Why is scientific thinking/consciousness mocked in public debates? Because “science” is confused with a more evangelical form called “scientism”, which is further confused with “scientology”. Because scientific claims deprive us of subjectivity and sentimentality by chasing objective truth. Because scientific discoveries belittle humanity with mediocrity principle. Because science has rigor but not rhetoric. Because the self-correcting trait of science does not exonerate its disreputable past. Because sciency banter is intimidating, you cannot bamboozle your supremacy in these arguments unless you know what you are talking about. Because scientific debate is comedic— how does a fly land on a ceiling. Because we lack the inclination and ability to differentiate science from pseudo-science from cod-science from fluff-science to other wooful-science and are jaded with science in general because your earlier belief in some science-sounding cult played you false. Do we understand science? Beyond academia, why is science ridiculed and condemned as subversive, though, facile wisdom no matter how superstitious and unreasonable is vaunted. Why is science made to feel apologetic for being courageous? Scientific theories are never complete but scientific thinking is resolute. Scientific solutions may not be ideal but scientific consciousness is promising. Still, we prefer to be imprisoned in our cherished mores rather than be challenged by scientific thinking or cultivate a scientific inquiry. There is an unmistakable “don’t give me that science handout” tone and hostility when science is wedged in informal and live or virtual debates. Here we are 500 years from Enlightenment and we civilised ourselves from burning heretics to only criticising their intrusion. That’s some advancement. What are your views. Yes, No, Partly.
Au contraire, I think science reigns supreme. Now that we have lost magic, religion, ritual and enchantment we turn to the magic of science to give us a sense of wonderment about our world. The main manifestation of science in the world today, technology, is the source of endless fascination. We read about genetic engineering, DNA editing, designer babies, self-driving cars, Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics, space colonisation, 3-D Printing, nanotechnology, Soylent and anti-ageing and anti-death technologies with undisguised wonder. Ever since the West lost its messianic faith in re-ordering the human world through social and political ideologies, it has turned to science to fulfil that aim. Google and Facebook are already on their way in covering the entire planet with the internet through Project Loon and Aquila. In a few years, it shall be difficult to find a corner of the Earth that doesn't have internet. A dream for some, a nightmare for others.
Two factors. One is that the participants might not have agreed on how much science is going be to brought in into the debate. They might not even have agreed on how informal the debate is. Second, it takes a certain style of presenting logic, to be able to present it without coming across as condescending. Adding a third to that list of two factors: it takes a certain self-confidence for the less scientifically inclined to listen to arguments from the scientifically inclined. The above are based on observations and experiences outside IL. : ) More universally, people prefer to discuss matters with the politeness and consideration of the feelings of others more suited for a tea with the Queen. The ability to discuss/debate/spar on a topic, and then, go on with life without having to resort to an 'agree to disagree' is rare. More so, when science or scientific thought is a major factor in the discussion.
I was what, wat, what is that. I was confused on reading Umanga's response. Did I articulate properly? It is not science that people are against but scientific thinking in an argument or debate that participants are averse to indulge in. I will get back on your comment later. It is reassuring that you comprehended the kernel of my inquiry spot-on. You saved me from tying a supplementary post to my original post on what I actually meant. Umanga, Rihana has steered the thread to its rightful course. Sorry, if I wasn't clear in my opening post. My inquiry is not on the accomplishments of science but on the resented advocacy of science in discussions.
