Scientific Reductionism

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
5,783
Location
USA
Bill Nye and His Marchers for Pseudo-Science
by


Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg

.... Bill Nye and the Marchers for Science are not really promoting science, but a utopian political ideology…



In a public spectacle reminiscent of an episode of The Twilight Zone, on this past “Earth Day” there was a massive March for Science in Washington D.C. featuring Bill Nye “the Science Guy.” As reported in the Washington Post, the “moment he emerged onstage in a black jacket and red bow tie, the crowd noise hit near-deafening decibels. A sea of iPhones appeared, everyone stretching and jostling for the best possible photo angle. They cupped their hands to their mouths, screaming his name.”* This scene brings to mind an image of a futuristic rendition of Lord of the Flies. Indeed, Mr. Nye has become a demagogue for the rising generation of pusillanimous techies whose cup of self-esteem is brimming over with extra gigabytes of high-speed streaming data. It might be comical if material reductionism didn’t already have a domineering stranglehold on our universities and public discourse.

Ideological enslavement to material reductionism is the unifying principle of the multitude who came out in droves at the March for Science (held in Washington and some 600 other cities across the world ). They came out because they have been taught well by an educational system steeped in scientific reductionism. After we had been duped into believing that something like education ought to be “data driven” instead of principle-driven, how long could it have been before this terrible ideology was equally misapplied to our sensational media outlets, our courts, our politics, and most devastating of all, our public morals?

Education is the soul of a nation. As the material sciences gained hegemony in the Western academy, wisdom gave way to knowledge, and knowledge then gave way to information, as character gave way to rationalism, and rationalism then gave way to sentimentalism.

Those who marched aren’t marching for science: They are marching for a political ideology grounded in material reductionism. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world came out to march for this cause. Why? Bill Nye explains: “We are marching today to remind people everywhere, our lawmakers especially, of the significance of science for our health and prosperity.” The emptiness of this declaration is lost on this army of ideologues.

.... Their slogans are about “health and prosperity,” but both of these concepts are emptied of their real worth if they are reduced solely to their material constituent parts. Medical technology has been miraculously aided by the material sciences, but real health includes intellectual and moral health. ... true prosperity follows moral and intellectual integrity by the acquisition of virtue and the expulsion of vice, not by the accumulation of terabytes of data interpreted by “experts.”

A look at the March for Science goals is instructive. Their stated aim is to “contact our elected official, support science institutions in our communities, and hold our leaders in society and science accountable to the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and fairness. And we work to bring science and the benefits of scientific research to those who need it most.”

Following this stated intention is a list of equally vague and unintelligible, if not outright inapplicable, desires. At the top of their list is “sustaining and strengthening scientific integrity.” Clearly, it is lost on them that integrity in science is found in a place most odious to the modern scientist: the philosophical integrity that undergirds empirical science itself. Philosophical first principles ground good science in truth, not the other way around.

Next, these aspiring societal architects suggest that we use “the best available science to make policy and regulatory decisions.” This is what we have been doing in the public schools.....

Flourishing and prosperous nations use philosophical principles of truth flowing from the philosophical anthropology to make policy and regulatory decisions. If our policy is not grounded in virtue, which it cannot be if science is our guide, then it will fail as quickly as it was dreamt up. There is no doubt that scientific data could play a supporting role in informing the nuances of principled decisions, but to use empirical evidence as the primary means of forming policy is dehumanizing at the least.

We also discover the science marchers’ stated desire to facilitate “open communication and collaboration between scientists and the broader public.” One of the attributes of ideological scientism is the desire to jargonize the field in order to heighten the value of the “expert.” Classrooms, airwaves, and public discourse are already over-saturated with jargonized scientific communications and collaborations with the “experts” in the white coats. It is nearly impermissible to speak of the philosophical anthropology or the natural law without derision. To facilitate even more communication and collaboration really means to indoctrinate in jargon, and this ushers us headlong into the dystopia of the Brave New World, a soft rendition of which we are already enduring.

