Add a Comment   Listen to Podcast   Up to OJB's Blog List

Science isn't the Enemy

Entry 1596, on 2013-11-23 at 17:48:31 (Rating 3, Science)

I recently listened to a podcast where a professional astronomer was lamenting the current lack of respect given to her profession and to science in general. I think there are two elements to this point which I need to mention. First, the level of respect varies from one country to another and between groups within a country. And second, where it does exist it is more an anti-intellectual bias rather than one against astronomy (or any other less "practical" sciences) or science in particular.

I'm sure we have all come across the people who are actually proud of their ignorance. Sometimes I talk about how amazing the work being done at CERN is and a person might respond with "oh, I don't know anything about that" with a sort of self-satisfied expression as if that made them better in some way. Or I might mention how incredibly useful modern smartphones like the iPhone are and they will reply "I would never use something like that" even though they might have just been talking about a situation where GPS or some other technology would have helped them.

So astronomers shouldn't take the lack of respect for them as anything personal. I work with technology in a university and I often get the impression people see that as inferior in some way to managing a shop, or being an accountant, for example. And I have often come across the situation where people assume my colleagues working in the more esoteric fields such as quantum physics or organic chemistry are just viewed as boffins working on their own pet projects and as being of no real use to society.

It hasn't always been like this. In the past scientists and technology professionals were often viewed in a similar way to pop music performers or movie stars today. They toured and gave lectures to packed halls, they demonstrated new inventions and discoveries, and their contributions were seen as a way to achieve a better future.

I think there are several factors which have contributed to the decline of these attitudes. First, neo-liberalism (you didn't think I'd get through a blog post without mentioning that, did you?) has emphasised the alleged value of commerce over other activities. Second, science has challenged many established views (evolution and cosmology challenge religion, and climate science challenges some established conservative dogma, for example) so some groups have attempted to discredit it as a result. And third, the rise of environmentalism - which I agree has a lot of positive points - has often had an anti-progress aspect as well, such as begin against nuclear power and genetic engineering.

None of these are good reasons to be anti-science. If science disproves your religious beliefs then change them or do better science to show the original stuff is wrong. If science shows your political ideas won't work then you should be able to change those views to fit without abandoning your core ideals. And if new technology doesn't fit in with your environmental philosophy then maybe it is time to have a more pragmatic approach to your cause.

Whatever the case, science and technology are not the enemy of any reasonable and rational group. If you find yourself opposed to them then I think there's a very good chance that it is you who has got it wrong.

Comment 1 (3715) by Anonymous on 2013-11-23 at 22:55:11:

http://kingdomrepublic.wordpress.com/g/.

Comment 2 (3716) by OJB on 2013-11-23 at 22:55:31:

Yeah it’s not hard to find creationist propaganda of this sort. The fact is that the vast majority of experts think evolution is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Have a look at the Wikipedia article “Level of support for evolution” for example.

Comment 3 (3717) by Anonymous on 2013-11-24 at 12:10:44:

The vast majority of ‘experts’ are wrong.

Comment 4 (3718) by OJB on 2013-11-24 at 12:11:03:

But of course they are not wrong because the creationists claims that there is no supporting evidence for evolution are simply untrue. There is vast evidence for it and no other theory makes any sense. The nonsense on the page you referred to is simply not true. You cannot make meaningless statements like that and be taken seriously.

Comment 5 (3719) by Anonymous on 2013-11-24 at 12:11:31: Tell yourself that.

Comment 6 (3720) by OJB on 2013-11-24 at 12:11:47:

I’m not telling myself that, the science is telling me that. It’s the creationists who have created their own little fantasy world which is completely isolated from reality.

Comment 7 (3721) by Anonymous on 2013-11-24 at 15:02:13:

“The idea of gradual evolution of man from such creatures as australopithecine apes is totally without foundation and should be firmly rejected.” – Professor Roberto Fondi, Paleontologist

“Since the same main types of creatures and plants alive today were living in the past, it is quite clear that the same complex mechanism of life has existed from the very beginning. To the geneticist this is very obvious proof that bio-chemical evolution has never taken place.

