Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
At first, I thought this topic should go into “Flaws of Science,” but I don’t really see it as a flaw as much as pointing out missing essential elements.
REFLEXIVITY:
Science is the best rational perspective humans have to define meaning in cosmic mechanisms. However, Science is a purely human construct. As such, scientists (all people who subscribe to its rationale) should be reflexive of that fact, understanding that whatever observations and assumptions we make are uniquely through human senses. (Science is made by humans, for humans.)
HUMANITY:
The current climate of Science has evolved through millennia of ideological, political, and social persecution. We are highly competitive (research $$$) , ostracized, marginalized, ignored by the groups that do not understand us. In short, a majority of us have become just as miserable and inhumane to each other as theists (in emotional reaction to how we’ve been treated).
Science is about humanity. I think that is an essential element that is missing. Science (as taught in the U.S.) lacks the humanistic element. I think Humanity is what Oppenheimer ignored.
SOLIDARITY:
Science lacks a well-defined center (rallying point), or is not promoted as having such. Scientists have been successfully disbanded by the theists, and beaten into submission like a plow-horse (a means to an end for the theists). Though Hitchens might have issue (lone wolf that he is), I think scientists should rebuild a social structure for the purposes of support and proliferation of ideas. ReasonProject.Org represents this effort in part.
EDUCATION:
It’s no secret that in the U.S. Science & Mathematics education is floundering. I would argue (and generalize) that these subjects are mis-taught under what I would call the Technician Vs. Scientist dichotomy. Reflecting on my own education (public school), I was introduced to only the technical aspects of either subjects—never the underlying meanings that are essential to their cohesive comprehension (and actual practical use for finding meaning in the cosmos). I was left behind in that respect to figure it out on my own. (U.S. Education has also evolved under the theist regime.)
At first, I thought this topic should go into “Flaws of Science,” but I don’t really see it as a flaw as much as pointing out missing essential elements.
REFLEXIVITY:
Science is the best rational perspective humans have to define meaning in cosmic mechanisms. However, Science is a purely human construct. As such, scientists (all people who subscribe to its rationale) should be reflexive of that fact, understanding that whatever observations and assumptions we make are uniquely through human senses. (Science is made by humans, for humans.)
This is tacitly acknowledged by science in general, if not by all scientists individually. Ask any scientist and, if they are honest, they will admit that the ultimatey description of the cosmos may be beyond the human ability to perceive or comprehend. This hypothesis is not, in and of itself, a scientific one (it cannot be falsified) yet every scientist operates with that possible limitation in the back of their mind. Awareness of this does not offer anything by way practical changes to the scientific method.
HUMANITY:
The current climate of Science has evolved through millennia of ideological, political, and social persecution. We are highly competitive (research $$$) , ostracized, marginalized, ignored by the groups that do not understand us. In short, a majority of us have become just as miserable and inhumane to each other as theists (in emotional reaction to how we’ve been treated).
Science is about humanity. I think that is an essential element that is missing. Science (as taught in the U.S.) lacks the humanistic element. I think Humanity is what Oppenheimer ignored.
Science is NOT about humanity. Science is about reality. Reality does not necessarily conform to humanistic principles. Humanism deals, in part, with “ought” while science strictly deals with “is”.
SOLIDARITY:
Science lacks a well-defined center (rallying point), or is not promoted as having such. Scientists have been successfully disbanded by the theists, and beaten into submission like a plow-horse (a means to an end for the theists). Though Hitchens might have issue (lone wolf that he is), I think scientists should rebuild a social structure for the purposes of support and proliferation of ideas. ReasonProject.Org represents this effort in part.
Science has persevered despite theistic oppression and some may argue that, in this modern age, scientific advancement, on the whole, has reached an escape velocity where theism cannot hope to oppress it again. Scientific knowledge is available to all precisely because it lacks a center. The diversity and decentralized nature of science is one of its greatest strengths.
EDUCATION:
It’s no secret that in the U.S. Science & Mathematics education is floundering. I would argue (and generalize) that these subjects are mis-taught under what I would call the Technician Vs. Scientist dichotomy. Reflecting on my own education (public school), I was introduced to only the technical aspects of either subjects—never the underlying meanings that are essential to their cohesive comprehension (and actual practical use for finding meaning in the cosmos). I was left behind in that respect to figure it out on my own. (U.S. Education has also evolved under the theist regime.)
