I'll explain because there seems to be a genuine misunderstanding.
Of course the scientific method is great, and the only tool we have to understand the world. Of course. Very true.
"The Science", on the other hand, is a sales tool. Something to be invoked to push a product, a policy, whatever.
Science, the scientific method, the sum total of humanity's knowledge and wisdom, can't be stopped. It may be delayed, but truth wins because truth predicts the future, and lies don't.
But "The Science", that's different. Pay off a few key people at the right time, and you can get yourself a nice handy "The Science" to sell whatever it is you want to sell. It won't work forever, but it doesn't need to. By then they've already cashed out their shares, won the election, whatever.
"But "The Science", that's different. Pay off a few key people at the right time, and you can get yourself a nice handy"
If it's accurate how is this is a bad way to sell something? What's better? You're claiming that it can be corrupted, that applies to many things in life.
Why is lying and censoring dissenting views a bad way to sell something? Because it destroys all trust we have in that institution, and now every time they try to push something again we have to wonder "What lies and censorship are they doing this time?"
Who is they? Why are you grouping all scientists as one?
Lying and censoring isn't a good way to sell something but that's has nothing to do with science nor can you place blame or reduce your trust across all scientists and scientific institutions.
It a reporter at NBC lies and gets caught why would that affect the reputation of a reporter at another news network? It shouldn't and if it does then explain why?
"Because it destroys all trust we have in that institution"
What institution? If a specific company, government agency, or educational institution is caught lying or censoring and the management knew about it, approved it, or didn't take reasonable steps to stop it then you should reduce your trust level for them.
BUT I don't see any specific one being mentioned. I see "science" and "The Science".
> […] but that's has nothing to do with science nor can you place blame or reduce your trust across all scientists and scientific institutions.
It has everything to do with science when you have actual scientists directing and encouraging the practice.
I get that they are in the employ of the government, and one could perhaps argue they are more politician than scientist at that point. But they were trolleyed out and identified themselves as such, and appeared in every other way as if true scientists.
As for the blame part, that’s a judgement for individuals to make. Personally, it shook me to the core, and I do blame those scientists at least as much as I blame the politicians. I now look very much more closely at recommendations from public health and other government institutions, and take far less on trust.
> nor can you place blame or reduce your trust across all scientists and scientific institutions.
And yet I did, and so did millions more. Now what? You think we're irrational? Ok, that doesn't fix it.
That is what "destroying trust" means.
Besides, that's not even accurate. Of course every time I get lied to by a scientist I should update a bit more towards believing scientists less. That's not only common sense, it's Bayesian rationality by the book.
That is complete rubbish. There are plenty of examples from East and West. In certain parts of China, rival monasteries would have a throwdown over theology, hold a debate, and the losing monastery would convert.
The difference is that Theology can take personal experience as a logical prior, and work from there. Often that is the grappling hook thrown over a chasm which allows a bridge to be built to a new level of understanding. A bit like the way that infinitesimals are used as a device in the derivation of calculus.
One of the great (if unfortunate) advances in human society was the discovery that “personal experience” is a very unreliable way to learn about the world.
How is this unfortunate? If you drawn conclusions about the world around you using your limited personal experience then it is unreliable. Relying on personal experience to learn about the world leads to faulty conclusions, more than data or experimentation would.
- I live in X city and I get robbed at gunpoint, is this city unsafe?
- I buy a new Toyota Corolla, it breaks down, does that mean the Corolla is a unreliable car?
- I go to Vermont and I decide to go hiking. The trail I picked is muddy, it's boring, and there are bugs everywhere. Is this a good place to hike?
Wrong conclusions but harmless you might say, how about:
I'm walking in a mall and I see a Black person steal a purse, it's the first crime I've ever witnessed. Are Black people dangerous?
My sister is raped by a Chinese person and my uncle tells me a Chinese person stole his mobile phone. Are Chinese people criminals?
Of course when it comes to situations that only involve you or your direct interaction with a unique situation that makes sense. Taste, smells, sexual attraction, friendship, even your relationship to God. However for most? situations it's not reliable.
And yet it mediates your entire existence. Without both objective (or analytical) science and subjective (or holistic) theology we're trying to understand the world with one hand tied behind our backs.
Personally I think understanding the story should carry equal (or greater) weight when compared to examining the letters and paint used to write it.
"Without both objective (or analytical) science and subjective (or holistic) theology we're trying to understand the world with one hand tied behind our backs."
