Article: Does Science Matter?

[RAF]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/11MATT.html

NYTimes.com > Science

(1) Does Science Matter?
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and JAMES GLANZ

Published: November 11, 2003

. . . . Science has also provoked a deeper unease by disturbing traditional beliefs. Some scientists, stunned by the increasing vigor of fundamentalist religion worldwide, wonder if old certainties have rushed into a sort of vacuum left by the inconclusiveness of science on the big issues of everyday life.

"Isn't it incredible that you have so much fundamentalism, retreating back to so much ignorance?" remarked Dr. George A. Keyworth II, President Ronald Reagan's science adviser.

The disaffection can be gauged in recent opinion surveys. Last month, a Harris poll found that the percentage of Americans who saw scientists as having "very great prestige" had declined nine percentage points in the last quarter-century, down to 57 from 66 percent. Another recent Harris poll found that most Americans believe in miracles, while half believe in ghosts and a third in astrology — hardly an endorsement of scientific rationality.

"There's obviously a kind of national split personality about these things," said Dr. Owen Gingerich, a historian of astronomy at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who speaks often of his Christian faith.

"Science gives you very cold comfort at times of death or sickness or so on," Dr. Gingerich said.

. . . Science has, in fact, sold itself from the start as something more than a utilitarian exercise in developing technologies and medicines. Einstein — who often used religious and philosophical language to explain his discoveries — seemed to tell humanity something fundamental about the fabric of existence. More recently, the cosmologist Stephen Hawking said that discovering a better theory of gravitation would be like seeing into "the mind of God."

Such rhetorical flourishes are as much derided as admired by the bulk of working scientists, who as a culture have drifted closer to the thinking of Steven Weinberg, another Nobel Prize winner in particle physics, who famously wrote that "the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."

That almost militantly atheistic view helps some observers explain how science has come into bitter conflict with particular religious groups, especially biblical literalists.

"What accentuates the fault line," said Dr. Ernan McMullin, a Roman Catholic priest who is a former director of the history and philosophy of science program at Notre Dame, is that "the scientists see their science being attacked and they immediately rush to the battlements."

"I think they rather enjoy seeing themselves as a persecuted minority instead of as the dominant force in the culture, which they really are," he said.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

The problem is that we view ourselves as "separate", science and paranormalists.. The Unified Field Theory should, hopefully, bring us together in a search for commonality.. "divided we fall", is a clue to the inevitable outcome of exclusivism.. Those asserting intangible cause and effect and those asserting measurement and observation could better serve themselves in a united exploration of "Life".. Science irks us with its dry passionless and sterile methodology, while paranormalists refute hard evidence with chants and pointless ritual.. both equally off-base. We co-exist, we breathe the same air, we strive to answer the same questions, yet.. we alienate those that could most benefit our causes.. "United we stand"..

Of course science matters, just as much as paranormalists.. evidence, whether hard observation or anecdotal, should be viewed equally, examined fully, and tested in the model of normal life.. nither science nor paranormalism is mutually exclusive, science usually begins as a paranormal concept and evolves into a known quantity.. paranormalism is supported by a foundation of known scientific situations and expanded into unknown theories and intangible experiences.. each dependant upon the other .. science begins in the imagination and paranormalism rests on the foundation of proven concepts.. central to both camps is the imagination.. as Einstein said, "imagination is more important than knowledge"...

Be well...

[ctoepker]

RAF,


"Science gives you very cold comfort at times of death or sickness or so on," Dr. Gingerich said.

. . . Science has, in fact, sold itself from the start as something more than a utilitarian exercise in developing technologies and medicines.

I'm not sure what the point of this article is. As an example, these two things seem to contradict each other.

At the same time, I'm pretty sure that science has not sold itself as more than a tool, as claimed here. I mean, "early scientists" (by which I mean European white guys...a limited bunch to be sure) exactly positioned themselves as nothing more than a tool or else they would have faced serious trouble with the very powerful church. (example...Galileo.)

In short, "science" has its hisotry too, and was shaped by it.

Indeed, one perspective is that modern science finds itself where it is because of the stance it had to take to get out from under medival church dogma and power. However, this is a very limited view of science, because it is limited to the European experience. I think this article suffers from similar myopia and neglects the wide-spread human drive to examine, and then explain in coherent terms, experience and things happening in the world.

I might suggest "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintance" and the sequel "Lila" for both a personal account of going crazy by being too analytically focused and the sociological facets of the history of science.

CT

[RAF]

CT:

Read Pirsig's book in the 1980s while in grad school (a friend in Clinical psychology grad program sent it to me). Very insightful.

I hope you went back to the original article. I only posted couple of paragraphs which more or less showed that even within "Science" you have your believers and nonbelievers and they often bump heads.

The original article is 5 pages long.

I should have posted the beginning:

"Through its rituals of discovery, science has extended life, conquered disease and offered new sexual and commercial freedoms. It has pushed aside demigods and demons and revealed a cosmos more intricate and awesome than anything produced by pure imagination.

But there are new troubles in the peculiar form of paradise that science has created, as well as new questions about whether it has the popular support to meet the future challenges of disease, pollution, security, energy, education, food, water and urban sprawl.

