anti-anti-science - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 30Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-04-2014, 09:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,221
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
anti-anti-science

http://jackstilgoe.wordpress.com/201...-anti-science/

I though this was a great read. Posting it while I still have it - discussion tomorrow (post coffee).

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-04-2014, 10:40 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Thanks!

Subbing so I can attempt to follow the conversation even though I'm limping through the confusing grounds of our new MDC mobile site. : )
OrmEmbar is online now  
Old 06-06-2014, 08:51 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,221
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Pull up a chair - this might be long.

What is science? Science is the systemic study of the physical and natural universe and the knowledge we gain from said study.

Defining "anti" as "against" I have never met anyone who is anti science…and I am hardly a hermit. I have never met anyone who thinks gnomes run their computer, for instance, or that fairy dust makes flowers grow (and even if they think there is something magical about the ways flowers grow, they also know that water, sunlight, soil, pests, etc are crucial for flower growth).

I have been reflecting on the term anti science for a few days now. I googled it a couple of times - and it seems to be a common ad hominem attack and it very frequently comes to be defined as anyone who does not agree with the the scientifc consensus on a particular topic. I think this definition of anti-science is problematic to say the least.

1. It is not logical. Disagreeing with one branch of science does not make one anti-science, any more than disagreeing with a historical interpretation makes one anti-history

2. It promotes a system that does not allow for dissent - as dissent gets you branded as "anti-science"

3. It really becomes more about scientists than science. Science just is. A flower needs sunlight, water etc whether you think it does or not. There is definitely ego involved when someone gets their knickers in a knot because someone else does not agree with them or the consensus.

Rational wiki defined anti-science this way:

"The term "anti-science" refers to persons or organizations that promote their ideology over scientifically-verified evidence,[3] usually either by denying said evidence and/or creating their own."

Personally, I think this is over-reaching (and clearly not what anti and science mean when put together: don't you love it when groups co-opt words for their own agendas?)
I don't always have an issue when people put other concerns or ideologies over science. Science is not the only factor in decision making - ethics, religion, resources, etc can all be vital elements to decision making. I do not ascribe to scientism:

"Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/ge...iism-body.html

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 06-06-2014 at 10:14 AM. Reason: typo
kathymuggle is offline  
Old 06-06-2014, 09:02 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,221
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
A few quotes I thought were great.

From this article:
http://jackstilgoe.wordpress.com/201...-anti-science/

"My over-riding impression is that ‘anti-science’ is a term that is imaginary and unhelpful. It describes almost nobody and it gets us nowhere. Climate deniers are not anti-science, they are anti- a political view that considers environmental protection as important. Creationists, too, have moral objections to the implications of an evolutionary worldview"

The use of the term ‘Anti-science’ reflects a privatisation of the idea of progress that is dangerous for science and society."

" In democratic societies, science is part of the conversation. Dissent, challenge and scepticism are inevitable. Science has to learn to talk about alternatives, to talk about possibilities, to talk about diverse, desirable and undesirable futures. As Andy Stirling has described, calling someone ‘anti-science’ is as dumb as calling someone ‘anti-education’ if they want to talk about the best way to run our children’s schools"

From this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/p...climate-change

"Moreover, I'm not sure we should expect a homogeneous response to something as diverse as science. When people use the term "anti-science", I want to know what definition of science they've based their concept of anti on. Who'd be simplistic enough to be "pro" the whole of science? What sort of shallow, shampoo advert "science bit" approach to the complexities of modernity are they living by?"

"None of this is to deny that many people – green, red, blue or other – are regularly wrong about some area of science or another. Neither is it to ignore large social and cultural gaps between science and political activists which can lead to systemic and repeated problems. If you see a problem, call it. But call the specific problem, not some loose idea of "science"."

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is offline  
Old 06-06-2014, 09:53 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 661
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Exactly kathymuggle!
samaxtics is online now  
Old 06-06-2014, 11:01 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,062
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Kathymuggle, thaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnk you! Even from thousands of miles away, great minds are thinking alike. I had actually started a thread on this very topic in the main forum. Then I decided that I was tired of starting threads there. And now this thread.

Thomas Jefferson said that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Many accuse me of being unpatriotic and anti-American because I support Snowden's actions, question the accusations in the Bergdahl case, and am highly critical of all of the war-mongering going on over the past . . . . no, don't make me count how many years!

