It seems like people blindly submit to "science"
I remember in secondary school, 7th grade through graduating from high school, the way it felt as nearly everybody--students, parents, teachers, administrators--uncritically presented and accepted "science" as authoritative, supremely important, and indispensable. There was nothing in people's attitudes or the material presented about any doubts, limitations, criticisms, shortcomings, etc. with respect to science. There was never any hint of any such skepticism in my two years of college either. I had to actively on my own in recent years search for and find thinking that is critical of science and its place in history, society, etc. Thomas Kuhn. Postmodern theorists. Critics of scientism. Etc.
I always took science, like everything else, as what people say and think. The way that other people presented it and took it as gospel made me roll my eyes.
And my entire life I have lived and studied in a state that is supposedly highly sympathetic with the irrational and non-scientific (Christian fundamentalism, creation science, etc.). Go figure.
Maybe it is true. Maybe the United States of America is a bunch of anti-intellectual dittoheads churned out by mediocre schools. But my experience tells me that science in the U.S. is a cause, not a victim, of this.
Here is the real irony: nothing in the intellectual landscape is maligned and scapegoated more than "postmodernism" (predictably, "postmodernists" and "postmodernism" were even blamed for Donald Trump's victory last November). Yet, while we lament the population's individual and collective lack of critical thinking skills it is postmodern theorists who provide most of an otherwise non-existent body of criticism of a tradition and institution, science, that everybody else seems to blindly submit to.
I always took science, like everything else, as what people say and think. The way that other people presented it and took it as gospel made me roll my eyes.
And my entire life I have lived and studied in a state that is supposedly highly sympathetic with the irrational and non-scientific (Christian fundamentalism, creation science, etc.). Go figure.
Maybe it is true. Maybe the United States of America is a bunch of anti-intellectual dittoheads churned out by mediocre schools. But my experience tells me that science in the U.S. is a cause, not a victim, of this.
Here is the real irony: nothing in the intellectual landscape is maligned and scapegoated more than "postmodernism" (predictably, "postmodernists" and "postmodernism" were even blamed for Donald Trump's victory last November). Yet, while we lament the population's individual and collective lack of critical thinking skills it is postmodern theorists who provide most of an otherwise non-existent body of criticism of a tradition and institution, science, that everybody else seems to blindly submit to.
Comments (58)
If any facet of "postmodernism" can present a rational argument then it is, in effect, being scientific. However it is one thing to sound scientific - another to be scientific. For example, Freud sounded scientific, but most thinking people today would categorize his output as metaphysics. Another example is Alan Sokal's highly technical sounding hoax article for a publication (which got accepted).
As regards postmodernism - there really is no such thing. It's not a school of thought or philosophy as such. There is a lot of crap spoken by it and about it, but there are also some very valuable insights to be gleaned from various post-modernist perspectives. An older anthology but useful one is http://a.co/gQUipBf
In what way do you think people "submit" to science: in other words, what is the nature of that submission? What would be an alternative to the so-called scientific method, when it comes to understanding the empirical world as it is observed?
Many folks here will uncritically defer to many elements of the scientific worldview even regarding matters in which science has no demonstrable application. As Pinker illustrates, this often amounts to an implicit 'science rules' attitude, whereby science is held up as the ultimate authority for the kinds of questions that are considered worth asking, which are - surprise! - just, and only, the kinds of questions which scientific method might provide answers for.
I'm not convinced that the turn away from traditional religion has all that much to do with science. I think it is driven more by prosperity and the natural desire people have to do what they feel like, without being constrained by traditional mores. In other words, people reject organized religion when they feel they can get out from under what they see as its oppression of their natural desires.
Science gives us technology, which gives (some of) us prosperity and the freedom and means to pursue our creative or sports interests, and even just sheer entertainment for entertainment's sake. Once people no longer feel compelled to honor traditional beliefs about, for example, reward and punishment in an afterlife, they have little reason to adopt any religious practice unless they are 'truthseekers'; driven by their psychological make-up or a philosophical bent to seek understanding of, and answers to, the existential dilemmas, or at least anxieties, that all people are faced with.
