Jump to content

when "science" is fanatical faith


chair jockey

Recommended Posts

chair jockey

Real scientists, with Ph.D.s, are pretty reasonable and cautious people. But other people with only a high school education, or not even that, can be absolutely fanatical about their uneducated misunderstanding of science. Back when I was in high school in the early 1980s, being a geek and a nerd was seen as a pure negative, and lots of geeky, nerdy teenage boys dealt with their social misfitness and insecurities by treating the word "science' like an article of faith and the statements of well-known scientists like the Catholic Catechism. From time to time I still see that kind of behaviour, but only among those who haven't yet learned the first thing about what science is. And such conduct degrades the public layperson's understanding of science.

 

Put simply, in the twenty-first century, it's contemptible for anyone to have an eighteenth-century Enlightenment attitude about science, or about anything else. Yet because that attitude is three hundred years old, it runs very deep and takes eight years of university studies to eradicate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
andreas1033

Schooling, is mainly there to show, you can listen, and repeat back.

For example.

1)No one on earth knows why volcanoes exist, but your taught in geography why they do.
2)No one knows what gravity is

Shows you an example, of how alot of science, is not true, but there just to get you to repeat back what you have heard, or read.

Most whom get degrees, are just ones whom have heard, or read stuff, and able to repeat back. This is what you call repeaters, not thinkers. School, mostly is there to teach you to learn and repeat back. It does not get people into a mindset to think for yourself.

So i disagree with you. Getting a degree, just means you were good at repeating back what you read, and heard from teachers. It does not mean, what you were taught was true. It does not generate critical thinking skills.

It makes me laugh, that schools today, like colleges do critical thinking classes, lol. That just shows how, most in college and uni, are just repeaters, whom never judge the info they take in, just repeat it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, andreas1033 said:

It does not generate critical thinking skills.

 

It makes me laugh, that schools today, like colleges do critical thinking classes, lol. That just shows how, most in college and uni, are just repeaters, whom never judge the info they take in, just repeat it back.

Oh, did you major in something in STEM then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
andreas1033
10 minutes ago, Zerο said:

Oh, did you major in something in STEM then?

No, i grew up in london, and left school, in what we call sixth form(that would be 17). What i learned, is something most will never learn.

 

My point is, critical thinking is not required to goto uni, you just have to be able to repeat everything back you have been told.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, andreas1033 said:

No, i grew up in london, and left school, in what we call sixth form(that would be 17). What i learned, is something most will never learn.

 

My point is, critical thinking is not required to goto uni, you just have to be able to repeat everything back you have been told.

And my point is, your point is asinine given that you're making a statement about an experience that you've never had (and it shows).  In engineering for example, recycling material does absolute shit.  You have the tools, equations, and standards available to you - but that's all trivial unless you can determine which and where to use them with your own critical thinking skills.

 

You think you can recycle the material you learn in a field like engineering in the real world where every problem faces a multitude of different variables (most of which college doesn't go into depth with)?  What an absolute joke.

 

Recycling will get you through a K-12 education, it won't in any major worth a damn in college.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zerο said:

And my point is, your point is asinine given that you're making a statement about an experience that you've never had (and it shows).  In engineering for example, recycling material does absolute shit.  You have the tools, equations, and standards available to you - but that's all trivial unless you can determine which and where to use them with your own critical thinking skills.

 

You think you can recycle the material you learn in a field like engineering in the real world where every problem faces a multitude of different variables (most of which college doesn't go into depth with)?  What an absolute joke.

 

Recycling will get you through a K-12 education, it won't in any major worth a damn in college.

That's why I think I got fortunate to place into some AP classes (not many), because we had to write and think critically. Also, I was fortunate to have some theology classes in high school where critical thinking and writing was encouraged. You can disagree with [insert chapter verse/something in the Catechism here] but you just had to prove your argument. Everything else went straight to the garbage when I went to undergraduate, more so that I went to a liberal arts school, and even more so in graduate school. :S

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kingcakedonut said:

That's why I think I got fortunate to place into some AP classes (not many), because we had to write and think critically. Also, I was fortunate to have some theology classes in high school where critical thinking and writing was encouraged. You can disagree with [insert chapter verse/something in the Catechism here] but you just had to prove your argument. Everything else went straight to the garbage when I went to undergraduate, more so that I went to a liberal arts school, and even more so in graduate school. :S

I wish I had taken more AP courses, I got initially slammed in some of my general Chemistry/Physics classes because I wasn't used to the different style of college.  As far as Theology/Philosophy goes, I don't think they have as much practical use in the real world as far as establishing a career goes, but I do respect the emphasis they have on critical thinking (and it's probably harder since you can't point to proven experiments).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zerο said:

I wish I had taken more AP courses, I got initially slammed in some of my general Chemistry/Physics classes because I wasn't used to the different style of college.  As far as Theology/Philosophy goes, I don't think they have as much practical use in the real world as far as establishing a career goes, but I do respect the emphasis they have on critical thinking (and it's probably harder since you can't point to proven experiments).

One of my majors was in philosophy, and it definitely helped me with how I think and analyze things generally speaking. Plus, it's awesome to regress back to some of the readings, especially in recent times.  It helps me to clear my head amidst the chaos. Also, unpacking complex, abstract ideas, and simplifying them in writing helped me later in graduate school. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
AVEN #1 fan
28 minutes ago, andreas1033 said:

No, i grew up in london, and left school, in what we call sixth form(that would be 17). What i learned, is something most will never learn.

 

My point is, critical thinking is not required to goto uni, you just have to be able to repeat everything back you have been told.

That's not learning, that's more likely doxing or brainwashing or "preparation for the capitalist world"

Link to post
Share on other sites
AVEN #1 fan
5 minutes ago, kingcakedonut said:

One of my majors was in philosophy, and it definitely helped me with how I think and analyze things generally speaking. Plus, it's awesome to regress back to some of the readings, especially in recent times.  It helps me to clear my head amidst the chaos. Also, unpacking complex, abstract ideas, and simplifying them in writing helped me later in graduate school. 

I just remembered that method was from a philosophe I can't remember the name right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AVEN #1 fan said:

I just remembered that method was from a philosophe I can't remember the name right now.

What method? Remaining calm? lol. Are you referring to stoicism? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
AVEN #1 fan
Just now, kingcakedonut said:

What method? Remaining calm? lol. Are you referring to stoicism? 

No, "... unpacking complex, abstract ideas..." I learned that when studying dark age philosophers in school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AVEN #1 fan

But back in topic, the wisest people are actually the ones who have the doubt, who assume they know everything stopped in time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AVEN #1 fan said:

No, "... unpacking complex, abstract ideas..." I learned that when studying dark age philosophers in school.

Oh, no idea off the top of my head.  I was referring in more generalized terms.  In most of the classes, you do not have tests, but you have to write essays.  And it refers to the age-old explanation of, if you don't understand how to properly explain something, you probably don't understand the ideas yourself. So you really have to understand what so-and-so is saying in order to critique the ideas. That's pretty much what I was trying to get at. But do let me know if you remember, because now I am curious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
AVEN #1 fan
Just now, kingcakedonut said:

Oh, no idea off the top of my head.  I was referring in more generalized terms.  In most of the classes, you do not have tests, but you have to write essays.  And it refers to the age-old explanation of, if you don't understand how to properly explain something, you probably don't understand the ideas yourself. So you really have to understand what so-and-so is saying in order to critique the ideas. That's pretty much what I was trying to get at. But do let me know if you remember, because now I am curious. 

Oh, it was René Descartes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely think a lot of people glorify science for all the wrong reasons. It's a thought process that's led us to a lot of useful and interesting results, but there are some that take it to fanatical levels. Like the people that want a technocracy, for example, thinking that putting scientists in government leadership roles would help, when most scientists wouldn't know a thing about policy, or government. 

 

I'm also sort of weary of the whole "STEM" movement, and the negative attitudes that some have about humanities-related degrees. There's a level of toxicity and circlejerking of science that is being perpetrated by people that aren't even scientists.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, andreas1033 said:

1)No one on earth knows why volcanoes exist, but your taught in geography why they do.

2)No one knows what gravity is

I don't think you really understand science.

As far as volcanoes, of course scientists know why volcanoes exist. I don't know where you got the idea they don't.

 

Back to the original premise of this thread, sure, some people glorify science without really understanding it. But just as wrong (and maybe even more dangerous) is to go in the opposite direction and discount science without really understanding it, which seems to be a big trend among certain demographics in the US at least. Anti-intellectualism and anti-science stances are not helpful. Science (real science) at least has some ideals of being open-minded to change and new ideas and discoveries. And science produces real results that actually affect our lives (if you're reading this you are benefiting from science).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Comrade F&F
4 hours ago, andreas1033 said:

Schooling, is mainly there to show, you can listen, and repeat back.

 

For example.

 

1)No one on earth knows why volcanoes exist, but your taught in geography why they do.

2)No one knows what gravity is

 

Shows you an example, of how alot of science, is not true, but there just to get you to repeat back what you have heard, or read.

 

Most whom get degrees, are just ones whom have heard, or read stuff, and able to repeat back. This is what you call repeaters, not thinkers. School, mostly is there to teahc you to learn and repeat back. It does not get people into a mindset to think for yourself.

 

So i disagree with you. Getting a degree, just means you were good at repeating back what you read, and heard from teachers. It does not mean, what you were taught was true. It does not generate critical thinking skills.

 

It makes me laugh, that schools today, like colleges do critical thinking classes, lol. That just shows how, most in college and uni, are just repeaters, whom never judge the info they take in, just repeat it back.

I take insult on that.

 

I go to college for a STEM degree, and there is a great emphasis on learning the material, to apply it to real-world problems. Want to know the soil composition? Take chemistry to learn how to analyze spectroscopy. Want to build a robot? Good, learn programming. How about engineering? Go learn how to crunch numbers and why the numbers crunch the way they do.

 

You have to learn how to use the tools, before you can apply them. I agree the school system needs to be reworked - It can get boring and tedious, but every class links back together and are necessary for the career you want - if you pursue research. It will take semesters of work to reach the point where you finally get to touch the shiny cool lab equipment.

 

Getting a degree means you're now qualified to go out there, get into a lab, and apply that knowledge for research. College is the only place where they're going to teach you how to work in a lab, under the tutelage of other scientists and professors.

 

And there is a expectation for the student to teach themselves. It's not spat out and repeated - you'll never get through college like that. You have to analyze, question, and foster a desire to keep going. Learn what to do when you get stuck, and how to get around it. You're in charge of your own learning, the school just provides the material.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AVEN #1 fan
30 minutes ago, daveb said:

I don't think you really understand science.

As far as volcanoes, of course scientists know why volcanoes exist. I don't know where you got the idea they don't.

 

Back to the original premise of this thread, sure, some people glorify science without really understanding it. But just as wrong (and maybe even more dangerous) is to go in the opposite direction and discount science without really understanding it, which seems to be a big trend among certain demographics in the US at least. Anti-intellectualism and anti-science stances are not helpful. Science (real science) at least has some ideals of being open-minded to change and new ideas and discoveries. And science produces real results that actually affect our lives (if you're reading this you are benefiting from science).

Actually I study geology, and volcanoes doesn't grow from nowhere, they happen in the limits BTW tectonic plates under the ground in where they crush crush against each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Comrade F&F

I think we've deviated from the original topic.

 

I'm someone who is guilty of holing themselves up and immersing myself in maths and science, forgetting everything outside. A lot of 'science nerds' do this - especially at the higher levels (and I'm not there yet)

 

One of my professors expressed his disdain for this - scientists are so absorbed in doing science, they neglect to come out of their labs and share their knowledge with the rest of society. News rarely covers scientific research (did you know the Large Hadron Collider discovered 5 new particles a few weeks ago?) It's not locked away in labs or anything, but it's not brought out. We have the attitude of, "Yes! Come and join us!" without actually going out and inviting people to join us, to grow the field. My guess is this is where a good majority of ignorance comes from.

 

When we debate and research, the methods seem so obvious that there is no need to define it further - but from the outside, our methods of debate must appear as nothing short of convoluted chaos - or some holy grail of human supremacy that shouldn't be questioned.

 

Which sucks. Science thrives on a curious mind. Curiousity begins with questioning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having not gone to university myself (or even one year of college, as I think Brits do), I wouldn't dare to criticize what you learn or don't learn in university.  I don't know why anyone would, because it makes them seem bitter -- or, in American slang, "sour grapes".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Comrade F&F

But that's the thing: criticizing is not in the same context as questioning for curiosity. I think the general consensus is that most people in the scientific community are frustrated by this. There is like this language wall that can't effectively scaled. We don't want people to blindly accept fact - we want them to understand the data in the same way we understand it. We want to have our data tested against. But we are tired of having to defend data that doesn't line up to people's way of thinking, using methods that have been successful in the test of time.

 

Analytical debate is different from...other debates. Saying this patch of data is useless and irrelevant (or a complete godsend) is not the same as saying this patch of data is weak and needs more research.

 

Like I said, when research is done in the lab, we kinda just...'do our own thing'. It's not good or bad. It's neutral. It's when it's taken out of the context of the lab, is when we tend to get worried...

 

Edit: I found this video that does a pretty good job of summing up what I'm trying to explain.

Spoiler

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AVEN #1 fan said:

Actually I study geology, and volcanoes doesn't grow from nowhere, they happen in the limits BTW tectonic plates under the ground in where they crush crush against each other.

you do?  me too! :)

 

 

 

also we've got a legit volcanologist here on aven, who i'm sure can explain to andreas in great detail why volcanoes exist :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
AVEN #1 fan
Just now, rigg said:

you do?  me too! :)

 

 

 

also we've got a legit volcanologist here on aven, who i'm sure can explain to andreas in great detail why volcanoes exist :)

Well, I study biology and the educational process, geology is one of the classes. You can PM me if you wanna talk about such subjects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SexNotHaver
2 hours ago, Sally said:

Having not gone to university myself (or even one year of college, as I think Brits do)...

Brits go to university for 3 or 4 years, in general.  Unless you're referring to the fact that Brits often go to university for a year and then drop out.  To confuse things a bit more, some Brits go to sixth form 'colleges' for 2 years at age 16 - 18 to complete their 'high school' education, so you'll get high-school students talking about going to college but that isn't higher education.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SexNotHaver
10 hours ago, andreas1033 said:


2)No one knows what gravity is

Could you explain?

Link to post
Share on other sites
AVEN #1 fan
Just now, Necron said:

Could you explain?


Again as a Biology student, I learned that gravity is the force that pushes objects to the ground. Idk what they're talking about either.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SexNotHaver
35 minutes ago, AVEN #1 fan said:


Again as a Biology student, I learned that gravity is the force that pushes objects to the ground. Idk what they're talking about either.

 

Lots of stuff is known about gravity.  Don't ask me to name any of that stuff.  Maybe lots isn't but I just thought it was a very absolute statement.  The fact that he claims to know so much about university education but has never been made me wonder what kind of answer he'd have.  It'll either be entertainingly bad or it'll be impressive.  I'm no expert but I have just enough knowledge to know how to look it up on Quora.

 

I hope I've backtracked enough that I won't be embarrassed if they come out with a sensible answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Comrade F&F

Defining gravity is a little elusive. But in a nutshell, gravity is "the stuff" that makes matter attracted to each other.We know it's there because we can calculate it and measure it, but we can't actually 'grasp' it. There's a whole slew of theories explaining the phenomenon, and it gets more complicated the more you dig into its explanation. You start getting into fields of science that are still relatively young, like Einstein theories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Necron said:

Could you explain?

It's called stupidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...