The role of science today

by **Sokolova** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:46 am

I'm re-writing this because i seem to have given the impression this is about 'Darwin'. It's not. I started this thread as I think it's one area that unites so much we care about here. Science shapes the way we think about the world and sets the perceived limitations of our experience. So, we need to look carefully at what it is telling us. How good is the science that is controlling us? Are the truths it has passed down as the new Commandments as well-tested, as certain as we are told? Is science functioning as it should - as a 'culture of doubt', or is it becoming something else? Is it functioning as the new religion, selling us dogmas instead of discovery? The question is not 'what is true and what is not?' so much as 'how freely available are the facts?' and 'how much control is there of information and dissent?' I think non-scientists tend to be frightened of questioning science, just as lay people used to fear questioning the church. It isn't seen as their place. A cuture of deference to science exists even in people who question everything else. To me that's not healthy. Science is made by people, and like every other part of our endeavors it can be abused and misused. Non-scientists need to feel able to question and probe as part of the proper system ofg check and balance. So I'd like people to do that here. Nothing should be beyond a second look, and we should be free to ask about anything. Even gravity (which BTW we still don't understand at all!) To start off here are some links that might be thought-provoking: <a href="http://archivefreedom.org/casehistories.htm"> http://archivefreedom.org/casehistories.htm</a> <a href="http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/"> Brian Josephson's homepage</a> <a href="http://www.alternativescience.com/"> Alternative Science</a> Ellie Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sokolova>Sokolova</A> at: 8/23/05 11:15 am

by **RollickHooper** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:25 pm

I don't want to engage in the Evolution debate, if that is what this thread is for, but I would like to recount a personal experience, strictly in the For-What-It's-Worth category. As a child I loved going to the Museum of Science and Natural History, here in St. Louis; I remember wanting to live there, or to make my home as much like it as I could. I was constantly being told as a child that I had artistic talent and that I should "exploit" my talent and become an architect or an engineer--but the one thing I knew early on was that other people telling me what to do was a sure way to kill whatever interest I may have had in it. But I did have a go at what they call Visual Merchandising, which is one of those fields in capitalist business culture where you're treated like shit and told you're lucky to be in the wonderful world of Commercial Art. Later I did some work for a theatrical group, building sets and props for the stage. They gave me the boot because I took too much time making the sets and props as realistic as I could--which I know isn't necessary in the theater but that's just the way I do things. I still have a life-size replica of an Egyptian mummy in its sarcophagus here in my basement, if anyone's interested. In the meantime the St. Louis Academy of Science and Natural History was talking with corporate sponsors to build a new and larger facility, which came to be known as The St. Louis Science Center. I took a job at the new facility as a security officer, thinking I could work my way up into the Design and Production Department--yeah, it didn't work but that's what I thought at the time. I did manage to transfer to the Special Exhibits Department, because of my "theatrical" background, and I gave tours and lectures and shit like that. But because the Science Center is funded largely by Monsanto, Emerson Electric, and Mallinkrodt Chemical, it has acquired a decidedly pro-business slant to its Message--which I subverted at every opportunity, talking about the hazards of genetic engineering, and global warming, etc. And word started getting around that I was a shit-disturber. When I was asked to work an exhibit on Reduce, Re-Use and Recycle, sponsored by the Ford Motor Company, I complained a lot, but agreed to do it. On opening day a public citizen was standing outside the exhibit talking to anyone who would listen about alternative fuels for automobiles. There were Ford execs there to give a little speech about how environmentally friendly they were, and they wanted this guy removed. I approached him and asked him if he'd like to see the exhibit itself, before it opened--I felt, as an employee, I had that right--but as we walked into the exhibit we were both barred from entrance by the head of Security--my former supervisor and, I thought, my friend. He said, "HE can't come in here." When he was escorted off the premises, I went with him. Oh, and one more thing: the head of Security at the St. Louis Science Center used to be a policeman in London England.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:52 pm