Next, they encourage “scientists to take an active role in public life and policy.” Like any political underclass seen through the darkened lenses of the material dialectic, these people pretend they are oppressed, but by whom?.... The real oppressor is the material, reductionist, independent-minded herd dictating public policy for generations now. Clearly, the March for Science crowd is overreacting to what they perceive as offenses against their scientific agenda by a “rogue” president—which is highly ironic, given that President Trump is certainly no religious fundamentalist.

....
Only respect for an authentic education has the potential to lead our communities to flourish in the arts and the sciences. The vibrant scientific community for which they are calling, and despite its calls for diversity, excludes the liberal and fine arts. These would-be Creators have decreed that there is no survival value to the arts, and therefore that this is not the kind of diversity they desire in their international community. And yet, without the liberal and fine arts, there is less value to survival....

Never before have so many clamored for the authoritarian dystopia of material reductionism. The trends suggest that more and more will join in a March for Science the further we get from the sources of real truth. The Marchers for Science, with the delusional fervor of a cult, claim that “united as one movement, and with the support of our leaders, we can take a step forward into a future where science can do its job; protecting and serving the health of our communities, the safety of our families, the education of our children, the foundation of our economy, the freedom of our imaginations and the future we all want to live in and preserve for coming generations.”

This statement is dehumanizing, for it is not science that protects the health of communities, but human doctors. Science doesn’t keep families safe. Science doesn’t educate children; teachers do, not with scientific techniques but with philosophical principles of truth conveyed by the liberal arts.

The March for Science is not really about science, but a political ideology. It is, in essence, a “March for Pseudo-Science,” which is to say, science untethered from its proper guiding principles. ... It ought to be the lens through which we see and order all the other sciences. We must recover the right order of things and return the empirical sciences to their proper place, subordinated to philosophy and the moral law, before it’s too late. The ideology propagated by the March for Science does not lead to health or prosperity, but further sickens and impoverishes our nation.
 
OP
B

Birdie

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
5,783
Location
USA
This was interesting. I edited to simplify it.
One point of difference... I have to disagree that doctors keep us safe health-wise.
Some might, but this is too much of a blanket assumption these days.
 

Richiebogie

Member
Joined
May 3, 2015
Messages
996
Location
Australia
There are so many "scientific" falsehoods and scams though these "pro-science" people cannot see them.

We need true skeptics, not expert worshippers who call themselves skeptics but are skeptical only of any evidence that contradicts their "peer reviewed" ideologies.

I read today that some US colleges are banning Christians or forcing them to deny their beliefs.

Christianity is basically about truth and love and recognizing that perfection lies outside of Humanity. It was the Christian monks who started Universities and preserved Ancient Greek texts.

This "March for Science" does seem to be pro Climate Change, pro globalism, pro totalitarianism...

Did George Soros fund it?
 

milk_lover

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Messages
1,909
His elongated face is telling me he is working to benefit some people interests. Don't ask me how I know. Just first impression. You might want to add Neil deGrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss to that list. I could be wrong but something fishy about those so called science communicators.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Just because he is "Bill Nye the Sciene Guy" on TV means a lot to these people. Whether that is true is irrelevant to them.

It will take generations if ever education is revamped in the US for the masses to learn to think for themselves.

It seems though that most, if not all countries, don't have a public education system that teaches critical thinking skills. I hope I'm wrong.

The best education I think is what one learns from parents - if the parents are not too busy and have time to spend with their children. They don't have to teach them anything. It will just happen by osmosis, rubbing off on them.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Jesus christ these comments are weird.

Christianity teaching truth?

Long face = fishy individual.

I'm not a big Bill Nye fan, but he's not some sort of demon.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Strawman: the post

Strawman: my post. I was referring to the comments in this thread.

I do have gripes with the post though. Arguing against data driven evidence and arguing for your gut is a good way to go wrong.

Following this stated intention is a list of equally vague and unintelligible, if not outright inapplicable, desires. At the top of their list is “sustaining and strengthening scientific integrity.” Clearly, it is lost on them that integrity in science is found in a place most odious to the modern scientist: the philosophical integrity that undergirds empirical science itself. Philosophical first principles ground good science in truth, not the other way around.

Yeah we need to make sure the science is anchored to rigorous methodology, or else it loses its predictive value. I call that science (if it produces good results). Though philosophers of science can hold some claim to that endeavor.