Another salient factor is that all the main world religions have become quite well known worldwide, and people reject religion in general because they know they all tell very different stories and they think they can't all be right, and 'why should I believe that any particular religion is the true one?'. I think most people simply are not motivated to develop much interest in religion, and consequently have little understanding of it.
The reason I asked how the OP thinks that people "submit" to science is that I don't believe the average person has much interest in, or understanding of, science, either; so I am struggling to make sense of the idea that they are somehow mysteriously in submission to it.
Quoting John
It's quite clear to me. As I've said, science has been very successful, and people know this. Also, as you say, the average person has little understanding of science", except that it has been very successful in giving us truth. So when the word "science" is used to refer to some report, then instead of questioning "is this really science" (they do not have the capacity to do this, not knowing what "science" is), they fall under the power of suggestion, believing that if it is science, it must be true.
Not for climate change, though.
But, philosophically, the problem is considerably more subtle than 'falling away from traditional religion'. The stance of scientific realism is also a philosophical attitude, but it's a philosophical attitude that is usually un-self-aware, because it takes 'what science knows to be real' in a way that science itself doesn't actually warrant. So, typically, the 'scientific sceptic' will have predictable normative beliefs regarding a number of philosophical questions, even if there isn't a real warrant for such beliefs in science itself. Many of the pop science intellectuals - De Grasse Tyson, Steve Pinker, Lawrence Krauss, Jerry Coyne - fall into that category.
Climate change is a very good example of the misuse of the word "science". The field consists of a vast body of material built upon unscientific premises, but it is referred to as science.
I was taught from the beginning--well, or at least since Jr. High School, that (a) empirical claims are not provable, and (b) a hallmark of science is that all claims must be open to revision in the face of new empirical evidence or new interpretations of old empirical evidence. And we were taught science partially from a historical perspective that emphasized controversies, different views, etc. and the way that experimentation led to some views being discarded, where fallibilism was stressed.
And this was at public schools in the middle of ghettos (pro-integration busing) in South Florida.
I already said that I have studied all of that on my own. Did you not read my post?
Quoting Wayfarer
Again, I said that I have already studied postmodern theory on my own. I don't need a link.
Postmodern theorists are the only source that I know of that in no way uncritically accept anything about science. Everything about science--its role in repressing people; the possibility that it could just be another one of many alternative metanarratives; its role in destroying the environment; etc.--is fair game in postmodern theory.
But there are other perspectives. Studying scientism reveals a lot about the true nature of science compared to the popular narrative about science that 99.9% of people seem to blindly submit to.
I remember sitting in science and math classes quietly skeptical of what was being presented to me and accepted by everybody else involved as airtight thinking. If it was airtight, why was I seeing red flags?
It is not just science and math. All material presented in formal education is unquestioningly taken as authoritative and supreme. "This is what other people have thought. This is what other people have concluded. But it is up to you--it is your responsibility--to decide for yourself what is true/real" is never part of the process, especially with respect to "science". Science is king!
Sorry, missed that point.
What sort of school did you go to? Public/private? In what country?
Kudos to those teachers.
I doubt it matters. Formal education is much of a muchness.
Well, but did you see the description of my schooling?
Kindergarten at a church notwithstanding, I attended public schools in the suburbs in the U.S.
I think that the flaw at the heart of any controversy over the curriculum in formal education is the premise that students will, and should, unquestioningly accept whatever their instructors present. If it was made clear to everybody involved--students, parents, teachers and administrators--that teachers are simply presenting ideas, concepts, techniques, etc. and that it is the student's responsibility to decide what to do with them (believe them to represent reality; believe them to not represent reality; apply them to real-world problems etc.) then there wouldn't be any controversy. Evolution, creation science, etc. are only problematic if students do not think for themselves and instead believe everything they hear from teachers.