Thanks for the links ellie. Will look at them, and offer a few observations when I have more time. As for your take on science regarding non scientists fears regarding addressing the topic, I think youre probably right. But I believe I had this discussion with one of our resident scientists a while back. The point is that when we discuss such fields, we might not understand the nitty gritty, but we are quoting the surpressed voices of people who do Thus, as a logical advancement to that which concerns just about every other area of human history - Where we do know what the facts are, and where we <blockquote>Quote:<hr>do know<hr></blockquote> that the PTB have lied to us - I would suggest the rule of thumb to be to trust that information and those writers whos works are being surpressed - Call me Mr cynical if you like. My best guess therefore , is probably that the Fox News, or CNN version of much of science is almost definitely 'out there' masquerading as the truth too. In short, it doesnt matter if the science is the greatest thing since sliced bread, if theres no money in it, you can kiss it goodbye. I know that to be the case in the energy field - for all the denunciations of "theres no such thing as free energy" etc - as the very earth itself appears to be approaching the fucking precipice with regard to ecosystems etc, courtesy of the money grabbing braindeads involved in Oil, logging, Weapons, and all the rest of it. More of the invention secrecy act type smoke and mirrors in the science world with their "endorsement" scheme by the sounds of it.

by **nashvillebrook** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:00 pm

sort of just happened in the course of asking other questions. there's many ways to come at the problem, but the one that is most favored is "eliminative materialism" which can be stated easily as: we are limited as language users. the questions we ask are determined by the way we used language -- most specifically we are given to dualisms. good/bad, active/passive, male/female, above/below, etc. so, much of our intellectual history is a two-step. either this or that. i'd characterize our moment in history as seeing the first yawns of expansion into multi-verses, poly-sexuality, spectrums of activity, and most importantly indeterminism and uncertainty (is it a wave or a particle or both given it's function?). that's one critique. another critque is sociological. there's an "in-crowd" and "outsiders." you are in the "in-crowd" when you play the academic game well. publish, network, don't make waves. that's just the tip of the iceberg. there's also sub-groups within the in-crowd, the "outsiders" who are "in" the academy, and rank and file non-academics who have no political power in the circles "that matter," but are just starting to gain ground into some sort of dialogue thru the internet. these are people who just notice things and know they don't make sense. farmers who notice the sky isn't looking right. fisherman who notice anomalies in their catch. backyard astronomers who notice anomalies in their telescopes and on their charts. outsiders almost always stumble upon a "scientific" discovery by noticing ANOMALIES. it's the nature of anomalous data that it will be attacked by the "in-crowd," b/c their political position is perceived to be displaced by the unexpected data. anomalies are easy to dismiss precisely because they are anomalous. they don't fit. they get dismissed. noise. they just hang there in the nether-region of existence. they exist, but not in OUR conceptual framework. in order for them to fit in the conceptual framework, somethings got to give. easier just to ignore them. if you are in the "in-crowd" you sure don't want to suffer the consequences of drawing attention to them and pissing off the priests.