“What we can say, from observing the human chromosomes or the human DNA and comparing it to that of other species is that man is original; man is not derived from any other species. So the statement that man is a recent creature coming from some primitive form cannot be supported by genetic data at all.” – Professor Giuseppe Sermonti, Molecular Biologist

Fondi and Sermonti make no mention of God and may or may not be ‘creationists’ but they are scientists working in the relevant fields, and have experience and credibility. You have neither.

Comment 8 (3722) by OJB on 2013-11-24 at 15:02:59:

In “A Brief History of the Modern American Creation Movement” by Jerry Bergman we see this: “Some well-known Catholic creationists are Dr. Roberto Fondi, professor of paleontology at the University of Siena, microbiologist and geneticist Dr. Giusepe Sermonti,…”

They are creationists and the material they have presented against evolution has been written in popular books, not scientific papers. Why? Because it’s not science, it’s religion (as well as being clearly wrong).

Comment 9 (3723) by Anonymous on 2013-11-24 at 16:48:58:

Ad hominems do not negate their findings but only show the weakness of your position. You have no evidence.

Comment 10 (3724) by OJB on 2013-11-24 at 16:51:14:

You said they might not be creationists – I showed you they are. There was no ad hominem. I just clarified that point. If they are creationists they are motivated by religious belief, not facts. But if their denial of evolution is scientific can you refer me to the papers they have published in respected journals which support their findings?

Comment 11 (3725) by Anonymous on 2013-11-24 at 18:55:20: You’re a waste of time.

Comment 12 (3726) by OJB on 2013-11-24 at 18:55:38:

You’re the one who started the debate by making an extreme claim against the scientific establishment. It is up to you to back it up with credible facts. You don’t seem to be able to do that. Evolution is a fact (to the extent that any facts exist).

Comment 13 (3727) by Anonymous on 2013-11-24 at 18:55:57:

It was you who started this with your silly blog post lamenting how more people don’t believe the lies of evolution and global warming. The burden of proof is and has always been upon the scientific establishment and for 150 years it has failed to meet that burden by providing any evidence. Instead there has been perpetrated one fraud after another…Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, etc.., thus any credibility they may have had has been lost. Your childish dismissal of Fondi et al certainly is an ad hominem.. ‘oh they’re creationists so ignore them’.. how typical. Now you dispute that facts exist at all? I maintain, you are a waste of time.

Comment 14 (3728) by OJB on 2013-11-24 at 18:56:37:

I see. So you’re a global warming denier too! Why am I not surprised! Anything else? Obama not born in the USA, JFK conspiracy, 9/11 an inside job, Moon landings a hoax, maybe Area 51 infested with alien visitors? What else have you got?

Do I really need to give a list of reasons why evolution is a fact by any reasonable definition? Here’s a good start: have a look at “list of transitional fossils” at Wikipedia.

I haven’t dismissed Fondi. I have just asked for a reference to the papers he has published which disprove evolution. If they exist and genuinely show good evidence against evolution I will take him seriously.

Comment 15 (3729) by Anonymous on 2013-11-24 at 19:47:18:

You’re just not paying attention. The onus is on the evolutionists to prove their theory, not on Fondi to disprove it. The rest of your post is ridiculous.

Comment 16 (3730) by OJB on 2013-11-24 at 19:47:43:

I gave you a reference to a list of transitional fossils which are exactly what we expect if evolution is true. And that’s just a small part of the proof. The consensus is clear: evolution is the only explanation we have for the variety of life on Earth. If anyone wants to disprove this and establish a new theory they need good evidence. So where is it? Still waiting for those papers…

Comment 17 (3731) by Anonymous on 2013-11-24 at 20:02:07:

That list on Wikipedia is nonsense.

