Does "Science" refer to anything? Is it useful?
I am of the moderately educated opinion that it is time to discard the term "science". It does not refer to anything but a loose federation of people of various fields, investigating different things that sometimes overlap in subject matter, methodology or equipment. There is no essential feature that makes a field "scientific", and there is no such thing as the "scientific method". The structure of the educational institution is perhaps the greatest overall similarity between the sciences.
Continuing to use the term "science" adds no value to discussion. A physicist can explain to someone how they are a physicist and get all they need to say from only this, labeling themselves as a scientist does nothing additionally. Calling yourself a scientist only opens the door to what sort of scientist you are - thus giving the false impression that there is some thing called Science that is unified, organized, official and genuine.
Furthermore, science has become a term of abuse, especially in politics, where the term is slapped around to help justify a poorly thought out policy. Since it is not specific, a shoddy proposal can use the term "science" and get away with murder because nobody knows what specific field they are referring to. It is an abstract, vague, nebulous concept that nobody really knows anything about but what seems to be important and impressive.
Then there is the issue of demarcation, especially "pseudoscience". Since there is no acceptable definition of what makes something scientific, calling something "pseudoscientific" is meaningless. It also fails to actually explain what is wrong with the theory, and gives the impression that anything that comes with the label of "science" is "better than" other forms of inquiry, even if they may be legitimate themselves.
In conclusion, then, "science" has become an honorific term that is exploited and abused, including "scientists" themselves (to promote their social status image as a modern priest of knowledge of sorts, something some will not easily let go of), when in fact this term cannot be uncontroversially defined and has no practical use. It is time to transition away from this term and embrace a more anarchistic and nominalistic conception of inquiry. (A better term for a "scientist" is a "researcher").
Doing so will erode the shallow public image of science as some "other" entity of sorts, as well as the obsession with demarcating what is science and what is not. Physicists will work as physicists, psychologists as psychologists, philosophers as philosophers, artists as artists. There is absolutely no need for the additional term of "science", and it should be jettisoned.
Continuing to use the term "science" adds no value to discussion. A physicist can explain to someone how they are a physicist and get all they need to say from only this, labeling themselves as a scientist does nothing additionally. Calling yourself a scientist only opens the door to what sort of scientist you are - thus giving the false impression that there is some thing called Science that is unified, organized, official and genuine.
Furthermore, science has become a term of abuse, especially in politics, where the term is slapped around to help justify a poorly thought out policy. Since it is not specific, a shoddy proposal can use the term "science" and get away with murder because nobody knows what specific field they are referring to. It is an abstract, vague, nebulous concept that nobody really knows anything about but what seems to be important and impressive.
Then there is the issue of demarcation, especially "pseudoscience". Since there is no acceptable definition of what makes something scientific, calling something "pseudoscientific" is meaningless. It also fails to actually explain what is wrong with the theory, and gives the impression that anything that comes with the label of "science" is "better than" other forms of inquiry, even if they may be legitimate themselves.
In conclusion, then, "science" has become an honorific term that is exploited and abused, including "scientists" themselves (to promote their social status image as a modern priest of knowledge of sorts, something some will not easily let go of), when in fact this term cannot be uncontroversially defined and has no practical use. It is time to transition away from this term and embrace a more anarchistic and nominalistic conception of inquiry. (A better term for a "scientist" is a "researcher").
Doing so will erode the shallow public image of science as some "other" entity of sorts, as well as the obsession with demarcating what is science and what is not. Physicists will work as physicists, psychologists as psychologists, philosophers as philosophers, artists as artists. There is absolutely no need for the additional term of "science", and it should be jettisoned.
Comments (46)
I agree that the word is often abused, but is it possible that you are tilting against windmills? This is maybe just my bad habit, but I tend to check whether 'oughts' are connected to realistic opportunities for change. Is it likely that a preference like yours will put a dent in the general (relative) stupidity? I stress that stupidity is relative. If we enjoy feeling smart (and we do), then we need the stupid(er) as our foils. And is 'science' really so useless a word? Or is it just used stupidly by those who use most abstract words stupidly, since they are not yet (and maybe not to be) invested in a notion of intellectual virtuousness? Maybe I'm playing the game right now, but I suspect that "oughts" tend to signal virtue or taste rather than represent the desire for change. Or I suspect that our presentation of the ought tends to be impure. Part of us needs the violation of the ought, so that our speech act can "jut out" heroically/conspicuously. We largely exist as the willful negation what is. Fix one thing and we'll find or become the negation around another disclosed-as-broken thing.