It seems to me that scientific realism is just an extention of so-called naive realism, which seems to be the default position that people hold before they start messing with any philosophical skepticism, and that would include most religious people. Seemingly many scientists are atheists, just as increasingly many people are these days, largely, I would say, because they can safely profess atheism today.
Also, the relationship between science and religious belief is probably not as clearcut as might be imagined, for example: https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html
What "vast body of material" are you referring to here?
Those who haven't studied particular sciences sufficiently (and I would say that takes a great deal of study today due to the vast expansion of scientific fields) are not in a suitable position to judge as to what is true or not true in those fields. I would say that most scientists acknowledge that what is taken to be scientific knowledge today may be overturned in the future. If some, or even many, teachers hold simplistic views concerning the "truth" of science, that is unfortunate, but not surprising given the seemingly very widespread tendency of human beings to hold, not nuanced, but simplistic, views.
Yes, I seem to be disagreeing with you. Is that a problem? Do you want me to pretend to agree when I really don't? You engaged me in conversation here, disagreeing with what I had said, remember?
The problem here is the sheer quantity of ever-splintering disciplines, not only within science, but within any aspect of knowledge. The more and more quickly new disciplines branch off, the more difficult it is for anyone (philosopher or whoever) to gather in enough knowledge to have a broad view of how different disciplines affect one another and interact with each other. Attempts like the OP to comment on cross-disciplinary problems are always criticized precisely for not having enough knowledge or expertise in a specific field (science or whatever), but if this is the criticism, then the logical result of the criticism would seem to be that any knowledge spread across two or more disciplines is virtually impossible. I do think this is a difficult task, but lack of expertise doesn't equal an inability to synthesize a broad view. I might not be an expert physicist, but it's entirely possible for me to research something in physics, and then relate what I know to another discipline. The criticism of lack of expertise doesn't lead to the conclusion that synthesis of aspects of separate disciplines isn't possible.
That's a bold and unsupported statement.
Most science, from quantum mechanics, to thermodynamics, meteorology, paleontology, chemistry, and pretty much everything else is based on an understanding of probability and statistics. We can learn a lot looking at the behavior of individual particles or stars, but when we want to really understand how the world works and how it effects us, we need to understand the mass behavior of vast numbers of individual pieces. Statistics is an important part of that.
I assume your contempt for statistics is related to your belief that today's scientific consensus on global warming is wrong.
I agree for the most part with your statement. Far too many blindly follow "science" like a religion, and as if "mother nature" is their god and the "scientists" are her prophets. I think a correct view of science would be to see it as human observation, fallible and often wrong. I believe following "science" to such an extent as to proclaim scientists as the supreme authority on the matter to be inane and stupid. They are still human and can not see everything. One of the most humorous examples I can think of at the moment is the preaching of "evolutionary leftovers" such as the tailbone, which is quickly disproved as the tailbone functions as a critical anchoring point for organs and tendons.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Exactly!
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
I was the same when in school, I would ask many questions and many times no real answer was given in response. I am still of the firm belief that nothing in any scientific field should be taken as a definite solution, as in 6 months, that information one took as fact could be proven false.
You don't need formal training to understand how we come to have knowledge of our world, in scientific or non-scientific ways. If you want to talk about how science works and should work, you just need a good understanding basic scientific principles and experience making decisions based on data.
Quoting John
You don't need to understand the intricacies of any particular scientific discipline to have a good idea of the state of knowledge and consensus of opinions among those doing the work. Again, you need a good basic understanding of scientific principles. You also need curiosity and interest.
Yes, but having "a good idea of the state of knowledge and consensus of opinion" in a discipline is not the same as having an expert opinion within that discipline. Obviously, some disciplines are more complex and demanding than others, and I did say "studied particular sciences sufficiently".
In any case, my main point of contention is with the idea that science and religion are at loggerheads.
I don't think there needs to be any conflict between science and religion. I do think that the idea that science is somehow inaccessible adds to the belief that there is a conflict.
Of course, and I haven't said otherwise. A broad view is not necessarily a deep or nuanced one, though.
If religion or the humanities are taken to be inherently inimical to science or vice versa, then I would call that a simplistic view. The perception of conflicts between disciplines, and erosions of values of one sphere by the others, is a result of thinking that is not subtle and comprehensive enough, in my view. It's just playing out the usual tired polemics.
Fair enough, I haven't anywhere suggested that science is inaccessible, but rather that it accessible to varying degrees dependent upon expertise. The same can be said of music, literature, the visual arts, history; or even religion itself.
Ok, I must have read into what you were saying. I agree with you.
Do a google search under "climate change", you're sure to find it.
Quoting T Clark
I have no contempt for statistics, just the way that some statistics are produced and selected. Pseudo-science will proceed from statistics with no respect for how the statistics were produced. Any collection of statistics requires choices for limiting the parameters, so statistics are inherently subjective. Proper scientific activities will seek statistics with as high a degree of objectivity as possible. Pseudo-science will seek statistics which support the cause.
The issue with global warming is not an issue with statistics, it is an issue of variables. The variables cannot be properly accounted for with available statistics, so if anyone assumes that the variables are accounted for, this is a false premise which will only produce false conclusions..
There may well be a "vast body of (unscientific) material" about climate change on the web in the form of unschooled opinions on both sides, but I don't see what that has to do with the scientific material that leads most climate scientists to conclude that the current climate warming is predominately driven by human activities.
Yes, most teachers are confident when they lecture, and "authoritative and supreme" springs from many non-scientific wells.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Come on. The truth is, many 16-22 year old students are unprepared to mount a skeptical assault on the content of the curriculum. They simply don't have enough practical real-world experience to feel the need to question their teachers. Skepticism takes maturity and the accumulation of more knowledge capital, and all that takes time.
You seem to be expecting students to have far more maturity than they actually do. So you walk into Medieval History 101, or Intro to Geology, or an English Literature survey class and you think the average freshman is going to challenge the professor? With what?
In a nutshell, you are suggesting that the science industry (including its academia incubators) have aided and abetted herd mentality for its own benefit. One can see this everywhere how the skeptic police ostracize, marginalize, ridicule, and hound out any one who challenges the most profitable (and therefore most valued) scientific industries. In all manner, science does act as a modern version of the old time religion.
Being older and retired, I view the science industry as nothing more than a money making (and spending) machine which is only marginally interesting to the extent certain aspects of quantum physics research overlaps with my own studies into the nature of life. As long as science provides new paths to increased materialism (and environmental pollution for that matter), it will remain impervious to criticism. If one is interested in the environment, one doesn't have to fund more scientific "studies" to the tune of $billions. One only has to stop using all the junk that it is helping to produce.
I juxtaposed that with encouraging students to think for themselves and form their own conclusions. You are ignoring that context.
I think the best educators see themselves as stewards of intellectual traditions and facilitators of a two-way process where they can (and are happy to) learn from students as much as students learn from them, not as authorities talking down to their intellectual inferiors.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I saw red flags, rolled my eyes, and thought to myself "If you say so, teacher".
Quoting Bitter Crank
It is really simple. Present material as what it really is: what people think.
And if somebody in the room thinks something else, yes, make it known! Ideas are generated and refined through discourse among many, not monologues from a tiny percentage of the population.
I'm in my 70s. When and where I was in college in the '60s, post-modernism had not made a significant appearance. Most of the teachers were, of course, interested in a two-way conversation. But... let's face it: 20 year olds normally don't have a lot to offer in 17th century literature--especially if their background was rural and semi-rural. Small town high schools. I was an English major from one of those small town high schools, as were many of my classmates. Most (many, at least) of our parents had not attended college. 17th century literature -- and much else -- just wasn't familiar stuff. We were empty vessels, happy to have a steward of intellectual tradition pour it in.
Maybe it is the case that highly sophisticated adolescents from well-funded suburban schools then and now were/are vastly more sophisticated. Later experience leads me to think they are, at least in some ways. But intellectual maturity doesn't develop a lot faster now than it did then.
Content has changed somewhat in the last few decades. "Eroticism and Family Life in Ancient Greece and Rome" wasn't offered in the 1960s. A juicy topic like that -- or "Magic and Religion in Ancient Greece" intrigues young (and older) students more than the history of the Peloponnesian War. It's easier to engage. And these topics aren't a dumbing down -- there are still only a limited number of ancient texts to go on.
The problems I see in POMOism are these:
It is heavily over-focussed on power or sexuality, and over reliant on the idea that reality is "constructed". The language style which POMOism promotes is often obscurantist. POMOism itself is "received wisdom" of a sort--not entirely open to dialog, especially opposition. Primary assumptions of POMOism may be in error.
It is one thing to talk about gender and power relationships in literature. It is something else altogether to talk about physics or biology a la POMOism (and, in fact, most scientists don't). Yes, many things in the cultural environment are constructions of the culture itself. But the physical universe isn't one of them. That is the key to the Sokol Hoax (and a few others like it). Altogether fallacious nonsense was strung together with the proper terminology and opaque style, and to many POMO practitioners, it sounded just great. If a type of thinking can't tell shit from shinola, it's time to give it up.
Now that Gay Pride month is here -- sorry--Lesbian, bisexual, Queer, transvestites, hag-drag, transgender, regendered, degendered, multi-sexual, questioning, a-sexual, friends, and regrettably, male gay pride -- it's a good time to talk about the limits of biology (LBQTHSTRDMQAF and GM, regrettably, Pride)
It will offend, but I maintain that biology determines sexuality. Culture gets to determine the style of pride march wear, it doesn't get to construct new sexuality. Transgendered folk -- whether just a change of clothing or vaginal or penile constructions with breast and hormone augmentation -- are still the males and females they were born as. They might very well be happier looking like the sex they wish they were and are not, and that's good for them. But their wishes in the matter do not redefine biology.
Nature bats last (which means, if you haven't heard that expression, a human proposes, nature disposes).
But it seems a fairly trivial observation that what humans do in science will be impacted by what they do and are otherwise, nonetheless. Nor, I think, does it really matter that's the case, provided science--or perhaps more properly the scientific method--serves us well, and I think it does and is more likely to do good service than other methods in resolving certain significant problems we encounter.
None of that addresses the way that everybody bows before science.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I appreciate your well-developed perspective on postmodernism, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.
The only point here about postmodernism is that postmodern theorists are the only people on the intellectual landscape who do not bow before science and who spare no possible criticism of science.
For contrast, look at much of academic philosophy today. Postmodern theorists within its ranks notwithstanding, academic philosophy is living in fear of becoming obsolete and is trying to save itself by being more like science. Science is king!
Quoting Bitter Crank
What does any of that have to do with the topic of this discussion?
I don't think that that does justice to what Kuhn really said.
At the risk of oversimplifying, I would summarize Kuhn this way: science, contrary to received wisdom, is not a seamless, linear, cumulative process.
Whoa! That may not be a damning indictment to science, but if it is true then the science that so many people unquestioningly bow before may not be the awesome, empowering, revolutionizing, liberating tool that we imagine it to be.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Again, does Kuhn--or anybody--really say that?
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I suppose you mean technology. Specifically, technology derived from modern science (not the technology developed by, say, prehistoric hunter-gatherers).
Well, Ronald Wright, in A Short History of Progress points out that technology always creates more problems than it solves. If that is true then reason dictates that the technology that we consider to be the most advanced, technology derived from modern science, has and will continue to do unprecedented damage--and may lead to the extinction of our species.
I am glad that we have some people who do not bow before science and who can provide a reality check, even if they are trained in "other methods" like literary theory.