Next, these aspiring societal architects suggest that we use “the best available science to make policy and regulatory decisions.” This is what we have been doing in the public schools.....

We've sort of being teaching some science in public schools. But there's a lot of unscientific teachings in schools and the methods of teaching aren't rooted in science. And that mostly misses the point. The point is at the policy level. Teaching methodology falls into this, but so does every other government decision. Yeah there's a sprinkle of economics here, and political science there, but by and large the systems aren't set up in a way to incorporate the latest (verified) scientific findings and to test outcomes of various policies in a controlled way that would look scientific. Predictions and testing. That's what science is about. At the policy level most of what happens is akin to a gambler picking red because black has shown up a few times in a row. This is obviously painting with a very broad brush, and there are exceptions to this, but we don't use the best available science to make policy and regulatory decisions. Not by a long shot. Notify me when we have prediction markets in place or at least outcomes are measured in a visibile against predicted results and people are held accountable for their decisions.

Flourishing and prosperous nations use philosophical principles of truth flowing from the philosophical anthropology to make policy and regulatory decisions. If our policy is not grounded in virtue, which it cannot be if science is our guide, then it will fail as quickly as it was dreamt up. There is no doubt that scientific data could play a supporting role in informing the nuances of principled decisions, but to use empirical evidence as the primary means of forming policy is dehumanizing at the least.

The author is obviously big on philosophy and undoubtedly many moral intuitions serve as good heuristics for decision making. But at the end of the day it's all about getting to where we want to go in the best way possible. This is predictive and as such is the domain of science. Even if we don't have the ability to be accurate in our predictions at this stage in time. That last sentence is important, and it's why we should act in accordance with the average moral underpinnings of a society. In this sense, I agree with the author.

We also discover the science marchers’ stated desire to facilitate “open communication and collaboration between scientists and the broader public.” One of the attributes of ideological scientism is the desire to jargonize the field in order to heighten the value of the “expert.” Classrooms, airwaves, and public discourse are already over-saturated with jargonized scientific communications and collaborations with the “experts” in the white coats. It is nearly impermissible to speak of the philosophical anthropology or the natural law without derision. To facilitate even more communication and collaboration really means to indoctrinate in jargon, and this ushers us headlong into the dystopia of the Brave New World, a soft rendition of which we are already enduring.

Yeah, too much jargon is unnecessary and serves little purpose other than signalling. But sometimes jargon is necessary for nuance. And I don't think this critique = brave new world worship of experts. Having experts is fine and necessary given the amount of information required to become an expert and human intellectual and temporal constraints. When people talk about open communication and collaboration between scientists and the broader public, what they're calling for is for the experts to create understandable models of complex topics that lower the inferential steps and make the import parts digestible to non-experts. This allows non-experts to use those models to build up ideas in other fields. Far from being dystopian, this is quite inspiring.

Next, they encourage “scientists to take an active role in public life and policy.” Like any political underclass seen through the darkened lenses of the material dialectic, these people pretend they are oppressed, but by whom?.... The real oppressor is the material, reductionist, independent-minded herd dictating public policy for generations now. Clearly, the March for Science crowd is overreacting to what they perceive as offenses against their scientific agenda by a “rogue” president—which is highly ironic, given that President Trump is certainly no religious fundamentalist.

Right. Because we need more people like trump.

The call for scientists in public policy has to do with their ability to predict better outcomes.

It's ironic the author bashes reductionism, while proceeding to ignore his preceding paragraph about open communications between experts and other experts and the public.

Anyway, this reads like an anti-science or anti-left article. The conclusions seem to lack an understanding of what science does better than anything else and what it aims to achieve. It is against the big R Reductionism, which people on this forum seem to love even though it only applies to limited domains (e.g. looking at the interaction between x and y without taking into account context z).
 

Elast1c

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2017
Messages
164
Jesus christ these comments are weird.

Christianity teaching truth?

Long face = fishy individual.

I'm not a big Bill Nye fan, but he's not some sort of demon.
I find nothing strange about the claim Christianity is teaching the truth.
 
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom