What is science 'for'?

[Daniel]

This topic is inspired by the discussion about science (crowdsource) funding.

First part:
Is science an end in itself, and therefore not 'for' anything? Or is it strictly a tool: it produces technology, which leads to improved life, wealth generation, and so on.

Is science a set of thought-habits which should inform a person's approach to life? Some people would argue that science needs to stay in its place because it should not -or cannot- replace traditional culture / religion / morality i.e. effectively saying that science is not 'for' informing our worldview.

Something else?

Second part:
Depending on your answer to the first part, does this make e.g. steady public funding more or less important? How much is too much? How much input should the public have in setting research goals for publicly funded research? Is there a inherent responsibility to be scientifically literate? To communicate science? Does science need to be 'defended'? Etc., etc., etc.

Finally:
Does thinking about the second part change your answer, or your thinking at least, about the first part?

[Kenny]

It's a way to meet the hot chicks!

[Robert]

"Some people would argue that science needs to stay in its place because it should not -or cannot- replace traditional culture / religion / morality i.e. effectively saying that science is not 'for' informing our worldview."

The misapplication of Science

Perhaps it is too late to consider the idea that science might be a problem, rather it has achieved the dubious status of the proverbial sword that cuts both ways.

It seems to be shaping the way we get our world view based on technological restraints and a growing lack of literacy.

The mini computer replaced the phone which was an ideal instrument for conveying voice but was never any good for text, hence the fax machine is still a fax machine. The news had to be reformatted to work in a phone so the text was dropped (except for mini text bites that bite) and you get audio with video "better known as sound bites" which suck as a source of news if you want to figure out what is going on instead of being told what is going down.

[Nancy]

Kenny wrote: "It's a way to meet the hot chicks!"

You mean like by concocting chemical potions or pheromones or something? Do you have one for meeting rich guys?

[Kenny]

Nancy wrote: "Kenny wrote: "It's a way to meet the hot chicks!"

You mean like by concocting chemical potions or pheromones or something? Do you have one for meeting rich guys?"

That too. The great attracter of Male hotness.

[Daniel]

Robert wrote: "The misapplication of Science

...

It seems to be shaping the way we get our world view based on technological restraints and a growing lack of literacy."

But would not this, a la the late Dr. Neil Postman and others, be a critique of technology, not science? And not even necessarily technology, but the application of technology? And so: the application of the application of science?

And who is to say where digital tech combined with pervasive communication will take us? Perhaps long-from journalism really does make a comeback, as some sources I've read claim. Perhaps people get fed-up with soundbites -a feeling that is certainly widely expressed if not widely acted on- and watch more and more "long-form" presentations; e.g. YouTube is awash with 1 and even 2 hour long lectures and panel discussions.

[Robert]

According to Dr Postman, "the tie between information and action has been severed."

People buy books with social messages from Charles Dickens to Hunger Games, they always buy, they always read, and no matter how many they read they never seem to get the message because it has been turned into entertainment which in turn turns off our brains and suggests we can step this one out and just relax with a good book and drift away to another place inside our heads where reality is suspended.

How does utube differ from television?

As soon as we add tools to science does that make the science something else?

[Daniel]

Robert wrote: "According to Dr Postman, "the tie between information and action has been severed."

People buy books with social messages from Charles Dickens to Hunger Games, they always buy, they always read, a..."

I would argue that people buy these books (and watch those shows, plays, and so forth) for entertainment. The fact that people don't rush out of a theater after seeing a movie that includes social themes isn't surprising if 95% of the people that went into the theater were there for entertainment. Its just as true that eating a salad that includes a blurb on the packaging or menu telling me that it was sustainably farmed doesn't make me rush out and start environmental work or farming issues advocacy: because I was hungry and just wanted a salad. Wrong audience, wrong timing, wrong venue even if the purpose was to get me to do something, rather than just market, entertain, etc.

But that hasn't got anything to do with technology, much less science. At some point, we as a society -as a culture- decided that we were immune to caring about issues, or just didn't have the attention span for it. This has been something of a mantra for decades now... and I have to wonder how much of it is a self fulfilling prophecy. One reason that 'issues' are now packaged as entertainment is that "everyone knows" that no one will listen otherwise.

It is true that social approval that reading the 'right' book means you've done your part to combat e.g. poverty or declining standards or whatever is an easy way to make ourselves feel good. And it may even numb us to further excitation about an issue... but, again, is that an issue of technology, much less science?

Robert wrote: "How does utube differ from television?"
I would say YouTube differs from television in the breadth and depth of content. Included in this, of course, are lots of videos of cats, dudes falling off skateboards and hitting their balls, twinkle-twinkle-little-star rendered via body noises, and so forth. But there are also loads of videos of science talks, pop-sci shows, social debates, religious people and atheists arguing, author interviews, videos of recent historical interest like political debates, straight up classroom lectures... hell, even how-to videos. *None* of that is available on TV at even 5%... even 1% the volume that it is available on YouTube. That is one difference, at least.