Yes, sorry, it does. The reason why people heed the results of science is that the results of science (and scientific thinking) are more reliable than anything else we have. Not perfect, just better than anything else. POMO demonstrates why the alternative to reliable and rational results are worth less than a crock full of bullshit.
You were complaining about young people. My comments about young people addressed your condescending view that they were too stupid, or too passive to question science. Not too stupid or too passive: Too unprepared. And by the way, you should be grateful they are so inept, since they aren't prepared to call out POMOism for being the bullshit it is.
I fear that I'm incapable of determining what "anybody" may say or may have said on this point. As to Kuhn, though I doubt he ever used so few words in describing what he thought, how else characterize, briefly, what he said? I don't think he'd claim that my statement is incorrect, though he would I'm sure have thought it far too simple. The role of consensus, value, personality traits, history in paradigm shifts or perpetuation of a paradigm (and rejection of a new one) seem to tie them unavoidably to subjective (human) factors and characteristics. And his claims that science is not or does not result in a progress towards determining what is true seems, to me at least, to indicate that science is more properly understood as something different, something which has a different end or purpose, something nebulous and resistant of determination that necessarily, I believe, is subject to our own desires.
None of this strikes me as particularly surprising, or daunting or concerning.
But I understand that to his credit he rejected the position taken by others that only factors external to science are determinative of what science is or does. It seems he thought they misunderstood him.
By the way, I've always been puzzled by the reference to literary criticism in this context. When I think of literary criticism, I think of people like Edgar Allan Poe, William Dean Howells, Ezra Pound, Henry Hazlitt, Graham Greene; in short, those who critiqued the artistic merit of literature. I suppose that one could accept a very broad definition of "literature" so as to include in it any written work, and then claim that by analyzing it one is engaged in "literary criticism" but I have no idea if that is what's intended, nor am I certain why it would be thought appropriate or useful to do so.
No, it doesn't
Quoting Bitter Crank
I did not ask about why people "heed" anything.
I observed that people--in the culture I am part of at least--submit to science like it is royalty or divinity.
Furthermore, I observed that the people promulgating science do nothing to stop such irrational worship of science.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I did not say anything about "results".
Most people only pay any attention to actual scientific work if it is their livelihood, it supports their agenda, or it threatens their agenda.
Nonetheless, science has a status--mostly unearned, probably--that makes nearly all people submissive in its presence.
Quoting Bitter Crank
On the contrary, the existence of a postmodern movement, postmodern theories, etc. demonstrates that Enlightenment rationality and its crowning achievement known as modern science have failed to live up to the lofty ideals that they supposedly embody.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I have not "complained" about anything.
Get a grip.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I NEVER said that anybody was "too" anything, let alone young people in particular.
And I never said anything about "stupid". That is your word, not mine.
I said that in my experience in formal education science has never been presented as what it is: what some people think / have thought. And I said that never in my experience in formal science education was it conveyed that it is my responsibility to decide for myself what to think. I said that I had to develop that perspective on my own and that I accomplished it by silently seeing red flags and rolling my eyes in secondary school classrooms and by reading about Kuhn, postmodern theory and scientism.
Again, get a grip.
Quoting Bitter Crank
If postmodernism really is what you call it then I think that the scientific community can be blamed for it. If people within science don't acknowledge and convey the limitations and shortcomings of science then they can't complain about the way that somebody else provides that much-needed reality check.
I didn't think that Kuhn went that far out on a structuralist limb. But I have only read commentary from other people about his work rather than his actual work, so I don't really know.
I thought that the main, original observation he makes is that rather than seamlessly, cumulatively building on the knowledge it yields science is conducted within incommensurable paradigms each with their own language, problems, methods, theories, etc. and undergoes shifts in what paradigms are being worked within. Therefore, for example, quantum physics was not a continuation of Newtonian physics but a complete rupture from it.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
But most of the population, including educators, is oblivious to it.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Maybe that is what was meant when he would say "I am not a Kuhnian!".
