Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumSpooked What do we learn about science from a controversy in physics?
What makes science science? The pious answers are: its ceaseless curiosity in the face of mystery, its keen edge of experimental objectivity, its endless accumulation of new data, and the cool machines it uses. We stare, the scientists see; we gawk, they gaze. We guess; they know.
But there are revisionist scholars who question the role of scientists as magi. Think how much we take on faith, even with those wonders of science that seem open to the non-specialist’s eye. The proliferation of hominids—all those near-men and proto-men and half-apes found in the fossil record, exactly as Darwin predicted—rests on the interpretation of a few blackened Serengeti mandibles that it would take a lifetime’s training to really evaluate. (And those who have put in the time end up squabbling anyway.
Worse, small hints of what seems like scamming reach even us believers. Every few weeks or so, in the Science Times, we find out that some basic question of the universe has now been answered—but why, we wonder, weren’t we told about the puzzle until after it was solved? Results announced as certain turn out to be hard to replicate. Triumphs look retrospectively engineered. This has led revisionist historians and philosophers to suggest that science is a kind of scam—a socially agreed-on fiction no more empirically grounded than any other socially agreed-on fiction, a faith like any other (as the defenders of faiths like any other like to say). Back when, people looked at old teeth and broken bones with the eye of faith and called them relics; we look at them with the eye of another faith and call them proof. What’s different?
The defense of science against this claim turns out to be complicated, for the simple reason that, as a social activity, science is vulnerable to all the comedy inherent in any social activity: group thinking, self-pleasing, and running down the competition in order to get the customer’s (or, in this case, the government’s) cash. Books about the history of science should therefore be about both science and scientists, about the things they found and the way they found them. A good science writer has to show us the fallible men and women who made the theory, and then show us why, after the human foibles are boiled off, the theory remains reliable.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/30/spooked-books-adam-gopnik
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Why do people so ignorant of science feel compelled to try to write about it? "A few blackened Serengei mandibles"?? How does a supposedly reputable magazine like the New Yorker let ignorant twaddle like that see the light of day?
For anyone to entertain or give credence to the the idea that science is just a social fiction, when they use the Internet every day, is simply laughable.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)He s not reducing science to a social convention. He's apparently failing to communicate the current discontent and uncertainty in Theory of Science. The attempts by Popper and others to unambiguously answer the question "what is science"? have been rejected (although not entirely discarded) without being replaced.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to defend science from that sort of claim is just rank silliness and accommodationism. Just have people look around them, anywhere, anytime, and tell them that nothing they see, nothing they use, nothing they depend on, would be possible if science were just a social fiction, if science was no better at helping us understand the world than anything else. It really is that simple.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Science is a method of investigating phenomena .... using observation, experimentation and confirmation. That's all.
It is outrageously successful! More so than any other man made type of investigation. Period.
Who are these people that say it's all facts? It changes as we investigate with more rigorous tools than out 5 senses.... and then more rigorous tools than those rigorous tools.
We didn't make up X-rays or evolution. They have always been there. We just found them by using the scientific method of investigation.
And if anyone thinks it's just so much vague social la-dee-da... try stopping the car (that science gave you) right when you get to the red light or walking thru a wall.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)What.... was this written in 1870?
The genome proves evolution happens even if we had never found a single fossil.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,516 posts)His remark was about "the proliferation of hominids—all those near-men and proto-men and half-apes found in the fossil record". And the dividing line between species, and how they're related to each other and us, is still disputed, and some of the descriptions are based on just a few fragments, which is why the relationships are open to reinterpretation when some more are discovered.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)He may not have used the word "evolution", but obviously that's what he's referring to. If you're not being sarcastic about that, you're being deliberately obtuse.
And no, our understanding of the hominid family tree is not perfect and 100% accurate, and probably never will be. So what? That doesn't mean it's just guesswork and that every possible arrangement and interpretation is equally valid based on out current understanding. That doesn't mean that we can't be sure whether Lucy or a Neanderthal is more closely related to modern humans.