Robert wrote: "As soon as we add tools to science does that make the science something else?"
I would argue, "Yes." But this gets right back to the original question. I think of "Science" as a philosophical approach to the world, and a suite of mental tools/rules/standards/aspirations that hue closely to what is called critical thinking. You may not think of "Science" that way, which is precisely what I'm interested in hearing/debating about. :)

[Robert]

"suite of mental tools/rules/standards/aspirations that hue closely to what is called critical thinking." Absolutely, it can't be any other way.

Sounds like you wish to separate science from the planet eating technologies we have created.

Television and the internet are mixing together into one item, same as news and entertainment have been blended together into one "thing" that I have no name for. U tube and television will end up being on the same menu.
Having plenty of things to choose from has nothing to do with what gets picked. I do like and use the how to's. I call that Animated Intelligence. I don't like one size fits all speeches no matter how academic they seem.

I am not talking about instant action. At this point in time any action would do after any amount of time. It's book after book, movie after movie being consumed just like "food" as you so handily provide as an example. There is suppose to be a difference between entertainment and the news, consuming suffering as if it was just another meal to eat is counter productive in the long run.

We could provide solutions but more likely we will create detours that can take a lifetime to travel.

Aren't you wary of the hole being dug under our feet by the very science and technology that we all endorse by our everyday use of it?

Until science adds consequences (which is nothing more than the other side of the equation) to its list of standards I don't think it will ever be different from technology.

[Daniel]

Robert wrote: "Until science adds consequences (which is nothing more than the other side of the equation) to its list of standards I don't think it will ever be different from technology."

I don't know what this means. Consequences exist automatically. Why would they need to be 'added' if they are already there? Further, why should there be added artificial consequences to a process for figuring things out (which is all science is)?

[Mickey]

Daniel wrote: "Robert wrote: "Until science adds consequences (which is nothing more than the other side of the equation) to its list of standards I don't think it will ever be different from technology."

I don'..."

Agreee, I also do not know what that means.
However, my two cents :)

My super short breif definition of science and technology:
Science creates new knowledge.
Technology applies existing knowledge to create new products.

I have no problem with putting NO limits on creating new knowledge.
Technology, I have no problems putting limits on creating new products (so not to be harmful :)
Well, I will make an exception for those in the weapon industry :)

[Robert]

Science is suppose to teach us how the world really works.

If you create a fish harvesting industry, you need to create an equal but opposite anti fish harvesting industry, if you create a tree harvesting industry you need to create an equal but opposite anti tree harvesting industry, if you pump out irreplaceable ground water you better create an equal but opposite anti water pumping industry, etc, etc, etc. (simply replaces what was taken out to keep the equations balanced). It's a state of mind, no tools required. Right now science is giving people only half the equation. When properly learned it makes the profits look good and it should also make the replacement policies look just as good if not more profitable. Learning to shoot a gun is only half the lesson, the other half is learning what to shoot.

[Daniel]

I will just quickly note that there are two Daniel's responding now. :)

Robert wrote: "Sounds like you wish to separate science from the planet eating technologies we have created."

Here we get into a problem of framing. Am I trying to separate "Science" from the application of "scientifically gained knowledge" to the development of "technologies" that are used by people for "means and ends" good or ill? Or are you trying to combine "Science" with the "means and ends"?

How far downstream are you responsible for your actions? If you research nicotines in plants re: those plants' natural defense against various insects, and over a few years that research is used for further research, which is used for further research over a few more years, which is then used to synthesize neonicotinoids, which are variously tested and rejected or tested and accepted as successful as pesticides, which are then commercialized, and are far safer for people and animals AND with far fewer side-effects, which is only later found, after many years of use, to cause (still not understood) neuronal effects in bees which, especially when combined with unseasonably cold weather, cause colony collapse disorder (...aaaaahhhhhh... hug breath from run-on sentence) are you:
a.) At all reasonably 'responsible' for colony collapse disorder?
b.) Seriously able to predict what the future results would been?
c.) Able to decide ahead of time, more generally, which research to pursue and which to shelve or even ban?

How are we to predict ahead of time the economic, environmental, etc. costs of some research pursuit? Keep in mind that *not* pursing a line of research has some cost too: the cost of what you don't know, can't do, won't see or understand, and so forth.

Robert wrote: "Right now science is giving people only half the equation. When properly learned it makes the profits look good and it should also make the replacement policies look just as good if not more profitable. Learning to shoot a gun is only half the lesson, the other half is learning what to shoot."

I agree with this sentiment. I wish we looked at the more complete picture, that we did not constantly "externalized costs" while a few "internalize profits," as I've heard it succinctly phrased.

But I'm not sure this is "science." You seem to be saying that science is, or is responsible for:
a.) Understanding the world
b.) The process and tools for understanding the world
c.) Teaching values about how to properly value people/tings/the world/the environment
d.) The future
e.) People's actions, now and in the future
f.) Teaching wisdom
g.) Properly "marketing" wise strategies
h.) Teaching political foresight and public mindedness
i.) Teaching economic foresight and public mindedness
j.) The fate of humankind
k.) The fate of the larger world

I may have missed a few things. :) This is a LOT to lay at the feet of science. You are asking me to understand science as what I am calling "science", plus as some kind of insurer of good society, government, politics, values, and -more generally- wisdom and the future. You're asking me to accept science as some kind of old-time state religion combined with some 20-th century utopian political ideal.