I hold all of these beliefs not because I hate my country. I LOVE my country and want it to succeed and be the great bastion of freedom and justice that it is supposed to be.

I love science, too, so much so that I wonder if I may have missed a calling. Then I see this happening: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...t-science.html

But apparently, there is an intellectual demogoguery that denounces me as "anti-science" for lifting my voice in protest. Nobody is going to silence me by trying to intimidate me with their credentials.

I'm going to speak out against it because I am pro-science. I want scientists to produce rigorous and pure research and uncover of the marvelous discoveries that are waiting. I want healthy children and clean water and a sustainable planet. Who doesn't?

The label anti-science is simply a cheap, name-calling attempt to silence critics. As Socrates said, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif

Last edited by Turquesa; 06-06-2014 at 11:11 PM.
Turquesa is online now  
Old 06-06-2014, 11:10 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,062
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
By the way, I’ve the term “anti-science” frequently on MDC, usually referring to the promotion of mandatory influenza vaccination for health care workers or the belief that unvaccinated children are causing whooping cough epidemics. I think I was taking a perverse pleasure in hurling peoples' rhetoric right back at them. (Some vaccine absolutists can be pro-science until there's science challenging their "science.") Others, of course, use the term to criticize Sarah Pope, among others.

But to be anti-science is to be opposed to “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” (I’m borrowing from dictionary.com)


It is to be against discovering environmental contributors to the breast cancer epidemic, staring at single-celled organisms under a microscope, any and all space exploration, piecing dinosaur bones together, inspecting municipal water supplies for contamination, observing ant farms, scuba diving expeditions, predicting and tracking hurricane activity, finding safer and less invasive alternatives to medical tests and interventions, dissecting plants and recording observations, exploring more efficient and eco-friendly sources of alternative energy, coming up with more productive crop yields in organic farms, allowing our children to explore in nature, DNA testing, experimenting to find the best thickener to use in a recipe, bird-watching, star-gazing, rock-hounding, wildflower identification, and any kind of curiosity and wonder.

(I'm sorry. Did you need more examples? )

So can anybody here provide evidence that in light of her recent appearance on The Daily Show, Sarah Pope was opposed to all of the aforementiond?

Yea. Neither can I.

That's because she was questioning the vaccine schedule, not rejecting an entire academic discipline and paradigm of inquiry.

Those of us who have used the term really need to get the hell over ourselves. Nobody is truly, fully anti-science.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
Old 06-07-2014, 09:22 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Pull up a chair - this might be long.

I have been reflecting on the term anti science for a few days now. I googled it a couple of times - and it seems to be a common ad hominem attack and it very frequently comes to be defined as anyone who does not agree with the the scientifc consensus on a particular topic. I think this definition of anti-science is problematic to say the least.
The term anti-science seems to be a code word for stupid and-or uneducated - hence no credibility.

Without credibility, it doesn't matter what one says. It's a way to nip an opposing view in the bud.

That has been my impression - at least the way it's used in the US for any kind of campaign, political (medicinal?? for vaxing) or otherwise.

Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
Old 06-07-2014, 09:48 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Apropos credibility - once you (general you) pass the stupid-uneducated-antiscience bar, it looks like they go for your being unqualified. Because it's not your field of expertise, you have no credibility, again.

This seems to be a recurring theme in discussions here.

Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
Old 06-08-2014, 12:50 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrmEmbar View Post
Thanks!

Subbing so I can attempt to follow the conversation even though I'm limping through the confusing grounds of our new MDC mobile site. : )
I feel you pain! as in PIA!!!!! way to much!

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 06-08-2014, 12:53 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post
The term anti-science seems to be a code word for stupid and-or uneducated - hence no credibility.

Without credibility, it doesn't matter what one says. It's a way to nip an opposing view in the bud.

That has been my impression - at least the way it's used in the US for any kind of campaign, political (medicinal?? for vaxing) or otherwise.
well, as I posted in another thread and I think it applies here too - if you can't "run on your record" you ATTACK the opponent and degrade them while deflecting about yourself - that is how I see this.

Even if you had a "science" educated expert on vaccines come out against, it would be turned around as "not ENOGHT" of the science educated ones - it's ALWAYS something to the PRO side!

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off