Just some thoughts… What do you think?
Education is a governmental issue, not a scientific one.
In short: the only thing science is missing is the following:
1. A theory of everything.
2. The condition of the state of the universe at any given point in time to as high a degree of accuracy as is possible.
With time and computational power we can derive everything else.
At first, I thought this topic should go into “Flaws of Science,” but I don’t really see it as a flaw as much as pointing out missing essential elements.
REFLEXIVITY:
Science is the best rational perspective humans have to define meaning in cosmic mechanisms. However, Science is a purely human construct. As such, scientists (all people who subscribe to its rationale) should be reflexive of that fact, understanding that whatever observations and assumptions we make are uniquely through human senses. (Science is made by humans, for humans.)
This is tacitly acknowledged by science in general, if not by all scientists individually. Ask any scientist and, if they are honest, they will admit that the ultimatey description of the cosmos may be beyond the human ability to perceive or comprehend. This hypothesis is not, in and of itself, a scientific one (it cannot be falsified) yet every scientist operates with that possible limitation in the back of their mind. Awareness of this does not offer anything by way practical changes to the scientific method.
HUMANITY:
The current climate of Science has evolved through millennia of ideological, political, and social persecution. We are highly competitive (research $$$) , ostracized, marginalized, ignored by the groups that do not understand us. In short, a majority of us have become just as miserable and inhumane to each other as theists (in emotional reaction to how we’ve been treated).
Science is about humanity. I think that is an essential element that is missing. Science (as taught in the U.S.) lacks the humanistic element. I think Humanity is what Oppenheimer ignored.
Science is NOT about humanity. Science is about reality. Reality does not necessarily conform to humanistic principles. Humanism deals, in part, with “ought” while science strictly deals with “is”.
SOLIDARITY:
Science lacks a well-defined center (rallying point), or is not promoted as having such. Scientists have been successfully disbanded by the theists, and beaten into submission like a plow-horse (a means to an end for the theists). Though Hitchens might have issue (lone wolf that he is), I think scientists should rebuild a social structure for the purposes of support and proliferation of ideas. ReasonProject.Org represents this effort in part.
Science has persevered despite theistic oppression and some may argue that, in this modern age, scientific advancement, on the whole, has reached an escape velocity where theism cannot hope to oppress it again. Scientific knowledge is available to all precisely because it lacks a center. The diversity and decentralized nature of science is one of its greatest strengths.
EDUCATION:
It’s no secret that in the U.S. Science & Mathematics education is floundering. I would argue (and generalize) that these subjects are mis-taught under what I would call the Technician Vs. Scientist dichotomy. Reflecting on my own education (public school), I was introduced to only the technical aspects of either subjects—never the underlying meanings that are essential to their cohesive comprehension (and actual practical use for finding meaning in the cosmos). I was left behind in that respect to figure it out on my own. (U.S. Education has also evolved under the theist regime.)
Just some thoughts… What do you think?
Education is a governmental issue, not a scientific one.
In short: the only thing science is missing is the following:
1. A theory of everything.
2. The condition of the state of the universe at any given point in time to as high a degree of accuracy as is possible.
With time and computational power we can derive everything else.
Ok, Spock…
I disagree with ALL of your assertions. They require me to accept you as an authority on Culture, Science, Humanity, and Education. You do not understand the depth of reflexivity, and your comments are not proactive. Your condescending and ignorant communication is the usual “know-it-all” response that repulses and revolts the general population from rational discussions. You, in fact, lack reflexivity. (You simply do not comprehend how your ignorance impacts your ability to rationalize effectively.)
effilc, could you elaborate a bit on what do you think science would be like if the “reflexivity” you are talking about was a part of science, as you seem to think it should be. In other words, how should science be different from what it is now? Or if it is fine now, then how do you know it’s lacking reflexivity?
effilc, could you elaborate a bit on what do you think science would be like if the “reflexivity” you are talking about was a part of science, as you seem to think it should be. In other words, how should science be different from what it is now? Or if it is fine now, then how do you know it’s lacking reflexivity?
With the internet, you can do your own research on reflexivity as a concept, but I’ll try to concisely convey my perspective.
Repeatability of Results:
Depending upon whom you read, one of the components of the scientific method includes the requirement for repeatability in test results when testing hypotheses. There is a reason for this, namely, that the circumstances producing the results in the first case may have changed. This is a way of ensuring the results are consistent under all circumstances, thereby supporting inferences based upon results.