The public seems increasingly intolerant of grand, technical fixes, even while it hungers for new gadgets and drugs. It has also come to fear the potential consequences of unfettered science and technology in areas like genetic engineering, germ warfare, global warming, nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear arms.

Tension between science and the public has thrown up new barriers to research involving deadly pathogens, stem cells and human cloning. Some of the doubts about science began with the environmental movement of the 1960's."

If you are going to read it, ya gotta do it this week. By the end of the week, they refile the article and you have to pay $1.50 or more to get to access to it.

later.

[Christopher M]

I'm not sure why anyone would have their beliefs significantly swayed by popular opinion. Do most Americans think science is pointless? Who cares? Most Americans think Britney Spears is great stuff, but I'm not going to throw out all my albums and only listen to Top 20. Are you?

[ctoepker]

Originally posted by Christopher M
I'm not sure why anyone would have their beliefs significantly swayed by popular opinion.

I guess the scary thing isn't that anyone would be swayed, but that "everyone" believes it to start with.

I mean, 'popular opinion' is by its nature the majority opinion, isn't it? I may stick to my Thelonius Monk, but I have to go out of my way to find the recordings 'cause the record stores cater to the majority and carry mostly Britney.

The majority has a nefarious power that can only be overcome by education. One of the best forms of education is discussion...or so said Socrates, anyway.

CT

[Former castleva]

I'm not sure why anyone would have their beliefs significantly swayed by popular opinion. Do most Americans think science is pointless? Who cares? Most Americans think Britney Spears is great stuff, but I'm not going to throw out all my albums and only listen to Top 20. Are you?

You against the music? Well,well said.



The majority has a nefarious power that can only be overcome by education. One of the best forms of education is discussion...or so said Socrates, anyway.

As far as the original article goes,and relating to that-.
It does probably have to do with education of some sort.
On the other hand,it appears that the clinically intelligent are fairly vulnerable to pseudoscience,superstition or what have you (not necessarily saying that this was your point).While,as far as I know,there appears to be some correlation between education&certain "strange beliefs" (say,evolution/creation controversy,America).


"Isn't it incredible that you have so much fundamentalism, retreating back to so much ignorance?" remarked Dr. George A. Keyworth II, President Ronald Reagan's science adviser.

He´s demented now,but he could have used some science advice in the old days,considering-.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

FC : Welcome back, i haven't seen you in a while..

On the other hand,it appears that the clinically intelligent are fairly vulnerable to pseudoscience,superstition or what have you

Clinically intelligent?.. vulnerable?.. or, is it possible that the intellect allows for a more open-minded approach to matters beyond the current capability of science to quantify? "Clinically intelligent" as used in this context seems to imply a lack of some quality that would be necessary to meet your standard of "fully intelligent".. More notably, is the choice to divide and categorize people in such a manner as to invite emotionally driven responses.. which is a devious tact and usually counterproductive..

What divides the camps (science and paranormalism) is the almost religious fervor each side expresses as they adjust their blinders to narrowly focus on their beliefs of choice. Rather than marching in opposite directions, movement toward a middle ground could better serve both causes.. Personally, i try to see most sides of an issue and reserve judgment as to a final disposition in favor of how the issue plays-out in the "current" situation.. Too often people look at the current situation as the ultimate condition, forgetting that generations and civilizations before them made the same faulty assessment.. methods of observation and measurement will continue to expand and improve, and.. just as in the past, things thought to be incredible beyond belief soon become common-place..

There is sometimes a fine line between popular opinion and mass hypnosis, and the power of hypnosis (power of the mind) is well documented but not fully understood.

What i am suggesting is that we each leave room for some "magic" in our experience.. an environment that becomes too sterile frequently stagnates.. On the other-hand, we must acknowledge the role of science in refining the "magic" into comprehensible knowledge and give it room to do so..

Anyway, be well..

[Former castleva]

Clinically intelligent?.. vulnerable?.. or, is it possible that the intellect allows for a more open-minded approach to matters beyond the current capability of science to quantify? "Clinically intelligent" as used in this context seems to imply a lack of some quality that would be necessary to meet your standard of "fully intelligent".. More notably, is the choice to divide and categorize people in such a manner as to invite emotionally driven responses.. which is a devious tact and usually counterproductive..

Well,should you wish,we can alter the word (be it "clinically intelligent" or what ever have you),but that does not really matter.
Let´s say that it´s possible that the apples,as they fall off the tree,start rising towards the sky,instead of hitting the ground.It is considered a "fact" that the latter happens (gravity dominates) but of course we can entertain a mild form of agnosticism on that.It´s just not very likely to be needed.

And,I´m not trying to suggest that the people in question are found "wanting" intellectually.Rather on the contrary in certain terms,they may form,in their minds,the most impressive mental gymnastics needed in order to confirm&justify their ideas!
Considering our issue,things that I´m referring to are certainly NOT outside of the cabability of science (in fact,I suggest this can be one such argument that a person might come up with to...) but fairly easily falsified,or proven illogical by the method.
Neither have I attempted to categorize people.Emotionally driven responses only serve to indicate their (hypotethical) lack of reason.


FC : Welcome back, i haven't seen you in a while..

Thank you.