It does not refer to anything but a loose federation of people of various fields, investigating different things that sometimes overlap in subject matter, methodology or equipment. There is no essential feature that makes a field "philosophical", and there is no such thing as a "philosophic method".
Continuing to use the term "philosophy" adds no value to discussion. In conclusion, then, "philosophy" has become an honorific term that is exploited and abused, including "philosophers" themselves (to promote their social status image as a modern priest of knowledge of sorts, something some will not easily let go of), when in fact this term cannot be uncontroversially defined and has no practical use. It is time to transition away from this term and embrace a more anarchistic and nominalistic conception of inquiry. (A better term for a "philosopher" is a "parasite").
He knows more than you do. He has a masters degree -- in PHILOSOPHY!
@Bitter Crank just got in the philosophy comparison. Mine was going to be "art," which would fall immediately to your criticism.
I wouldn't really care if the terms "art" and "philosophy" went away. But in these times, the word "science" is a fighting word, and you're on the wrong side.
I saw what you did there.
Good luck with that. Pray to St Jude the Apostle.
It is just useful to distinguish those fields (biology, physics, chemistry, etc) from other fields like fashion design, carpentry which is more of art or practice.
First off, I like how you claim that the term doesn't refer to anything, but then you immediately tell us what it refers to.
And there is a scientific method. That some branches of science or activities in the sciences don't follow it "to a T" doesn't mean that there's not a scientific method. It's just like there being a recipe for a cake, but not everyone follow that recipe to a T. That latter fact doesn't imply that there's no recipe for the cake.
Science isn't something where there's a robotic, simple black and white definition, simple set of demarcation criteria, etc. where things completely fit or not. What the word refers to is a bit complex and messy. That's the case for many words if not most. Property clusters are good approaches for defining those things.
Knowledge of metaphysics, say, Kant's categories, might be an example of knowledge about something so general that it becomes useless or misleading in case one would attempt to shoehorn all beliefs and statements as coherent parts of it. It occurs to me that a lot of philosophy becomes useless or misleading because of such or similar attempts to understand too much or too little.
How is science challenged by the selective idea that it would be a term for marketing? Has anyone other than ideologues taken it seriously? (e.g. religious, new-age, or others whose claims and authority is threatened by knowledge).
This discussion just got interesting all of a sudden.
In spite of the fact that I have a science degree, have spent my entire career applying science, and find it useful to refer to science in both a general and particular sense, I am genuinely intrigued by the possibility that science could actually be a hoax perpetrated by conspirators in academia and industry. And I might even believe that I have been brainwashed if you could answer a few questions for me:
1) Who uses the term "science" for fundraising and/or as a shield against criticism?
2) Please elaborate upon the scientific method myth. Has the scientific method ever existed or been practiced? If not,
3) What is the basis for consensus in the various scientific communities? Hush money? Kickbacks?
Even if science is a hoax, could I still use the word "science" for convenience sake? It's much easier than saying something like, "that thing people in research labs make you think they are doing, but really aren't."
Rubbish. But there is a range of quality in science from base to solid gold.
When someone does a retrospective survey of 500 people and asks them what they ate for breakfast for the last 5 years and whether they have had a heart attack, and then claims in a journal article that eating oatmeal reduces cholesterol, that's bad science. It's not even science. It's a subterfuge of the oatmeal conspiracy.
On the other hand, if you conduct a tightly controlled double blind study on 500 people of the effects of a compound over a period of 2 years to determine whether it lowers cholesterol by a certain percentage without causing untoward consequences, that's better science. The work done in bio-molecular labs that shows how the molecules in the compound reduce the production of cholesterol in humans is better still.