In a way, this is reflexivity applied to the technical aspects of a scientific test. Eliminating circumstances that may have polluted the results.
Ask the question, what circumstances pollute observation and interpretation of these results? —the scientist… This is where reflexivity comes in. A single human perspective is the sum of many things; genetics, educational background, culture, etc. Reflexivity is simply considering how these influence the scientist’s observation and interpretation of scientific results.
As far as your questions, “how should Science be different from what it is now?,” and “how do you know it’s lacking reflexivity?” That is what I want to know from thinking people like yourself. My answers are not necessarily yours…
At first, I thought this topic should go into “Flaws of Science,” but I don’t really see it as a flaw as much as pointing out missing essential elements.
REFLEXIVITY:
Science is the best rational perspective humans have to define meaning in cosmic mechanisms. However, Science is a purely human construct. As such, scientists (all people who subscribe to its rationale) should be reflexive of that fact, understanding that whatever observations and assumptions we make are uniquely through human senses. (Science is made by humans, for humans.)
This is tacitly acknowledged by science in general, if not by all scientists individually. Ask any scientist and, if they are honest, they will admit that the ultimatey description of the cosmos may be beyond the human ability to perceive or comprehend. This hypothesis is not, in and of itself, a scientific one (it cannot be falsified) yet every scientist operates with that possible limitation in the back of their mind. Awareness of this does not offer anything by way practical changes to the scientific method.
HUMANITY:
The current climate of Science has evolved through millennia of ideological, political, and social persecution. We are highly competitive (research $$$) , ostracized, marginalized, ignored by the groups that do not understand us. In short, a majority of us have become just as miserable and inhumane to each other as theists (in emotional reaction to how we’ve been treated).
Science is about humanity. I think that is an essential element that is missing. Science (as taught in the U.S.) lacks the humanistic element. I think Humanity is what Oppenheimer ignored.
Science is NOT about humanity. Science is about reality. Reality does not necessarily conform to humanistic principles. Humanism deals, in part, with “ought” while science strictly deals with “is”.
SOLIDARITY:
Science lacks a well-defined center (rallying point), or is not promoted as having such. Scientists have been successfully disbanded by the theists, and beaten into submission like a plow-horse (a means to an end for the theists). Though Hitchens might have issue (lone wolf that he is), I think scientists should rebuild a social structure for the purposes of support and proliferation of ideas. ReasonProject.Org represents this effort in part.
Science has persevered despite theistic oppression and some may argue that, in this modern age, scientific advancement, on the whole, has reached an escape velocity where theism cannot hope to oppress it again. Scientific knowledge is available to all precisely because it lacks a center. The diversity and decentralized nature of science is one of its greatest strengths.
EDUCATION:
It’s no secret that in the U.S. Science & Mathematics education is floundering. I would argue (and generalize) that these subjects are mis-taught under what I would call the Technician Vs. Scientist dichotomy. Reflecting on my own education (public school), I was introduced to only the technical aspects of either subjects—never the underlying meanings that are essential to their cohesive comprehension (and actual practical use for finding meaning in the cosmos). I was left behind in that respect to figure it out on my own. (U.S. Education has also evolved under the theist regime.)
Just some thoughts… What do you think?
Education is a governmental issue, not a scientific one.
In short: the only thing science is missing is the following:
1. A theory of everything.
2. The condition of the state of the universe at any given point in time to as high a degree of accuracy as is possible.
With time and computational power we can derive everything else.
Ok, Spock…
I disagree with ALL of your assertions. They require me to accept you as an authority on Culture, Science, Humanity, and Education.
Not if we are operating within the bounds of logic (funny that you would call me Spock, it’s as if you are tacitly acknowledging your illogic). One needs no authority to state a truth. It would be more appropriate for you to refute my assertions rather than simply dismiss them because you have a hard time accepting me as an authority I don’t even need to be.
You do not understand the depth of reflexivity, and your comments are not proactive.
The degree to which I understand it is inexorably linked to the degree in which you explained it. Whether or not I address “reflexivity” I was addressing your summary of it as it pertains to science, which is all that is relevant within the context of this conversation.
Your condescending and ignorant communication is the usual “know-it-all” response that repulses and revolts the general population from rational discussions. You, in fact, lack reflexivity. (You simply do not comprehend how your ignorance impacts your ability to rationalize effectively.)