And yes, there are lots of things still disputed and we constant update our interpretations. That's how you recognize science, as opposed to "belief systems". It improves and advances over time. Compare what science tells us about the human family tree now to what it could tell us 50 years ago and 100 years ago. And then compare that improvement to what any other "way of thinking" can claim.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,516 posts)"there must be something wrong with this" reaction.
No, obviously he isn't referring to evolution, because he doesn't talk about it. What he does talk about is "the proliferation of hominids", and "that it would take a lifetime’s training to really evaluate".
"That doesn't mean it's just guesswork and that every possible arrangement and interpretation is equally valid based on out current understanding."
Straw man.
"That doesn't mean that we can't be sure whether Lucy or a Neanderthal is more closely related to modern humans. "
Straw man.
"Compare what science tells us about the human family tree now to what it could tell us 50 years ago and 100 years ago. And then compare that improvement to what any other "way of thinking" can claim."
Straw man.
Hell, you're building up a whole family tree of straw men. What that paragraph says is that we don't have the expertise to evaluate the differences between such hominids, and we have to take the experts' words for it - and they don't have a definite result anyway.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And if there is a straw man here, it's the author's and your claim that science as a process is questionable because it doesn't provide 100% certain, "definite" results. And no, we don't have to blindly accept other people's word for all of it (another idiotic straw man). The evidence is out there for anyone to look at, and it doesn't take a lifetime's worth of experience to comprehend it (yet another idiotic straw man). You don't have to be a trained evolutionary biologist to understand quite a bit about how evolution works and that there is overwhelming evidence in favor of it.
Try again. I'm loving this.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,516 posts)Look up any definition of evolution, and it will not say it's about hominids. Evolution is about all organisms, and it's about the changes in frequency of genes, not an increase in the number of different species in one clade that are recognised. And, yes, the identification of hominids, from partial remains, both needs expertise and is still not universally agreed by the scientists in the area.
"the author's and your claim that science as a process is questionable"
Oh, look, yet another strawman from you. Did you actually read all of the OP excerpt, let alone the full article? The last paragrahp of the excerpt:
Got it? He said, in something you really ought have read, that science can be defended from being called "a socially agreed-on fiction", and that writers can show that theories remain reliable. There's more like that in the article - from the conclusion:
"But it is a special kind of social activity, one where lots of different human traits—obstinacy, curiosity, resentment of authority, sheer cussedness, and a grudging readiness to submit pet notions to popular scrutiny—end by producing reliable knowledge. ... One way or another, science really happens."
I hope you are loving this. You should be learning something about comprehension.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Uh....
this is not news. Anyone who knows even a bit about science knows this.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,516 posts)Look at it. Read it. Attempt to understand it. It's in the 'Books' section. And it's about 2 recently published books.
And you call me 'obtuse'. You can't even work out what section of a publication you're reading, when it's in capital letters at the top! 
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)With many lame sophomoric observations.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Only when you said he isn't talking about evolution because he didn't use the word.... and he was obviously talking about evolution.
I read the thing. You pointed out part of its drivel as if it was important.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,516 posts)"it's the author's and your claim that science as a process is questionable because it doesn't provide 100% certain, "definite" results.". It shows that the author doesn't think science is 'questionable'.
Are you going to let your 'obtuse' insult stay? Is that what you think this group is for - insulting atheists?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and need to be answered in some complex way. He concedes ground to anti-science cranks that they are not entitled to.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Please don't weary me, because I can't believe you're this unaware. The proliferation of hominids is an example of the process of evolution, which at its most fundamental, yes, is about changes in gene frequency (the fact that you know that without a lifetime of training ironically proves my point), but which at a higher level ALSO involves speciation. Why you're trotting out lame sophistry to try to show otherwise is a mystery.
And the author said that it was "complicated" to defend science from the claim of being a social fiction. As shown, it isn't, and that was the simple point. His statement and your defense of it is bullshit. The lack of comprehension here is solely yours.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,516 posts)The article is not about evolution; it doesn't mention it. It's about science; it mentions, in passing, the interpretation of hominid fossils, and the proliferation of hominid species - "all those near-men and proto-men and half-apes" - that the interpretation shows, and which we non-specialists are unable to do ourselves, and for which the results are not agreed among the experts.