Valid and stark points! (1) is not an offensive targeted at science. By virtue of informality, no boundaries are drawn which includes no agreement on how much science can be pushed into a conversation. I don't see how that could disqualify only science. Any conflict of interest or polarized social standing will receive the same treatment. (Hey I don't want to talk about it in this conversation because this talk is not meant for that purpose and intent) (2) is interesting! Condescension is an inference rather than a treatment. You can only feel it but not define it. Amplification of any assertion is likely to trip into condescension. Yet it would still have to be identified as assertive tone as the other person is only cocksure of his facts esp. when it deals with demonstrable science. How are these borders drawn? When does an assertive tone run the risk of slipping into condescension. You just feel it or you can prove it. Logical expressions and empirical data should be evaluated based on their soundness. Your point (2) though valid not does again like point (1) transpire only on entry of science. Any non-scientific and conflicting view can be perceived as condescending if the other person is sweetly aggressive or flippantly gracious in an argument. (3) has potential to sour a conversation due to its scientific, rather empowering, stance. I feel inferior because I cannot contest your argument with logic or reason or fact. This definitely puts off people who are unable to counterbalance the argument in science literacy. And science at times is dry and pedantic to evince that politeness no matter how well-framed the argument is just because science is divorced from empathy on account of its marriage with rationality. I usually don't add such disclaimers but recent spats in IL have made me conscious to watch my tongue and taps. I hope you are taking this conversation as an unboxed and informal tickle and not a haemorrhage of my opinionated views. Whilst fielding three stages of educational growth, I bet you are. Am I supposed to add that 'so nice to see you hear' and boilerplate pleasantries between us? I guess not (in a condescending tone)
"So nice to see you hear" : ) So reminds me of "please bare with me" : ) No. The boilerplate or any template type words not needed. The hard to define raabta we have makes that superfluous. The rest of the post, will read and respond later; most probably in the week. It's been a crazy week. At times making me feel like I am something even the cat refuses to bring/take in. : )
Here are the reasons why science is mocked: 1) No easier/cost-effective/concrete solution is available/recommended to solve the findings - Example: Climate change 2) Evolution of science is too quick for the human mind to assimilate 3) Sometimes those involved with scientific thinking behaves like they are part of a religion and recognize only people from scientific background 4) Too many conflicts within the scientific community about conceptual thinking 5) Not many of them are converted into day to day use for common man at an affordable price 6) Even if it is converted into use for common man, the health risks associated with use of such products 7) Resistance to change in traditional thinking and habits among common people 8) A belief that many scientific inventions resemble traditional literature available from ancient wisdom 9) Name, fame and money driving the scientific thinking 10) Comparison of the world before and after scientific thinking.
I did not get these points. Can you elaborate on them? Personally, I find factual and logical thinking (rules of scientific arguments) scary because it involves lot of spadework to nail the details right. A few days ago, I was arguing in a group and carelessly tossed few chemistry tidbits. A person in the group discreetly sent me a mail that I got the factual data wrong and pointed me to the right source. I realised that my "fundamental" understanding of the polarity in a water molecule was wrong. Scientific arguments though are humiliating and whipping are liberating in the end because there is no "agree to disagree", there is only "self-adjusting truth toppling the prevailing truth with time."
@Iravati The trait of humility is missing. Mostly, the scientists are driven by their reputation, awards and the budget they possess more than the actual invaluable findings. Tesla, the man with great humility and a person who never bothered about reputation, if encouraged, would have made the energy free of cost by the time he completed his life. People constantly compare the traditional way of doing things before the scientific inventions. Particularly, when the quality of life involving the scientific invention is questionable. For example, every new medicine that comes to the market after many years of FDA approval, still found to have significant side effects and sometimes being pulled out of the market. Many feel cannabis oil is a simpler and best solution for a child suffering from epilepsy than taking a composition of chemicals. Viswa
Thanks, Viswa. I see your points now. Scientific solutions and tools and methodology are different from scientific "thinking". But I see your point that any failure in these solutions to meet the expectations of general public leads to the very foundation being shaken up i.e, scientific thinking and inquiry called into question. Hence, people withdraw from science, and in turn refrain from scientific discussions. However, the other stand-in for science that is intuitive beliefs or sentimentalism is ineffectual. In fact, it is more deleterious. By scientific thinking, I meant factual and empirical data constructed with logic and reason as guiding principles. Even if the solutions are only partial, counter-argument from educated gentry that "Nature has many mysterious. Let's not argue on the life's greatest mysteries" in a debate is fatuous. There is no worthwhile intake from that jaded rhetoric. That's not even humbling. I don't know if that's a resignation or foreboding that we should cede to only romanticised notion of life and its origin and not investigate with critical thinking.