Comment 18 (3732) by OJB on 2013-11-24 at 20:02:27:

Oh it’s nonsense is it? Can you tell me why? These are all real fossils which show clear transitions between species. If you want some irrefutable support for evolution check out the fossil sequences of the whale and the horse. Evolution is a fact.

Comment 19 (3733) by Anonymous on 2013-11-24 at 21:40:46:

They show no such thing, and the horse sequence was debunked a long time ago. It is all conjecture and contrary to the real evidence. Evolution isn’t real.

Comment 20 (3734) by OJB on 2013-11-24 at 21:41:02:

You have to remember that a creationist saying he doesn’t want to believe something doesn’t equate to it being debunked. If these fossils are not from transitional species then what are they? Any study of material from millions of years in the past is going to involve some degree of conjecture but there is no “real evidence” which contradicts the fossils. Quite the contrary in fact: molecular genetics, geology, computer models, etc all agree. Evolution is a fact.

Comment 21 (3735) by Anonymous on 2013-11-24 at 22:10:53:

Tell yourself whatever you like. I have no more time for you.

Comment 22 (3736) by OJB on 2013-11-24 at 22:11:09:

I just want to know what’s true. If it isn’t evolution that would be really exciting (the person who proved that would surely get a Nobel Prize) because whatever else it might be could be even more interesting!

There is a simple way to convince me that evolution isn’t true: show me the properly researched, peer reviewed, published papers. Where are they?

Comment 23 (3737) by Richard on 2013-11-28 at 23:24:28:

Without getting entangled in any specific 'topics' at all, lets just look at 'first principles' wrt your post topic 'Science isn't the enemy'.

1) I do agree with you in principle, that it is a real shame if people suggest a position of deliberate ignorance in a topic is somehow 'superior'.

2) I think there are still plenty of scientists who pack halls and are celebrated, though again you are so right, this isn't to the same level as say a few decades ago. I think this is more to do with the increase in post-modern, relativistic thinking, that asks essentially, does real 'truth' even exist, (I am happy with my truth, and am happy for you to have yours) and/or 'can we even know for sure whether what you are saying is true', so can we legitimately celebrate it, when someone proclaims anything as really true? This might suggest (shock horror) that someone else is really wrong. Whoa - Not PC today to do that - what a shame.

However, (just to find something to disagree with - he he) it isn't always fair to claim that all those on the 'minority' side of any scientific debate, are regarding Science itself as an enemy. An issue is with any particular scientific claim, does not always equate at all to an issue with 'Science' itself. Most 'quantum shifts' (excuse the pun) in scientific paradigm, were first proposed by a minority of 1, who was commonly ridiculed at first, and found it very difficult to get their work published, until the view gains sufficient momentum to become 'legitimate' enough for Editors to risk publishing without seriously damaging their reputations. This isn't a criticism in any way, just the way it happens. This is why claiming a 'majority rules' isn't a good enough argument - on its own. As history has often shown, the currently minority view isn't 'unscientific' purely because it's the current minority view either.

Lastly, regarding the ensuing debate in the comments - With respect Anonymous, be brave enough to sign in with your name :)

Again - without weighing in on the actual debate itself on this occasion, just a small comment about the general topic of ad-hominems - you claimed you showed anonymous that the two names were creationists so it wasn't an example of an ad-hominem. Actually, you didn't prove they were at all, you merely provided an example where someone else (Bergmen) also used an inappropriate ad-hominem to label them as creationists, without any justification provided in his quote. They may well be 'creationists' after all, but the key point is that neither you or Bergmen gave any evidence to support your use of that 'label' , you merely asserted it anyway. That's the definition of an ad-hominem. Just sayin' :-)

Cheers, Rich.