Science -and I really mean scientists- can't be devoid of politics and responsibility, and do need to remind themselves periodically of the dangers of hubris. I think, generally, scientists are *at least* somewhat conscious with what they do, and I think more so than most people. There are organizations like The Union of Concerned Scientists, as one example. I've not so far run across the Union of Concerned Steamfitters or Union of Concerned Middle Management. Even accepting that scientists might have some special, separate responsibility, above and beyond everyone else, you still can't expect "science" to pick up the slack for the mass of people being lazy, short-sighted, concerned with what is immediately around them, concerned mostly for their own kids, etc.

[Mel]

Can only answer the first part right now...

Science is both an end and a tool to achieving the same end. The end is discovery of facts. We do this every day in every last moment of our lives, albeit some behave more 'scientifically' than others. Even a simple "ow, my tooth hurts, let's see if I can figure out if I have a cavity WITHOUT going to the doctor," is usually followed by behavior that can be called scientific even if it is erroneous. Example: "Oh, the tooth that hurts still looks exactly like the one like it on the other side! I must be ok!" while wrong, has still involved systematic methodology (checking the tooth in the [insufficient] mirror and comparing it to its 'counterpart' tooth [despite that means nothing])

No facts were yielded, and some sort of systematic investigation was employed. There was an ATTEMPT to find out through investigation of the available facts, and interpreting the data yielded. They may have looked at the wrong things and interpreted what they saw incorrectly, but if those two things were the criteria of science-or-not........well, there goes the history of science as we know it!

It is also a tool when you use facts yielded through scientific investigation. (having discovered your gum is bleeding you *may* chalk the pain up to gingivitis. Most likely wrong again, but it is an interpretation of data discovered through investigation)

We really never stop doing this. We just usually do it in moments too boring to remember.

As to what else it is 'for,' that depends on the desires and beliefs of the person using it.

[Robert]

Consequences

Instead of saying: Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction

We are saying: Every Action has a "fill in the blank with anything you want" including no consequences if that's what you need to make things happen.

I used large scale examples not precise tiny little windows of specialized facts which can only show nothing is ever related to anything else.

Science itself doesn't teach any values, people teach values by the way the material is presented.

"a.) At all reasonably 'responsible' for colony collapse disorder?
b.) Seriously able to predict what the future results would been?
c.) Able to decide ahead of time, more generally, which research to pursue and which to shelve or even ban?"--- You are saying because the first person had nothing to check out that every one after that first person also had no reason to check anything out?

[Daniel]

Robert wrote: "Instead of saying: Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction

We are saying: Every Action has a "fill in the blank with anything you want" including no consequences if that's wh..."

I agree that "we" need to consider the consequences of "our" actions. But where does that consideration happen? Who does it? Does it happen each time someone initiates some little piece of research? When a body of knowledge has been built up to some critical level? Who evaluates it? The lone scientist? The individuals in an area of research? A board at each institution and agency? Some international advising committee? A government? Who arbitrates disagreements over risks and risk assessments? Who does the research to determine the risks of the research? Are violators punished? Is there an appeals process? What are the standards for risk? How man years out do we evaluate too? Do we avoid just those things with imminent dangers? Possible dangers? Unknown dangers? Risk of abuse? Do we include the risks associated with *not* pursing research? What about "honest disagreement?" Since we're saying that research is now governed by (some yet to be developed) prognostication process, how do you handle cases where people honestly and reasonably disagree over their predictions of the future?

Robert wrote: "You are saying because the first person had nothing to check out that every one after that first person also had no reason to check anything out?"

No. Everything you are saying is properly the responsibility of society as a whole. Where it is even possible! I would argue that one reason that the management by the public is so terrible is that block of questions above, plus the fact that people, many of who are in genuinely quite concerned about consequences, aren't willing to put each new chemical/product/energy source/additive/etc. through 40 or 50 or 70 years of testing to ensure it is "totally" understood... which of course, it still would not be. Can we be a bit more conservative about this than we are now? Absolutely. But... again, that is a societal issue, that is a political issue; you need to convince people of the need to spend more time and money doing more testing, and accept fewer improvements for that increased cost, because it is better for them.

Again, I reiterate, this is not "science"; and it is not "Science." You're arguing for a revision in how we live/think/govern, and calling that science because it involves technology. Or... you are arguing, that scientists, per some as-yet-to-be-developed process like above, should unilaterally govern what is knowledge the rest of the non-scientists get... Or something.

[Robert]

Selling Something Called Science

It all keeps coming back to who will pay for it. No matter about responsibility if there is no money to pay for it. The international religion of money has billions of followers, even devout atheists, who are willing to believe in it because it is universal in meaning. Since money is pure math it speaks the language of truth but little else, one just puts whatever it is on a scale which computes the extrinsic value, priorities solved.

[Daniel]

Robert wrote: "Selling Something Called Science

It all keeps coming back to who will pay for it. No matter about responsibility if there is no money to pay for it. The international religion of money has billio..."