That real science is done in the service of Pfizer and Glaxo Smith Kline does not detract from its quality, any more than writing novels for Random House detracts from the quality of the books. (And, of course, science is done without profit in mind, too. But somebody has to pay for it.)
Nosense. In disputed cases it might be dubious or meaningless to call them scientific or pseudoscientific before it has been settled. .
Pseudoscientific means to appear or claim to be scientific without satisfying the conditions for being scientific. For example, reproducable tests.
Here is an example of bad science from today's Guardian (June 6, 2017): Is white bread better for you than brown sourdough?? It depends on your gut
10 subjects ate factory made white bread for 1 week, while 10 other subjects ate sourdough whole wheat bread for one week. Then they switched for a second week. Meanwhile, the subjects' blood was checked for several markers.
On average, it didn't make any difference, but individually, there were varying responses.
What does this tell us?
Nothing.
One would expect that what one eats would have an effect on one's biome, one's blood profile, and so on. Bread supposedly made up 20% of the subjects' calories, but no effort was made to track what else the subjects had been eating, aside from bread.
1 week on factory bread then 1 week on the sourdough bread? Way too fast to detect significant differences. No effort was made to determine what differences in the individual resulted from either no response or some response to the different bread diets.
http://www.livescience.com/8365-dark-side-medical-research-widespread-bias-omissions.html
Your charges were not directed toward Pharmacology in particular, but toward Science in general. The burden of proof is yours.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
It's difficult to have questionable research standards if there are no research standards.
It's difficult to do bad science if there is no such thing as science.
Are there additional issues I have missed, or would anyone frame the issues differently?
With respect to issue [1], I would submit that context is key. The word "science" is utilized differently in different social situations. Its communicative effectiveness will vary depending on the situation. There is also a historical dimension to consider. Once upon a time in Europe mathematics was considered to be a science, and much of what we would recognize today as science was referred to as "natural philosophy".
Science is a method and the body of knowledge established by that method. As far as I can see there is no opposition to science as such, the disputes are mostly over what qualifies as science. Everybody wants science on their side, unfortunately not too many of us are actually on the side of science. Science is mostly abused in our society, some claim the science is settled when it isn't and others bastardize the method to produce convenient junk science or pseudo science. It's all a big farce really and it shows that science can't save a species that is fervently devoted to bullshit.
If you think that, you must not live in the United States. Here there is most definitely widespread opposition to science as such.
I've followed most of the major conflicts fairly closely and it's clear to me that there's dishonesty and delusion on both sides of these issues. Climate change is probably the best example, one side is claiming far more certainty than is warranted and being alarmist while the other side idiotically denies that there very well may be a serious problem developing. Both sides are mightily steeped in bullshit and neither side is coming off it any time soon.
Very reasonable way to frame the issues.
Rather right on point. The trouble is that nowadays, whatever position a group takes, undo (alarmist) great or undo (way over optimistic hope) is the fastest way to do it. If is not too difficult to concoct a story that serves such purposes.
I agree, but such people are rarely looking at bigger, longer term affects.
It sounds like what you really have a problem with is scientism.
Right.
But I would say that all of the issues/problems you list are issues/problems with scientism, not science.
The issues/problems you list remind me of Susan Haack’s work on scientism. Haack, as I recall, says that scientism is characterized by things like being obsessed with demarcating science and pseudoscience; having the attitude that science is superior to all other forms/traditions of inquiry; etc.
I think somehow the "unity of science" hasn't been explicitly addressed in this thread. I'd guess you have your doubts, but If like to see arguments from each side.
I think that the source of the problem that you are trying to address is the magnified anti-intellectualism in the U.S. (and probably in other Western societies); the corporatization of education, especially higher education; and the accompanying decline of the liberal arts tradition.
When I juxtapose science with scientism I mean science as a Western intellectual tradition like philosophy.
I don't think that the latter version of science is what concerns you. I think that it is the contemporary state of science, an institution in service to nothing more than perpetual economic growth, that you have a problem with.
The word "researcher" could mean a biologist working for a corporation solely to develop new products, not to increase appreciation and understanding of the natural world.
I suggest "scholar" be applied to scientists in the liberal arts tradition and "researcher" only be applied to the scientists you are concerned about.