AlbertCat misinterpreted that; he said "the genome proves evolution happens even if we had never found a single fossil". But it wasn't about how any existing species has evolved, which is what genome analyses show; it's about the proliferation of hominid species. The article never disputed that evolution happens.
It doesn't dispute that science works, either, or that there are objective truths to be found using it. What it does say is that social interactions between scientists can affect the way and speed that results are arrived at, and gives the examples from the books under review. You seem to think you can show that the disputes between, say, Einstein and Bohr, don't have any effect, and that the history of science is always simple. Meh. Historians of science disagree with you, and they give their reasons; you don't. You're throwing your toys out of your pram because you want a simple story.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and explicitly using the word "evolution" can you? That was my and Albert's simple point, and it still, amusingly, seems to evade you. And no, the article isn't about evolution..no one said it was...you just made that up to deflect from a miserably failed argument. The article mentions one aspect of evolution...simple, yes?
And this...really?
You seem to think you can show that the disputes between, say, Einstein and Bohr, don't have any effect, and that the history of science is always simple.
I also find it very amusing that all you can do now is make shit up about what I've said and what I think, while at the same time accusing me of misrepresenting what the author has said, all the while failing miserably to address the points I actually made. The hallmark of a failed, flailing argument. Much more of that, and you'll make me feel like this is the Religion group. But keep digging...fun to watch.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,516 posts)Nothing he wrote was about any doubts about evolution. It was about classification, and the classification of fossil hominids is still in doubt.
You've made so much shit up in this thread. Yes, you misrepresent what Gopnik said. He talked about the dispute between Einstein and Bohr, as an example of how social interaction complicates how science proceeds, and you've responded "how dare he say it's anything but simple??!!!??".
You haven't made any points that need addressing. They're strawmen. I've given the actual quotes from the article, and explained about the hominid species, while you've sat there talking bollocks and not paying attention to the article.
Glad you're having fun again, though. Just try and learn at the same time.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)and how science proceeds was not what I said was simple. I defy you to quote where I said otherwise.
Or to cite where I said, quote, "how dare he say it's anything but simple??!!!??".
Oh, I know..now comes the protest that, well, OK, you didn't exactly SAY what I put in quotes, but I know that's what you MEANT! I had enough of that bullshit tactic from morons in Religion. I sure as hell don't need it in here.
If you can't post without deliberatly lying about what I've said, go elsewhere. What was once laughable from you is now tedious.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,516 posts)#4. "Saying that it's "complicated" to defend science from that sort of claim is just rank silliness and accommodationism." ('simple' being the opposite of 'complicated') ... "It really is that simple."
#20: "And the author said that it was "complicated" to defend science from the claim of being a social fiction. As shown, it isn't, and that was the simple point."
"The dispute between Bohr and Einstein and how science proceeds was not what I said was simple." But that is the centre of the article.
If you can't post to this group without saying I'm being obtuse, or lying, then you ought to re-read this site's Community Standards.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Now you are just being obtuse.
Talking about hominids and their fossils IS talking about evolution.
You also don't know what a "straw man" is.
You're being ridiculous now.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)That is clearly defined....
It's when fertile offspring can no longer be produced.
The gradualness of evolution makes it hard to pinpoint the exact time the genome cannot produce fertile offspring, but it is there.
Really, you should read some Dawkins.
Start with
"The Selfish Gene"
then try
"Climbing Mount Improbable"
"The Blind Watchmaker"
and
"Unweaving the Rainbow"
His best overall book on evolution (written to simply lay out the evidence so far) is
"The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution"
muriel_volestrangler
(102,516 posts)so that the number of separate hominid species found so far is still disputed, as is the line that led to us.
Why do you think I need to read more Dawkins?
If you want an example of how the "when fertile offspring can no longer be produced" definition isn't completely clear, try this:
Hybrid males descended from both branches tend to be infertile, like mules. That’s because males have only one X chromosome, and if it happens to be one that impairs their fertility, then they may not reproduce. Females have two X chromosomes, so even if one is impaired, if the other one is normal, it can rescue her ability to bear young.
“So this suggests that the male hybrids might not have been fertile, whereas the females might have been fully fertile,” Svante Pääbo told Richard Harris of National Public Radio. Pääbo, the grand old man of ancient DNA based at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, was an author of the other paper, which appeared in Nature. We might have inherited most of our Neanderthal genes through hybrid females, he said.
...
“This underlines that modern humans and Neanderthals are indeed different species,” Fred Spoor told New Scientist. Spoor is also at the Leipzig Max Planck but was not a part of the Neanderthal research. Other scientists are more cautious about making so firm a declaration, but it’s clear that many lean toward that same conclusion, that Neanderthals were not Homo sapiens neanderthalensis but, rather, Homo neanderthalensis.
Darren Curnoe, a human evolutionary biologist at the University of New South Wales, blogged, “The latest findings from genome comparisons reinforce the status of Neanderthals and modern humans as distinct species. Those anthropologists who continue to regard Neanderthals as members of Homo sapiens now face a stronger challenge than ever reconciling their position with the DNA.”
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/02/04/were-neanderthals-a-different-species/
So, although non-Africans (and, thanks to very recent mixing, many Africans as well) have some Neanderthal DNA, many scientists regard them as a separate species from Homo sapiens, despite the offspring from the 2 groups being sufficiently fertile to be some of the ancestors of most of humanity.
The classification of older hominids - like Ardipithecus, Sahelanthropus, Paranthropus and Australopithecus - is even more up for discussion, because we can't use DNA in the same way for them.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Yes, Science is a human activity, and as such, is not pure from human fallibility. 
The problem with such a mundane fact presented as if it was a major find is that it fuels anti-scientific conspirationism.
To the tune of: "you know, science is tainted by so many crooks, why don't you believe in my {insert name of quackery here}"
I can imagine how delighted homeopaths, pastors, acupuncturists and imams could be reading this article.
Duppers
(28,247 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 1, 2016, 02:45 AM - Edit history (4)
Lawrence Krauss says it best here:
Listen at ~1:46:50
The article seems as though it were written by a pseudo intellectual, sociology-type with little understanding of the scientific method.
Please listen to Krauss at ~1:46:50.
Thanks.
DetlefK
(16,459 posts)I'm talking here about statistics as a mathematical discipline.
When you look at something with experimental means (How tall is a person? What did God tell me in that dream?) you never get all the information. You get a statistical sample.
If you measure the height of 100 random people, does that tell you how tall on average the people of a whole country are?
If you add up what 100 random prophets tell you about God, does that give you the ultimate and infallible truth what God is like?
No, it doesn't.
The larger the sub-set, the closer the information you get from it is to the information you would get from the whole set.
But you will hardly be able to measure the height of ALL people in a country.
You will hardly be able to collect the wisdom of ALL people who would like to talk with you about God. (And try combining them into one coherent explanation/theory...)
The scientific method is based on this simple mathematical fact. No matter how much proof you gather in support of your theory, there is always a probability that something somewhere in the universe violates the theory you made up. (Unless you took the time to gather all possible data in the whole universe.) And this one instance is entirely enough to make your theory deviate from the "true" theory that you are trying to decipher.
Religion works exactly the other way round. No matter how little proof you have in support of your theory, it is defined as impossible that your theory could be wrong. You will eventually find some or other evidence that agrees with your theory. So, you have that speck of data supporting your religious theory and shit-tons of data contradicting your theory. In the realm of religion this means that your theory is correct.
EDIT:
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WHATSOEVER WITH THE PERSON COLLECTING OR ANALYZING THE DATA. THE POSSIBILITY OF ERROR IS AN INTRINSIC MATHEMATICAL PROPERTY OF THE CONCEPT "DATA".