Some of you would do well to read "Monopolizing Knowledge" by Ian Hutchinson.  I realize he's probably not as intelligent as our vocal experts here, but you might learn something.

It's pretty obvious he's talking the grand movement of modernity.

You know, the unstoppable march of whatever. LOL.

Or perhaps, like the author, you really don't know.

So does false intellectualism. The point of the article.

Your point. Your criticism:


My point.

You've just described the Climate Change science in your criticism. In the minds of the believers, it is not a yet to be proven hypothesis (even though all of the models have failed to prove the hypotheses to date) but an infallible conclusion. That will eventually be proved.

That's the gist of the article. His skepticism vs the Left's confidence in it's conclusions despite the absence of any proof to support it.

Nice qualifying of your statement.

So now we are talking about Communism? The unstoppable march of history? You're deep dude.

Depends on what this skepticism is based on (which I'm sure will vary from topic to topic.)  If it is based on legitimate criticism then its fine.



If, as we see so often, the "skepticism" is based on lies, misinformation, ignorance of the facts, or a religious agenda (as we see with anti-evolution folks), it is not actually skepticism at all.  At least, not any more so than 9/11 truthers or moon truthers are "skeptics" about well documented occurrences.



 

I don't think it quite means what you think it means.

It's mainly aimed at NDT and his cadre of followers who make excuses for his mistakes.

It isn't an indictment of science as an activity for humans to pursue.  

At least, if it is meant to be some kind of indictment, it doesn't make much of a case.

It's not an indictment of science, the process.  It's an indictment of science as pop culture (and some people who know better, like NDT) understand and/or use it.  It's become a power word, used to shut down conversation and end debate, typically by people whose last involvement in science was in middle school.  They speak of science as if it's a body of knowledge or a monolithic group of Very Intelligent People who should not be questioned.  That's what he was indicting IMO, and I agree with him.

So he's NOT trying to conflate people who actually know what they are talking about with these hypothetical people?



 

I think the article makes some valid points, despite a little meandering, the most compelling being that "Science" has devolved, and somewhat taken the place held by religion of old. Any number of philosophers have opined that men need religion, whether it is true or not. Science has offered little to replace it. That may not be science's job, but I think a large number of people have taken up the notion of "science' as some universal truth, and vast numbers of it's adherents do not even fully understand what science is and is not.
Fatalerror asked earlier, "How is this science's fault?" It's not, entirely. It's human nature to a large degree, but "science" as an institution has it's share of blame. The scientific establishment has not vigorously rejected the common notion that science is 'truth', when in point of fact it is a tool to prove what is NOT true. It has not objected when the public began to treat it as a religion or a philosophy. Rather, it has embraced the adoration of the masses, and the easy money and accolades of doing so, despite history being rife with examples of how the masses were often, if not usually, on the wrong side of science. Many notable examples exist of scientists being pilloried for daring to question the common wisdom, or the politically correct line of thinking. Galileo, Copernicus,Leeuwenhoek, and many others fought against the orthodoxy of their day. It is arrogance to assume that this cannot happen in our own time. As we see ourselves repeating bad history on so many other fronts, it behooves us to consider if science as an institution is becoming corrupt as so many other of our institutions are. IMO, it is.
Make no mistake, we are not superior to our ancestors. We have better technology, but we still think in the same ways, as a species. We block out ideas that bother us, or go against the grain of what we've been taught as 'truth'. We are inclined to side with those who agree with us, and become defensive when we are criticized or questioned. That's exactly why we need science at all, and what makes mixing it with politics so very damaging. And, yes, I realize that fully separating the two are impossible, but refusing to admit an effort needs to be made, even if it can't be fully successful, is simply succumbing to the sort of thinking that led us to blame demons for disease, and sin for bad weather. Proper science requires we bear in mind our own fallibility, and those defending "science" with ridicule and insult are not following that process.
Someone who believes in the utility of the scientific method ought be humble. He ought admit he could well be wrong, and ideally assist others trying to prove that he is. After all, if they are successful, everyone gains by eliminating something untrue from the myriad possibilities before us. And he ought tread very carefully when he finds the masses and politicians siding with him, for fear he has fallen victim to the very weaknesses of human nature science was created to counteract.
When you say you side with science, what are you siding with? The declarations from on high that seem all too prevalent of late? Or with the process, which requires skepticism and humility to do correctly? That's the rub, here, and the criticism the author of this piece makes.
Too many here are reacting to this line of reasoning as if it is blasphemy, and too few are giving it careful thought. Worse, not a single one of the naysayers has objected with the traditional dismissal of, "He is not even wrong. "
 
 
 
 
 
 





 

 
















 

lol



 

Why the stigma attached to an "appeal to authority". An appeal to Einstein seems appropriate if we're discussing relativity.

I am skeptical of any science that has a motive.

Quitter.

Um, no. It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

I read it.  

As best I can tell, this guy read something about Tyson's anecdotal story, and short of anything of genuine meaning, just put a bunch of words and semi-complete thoughts into .html format.

I can't image high-order discussions that don't rely on some sort of perceived appeal to authority.

If I had to start off every conversation with F=ma, and work forward from there, I'd be blue in the face and dead before I could wish someone "Good morning".

Two very good points.

...

 

Well, it's a good thing that no one but your strawman said that then.