by **nashvillebrook** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:26 pm

it was a DU GD response to my "Frist backs "intelligent design" and I have to say, I'm behind him on this," thingy by PeacePatriot. i love this post. it's courageous. should be it's own thread. Disclosure: I am an artist with a strong interest in science (and several <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4418893&mesg_id=4418893">www.democraticunderground...id=4418893</a> scientists in my family). That said... I have the uncomfortable feeling that the rightwing political assault on science and rational thinking, and also on humanism and our Enlightenment heritage in general, may be pushing people to take sides in a matter that really shouldn't have "sides." I began thinking about this problem long ago, after reading Carl Sagan's "Cosmos." (--saw the show long ago, but didn't really catch some things until I read and thought about the actual text). Sagan had a very great distaste for the Pythagoreans and the Neoplatonists, because these early philosophers were, in his view, "mixed up" with mysticism (they thought that numbers and certain shapes had mystical significance, and held certain things as "secrets" from the common herd of humanity, etc, etc.). And he had special venom for astrologers--ancient and modern. But it seems to me that Sagan misses something rather big: that astrology is the MOTHER of astronomy, just as herbology (which also has mystical elements) is the MOTHER of modern pharmaceutical science and medicine. In fact, all the sciences can be traced back to some early, shamanistic, magical-mystical human craving for understanding and for connectedness to the world and its phenomena. Astrology--the desire of us humans to place ourselves into some kind of connection with the vast starry cosmos--CAME FIRST, and the methods of astronomy--detailed study of the patterns in the sky, and understanding what the objects in the sky are--CAME SECOND. Probably one of the first insights of early astrologers (the first astronomers) was the variety in the movements of sun and moon, and their relationship to ocean tides, weather, good planting times, the mating patterns/behavior of wildlife, and other matters of immediate concern to humans. They--the smartest humans, the shamans and the astrologers--NOTICED these relationships, began to REMEMBER them and pass that knowledge forward, and eventually started creating calendars (notations) of repeated patterns--in the sky, and on earth--so that they could inform others of what was coming and plan accordingly. (Time to build your hut, winter storms coming; the salmon will be arriving soon--the Sun God says so...) There was no such thing as "pure science"--as a concept--EXCEPT for the "pure science" that occurs when a human being simply observes a physical phenomenon, or "plays" with objects (tosses a feather in the air and watches it float down to the ground). There was "pure science" in actuality--or else we would never have learned anything--but not in concept, as a pursuit that is strictly apart from who we are, and how we fit into everything else. Everything was connected to everything else, with humans obviously caught somewhere in "Middle Earth" between the grand forces that literally determine our fate, for instance, whether we and our tribe are going to starve to death--the blazing sun, the waxing moon, the thunder gods--and our own clearly limited power (as compared, say, to the thunder gods), and the dexterity and intelligence that we are born with, and with which we exert what will we are able to, on things and people. It seems to me quite natural that humans would believe themselves to be part and parcel of everything around them--dependent upon, and part of, the plants, the wildlife, the seasons and the heavenly bodies. Science began as a medium--an arbiter--among these forces. It was not abstract, and not particularly rational (although based on observation), and it tended to be both practical (how things work; what works) and comforting (if you put this poultice on your belly, and drink this tea, the Moon Goddess will give you an easy birth--because THESE ARE HER SPECIAL HERBS AND GIFTS TO WOMEN). The personification of the powers around us just naturally occurs to us. What evolutionary purpose does this belief in "the powers" serve? Why did/do those humans survive and procreate who believed in such "powers"? Who knows? But the two things went together: our ability to understand and utilize scientific information, and our belief in "gods," evolved together, and were related to one another, and this lasted for thousands and thousands and thousands of years of human existence, before anybody thought of the notion of "pure science" or strictly rational thought. For thousands of years, ASTROLOGERS perfected their understanding of the heavenly bodies--with incredible accuracy, given their "irrational" beliefs--before it occurred to anyone that the sky should be studied for its own sake. The purpose of such study, in ancient times (and not so long ago), was to predict and control events on earth that affected humans. It's easy to despise most manifestations of modern astrology. It all seems so silly to us (or to many of us) now. But are we missing something big in disdaining it? The origins of our thought. Our deepest desires. How things really work in the vast, vast, mysterious universe. And how our own minds work. And are we suffering from an overly-rational evolutionary side-track, by insisting on the hard line division between science and religion (including mysticism, irrational, intuitive insights, and all kinds of "alternative" experiences)? Also, is it not true that science has become our god and our religion, with scientists as our high priests, to whom we give too much faith? "Pure science" has created some damnable problems for us--nuclear weapons, for instance, and pervasive, planet-killing pollution. Shouldn't science--as with capitalism--be strongly tempered by ETHICS, SPIRITUAL INSIGHT, WISDOM, and COMPASSION--and not allowed to run rampant on its own? By pure rational terms, we should be euthanizing half the population of the earth as unfit (--just as by pure capitalist terms, we should provide no communal, consensus supports for workers or the poor or the old; use them up, throw them away). In this debate about evolution vs. "intelligent design," I wonder if we can't make room for some broader thoughts. For instance, I don't like the way science is often taught--albeit by inferior teachers, but there are a lot of them--as a GIVEN KNOWLEDGE SET, not as a grand, ten million-year EXPERIMENT in figuring things out. I certainly don't think that anybody's god should imposed on children or anyone else. And I know the history of religious persecution very well, so I understand the absolute necessity of a secular state--at least at this point in our evolution, with Inquisitions and witchburnings, and the Catholic-Protestant wars, not that far behind us--and most especially today, with rightwing fascists and war profiteers trying to stir up another Christian-Islamic war. But--if you could put this rightwing assault on science aside--wouldn't it be best NOT TO *TEACH* either thing--evolution or "intelligent design"--as some sort of rock solid certainties that all must choose between, and then believe in? Why not, instead, GUIDE students through WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT these problems, so that they can REACH THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS? Maybe some genius among them will one day overturn Darwin? Or take Darwin's data and insights (and those of others), and make a great leap forward, far beyond Darwin to some currently unimaginable reality about life on earth? If we force-feed given scientific "authority," we make the biggest mistake in the entire history of science--that brilliant new insights get ignored and scorned, because they very often come from left-field, from rebels, from people willing to toss it all over, and re-think everything from a completely unorthodox angle. And, in that respect, isn't the real question WHY humans NEED, why humans DESIRE and why humans PERCEIVE "intelligent design"? (We DO, you know--every one of us, all the time. It seems fundamental to how our brains work--whether it leads us to belief in God or not.) And, the corollary, how do our needs, desires and perceptions color how we interpret physical phenomena? (There is a fascinating book by Stephen Jay Gould about human hubris--of the Victorian kind--in interpreting evolution as "leading to us," rather than having been quite a scattershot and wild plethora of life--as if Nature were inventing every imaginable possibility--that only RESULTED in us, with our ancestral worms just making it through some ancient planetary catastrophe "by the skin of our teeth," so to speak. No design (toward "higher beings"). Just chance. A very humbling and thought-provoking book--although I don't quite buy the whole theory; it's may be too grand for the limited data that we have.*) Just as with Bush and his false and narrow political alternatives--"you're either with me or you love terrsts"--the rightwing may be leading us down a garden path of LIMITED alternatives in how we study--and how we teach the study (and what we include in the study)--of physical phenomena. And could it be, also, that the rightwing fanatics who are leading this campaign are actually--inadvertently--pointing to something we all need to think about: that our rationalist, materialist, capitalist society is EMPTY of meaning; that it leads to ugly shopping malls, and frankenfoods, and polluted air, and traffic jams, and personal alienation, and nukes to "protect" all our meaningless goods, and huge military expenditures to insure our extraction (or the extraction by global corporate predators) of all the last natural resources of the earth? A longing for meaning. A spiritual longing. A desire for a higher sense of purpose. And a hunger for love and compassion. Odd, to be describing what rightwingers might want in this way--they so often seem stupid and ugly and repressive. But they, too, are human, and maybe aren't so gifted as the rest of us at expressing what they want (or even realizing what it is). Once again, I understand the FEAR of rightwing repression. It is a reality-based fear, if there ever was one--such repression has an ugly and scary history. And I'm not saying we shouldn't defend science--and also teachers and students--against rightwing propaganda. I'm just trying to prevent this discussion from being too limited. And Nashville_brook's "right-brain" post--all this free association (however it was meant)--jiggled my mind and got me to thinking about it all. -------- A good review of Gould's book, "Wonderful Life" (by Kurt P.Wise): <a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or131/wise.htm">www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or131/wise.htm</a> "To conclude, as Gould does, that man is "...a wildly improbable evolutionary event..." (p. 291), "...a detail, not a purpose..." (p. 291), and "...a cosmic accident..." (p. 44) is disconcerting to some, but not to Gould. To him, release from any purpose is 'exhilarating' as it also releases any responsibility to any other, "...offering us maximum freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our chosen way" (p. 323). If ever evolutionary theory has been elaborated to the point of complete incompatibility with a Christian world view, it is by the pen of Stephen Jay Gould in this, his most recent tome." (Note: I don't know if I agree with the reviewer's conclusion, or with Gould's, for that matter. Gould does conclude on a positive note about the absolute glory of freedom from all "manifest destiny." Nobody "chose" us. We are here. Make of it what we will. That is an extraordinarily wise way to think about things--it can help you be more creative, and more responsible--the ultimate responsibility, it's ALL up to us, quite literally, whether we create a good society or a living hell, and whether we do something with our life or waste it. However, I just think there are still too many unknowns for such a big conclusion. The universe is H-------------U-------------G-------------E! And we understand it about as well as ants in an ant colony understand the earth. Not very well. We have also cut off our "right brains" from our "left brains." Real understanding may not be--in fact is not very likely to be--limited to what we consider rational thought and hard data (of which very little is available to us, in any case). And, finally, Christian theology at least teaches "free will"--total, absolute free will, to choose good or evil. Some Christians may not act accordingly, but the teaching is there and it is fundamental. The reviewer is wrong that Gould's theory is "completely incompatible" with the Christian world view. It's a great book, though!)