If I have erred in my response, you certainly and magnificently have failed to show why.
At first, I thought this topic should go into “Flaws of Science,” but I don’t really see it as a flaw as much as pointing out missing essential elements.
REFLEXIVITY:
Science is the best rational perspective humans have to define meaning in cosmic mechanisms. However, Science is a purely human construct. As such, scientists (all people who subscribe to its rationale) should be reflexive of that fact, understanding that whatever observations and assumptions we make are uniquely through human senses. (Science is made by humans, for humans.)
This is tacitly acknowledged by science in general, if not by all scientists individually. Ask any scientist and, if they are honest, they will admit that the ultimatey description of the cosmos may be beyond the human ability to perceive or comprehend. This hypothesis is not, in and of itself, a scientific one (it cannot be falsified) yet every scientist operates with that possible limitation in the back of their mind. Awareness of this does not offer anything by way practical changes to the scientific method.
HUMANITY:
The current climate of Science has evolved through millennia of ideological, political, and social persecution. We are highly competitive (research $$$) , ostracized, marginalized, ignored by the groups that do not understand us. In short, a majority of us have become just as miserable and inhumane to each other as theists (in emotional reaction to how we’ve been treated).
Science is about humanity. I think that is an essential element that is missing. Science (as taught in the U.S.) lacks the humanistic element. I think Humanity is what Oppenheimer ignored.
Science is NOT about humanity. Science is about reality. Reality does not necessarily conform to humanistic principles. Humanism deals, in part, with “ought” while science strictly deals with “is”.
SOLIDARITY:
Science lacks a well-defined center (rallying point), or is not promoted as having such. Scientists have been successfully disbanded by the theists, and beaten into submission like a plow-horse (a means to an end for the theists). Though Hitchens might have issue (lone wolf that he is), I think scientists should rebuild a social structure for the purposes of support and proliferation of ideas. ReasonProject.Org represents this effort in part.
Science has persevered despite theistic oppression and some may argue that, in this modern age, scientific advancement, on the whole, has reached an escape velocity where theism cannot hope to oppress it again. Scientific knowledge is available to all precisely because it lacks a center. The diversity and decentralized nature of science is one of its greatest strengths.
EDUCATION:
It’s no secret that in the U.S. Science & Mathematics education is floundering. I would argue (and generalize) that these subjects are mis-taught under what I would call the Technician Vs. Scientist dichotomy. Reflecting on my own education (public school), I was introduced to only the technical aspects of either subjects—never the underlying meanings that are essential to their cohesive comprehension (and actual practical use for finding meaning in the cosmos). I was left behind in that respect to figure it out on my own. (U.S. Education has also evolved under the theist regime.)
Just some thoughts… What do you think?
Education is a governmental issue, not a scientific one.
In short: the only thing science is missing is the following:
1. A theory of everything.
2. The condition of the state of the universe at any given point in time to as high a degree of accuracy as is possible.
With time and computational power we can derive everything else.
Ok, Spock…
I disagree with ALL of your assertions. They require me to accept you as an authority on Culture, Science, Humanity, and Education. You do not understand the depth of reflexivity, and your comments are not proactive. Your condescending and ignorant communication is the usual “know-it-all” response that repulses and revolts the general population from rational discussions. You, in fact, lack reflexivity. (You simply do not comprehend how your ignorance impacts your ability to rationalize effectively.)
Furthermore, do you think it would have been an appropriate response to your post for me to simply state that I disagree because I do not believe you are an “authority” on the relevant subjects. Then to subsequently claim you are ignorant, condescending, and arrogant? And then leave it at that, without actually addressing what you said?
You claim that my communication is “ignorant” yet seem to fail to grasp the basic, fundamental concept that it is two-way.
On a more serious note, I fully endorse Sam Harris’ arguments for the need of a science of happiness and suffering, covering both human fulfilment and human morality, two birds one stone style. Not only would it do much to increase happiness and decrease suffering, but it would also destroy any perceived need for religion in this area, taking out many people’s desire for religion in the first place. It would be the ultimate Promethean act of science, and in destroying the need for religion, it maybe be the LAST Promethean act required of science.
‘In short: the only thing science is missing is the following:
1. A theory of everything.
2. The condition of the state of the universe at any given point in time to as high a degree of accuracy as is possible.
With time and computational power we can derive everything else.’
I like the confidence.