--darthbarracuda
I think you are confusing the concepts of what some people think is 'science' and the scientific process/methodology itself. In reality scientific methodology is about speculating on what might be true (although we really don't need 'science' this part since we would do it anyways) and then go about trying to determine what is and isn't true through rigorous testing. In a way science itself is pretty boring and at times may seem useless but it IS useful in providing evidence as to what is and isn't true.
What you are having problems with is the "filler" so to speak of which people create in the absence of what people wish science would do but doesn't. Such things as morality, answers to some of the big questions in life,etc.,etc. Science isn't a religion, science doesn't change reality to suit our needs (although we try and use it to do so), and science doesn't fix the human condition. If your upset at people saying stupid things and other issues with the human condition then it might be helpful to understand that it is a problem with the human condition and not with science that you are having a problem with. In a way it is kind of like mixing up a screwdriver for a hammer, or a hammer for a screwdriver and then getting frustrated as to why it doesn't seem to be working right when in reality it is not the right tool for the job you are using it for.
In a nutshell science works and is useful, it just may not be as useful in the way you are trying to use it since it is not made to deal with issues with the human condition directly.
--Bitter Crank
Whoever this person is that you are talking about I would like to talk to them so that too could learn a thing or two from them. :D
It looks like your "moderately educated opinion" is not worth very much.
Science, as already stated, is a methodology for the exploration and categorization of knowledge. The scientific method has been carefully laid out and has a common core shared by all branches of science. The basics of the method are easy enough to grasp but learning it with proficiency is something that takes years of education.
A scientist is someone who has been trained and educated in the use of the scientific method. A physicist is not just someone that learns physics, but someone that learns how to apply the scientific method in the exploration of physics.
It's a reference to an old radio show I believe, that I've never heard... but it's also reminiscent of beware the believers.
What sort of claims? Climate change, evolution, radiocarbon dating, QM, DNA, cell theory, the periodic table, the heliocentric model?
What you stated there is on the level of creationism or holocaust denial.
What you say sounds right.
Michael Ossipoff
First of all, there's money in science. University bosses can pull in as much as £700k per year in the UK. Individual scientists will earn themselves or their universities/employers money through articles (bought by journals), books (bought by everyone), being on advisory boards or sponsorships/grants from companies/governments, etc. Universities pull in funding from donations, selling/leasing intellectual property, tutoring fees pay by (or on behalf of) students, etc. We're at a point now where ordinary people buy science books and magazines, which is more money for the universities and publishers, etc. There's also TV, radio and movies which will work on the same principles.
There's also very obvious salesmanship in science. Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc. They're in the public eye constantly promoting science - never really saying anything particularly profound, but discussing science at a GCSE level so the general public can keep up with it. These people have almost a religious following - whole legions of people who think these science popularizers are the smartest people on the planet, regardless of the fact that each of them have said some unbelievably stupid things, are considered average at best amongst their peers in the scientific community, etc.
Then you hear about things like one example anecdote I read a while ago about an experimental physicist who (I'm struggling to recall the details, but it was something like) made a discovery that would cause some problems for quantum physics - and as a result, he was apparently censored and fired. Did it happen? Who knows, but if it did, it's terrifying - and considering quantum physics is THE big thing at the moment, it's not unreasonable that the institution wouldn't so easily let their best selling product be called into question.
A personal favourite of mine is quantum computing. I'll predict it now: It will never happen. A lot of the theory behind quantum computing is founded on misunderstandings of quantum physics. Even MIT's #1 expert on quantum computing is skeptical. The "quantum computers" that exist today are only "quantum" on a technicality; they don't do any of the fancy stuff quantum computers are supposed to be able to do. But it's a project that will keep pulling in the funding from people who want it to happen - and as long as they can make a convincing case for it, they'll keep peddling it. The beauty of the system being that, at the end, they don't have to return all the funding or all the money made from book sales and magazine articles just because they never succeeded.
I had to omit so much from this to keep it from getting even more absurdly long so it may come across worse than I'd intended. To clarify: I'm not saying that all scientists are willing scam artists; just making a case that money is involved in science - and we all know what money can do to people.