You're mad because he's criticizing socialists? If he threw in some digs about right wing so cons would you feel better?

It's amazing to me that an article, the entire point of which is to criticize those who distort and misuse the scientific process, should generate so much angst about how it's an attack on the scientific process. He specifically holds up the actual scientific method as something incredibly good and worth defending from those who would politicize it. Which means he hates science. Fucking GD man...

just skimmed the article--some very interesting points.  i really like how he uses the critique of modernity (which normally comes from the post-modern left) as a tool to examine the contradictions of the left.

I love GD. You guys never disappoint.

Whatevar.

Not to derail this thread, but holy cow that was funny! I had never heard of that movie before.

Here's another scene from the movie ...


ETA:
Screw it, I can't figure out the embed.  I give up.  Here's a link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdNbCvVSWSI

The blogger makes some decent points, but rambles on far too long on political and partisan matters.  And he engages in some poor stereotypes and assumptions.

For instance, he wrote:  "Obama keeps talking about being 'on the right side of history' as if history, like a university history curriculum, has a right side and a wrong side."

What university history curriculum presents the past as some simple dichotomy of "right vs wrong"?  

Next, he wrote: "The easy way to tell real religion from fake religion is that real religion doesn’t make you feel good."

Where does this distinction between "real" and "fake" religion come from?  Religion is a man-made construct, so how can the author try to create some arbitrary distinction based upon feelings?

You're assuming that all these people read it.  I think some of them saw NDTs balls not being polished and stopped right there.  Some probably didn't get past the title before posting their assumptions.

It was not perfectly written, but it didn't say half the crap people are accusing it of saying.  Knees jerk hard around here.

That's not really helping clarify anything.

What the author is trying to critique is very much late modernity (and especially its ideological underbelly) which in the 60s was at its apex.

If anyone wants to read a critique of the idea of modernity, maybe check out Bruno Latour's We Have Never Been Modern rather than reading (and reproducing) shitblogs written by nincompoops as unintentional self parody.

If he were living today, Richard Feynman's thoughts on this essay would be interesting.

Clueless in Minnesota.

I want to clarify that I agree with those who say that the problem isn't with science, but with people.  In this particular topic, my problem is with scientists who sacrifice their integrity in order to acquire and maintain government grants.

 

Or scientists who sacrifice their integrity in order to obtain funding from industry.



Basically no different than people in the corporate world who sacrifice their integrity to protect their company, or their shareholders, or to make money.



Doesn't mean we throw science out.  But that is often what anti-intellectuals often support doing. "Science has been corrupted".

They are really no different than people who want to do away with capitalism because some CEO partakes in some shady dealing.
 

The average person would only know about the scientists that are political mouthpieces.  Twisting scientific data to fit a particular cause, such as global warming, is beyond reprehensible and can end a scientists career.  Most of my professors would joke about the whole "green" thing and teach us why it doesn't really make sense.  If you want to rekindle your respect for science just try to read some physical or inorganic chemistry journals.  There's some really amazing stuff going on right now.

Off to ask al gore about climate change. That man know a lot about it.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

"science is understanding what God made"  what god made??

Thanks for mentioning Dr. Hutchinson.  I am slogging through "Monopolizing Knowledge" as we speak .  I did find this article helpful in fleshing out thoughts and themes in his book.

"Hutchinson starts out by re-affirming Heidegger’s verdict about the limits of scientific methodology:  the scientific approach to nature is empirical experimentation aiming for reproducible results. The two most important characteristics of this method are “reproducibility and clarity”. Hutchinson clearly understands that much of human knowledge is inaccessible by this method. He also asserts that science’s limited method also implies a limited understanding of nature."

http://www.humanismandculture.com/the-limited-vision-of-science-a-review-of-ian-hutchinsons-monopolizing-knowledge-pt-1/

To be honest, you can get the gist of the book by listening to a few of his talks on youtube or wherever.  He speaks better than he writes, or maybe he had to have a certain number of pages to make it worth publishing or something.  I don't recall it being a particularly enjoyable read, but I mention him because he's completely impervious to the typical insults hurled at anyone who questions pop science.

That was pretty much a very bad explanation of Plato's cave.  The actual idea from Plato is that most people are like observers in a cave.  They don't see the true light shining behind them, but only the reflection and shadows it casts on the cave walls.  For Plato, it took a superhuman effort to be able to distinguish the truth from the shadows on the wall, especially since most people believed the shadows to be real.  The masses prefer the philosopher who explains the shadows to them.  The masses prefer the scientist who explains the shadows to them.  People who try to explain the true light are mocked and ridiculed because the masses are convinced that it is the shadows that are real.  Further, those who are "held to be wise" are those who believe in the shadows.  One who argues for the true light is generally reviled as a heretic or madman.  




 

What other method or source of knowledge do we have that overcomes the limitations of science and of the scientific method and that will give us a greater understanding of nature?

Tarot cards? Gypsies reading tea leaves and afro-semitic shamans throwing chicken gizzards the Kuran? the Dao? thinking outside the box? Chakra meditation? Mushroom trip? Liberal arts degree?

Perhaps you should read the book.

Not knowing anything else about the author or his ideas, I am definitely interested and will check out the youtube lectures.

Today's mainstream "Science" is permeated with philosophical presuppositions.
Everybody is biased. EVERYBODY