I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!

submitted by [deleted] from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BigFatRetard 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

I think science worship is a good choice of words, because it isn't actually being a practicioner of science.

Everyone will always twist whatever the greatest power is to get what they want. When I worked at a union facility, every loudmouth had reasons why the union wanted them to get their way. When I worked at a facility with a strong safety culture, every loudmouth had reasons why safety wanted them to get their way. When I worked at a facility with a real ball buster at the top, every loudmouth had reasons why said ball buster wanted them to get their way. In broader society, when religion was powerful, people used religion to silence the people they didn't like. Now that social justice is powerful, you can find articles from psychpaths explaining why virtually everything on the planet is against social justice and needs to be ended.

This is just more of the same. Science isn't being used as a tool to seek truth, it's being used as a bludgeon to force people to comply. Having the wrong (true) data is a great way to get cancelled. Having the wrong (facially correct) conclusions is a great way to get cancelled. If these people were around in the days of phlogestin theory, they'd be attacking people talking about oxidation because their political arguments would rely on phlogestin theory. These are the exact same people who arrested Galileo and charged him with heresy.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I agree with almost all of this, especially if we're addressing the politicization of science, or also the control by the Church in Galileo's day. But in this cause the problem is politics, as well as religion in politics, rather than the worship of science. Regarding phlogiston, chemists wanted scientific evidence, based on precision assessments and observations. Lavoisier had to be able to demonstrate in a precision manner (sometimes by having special equipment made for the job) that - because certain elements gained weight after combustion, phlogiston could not have existed because it would have had a negative weight in the same process. The fact that other chemists required him to be more precise in his approaches to the experiments is informative of the rigour of science at the time. Lavoisier's position of authority at the French Academy was not sufficient for him to gain immediate acceptance of his inti-phlogiston experiments and papers. Skepticism about his intial results helped found modern chemistry, because Lavoisier developed more precise scientific approaches to his "oxygen" experiments.

[–]BigFatRetard 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You're right, it's more a metaphorical worship, in the sense that certain people treat it like a religion that cannot be questioned, not in the sense of actually worshipping the actual thing that science actually is.

An actual worshipper of science would always have to be open to being proven wrong, which would not benefit the political or religious folks who need science to agree with them.

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

" An actual worshipper of science would always have to be open to being proven wrong "

[–]madcow-5 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

That line stuck out to me as well. If you understand what science is and appreciate its use, you don't "worship" it. As far as having trust, or "faith", in it goes, that only goes as far as your faith in the integrity of the scientific community at the moment. Certain fields, like social sciences right now, the peer review process has become a joke. Then in others, you have different hands pulling in different directions for a million and one different reasons. On top of that, you have all sorts of studies and data that gets censored on social media platforms.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, "utilize" is superior to "worship".

However, I would argue that the scientific method (aka "science") does not depend on integrity, but rather, it depends upon openness and verification.

With that openness and verification the "scientific community" may earn integrity or discredit themselves - independently of the method. Some are jokes, some are corrupt, and some censor, and that's on them - but science remains the best method we have. It doesn't cover everything, but it's pretty damn good.

Here's a frightening thought:
If they're waging a war on science now, will they be waging a war on FLOSS tomorrow? The giant corporations have already been buying themselves into "open source" communities and such.