Comment 24 (3739) by OJB on 2013-11-29 at 09:17:00:

You are right that relativism has been a major problem in allowing pseudoscientific beliefs to gain credibility. I often rant about the damage religion has done but other non facts based beliefs can be just as bad. And yes, we can never know the real truth (as I have often said before) but that doesn't mean that all approximations to the truth are equally valid.

I didn't mean to say that anyone who disagrees with the scientific majority regards science itself as the enemy. Clearly that isn't true. Science progresses by minority views gaining support and eventually becoming accepted. But there are large groups who do regard science as the enemy: the majority of global warming deniers, creationists, etc.

We do have to be careful though not to accept every (real or imagined) disagreement with the accepted scientific consensus as a genuine attempt at advancing the truth. Some are, some aren't.

Why is "creationist" an ad hominem? It's just a way of labelling a belief. If I said someone was a quantum physicist that would tell you something about the way they think but it isn't an ad hominem. Many people have wacky religious beliefs but still do good science, however it is useful to know that they might be prone to certain biases.

Comment 25 (3741) by richard on 2013-11-29 at 16:55:43:

Nice one - My point clearly wasn't to suggest that relativism has been a major problem in allowing pseudoscientific beliefs to gain credibility. Whether that is the case or not is a different discussion, but of course you aren't one to miss a good opportunity. :-) My point was simply that even the very good science is finding it harder to be celebrated than it once was, partly due to relativism.

The word 'creationist' itself isn't an ad-hominem at all, I agree with you entirely that it is a perfectly reasonable label to specifically describe a particular belief, like quantum physicist, who btw may or may not also be creationists.

It's the action of applying of the label to individuals or groups (without providing any evidence to back that up, as occured in the dialogue and Bergmens reference) that constitutes the ad-hominem. What's more, this still applies irrespective of whether the label turns out to be true, because what is happening is that the label is being used soley to convey meaning or implications (almost always negative) that are not (yet) justified with respect to the individual or group without supplying the required 'scientific evidence' that the label is even a fair one.

This is aside from the follow on obvious point that you quite rightly agreed to above, that many people have wacky beliefs (religious or otherwise actually is irrelevant) but still do good science. Therefore the application of the label alone (as was done), when used to help dismiss their scienctific claim is invalid and in fact completely unscientific. By all means disagree with a scientific claim, but merely attaching a label to the messenger provides no assistance to determining the truth of the claim whatsoever.

As for biases - all scientists are potentially prone to biases, which is precisely why ad-hominems (in any direction) never only hinder the dialogue. We should all be careful to stick to only an analysis of the evidence provided for the view. Can you explain WHY then is it even useful to know that they might be 'prone to certain biases', unless you are planning on using that information to depart from that pure evidence only analysis, to a more unscientific analysis? Cheers, Rich.

Comment 26 (3742) by OJB on 2013-11-30 at 09:47:06:

Very few scientists are creationists and as the level of seniority in science increases religion and other superstition decreases. I'm sure you could find a few quantum physicist who might have some sort of belief in creationism but they don't use creationism in their science.

I gave you a reference to an expert work on the subject stating they are creationist. As per usual you just deny it. Whatever. Clearly you have to be good at denying facts to believe what you do!

The reason "creationist" is negative and "quantum physicist" is positive is because creationism is dishonest and ridiculous. That doesn't stop the label from being relevant.

They make a claim which is contrary to the facts. They make it in a popular book rather than a scientific paper. We naturally wonder why. Simple answer: they are creationists.

Yes, everyone has biases which is why any claim should go through the scientific process instead of being made in a book which has no fact checking at all.

These guys are clowns (there's a real ad hominem). Just admit it!

Comment 27 (3744) by richard on 2013-11-30 at 12:14:38:

Clearly missed the point of this discussion, which was ad-hominems not creationists. Shame.

Comment 28 (3746) by OJB on 2013-11-30 at 14:39:01:

Well no, the point of this discussion was my blog post about science not being the enemy. Alleged ad hominems were just a distraction.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.