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
It is my understanding that postmodern theorists have asserted that scientific texts are no different from other texts.
Get lost.
Now that I've had to think about him again, I wonder whether Kuhn may have been speaking more as a historian of science in his Structure than as a philosopher of science or scientist. In other words, that he may have been concerned primarily if not solely to explain how, historically, scientific revolutions have taken place--what factors contributed to them, what was or was not significant in causing them. That wouldn't necessarily require any judgment regarding the value or usefulness of science. But it seems that his work has been construed to be just that.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
I think you're probably right.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
That's sounds familiar, and is interesting. But I wonder how the techniques of literary critics in evaluating written works which are intended, and held to be,works of art serve to provide insight into written works which are not intended as art or thought to be art.
Nah.
In college, outside of the natural sciences, I experienced something for the first time: instructors self-conscious about the nature of their discipline and not taking it too seriously. An economics professor joking about how economists and accountants don't see eye to eye. The anthropology undergraduate handbook being filled with comic strips, political cartoons, etc. making fun of anthropologists. Etc.
In other words, people acknowledging that academicians are human and that their work is the thoughts of humans.
But in natural sciences education there seems to be no such humility. Everybody involved--students, parents, teachers, administrators, legislators--acts with a puritanical attitude and acts like "science" is something greater than any person and that we should be grateful for the opportunity to partake in it.
And there are not many things funnier than hearing scientists express dismay over postmodern theorists over in the humanities departments having the audacity to, gasp, question science. The Sokal hoax is supposedly an indictment of postmodernism. I don't know. I find it to be more comedy than the triumph of reason. And it's the scientists who it makes look like fools.
Science is human just like anything else in the sphere of human thought and activity, no matter how much anybody argues that it is the "best", "most reliable", etc. Anybody who doesn't acknowledge that is guilty of the most irrational scientism. But instead of merely acknowledging it, why not show a little humility, lighten up, and laugh about it? The only things we've got to lose are stress, anxiety and unrealistic expectations that make learning difficult.
Now that I think about it, I wish I really had been the "annoying pupil" who was "constantly causing distractions" like you insinuate I was. It would have been fun in math or science class to say, "But, teacher, Derrida said that there is nothing outside the text!"
I can see the frustration on the face of a teacher who has been conditioned to believe that it is his/her job to turn these automatons he/she is babysitting into machines complex enough to perform enough particular tasks to keep the U.S. competitive with China.
But then someone in China might publish the definitive work on Foucault and Congress and the President might decide we don't have enough postmodern scholars to keep up. It might be Sputnik 1 all over again!
We need to get a grip.
Science and math could be nurturing, fascinating intellectual journeys for everybody if we would let them be.
Yes, we were all taught in early school-grades that science has all the answers. Yes, the religious denominations found in our society teach their own different versions of how and why things are.
So a person either accepted the teaching of Science-Worship, or one of the alternative religions/demoninations that were also being taught.
What a sad state of affairs. No doubt, even then, some questioned it. I wouldn't know about that--I'm talking about when I was too young to question it, or to know that anyone was questioning it.
Beatniks and beat-poets seemed to be offering a Nihilist-sounding alternative. There a sitcom episode in which the series-regular character, who had evidently been listening to beat-poetry, got his girlfriend upset by telling her that neither of them existed.
In those days, I accepted the Scientificist account, because it seemed the best of the taught alternatives.
Michael Ossipoff
No, philosophy never has been, isn't, and never will be a science, although analytic philosophers and analytic philosophy department heads have worked hard to make it so and accepted as such. Philosophy's beauty is it is rigorous thought about the areas--e.g. aesthetics and ethics-that science can never provide ample answers or even thoughtful commentary on. Science can have its own philosophy as any discipline, and many pursuits, such as Chess, Economics, and haute cuisine can have. But that is not indicative of philosophy being a science.
My understanding is that philosophies may develop into a science.