Well, yes and no. We chase money more than we should; Americans in particular. And I did touch on economic concerns, yes; and there *are* real, valid economic concerns. We make choices in how we allocate our limited resources (time, physical resources, mental and emotional effort, and -yes- money, which is often used as a proxy for all those previous resources.)

But, AGAIN, this comes down to societal and political values and decisions.

And, this is not at all what I was talking about, or the point I was making with the original post.

I feel like I am within my... rights, I guess... to say that, if we are abandoning the discussion completely about 'what science is for' to take up arm-wavey moralising, great. I'm happy to have that discussion too, because I too think it is valuable to talk about! But in that case, I think it is fair to point out that we've departed from the original topic (and did so some time ago) that at least *one* of us was talking about; and also that you've yet to respond to the points I put forward during your shift to this topic (other than with arm-wavey moralising and sloganeering.)

[Robert]

If you are saying that "science exists in a "vacuum", once you use it to do something after the discovery process it is no longer science" then everything I said is invalid according to your thinking in which case my replies are just restatements of what I originally said as your points are also restating the same objections by covering the subject from any conceivable point of view.

But I'm not sure this is "science." You seem to be saying that science is, or is responsible for:
a.) Understanding the world
--What is is so mysterious about "understanding"? You are saying "science" does not explain things? It merely catalogs events and then one can interpret the facts anyway one wants? That science exists in a "vacuum", once you use it to do something after the discovery process it is no longer science?
b.) The process and tools for understanding the world
"suite of mental tools/rules/standards/aspirations that hue closely to what is called critical thinking." Absolutely, it can't be any other way because otherwise people without electricity could not be considered to be scientists AND see above for the question about the word "understanding".

c.) Teaching values about how to properly value people/tings/the world/the environment
Teaching is one of the aspects of any subject including science. "How to value". The world is the principal for the source of natural resources, you can spend the interest or you can spend the principal. Intelligent design says that the world resources are inexhaustible and are here for people to make the most money from anyway they want so they may live a luxurious life style at the expense of all other living things. I would say that is spending the principal and not the interest.

d.) The future
I think comment c explains why one would do this.
The other way of looking at this is to say that science only catalogs facts and anything after that is not science?

e.) People's actions, now and in the future
This is a repeat of comments a through d.

f.) Teaching wisdom
Restating your comments a through e.

g.) Properly "marketing" wise strategies
Restating f.

h.) Teaching political foresight and public mindedness ----- restating your previous comments.

i.) Teaching economic foresight and public mindedness ----- restating your previous comments.
j.) The fate of humankind --- you will have to define fate.

k.) The fate of the larger world ----- the larger world is no larger than single cell life, we are not "part" of the larger world. The larger world will function perfectly fine with or without us. Your "larger world" is an extension of the humankind world as people define it. For the time being the forces to change the real "larger world" are outside of our capabilities.

[Daniel]

Robert wrote: "science exists in a "vacuum"

Just because it doesn't exist in a vacuum does not mean that it is responsible for everything and anything that ever happens to anything or anyone ever. To say that the word 'science' means something specific does not mean that the specific thing exists in a vacuum.

A = A does not mean that A exists in a vacuum. Nor does one need to expand 'A' so that it refers to everything that happens after itself in order to be valid as a term.

Processes are not responsible for what people do with them. Processes are not teaching. Processes are not moral or immoral. Processes are processes. Now, if you think scientists (or the people who do science professionally) should be undertaking certain tasks or behaving in certain ways, that's something different but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying.

The answer to your original question is very simple:

Science is a process for figuring things out.

That's what it is and what it's 'for'. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You don't blame eyes because serial killers use them to pick their victims, so why would you blame science because some people have done bad things with knowledge gained from it?

[Daniel]

Robert wrote: "What is is so mysterious about "understanding"? You are saying "science" does not explain things? It merely catalogs events and then one can interpret the facts anyway one wants? That science exists in a "vacuum", once you use it to do something after the discovery process it is no longer science?"

That is somewhat close to my view on science. I think of science as being a collection of methods for discovering paradigms, theories, individual facts, etc. AS WELL as the resulting paradigms, theories, etc. Once the facts resulting from the process of science are applied to making an antibiotic, a battery, or a biological weapon, you are no longer talking about science.

Robert wrote: "Teaching is one of the aspects of any subject including science. "How to value". The world is the principal for the source of natural resources, you can spend the interest or you can spend the principal. Intelligent design says that the world resources are inexhaustible and are here for people to make the most money from anyway they want so they may live a luxurious life style at the expense of all other living things. I would say that is spending the principal and not the interest."

I think the beliefs inherent in what I call science -evidence seeking, theory testing, admission of the limits of human thinking, etc.- are great lessons, and are in fact themselves values.


We may be viewing this topic through fundamentally different and incommensurable lenses. We also may be using the same words in different ways: we've both tossed around 'responsibility', and I suspect we are using this word in overlapping but distinct senses.

If you would like to long-from out your thoughts, I will most definitely read them in detail. Otherwise, we may be at an impasse. Here is one last loooong-winded attempt on my part to explain.


Instead of 'science', take some other broad area. I've already failed with an example about pesticides, so lets use 'agriculture.' :)

There seem to be two somewhat broad questions we are struggling over. "What does 'agriculture' mean?" and, "Who bears responsibility for 'agriculture'?"