by **RollickHooper** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:38 pm

Not just its own thread, but all and everything that needs saying on the subject. Thanks nashvillebrook (and PeacePatriot)

by **nashvillebrook** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:46 pm

i rambled on about it for hours, trying to find something to say -- but decided just to give up and come back to it later. i'll see if i can find some coherent chunks to post.

by **nashvillebrook** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:18 pm

(this is part of my response to PeacePatriot that i decided not to post) me too -- family of chemists and poets -- taking sides is common. it's counterproductive, but it can be very useful if it informs us of an unresolved tension. good artists/scientists know, the goodies are hidden where you aren't supposed to look. art and science both are problem solving. artists use the scientific method constantly. things work or they don't. you ask the question a different way. both need to be able to sit with "uncertainty." you need to be able to suspend belief long enough for knowledge to happen. Venus draws a pentagram around the earth every eight years. what's that about? it math -- it's a mystery that's been guarded. it means something. there's an kind of bigotry directed at common people having an interest in science if it's directed at "creation," the universe, or even the weather. who are you to presume you can just observe? if there is something you need to know about the universe or the weather, you'd read about it in Sunday Paper. if the enlightenment was a democratization of reason, and knowledge isn't just for "priests" anymore, then there's nothing holding people back from thinking for themselves except fear of ridicule which will be found anywhere mystery is questioned. Venus draws a pentagram around the earth every eight years. modernism is under attack for sure, but the reactionaries can't control it even if they "win." devotional religion isn't ever going to be taught in anything resembling an "academy" because academies just don't play that. you ask questions and use empiracism (darwin) in school. period. reason is big enough to take this on. Venus draws a pentagram around the earth every eight years. there is a tyranny of science, and tyrannies within science and the philistines are at the gate tapping away on their keyboards on forbidden topics. what's this glow on the ocean? why does the sky look different than it used to? what's this odd shape on this moon? why does a certain orbit not resemble other orbits? Why does Venus draw a pentagram around the earth every eight years? What's the significance of the pentagram? What's the significance of eight rotations? Have we missed something? The periodic table was a dream. i wonder how many dreams have been lost. wonder what they were. what if it isn't location? what if it is rotation? Venus draws a pentagram around the earth every eight years. if we don't teach kids how to think on their own, then we are doomed to live on a planet where most people have no more knowledge than their last teacher or the last tv show they watched. the "common person" is interested in the BIG questions -- they don't give a shit about living arguments in science, they are too specific. we don't get the journals. we want to know about the stuff we see. when they ask the big questions, we give them religion and tell to sit down and shut up. why not give them science and tell them to go have fun with it? participate. look what happened when we were given desktop computers, networks and a lot of free time. napster. amazon. evolution. advance. you don't have to be a credentialed engineer to notice something interesting and examine its relation to other things -- to find patterns in the noise. like the protagonist in cosmos, some people are drawn to the noise b/c they hear familiar. i loved the preacher's role in cosmos, too. he represented the liberatory impulse in the spirit that sleeps in the masses. everyone's got a "god button" and it likes to be tickled. i've worked with young evangelicals. they are drawn to the sociology of religion b/c it tickles their "god button." it's not all about dogma. i can relate. i was drawn to a music scene because it tickeled my god button. isn't it a sure way to keep the "masses" stupid? to relgate their god button to the church (or sex drugs and rockandroll)? while the "nobility" continue their conversation unimpeded -- as if garage science would interfere with academy science. it's a radical departure i envision. take back the big questions in this "intelligent design" and do it in science class or in the garage instead of in the church. who told you that you couldn't look up in the sky, notice an odd detail and ask questions? who says there isn't life out there -- why would you listen to them if your intuition tells you different? nothing good ever comes of being intimidated into not thinking for yourself.

by **monster** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:28 pm

and soon the "in-crowd" will find themselves to be the "out-crowd" if they don't investigate things that may contradict their preconceived ideas. I feel sorry for them, persisting in their error while the open-minded "out-crowd" continues to make significant discoveries. I don't think there's anything particularly unfair about the "in-crowd" concept, since education and knowledge are freely available. You don't have to take their word for it if you don't want to. You can find out yourself or seek an alternative view. Much of this has to do with the internet, of course. I can't believe this free exchange of ideas has been able to go on for so long. I hope it stays that way forever, but in my heart of hearts I know that it won't. They'll take it away from us somehow.

by **nashvillebrook** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:06 pm

isn't inherently unfair. it's just mostly overlooked. once you know it's there it's fair. the way i see it, who wants to spend their whole career writing and publishing for professors. how boring.

The role of science today

The role of science today

Re: Science and Pseudoscience

Re: The role of science today

sokolova -- this isn't something i set out to study, but it

here's a relevant nugget

Slow Hand-Clapping

Re: Slow Hand-Clapping (isn't it wonderful!)

futher thoughts on science, religion and tyranny

Knowledge is power

monster: totally agree that in-crowd phenomena

Who is online