One definition of science is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."
If you want to understand something about the world and you can do it using science why would you use any other method.
"Because it has meaning to me."
Excuse the bluntness but so? and why? This doesn't answer my question about the value and why you should use it.
The "mass media" is not one organization. I haven't seen any news reports redefining what science is, feel free to provide evidence of that. Finally it's not a game of definitions because science has a specific meaning. You can't just change that meaning (even if you add a captial S) then be critical about it.
You're critical because some organization in the government lied? Nothing to do with science
You're mad because some scientist committed fraud? Nothing to do with science.
Peer reviewers aren't properly checking papers, that's their fault and or their university/company. Nothing to do with science.
The majority of scientists believed something through experiments that were faulty or limited data then later turned out to be wrong? That's how it works, science isn't perfect but what's the alternative?
If you aren't an expert in a field or willing to put massive amounts of time in researching something but you have to make a decision doing whatever the majority of people in a field say is the most logical course of action
You're conflating two separate things - science as a concept, and the scientific establishment. As a concept, sceince obviously works and can't be changed. The scientific establishment is a bunch of people and institutions, and it's practices may or may not match with the concept of science, and may change with time.
To imagine an extreme case, Nature could start publishing theology papers instead of physics and biology - in that case, an important part of the scientific establishment would have stopped doing actual science. But, based on reputation, many people would keep believing what Nature prints and would still point to the new theology articles as "scientists have discovered that [...]".
This is what people mean when they say science is becoming a religion: not that the concept of what science is changing, but that certain parts of the scientific establishment are not doing science per se but that their conclusions are still regarded as scientific based on past reputation.
A specific example would be someone like Michio Kaku. He is nominally a scientist, and is often interviewed as a scientist and many believe he is there to present what science says. But he is in fact just some public speaker/sci-fi author who last practiced science decades ago and now revels in speculation and exaggeration. He is essentially a priest of scientism.
This isn't a thing. There's no unified organization of science, therefore making generalizations about it ss wrong. It would be just as wrong as saying "Fast food restaurants need to..", "The media always ...", "Black people should stop...".
----------
This is what people mean when they say science is becoming a religion: not that the concept of what science is changing, but that certain parts of the scientific establishment are not doing science per se but that their conclusions are still regarded as scientific based on past reputation.
That's not the fault of science that's the fault of either the SPECIFIC establishments or the person. Reputation is based on past actions like truthfulness, admitting fault, etc. Not only the specific of what they did. If a company made pizza and had a reputation for quality then decided to sell bagels is it wrong of me to trust the quality? If Nature had a good reputation with scientific papers and started publishing theology papers, then why is it wrong to trust them?
* the new theology articles as "scientists have discovered that [...]".*
I don't even get this example. If a theology article starts with that sentence then that's kinda weird, I would have to read more but say the article is just fraudulent or uses "science" to justify something. That's the fault of Nature for publishing it and the author for writing it. It has nothing to do with "science" (a process) or other "scientific establishments" (since they aren't a single organization).
----------
A specific example would be someone like Michio Kaku. He is nominally a scientist, and is often interviewed as a scientist and many believe he is there to present what science says. But he is in fact just some public speaker/sci-fi author who last practiced science decades ago and now revels in speculation and exaggeration. He is essentially a priest of scientism.
According to Wikipedia he seems to have done a great deal of scientific work -
"Between 1970 and 2000, Kaku had papers published in physics journals covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronic physics.[13] In 1974, Kaku and Prof. Keiji Kikkawa of Osaka University co-authored the first papers describing string theory in a field form.[14]
Kaku is the author of several textbooks on string theory and quantum field theory. An explicit description of the second-quantization of the light-cone string was given by Kaku and Keiji Kikkawa.[15][16]"
Is there some expiration on calling yourself a scientist? It looks like this was his life's work. Like if stop researching physics for a month then spoke on a podcast where I was called a physicist is that deceptive? I could understand if someone never did any research and was being presented as a scientist but hasn't this person earned that title? Finally if someone is a scientist and a person trusts them explicitly because of that then that's wrong but that's the fault of the person.
now revels in speculation and exaggeration
I don't know anything about him, these are subjective assessments, but assuming they are true: If he speculates as part of a discussion and it's obvious or he makes it clear that it's speculation that's not a bad thing. If he exaggerates then he shouldn't, that's a personal flaw that doesn't reflect on "science" or "scientific establishments"
He's also not a priest. The definition of a priest:
"a person whose office it is to perform religious rites, and especially to make sacrificial offerings."