Involved in or touching on agriculture are a number of people, groups, things: an individual farmhand, farmers, middlemen, ranchers, seed companies, seed banks, processing companies, feedlots, railroads, hardware stores, agricultural collectives... ... ... ...governments agencies, entire governments, cultures, and you, the guy with a mouthful of food.

Amongst this web, there is then a web of decisions and forces at work: the farmer has to decide to go out and work in the morning, what to plant, if to use chemical fertilizers or antibiotics, to hold out for the highest price; and much more. And that is just the farmer. This continues all the way through to you, the consumer, who have to decided what to buy, to buy it in season or out, organic or not, local or not, meat or not, ad nauseam.

I hear you -and I might be mishearing you- say that anything that in some way touches these webs is in fact 'agriculture.' So: this strawberry I am eating, debate about a farm bill, whether I shop at a unionized grocery store, research into biomass conversion to fuel, hydrological projects, the clothing I wear, mining projects in Canada, and -really- just about everything in the world is 'agriculture.'

Similarly, you seem to be arguing that everything that is touched in some way, shape or form by science is therefore, ipso facto, itself science. But this is problematic, to say the least. Because then everything is agriculture. Everything is science. Everything is... everything.

This gets especially problematic when you then start talking about 'responsibility'. Previously I talked about who in a web from researching a plant species up to those who applied pesticide bears responsibility for ill effects. I asked if it was desired for scientists to decided on what research is done, or if the public should. Definitions again: this is 'responsibility' in the sense of, "who has the power?" AS WELL as, "Who bears fault if things go sideways?" In the pesticide example you responded with, to paraphrase, "someone." You might be able to understand some of my frustration with this. I feel like you are making grand, arm-waving philosophical or moralistic statements, and then when asked for details come up with, "someone, definitely someone."

Which, BTW, misses completely the other point I'd tried to make, namely that sometimes shit just happens. What if no one is *reasonably* responsible? Or what if it is a collective failure of us as a culture/society/voting public/etc.? (A hint of what is to come.)

Go back to the agriculture example. Who has responsibility to determine if a pesticide should be used? The farmer? The country the farmers are in? Citizens of the world? The scientists who researched it? The county? Only people downriver? Only hungry people? Starving people? Who reviewed it for safety? How much review? What was the standard for 'safety?' Who determined that standard? Who hired those standard determiners?

Even if we accept 'agriculture' is responsible for that pesticide, what the heck is 'agriculture'? If we accept (what I think is) your definition, 'agriculture' is everything and everyone. And so we should have public -e.g. government- control over this hypothetical pesticide. Which we already have. But you're not happy with that, because it isn't good enough.

Which is why we need 'agriculture' to step up and take responsibility... and so back to square one.

BTW, none of this is to say that you shouldn't make smart choices at the grocery store, in choosing which store you go to, voting on environmental laws that limit water usage from rivers, etc. But I, at least, wouldn't call those things 'agriculture.'

You should also make smart choices about supporting biological weapons research, fuel cell development, and staring at the Sun. But I, at least, wouldn't call those things 'science.'

If you read my previous posts, I repeatedly say that 'science' isn't responsible -anymore than 'agriculture' is responsible- for for choosing what to do or not, *generally* (you, as an individual scientists, should still think twice about opening interdimensional portals or making weaponized Ebola.) *Generally*, I think responsibility is up to society/public/the government. Which actually might be more or less what you are saying: after all, I am saying that I think science is one part, only, of what people do, but is worthy of -in fact requires- being under public control because it is all of profound, useful, dangerous, and unpredictable. But public control is ugly, messy, haphazard, sometime broken, sometimes corrupt: THAT needs to be constantly monitored and improved by... well, the public, including scientists and you and me.

[Daniel]

Daniel wrote: "The answer to your original question is very simple:

Science is a process for figuring things out."

I would tend to agree.

I would add that I also see the values inherent in the scientific approach to figuring things out (and, man, am I trying to be careful with my words now) as having much broader value. In that sense, science can be an exemplar of what critical reasoning can achieve. Scientists, at their best, can be exemplars of people holding true to these values; and at their worst, of how science -here meaning the collective effort of scientists- has, so far, self corrected because of its processes.

Finally, as much as the 'scientific method' is an artificial construction rarely used as taught, it is a good starting place for learning critical reasoning.

[Mel]

Part 2, answers bold

Depending on your answer to the first part, does this make e.g. steady public funding more or less important? Neither more nor less. By 'public funding,' do you mean donations, taxes, or both?How much is too much? That depends on the situation. People should donate and research independently all they want. You never know what an autodidactic might discover, after all. In the "established" science vein (NASA, etc), mandatory 'donation' through income bracket based taxes. The latter is not to be confused with a trust that such things would be done efficiently, as well oiled political machines are an inevitable presence in both government and 'established' science. I am only describing an ideal funding situation towards science with a track record vs. independent/trailblazing research.

