that leads me to some pretty depressing endpoints, I admit. Your question implies that you believe (there's that word again) that there are some subjects that the scientific method cannot explore. I would be very interested in discussing that topic, if you so desire. It's always been one of my favorites, and underlies why I turned from an unquestioning "true believer" into a depressed materialist, riddled with existential angst.

But my original point in my first post here was that your quote appears to be trying to pigeonhole all skeptics into one description. I, for one, find this forum to be made up of individuals who would have maybe two things in common:

1. The idea that it is OK to question anything, and nothing is out of bounds for discussion.

2. If you are going to discuss something here, you better have some evidence to back up your opinion.

Other than that, getting people on this forum to agree is like herding cats.

[Phaycops]

I really hate to wade into this, since I have no philosophical knowledge at all, but it seems to me that philosophers of science are talking an awful lot about this stuff and claiming it's of the utmost importance, while regular old scientists doing research couldn't care less what they have to say. Philosophers of science then turn around and say, oh yes, this is part of the problem, you see. But those scientists? Still "doing science" in spite of their lack of navel-gazing.

I realize I am not a trained philosopher, so I'll now just back away from the discussion board.

[H3LL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaycops
I really hate to wade into this, since I have no philosophical knowledge at all, but it seems to me that philosophers of science are talking an awful lot about this stuff and claiming it's of the utmost importance, while regular old scientists doing research couldn't care less what they have to say. Philosophers of science then turn around and say, oh yes, this is part of the problem, you see. But those scientists? Still "doing science" in spite of their lack of navel-gazing.

I realize I am not a trained philosopher, so I'll now just back away from the discussion board.

Thank you. Better said than I.

Customer: "Well what will it take to get this here satellite into geo-stationary orbit?"

Scientist: "We'll do the calculations and let you know. Will next month be OK?"

Philosopher: "What exactly do you mean by satellite? Whatis a satellite? Are you actually correctly describing a satellite? Are all objects similar to yours actually satellites? Are you calling your thing the correct name?"

Customer: "Well we're calling ours a PRC-1, 'Percy' for short." [to scientist]..."Next month you say? Any chance before the 21st?......"

[H3LL]

but seriously....

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I meant knowledge of philosophical issues relevant to science.....

What would they be exactly?
A bit of clear guidance may help.
As a philosophical illiterate that thinks philosophy is little more than a mind exercise. Fun and entertaining and good for the brain perhaps, but I'm far from seeing it as either useful or relevant to practical science. Quite the reverse, it seems to cloud issues and draw correlations where none are needed.

I'm ready to be convinced otherwise.

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That is exactly the sort of myth that would be laid to rest if people bothered to look at philosophy themselves....

Is it a myth?
What evidence do you have that philosophy is not attempting to analyse infinite variables?
Do you have an example where philosophy has a widely accepted opinion of scientific relevance?

In my experience, one philosopher will present an idea, and others will just present a counter argument, however esoteric, with neither being wrong or right, as such, within the confines of such a diverse subject.

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
The answers science gives aren't quite as objective and reliable as you think they are, and philosophy provides considerably more insights than you give it credit for.

What evidence from what branch of science do you have to support this claim?

Reliable? Science provides evidence within a given set of error bars.
What are the philosophical error bars?
How are they measured?
Are there no error bars...or is it just SO?
Can you provide evidence of a philosophical pronouncement that give an insight into science that could not have been achieved by applying a scientific method instead?

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
But you have to do the legwork, and you have to be prepared to accept that some of your own beliefs might need revision - or in your case you might have to accept that you do rely on some beliefs after all, instead of thinking you don't.

This sounds depressingly familiar.

For the record, my personal use of the word belief falls singularly into one definition: A vague idea in which some confidence is placed. I believe that philosophy had little relevance to science other than as an interesting mental exercise and can do nothing useful that cannot be achieved better via other methods.

As such and as a confessed ignoramus on the intricacies and depth of the subject I am ready and willing to hear how my belief is incomplete. I'll even read a bit. I've had to trawl my way through religious texts innumerable times, philosophy can't be worse as long as you keep it simple. I'm not the brightest spark on these forums, as I'm sure you can tell.

A good start would be some answers and evidence to my questions above.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by John Bentley
[b]I guess I would have to say, yes, everything. But I am pretty much a materialist. Even though that leads me to some pretty depressing endpoints, I admit. Your question implies that you believe (there's that word again) that there are some subjects that the scientific method cannot explore. I would be very interested in discussing that topic, if you so desire. It's always been one of my favorites, and underlies why I turned from an unquestioning "true believer" into a depressed materialist, riddled with existential angst.

It seems quite obvious to me that there are some topics that elude "the scientific method" (whatever that is). I mean....that's what art is for. But the interesting cases are the "soft sciences", which for me include not only things like sociology and anthropology but also cognitive science. What were you a "true believer" in before you were a depressed materialist?

Quote:

But my original point in my first post here was that your quote appears to be trying to pigeonhole all skeptics into one description. I, for one, find this forum to be made up of individuals who would have maybe two things in common:

1. The idea that it is OK to question anything, and nothing is out of bounds for discussion.

2. If you are going to discuss something here, you better have some evidence to back up your opinion.

To be fair, this sounds more like a description of philosophy than anything else, although it spins on what you mean by "evidence". In science you have to provide empirical evidence, presumably. With philosophy you have to provide an argument whereby the conclusion must logically follow from the premises and the premises themselves can be also be defended. Since there are plenty of subjects where the empirical evidence is either sketchy or non-existent, philosophy has a role for people who fit your 1 and 2.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaycops
I really hate to wade into this, since I have no philosophical knowledge at all, but it seems to me that philosophers of science are talking an awful lot about this stuff and claiming it's of the utmost importance, while regular old scientists doing research couldn't care less what they have to say.

Sadly, to a large extent this is true. Maybe if they took some time to listen to and understand the philosophers then they would realise it is more relevant than they think it is. And it's not just anti-naturalistic philosophers who moan about scientists not understanding enough about philosophy. I was recently at a talk given by Margaret Boden, who is a Professor at my University and one of the founders of Cognitive Science. She said something like "scientists need philosophers every now and then to prevent them from making complete fools of themselves." And that was a naturalistic philosopher complaining about [some] cognitive scientists.

[UndercoverElephant]

Quote:

Originally posted by H3LL
Thank you. Better said than I.

Customer: "Well what will it take to get this here satellite into geo-stationary orbit?"

Scientist: "We'll do the calculations and let you know. Will next month be OK?"

Philosopher: "What exactly do you mean by satellite? Whatis a satellite? Are you actually correctly describing a satellite? Are all objects similar to yours actually satellites? Are you calling your thing the correct name?"

Customer: "Well we're calling ours a PRC-1, 'Percy' for short." [to scientist]..."Next month you say? Any chance before the 21st?......"

Erm.....nobody is questioning the success of science in predicting the behaviour of physical objects. I have already made the comment that not all sciences are physics. This is in fact typical of the sort of mistake scientific people make when discussing these matters. Physics is understandably seen as the role model for a science. The trouble is the further you get away from physics, the harder it is to meet the standards set down by physics. In other words it's very easy for you to defend your viewpoint if you use physics as your example, but much harder if you are talking about something like pyschology.