You are trying to take words related to religion, generalize them, then using that more general definition apply it to a scientist to claim that science is a religion. Yes, we all like to spice up our sentences : "I worship pizza" "He's the priest of this fraternity". Is the fraternity a religion now? Is Pizza my new God? (it is actually) Taylor Swift isn't a religion because her fans worship her and go to mass gatherings where she performs """rituals"""
Mostly I feel like you are trying to show that incorrect usage of terms, personal flaws, and companies that misuse titles and/or reputation make science a religion because there are people who explicitly trust science, like some do with religion. Let's address that:
--------------------------------------
"Trust the science"
Let's say you need to answer a question or make a decision about something you can research. Unless you are an expert in that field and/or are willing to put massive amounts of time learning and doing your own research, you should just trust what the majority of the people in that field agree on (i.e. trust the science). Why? Because what's the alternative?
If you want to call this worship, fine, but don't claim it's like a religion. Religions don't test their truths/claims and they don't think you should test them. They want you to have faith AND faith is the only option.
So you might say something like "oh but you have faith those scientists had the right data, weren't lying etc etc"
You can do your own research, read their papers, run your own tests if you wanted to. Yes it's difficult and for many nearly impossible but the point it the information exists. The evidence to backup scientific claims exists. If someone makes a claims but lied about the evidence, that's not science. If they want you to believe their claim, have no evidence, and there's no way to test the claim, that's a religion.
> The "mass media" is not one organization. I haven't seen any news reports redefining what science is, feel free to provide evidence of that.
You really want to tell me that you never heard something along the lines of "Science says ..." or "the science"? Not buying it. The usage of science in mass media is a different one than the one you want to hammer home.
> Finally it's not a game of definitions because science has a specific meaning. You can't just change that meaning (even if you add a captial S) then be critical about it.
This is mostly self-soothing I suppose. Just denying reality outright.
> You're critical because some organization in the government lied? Nothing to do with science
Motte and bailey. You just mean the hard definition. As long as you deny that a soft definition exists, it's a bit hard to argue with you.
> You're mad because some scientist committed fraud? Nothing to do with science.
You should look up motte and bailey maybe. You seemingly don't know it, but you're playing that fallacy. (Also: stop projecting)
> Peer reviewers aren't properly checking papers, that's their fault and or their university/company. Nothing to do with science.
So you want to tell me that the actual scientific process in action has nothing to do with science.
> If you aren't an expert in a field or willing to put massive amounts of time in researching something but you have to make a decision doing whatever the majority of people in a field say is the most logical course of action
Who makes the election of what the majority of people in a field say? That's where the mass media (that is not one organization) comes into play. This is basically The Science™ meme in action.
> You're critical because some organization in the government lied?
I’m critical because it’s systemic. And made in the name of science. For all intents and purposes, this is the science we’re subjugated to.
> You're mad because some scientist committed fraud?
Again, critical because it’s systemic and people have lost their jobs, entire families had to move regions because the father expressed doubts about a scientist, to be later revealed that doubts were correct. The amount of harm done over this science is unbearable to see.
Science can be perfectly faked. Mostly happens when people get over the top about it.
Trying putting uppercase “You guys killed 1.2m people, you murderers”. If I find a single bike accident among the number you shamed me with, then all your accusation falls in shambles.
Stop screaming numbers at people as if they were true. What you’re doing is not science, it’s screaming.
"Stop screaming numbers at people as if they were true. What you’re doing is not science, it’s screaming."
Even if 50% of those deaths are incorrect the number is massive. I'm relaying stasticis by saying I'm screaming you're trying to counter my argument with an unrelated attack.
"Science can be perfectly faked"
Yes it can, is that happened here? Did doctors around the county all decide to lie for the purpose of?
There could become a point where technology has advanced so far that cell tech is all there is. Imagine everything was just wireless and the internet penertrated everywhere
Wireless is a seriously limited resource. There will never be sufficient spectrum available to support all the fixed services that are needed. And the heavier the loading, the slower the network runs.
On the other hand, whenever you run a length of fiber, you create a whole new spectrum which is available 24 hrs a day.
I’m not sure about equal as life can be messy (you have a cash flow problem and need to sell now, the buyer knows that - can that be equal?) but certainly fair should be a good start.
They take in symptoms, perform tests, analysis output, repeat