How much input should the public have in setting research goals for publicly funded research? Depends on their grounds for disputing something, which should be heard out by a scientifically literate third party NOT tied to the research in question. Ideal situation again; not to be confused with a trust that anything but politics will prevail. After all, remember the exact path that 'research' takes before it becomes 'Knowledge.' Does it NOT inevitably have to pass through some form of Power first? When does it NOT? Know that. Because you do :) Is there a inherent responsibility to be scientifically literate? Yes, as much as one is ableTo communicate science? Yes, unless you enjoy people running around screeching bloody murder about global warming being 'made up' (IT'S GRADE SCHOOL SCIENCE STUFF PICK UP A BOOK FOR CHRIST'S SAKE IT'S JUST THE FRIGGIN GREENHOUSE EFFECT WHICH OF COURSE IS GONNA HAPPEN IF YOU BLAST A BUNCH OF SHITE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. IT'S NOT EVEN THAT BLEEDIN' COMPLICATED LET ALONE 'MADE UP BUNCH OF CRAP' OR WHATEVER.) Ya sorry I totally had to set a dear friend straight on that recently. Smart lady who does not always have the hang of mistrust :) Sure, the Establishment of Knowledge is not to be trusted, yada yada, but global warming is just common sense. So I'm like OMG GRADE SCHOOL SCIENCE come ON what do you THINK will happen when you do what we do with gases and smoke every freakin day?Does science need to be 'defended'? Scientific thinking, yes. Which would, in turn, cover most of the other issues, no?

[Mel]

Oh, and:

Finally:
Does thinking about the second part change your answer, or your thinking at least, about the first part?

Nope. It kind of ties it together into a bow, actually.

[Kevin]

1a) I see science a technique for investigating areas that it's capable of investigating, but I don't think science can cover everything. For example, I don't try to use science to "prove" that I love my wife.

1b) I think any thought process a person uses regularly will bias their outlook on life.

2a) I think public funding is fine, but I think that if the public is paying for something, they should have a say in where the money goes. It's not really all that different than if I or a corporation pay for research. Now, if the public chooses (through their elected representatives) to turn those decisions over to an appointment panel then that is fine with me. But to me, the group paying for the work gets to decide how those funds are used.

2b) I think there's a responsibility to be literate in anything that you want to make a decision on (e.g. getting a mortgage, using a canoe, etc.).

2c) I'm uncertain what you mean by "defend science". Are you referring to defending the scientific method as a tool for investigation or are you referring to defending a specific set of results from those investigations?

[Mel]

Kevin wrote: "1a) I see science a technique for investigating areas that it's capable of investigating, but I don't think science can cover everything. For example, I don't try to use science to "prove" that I l..."

Ya, there's no such thing as bias free--but there are differing degrees to how much a bias can be allowed to control various outcomes.

I think that if the public is paying for something, they should have a say in where the money goes. It's not really all that different than if I or a corporation pay for research. Now, if the public chooses (through their elected representatives) to turn those decisions over to an appointment panel then that is fine with me.

Yeah, taxes should go to scientific study with a track record, because it concerns all of us. (Part of why I am out of patience with "waaahhhhhh don't punish me for being rich" rhetoric.)

Independent/trailblazing study that does not receive government funding could fundraise as they choose. Buyer beware, you either donate or you don't. Once you have been parted from your money, it is no longer yours. You can continue to donate, or you can stop. Hell, you can even demand it back, if you are able. That is how you decide how it's used. You do not get to dictate the research, or how it's done, although if grounds exist to raise an issue, then you should raise it. Make sense?

Legally, I think the research itself should be unregulated, barring major ethics violations (but it really shouldn't have to be spelled out that "unregulated" does not mean you get to pull a Mengele in your basement. Since that is a crime regardless of what you are doing, it does not count as "research regulation" to not allow dismemberment. Obviously. But not to some, who would scream "but what if they....(insert screwball experimentation practice)

Unregulated means if the gov't is not funding it, then the gov't gets no say in it. As far as the regulation of the RESEARCH, not the usual GENERAL laws of No Torturing and Killing)

Likewise, if a researcher(s) want gov't/tax dollar funding, then it would only stand to reason that they be subject to scrutiny by both. Scientifically literate scrutiny--BUT I know politics will usually have the final say, don't get me wrong....

[Courtney]

Science is a systematic process for studying the physical world.


Using and understanding *what" science is, "how" it works, and "why" we need it/ use it is extremely important.

[Courtney]

To answer to your second question: YES! Science needs public funding! If anything we need to increase funding. In particular towards sustainability(I.e "green" materials"), genetics, and conservation.

[John]

Courtney,

Actually, science is a systematic process for studying "anything". Of course it doesn't always have definite answers....

[Courtney]

Well, you can exactly study the spiritual world.

[Robert]

You can study the effects of it quite easily. A lot of astronomy is based on observations of events that have happened in the far past and can never be physically sampled.

[Courtney]

That's not the spiritual world though. That's still apart of the physical world.

[John]

I suppose that was a typo and you meant "can't".

Oh yes you can!

For example, does God exist?

Dawkins puts forward some nice arguments:
Assuming that all sentient creatures evolve from less complicated ones, then God must have followed the same route.

It therefore doesn't make sense that god was present at the beginning of the universe, more likely many billions of years later. Following through all this, with known evolution rates, you can conclude that the probability of the existence of God is very low.