Well, it’s debatable whether or not we will attain those two things, but I think it’s accurate to state that, at least, the first is a primary goal of science and the second would be soon to follow.
On a different note, does anyone else find it ironic that on a forum on a page called The Reason Project someone would use “Spock” as an insult?
At first, I thought this topic should go into “Flaws of Science,” but I don’t really see it as a flaw as much as pointing out missing essential elements.
REFLEXIVITY:
Science is the best rational perspective humans have to define meaning in cosmic mechanisms. However, Science is a purely human construct. As such, scientists (all people who subscribe to its rationale) should be reflexive of that fact, understanding that whatever observations and assumptions we make are uniquely through human senses. (Science is made by humans, for humans.)
HUMANITY:
The current climate of Science has evolved through millennia of ideological, political, and social persecution. We are highly competitive (research $$$) , ostracized, marginalized, ignored by the groups that do not understand us. In short, a majority of us have become just as miserable and inhumane to each other as theists (in emotional reaction to how we’ve been treated).
Science is about humanity. I think that is an essential element that is missing. Science (as taught in the U.S.) lacks the humanistic element. I think Humanity is what Oppenheimer ignored.
SOLIDARITY:
Science lacks a well-defined center (rallying point), or is not promoted as having such. Scientists have been successfully disbanded by the theists, and beaten into submission like a plow-horse (a means to an end for the theists). Though Hitchens might have issue (lone wolf that he is), I think scientists should rebuild a social structure for the purposes of support and proliferation of ideas. ReasonProject.Org represents this effort in part.
EDUCATION:
It’s no secret that in the U.S. Science & Mathematics education is floundering. I would argue (and generalize) that these subjects are mis-taught under what I would call the Technician Vs. Scientist dichotomy. Reflecting on my own education (public school), I was introduced to only the technical aspects of either subjects—never the underlying meanings that are essential to their cohesive comprehension (and actual practical use for finding meaning in the cosmos). I was left behind in that respect to figure it out on my own. (U.S. Education has also evolved under the theist regime.)
Just some thoughts… What do you think?
A couple of things with regards to education:
As a science teacher I certainly see, every day, how badly science is represented and taught in schools. In the private school realm, you tend to see more teachers (like myself) who have significant science backgrounds, but largely in public schools that is not the case, and becoming less and less so. An understanding of science itself is deemed less valuable to the field of education than an understanding of teaching techniques and mechanisms. In other words, knowledge of the subject matter is now less important than having training in “how to teach”. The result is teachers who are really just “technicians” of education: can implement knowledge, but have no personal interest or experience in the subject matter. Those who DO have a significant background in science tend to go into teaching in the realm of higher education, university and college level, leaving very little actual science experience in primary and secondary teaching. It doesn’t help that public and private schools alike spend considerable effort rewarding professional development and continuing education ONLY in the realm of education, technical teaching, NOT in the subject matter of the teachers. Hence, the brightest and most knowledgeable teachers gravitate towards places where knowledge IS valued and don’t waste their time with courses on classroom management, how to make a lesson plan, and how today’s children somehow can’t learn in traditional ways (which is bull, but that’s another topic).
As to why science is specifically under-emphasized in schools, as compared to humanities and reading, I actually consider it a symptom of a larger cultural issue.
Understanding science in everyday life is not considered important, and I would go further to say that it is subliminally discouraged. I would not attribute this necessarily to dominating theism, not entirely anyway, but rather to dominating complacency and even (dare I say it) the free market. The less informed the public is regarding basic science - for example, biology/medical science, physics and mechanical science, nutrition and food science, etc - the easier the public is to manipulate and control, and the more likely the public is to spend money on such things they do not understand. The best example of this is basic biology and nutritional science. Imagine if Americans had a more solid and applicable grasp of health and nutrition - beyond the obligatory health class in high school that few remember and many lament - and more emphasis placed on preventative maintenance, oh the profits that would be lost from the fast food and restaurant industry, food packaging, vitamins and supplements, and then of course diet pills and weight loss systems to “solve” the problems created. When it comes to mechanics and electronics, we are encouraged more to turn to “experts” to solve problems with our cars, homes, etc rather than learn how to understand these systems ourselves. I know this may sound a bit cynical, but we are more economically valuable has helpless and willing to spend money than we are as self-reliant and healthy.
This is of course a very multi-faceted claim I just made and I could go on and on about it, and how it relates to an understanding of science.