Of course you can question the base assumption. For example, perhaps this is not the "first" such universe, but that instead of a big bang, the universe actually has gone through many cycles. Then it is plausible (I suppose) that God has survived all these but this is grasping at straws as we don't know the mechanism.

However you look at it (big bang, the evidence of evolution), the basic conclusion must be valid subject to our current understanding of science.

Of course science can't come up with definitive answers. Only maths can do that. So God might exist. Nonetheless, I believe that science can come a lot closer to answer THE question than any other philosophy.

Religion doesn't address THE question at all. It's as if it is afraid to know the answer. In fact most religions as far as I understand it, exploit Godel's theorem: "Any logical system has unanswerable questions". Of course the question that the christian religion for example fails on is the one I have asked. The point is that the Christian bible makes it an unanswerable question by declaring that God does not offer proof of his existence because such proof would make faith unnecessary. A rather circular argument I believe.

I'm not impressed with this argument, as there is nothing clever about faith. We have a brain skilled at reason and logic, so why should faith trump reason?

In the end, whatever question you ask in the spiritual world can be addressed by the scientific method. That is the power of the method as a philosophy in its own right.

[Robert]

I think most people get derailed when they try to understand whatever "God" is in terms that human beings can understand. I think that is why the God question is unanswerable. I believe it would have to encompass the universe including every being and life form, from single cell to colony structures. Which eliminates 99.99 percent of what has been published so far. I just equate god with the existence of any kind of life and leave it at that.

[Jim]

Courtney wrote: "Well, you can exactly study the spiritual world."

Have you read Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife by Mary Roach? It's my least favorite of her books, but that was due to the subject matter. She wrote about it as well as anyone could, IMO. Overall, there is no scientific evidence for an afterlife, but it was interesting reading about the investigations & charlatans who prey on those who do believe.

[Jim]

John wrote: "... The point is that the Christian bible makes it an unanswerable question by declaring that God does not offer proof of his existence because such proof would make faith unnecessary...."

This is off topic & I don't want to start any arguments, but I really don't understand why faith is a desirable trait. I have a lot of religious people around me & that's a point that seems to break all communication between us. Why would anyone want to have faith without decent data? If you understand what I'm missing, I'd appreciate an explanation.

Betsy, if this is too far off topic, feel free to delete this post. It's idle curiosity, not a big deal.

[Robert]

Jim,
How do you feel about string theory? Too far out or absolutely believable? Couldn't that be a theory without decent data?

[Jim]

I have no opinion on string theory. Not enough knowledge in the area.

[Dan's]

Τhis may sound a bit 'offencive' to some of ya in this group, but I am rather 'positive' that many ppl, are 'calling science claims' with 'outof the bag' without any real a priori knowledge and persist on their existence, simply 'cause' they are 'valid' on a scientific basis..
and that seems to be enough for them, even if they dno't know, if the purported thesis, has any viable evidence, or if it is any more justifiable, from theosofic mumbo jumbo.

Then, there are enough people, who 'start from a preselcted path' Me for instance on 'String theory' I tend to support Mlodlow's position, [ from Feynman's Rainbow] who was leaning to teh position, that this was a 'mind game' from a bunch of professors out there in MIT, along with other UNI's who set out a massive number of thier students, to venture out and +ticle' with the idea, until it became fasionable.

So I guess, I ain't gonna search anything more along that path, and simply try out , a few other theories, that have 'set the pace' on the field.



I don't want to start any arguments, but I really don't understand why faith is a desirable trait.

I recalla video from an atheist's blog, in YT, that mith answer, your Q much better, it has mostly to do, with 'bog downs' from the theist perspective, that put an abrupt end, to a valid conversation, it seemed so 'simple' atm, I show it, but there is a lot, to be said and 'though on' that idea.. I can look it up for ya

[Robert]

And for everyone who would like to believe in string theory but doesn't have the slightest idea what up the mumbo jumbo is about, they can either take it on faith that it might be real or they can simply ignore it and stay with the old school.

Having faith in something isn't the problem, it's how you apply it in real life. Insisting that everyone must practice your own personal lunacy results in diminishing returns in the long run.

[Kikyosan]

in my opinion the concepts of faith and "thinking it could be a reasonable theory" are separate. in science you never "believe". a science man even if "layman" never "believes". he "reasonably thinks about the validity of a theory" and that theory can be replaced by a more valid one. I don't believe in strings theory. for me it can be true or false, I just don't know. a String Theory Scientists doesn't even believe in it. Doubt is always present in a good scientist.
a stupid trick Christians use to trap people with words is "what do you believe in"? it's like asking a vegetarian "what meat do you eat"? if you answer "i believe..." they stop you with "oh, you're religious too!!"

I have a deep evolutionary vision of life. I think that faith could be seen as an adaptive solution to avoid the burden of our developed mind. brain always looks for shortcuts. and faith is a shortcut as well. the brain thinks "oh it's easier this way, I'm lighter. the burden of existence is on someone else. It works!".

To come back to the main question: Garrett Hardin wrote a paper about three intellectual competences needed to survive in our world: the ability with words, the ability with numbers and quantitative reasoning, the ability to combine the two previous ones to see the world with all its relationships between components and to predict subtle and delayed implications of many influences.
Science is for the two last points, and it is necessary. So funds are necessary even if they are for base research, not only for immediately applied research.

[Jim]

Robert wrote: "And for everyone who would like to believe in string theory but doesn't have the slightest idea what up the mumbo jumbo is about, they can either take it on faith that it might be real or they can ..."

How does this relate to my original question? ST is a scientific theory while 'faith' is a human psychological quirk. I don't even think about string theory regularly & it has no practical value in my life or interactions with others. OTOH, I seem to trip over 'faith' & its utility constantly.

[Jim]

Kikyosan wrote: "in my opinion the concepts of faith and "thinking it could be a reasonable theory" are separate. in science you never "believe". a science man even if "layman" never "believes". he "reasonably thin..."

You put this pretty well & it mirrors much of my own thinking. I believe Nicholas Wade wrote that religion was one of the earliest evolutionary steps in cooperation that allowed us to group beyond the typical hunter-gatherer groups, so we could be genetically predisposed to it. Of course, a biological predisposition doesn't mean we have to do it, but it does make it more difficult to avoid.

We use a lot of mental shortcuts constantly. Some of them have gotten a bad name like prejudice & profiling, but they are tools that we've used to survive & are still good when used judiciously. If a guy lurking in a dark alley looks unkempt & wild-eyed, I will avoid the alley. If he's clean & well dressed I won't have the same prejudicial fear. My prejudice might not be correct, but it's the best I can do with the data I have.

It seems to me that 'faith' or 'unreasoning belief' is a similar sort of mental shortcut. Like so many others, it serves well at times, but only when used judiciously. For instance, I have faith in my wife, so am generally prejudiced toward her veracity, opinions, & decisions. She has shaken my faith at times, such as when she bought Rascal, a skittish, young gelding. I thought he was too much for her, but it wasn't until her last, bad concussion that she came to the same conclusion. I kept the faith & didn't argue when she got Indy who suits her fine. My 'faith' in her decision making about horses has been restored & it never faltered in most areas.

Religious faith, at least what I see around me, doesn't seem to be judicious at all. It's an all or nothing deal that seems to go with intentional ignorance & egotism. "Science doesn't know everything therefore my belief is correct despite no evidence or evidence to the contrary." It seems to me to be a way to ignore the progress the human race has made toward understanding. This is the type of 'faith' that I just don't understand.

[Kikyosan]

In Italian we use two different words for religious faith and "faith" in people. "faith" in people is built on past experience. Or it takes in account error, if we have no experience yet. Religious faith is just faith. Religious people know God exists because they have faith. no reason involved.

I'd like to talk about the evolutionary vision of religion and adaptive value of faith but I feel the mods flying over my head :)

[Jim]

It's both interesting & correct that there are 2 words for faith. English is such a weird language. We have more words than any other 3 put together I think, but still confuse ourselves by having multiple meanings for the same word. We even pronounce the same word differently depending on its meaning! Oy!!! No wonder we argue so much.
;)

The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures is a book Wade wrote about the subject, but it's more than I'm interested in. He discussed the idea briefly in Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. It is an interesting topic, but might light too many fires.

[Kikyosan]

thank you for your suggestions. My ideas are quite rough so I would pleased to refine them. :)

[Robert]

Religious faith, at least what I see around me, doesn't seem to be judicious at all. It's an all or nothing deal that seems to go with intentional ignorance & egotism...

If you are thinking that every religious person is like this than you are taking a big shortcut. The people like this are loud mouthed, in your face, and you right, in their minds it's their way or no way. But you are relying on the internet to tell you what is going on. Not always a good idea. The people who are not like this don't broadcast it in your face so you would never know how they feel, unless you go to where they are practicing their faith Which is how it is supposed to be.

In this day and age I don't know which is a worse crime, religion run as a government, or misapplied science.

[Jim]

Robert wrote: "If you are thinking that every religious person is like this than you are taking a big shortcut. ..."

Read my sentence again slowly. Religious faith, at least what I see around me, doesn't seem to be judicious at all. Notice the clause "at least what I see around me". This limits my statement quite a bit & is a literal statement of fact.

I most certainly do NOT think every religious person is like this. I happen to live in an area with fundamental churches (mostly Baptist) surrounding me. Literally, no matter what road you take away from my place, you're going to pass one or more in a few miles. They drop by & try to convert me or are neighbors who are constantly bringing it up.

One of their big issues seems to be 'faith', something that I have questioned because I don't get it. I don't know why I 'should' have it or would want it.

You never answered my question in #43, either. What did you mean or what were you trying to say?

[Jim]

Kikyosan wrote: "In Italian we use two different words for religious faith and "faith" in people...."

Could you tell me what the words are? I'd be interested in seeing how they translate.

[Robert]

All I meant was that a person could have faith in a scientific theory.

Sorry about your situation. We have a very mixed assortment of groups, none of them going door to door. We also have very old churches closing down. And court battles to stop religious buildings from popping up where the general citizenry doesn't want them. As well as poor people's housing cleared for commercial development and open space covered with asphalt and condos. Someone always wants to be in control.