tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post8344461570884277939..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: So, what’s science good for?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16848557617003637192011-03-11T14:51:53.971-05:002011-03-11T14:51:53.971-05:00Hector babbled:
"If anyone thinks science is...Hector babbled:<br /><br />"If anyone thinks science is not worthwhile, let them try ignorance."<br /><br />Because, and let's face facts here, the only two options are either science or ignorance. Those two options are A) exhaustive and B) mutually exclusive.<br /><br />Well *said* Hector.<br /><br />We should let Massimo know that since he's not long dabbling in science, he's shifted to dabbling in ignorance instead.<br /><br />Or would you, perhaps, care to retract your ignorant comment?Brian Lynchehaunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02943232806429620296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61761938890040233672011-03-08T23:33:59.201-05:002011-03-08T23:33:59.201-05:00As a scientist, I don't think I agree at all. ...As a scientist, I don't think I agree at all. Practicing excellence in pretty much anything trains your ability to observe important details and understand their relevance. I don't think molecular genetics trains a careful, logical and discriminating mind any more than serious study of political science or cabinetry. <br /><br />People who are trained to think critically and pay attention to details in one part of their lives tend to do it in others too - whether they're scientists or not.Matt DiLeohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08602997050973123349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91879126350805787012011-03-08T05:28:22.913-05:002011-03-08T05:28:22.913-05:00Great piece Lena, esp. the "...because we can...Great piece Lena, esp. the "...because we can".DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60393838878863520692011-03-08T02:32:33.462-05:002011-03-08T02:32:33.462-05:00Hector, justification is another word for reason, ...Hector, justification is another word for reason, and reasons, like the proverbial turtles, go all the way down. To where it seemed you were headed.<br /><br />Even if we could, we shouldn't have to go that far to reach a turtle we can take a stand on.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57266185819465846592011-03-08T00:49:50.975-05:002011-03-08T00:49:50.975-05:00Science is simply the best tool to give you the mo...Science is simply the best tool to give you the most accurate model of matter, energy and their interactions and hence the greatest control over them.<br /><br />Some people want the accurate model, some people want the control. Some people want both, but all of them come to the well of science to drink.<br /><br />I read about scientific subjects because I have that desire to know. Clearly many do not share that desire and who am I (or anyone else) to tell others what to want? For those who don't want to know and who don't want greater control then science would indeed be a collection of useless facts.<br /><br />I would say that the methods of science give one discipline of necessity, but as far as character building goes I don't think that argument is supported. Science is a tool. The hand that holds it decides how it is used. It is evolution, gestation, genes and environment which determine desire. If you wanted to develop a virus to kill everyone on the planet science would be your best tool for the job. Just like it was for the development of nuclear weapons.<br /><br />Also the Sum Total of Human Knowledge (SToHK) grows by the moment and consequently the percentage of it that one person can holds shrinks. Given that fact perhaps people can perhaps be forgiven for focusing on just those things which affect their lives.Thameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056803143951310082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91977158589188817312011-03-07T23:45:02.101-05:002011-03-07T23:45:02.101-05:00Baron, I'm afraid I don't know how to resp...Baron, I'm afraid I don't know how to respond to your cryptic question unless you clarify your meaning.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79078342353871291792011-03-07T22:45:56.677-05:002011-03-07T22:45:56.677-05:00@Lena Groeger
Benissimo - I have a tear in my eye....@Lena Groeger<br />Benissimo - I have a tear in my eye.<br /><br />@Adriana<br />"The Savvy Time Saverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03170981156337864018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77255131429761485532011-03-07T20:23:45.841-05:002011-03-07T20:23:45.841-05:00Hector, do you look for the last turtle in the pon...Hector, do you look for the last turtle in the pond before you decide to enjoy the presence of the one that chose to swim to the surface for your viewing pleasure?Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67716674012706767372011-03-07T15:01:40.143-05:002011-03-07T15:01:40.143-05:00I remained thinking about Michael's suggestion...I remained thinking about Michael's suggestion that " there needs to be any objective justification for people to practice and engage with science. I mean, do we ponder the objective justifications for music and art?". That argument, methinks, rests on one implicit assumption that science, music or art are indeed worthwhile, so that we do not "ponder" their justification because we see them as justified in advance. To see how that is so, just replace science, art or music for some other (more debatable) human pursuit, such as business greed, or casual sex. If one abstain from justifying art or music, why not abstaining from justifying (or condemning) the pursuit of riches, or a relentless pursuit of promiscuous sexual relations, or cannibalism? <br />And then "justifying", in practice, is always relative to some alternative. A young person, for instance, at some point may have to decide whether trying to become a violinist or, say, an accountant or a geologist; "we" may abstain from justifying one choice or another, but the youngster in question can't: the decision has to be made somehow, and it's his/her call. <br />And then I "ponder" also what kind of "justification" is discussed here: regarding morals, economic profitability, degree of conformity to one's deepest feelings or wishes, or conformity to our family's aspirations and needs, or conformity to social respectability, or to some imperative logically deduced from some set of axioms or Kantian categories, or what? Each interpretation of "justification" may lead to different conclusions about the same choice made by an individual.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10242491251631935502011-03-07T14:32:38.753-05:002011-03-07T14:32:38.753-05:00Michael,
my point was that Lena's post did no...Michael, <br />my point was that Lena's post did not make a clear distinction between those different levels of analysis (or viewpoints). You may abstain from "pondering" individual inclinations towards science, arts or other pursuits, and you may also be totally indifferent to problems linked to the allocation of resources, but still be interested in the psychological (or sociological) underpinnings of a scientific inclination (I remember an extremely insightful essay by Max Weber, "Science as a calling", parallel to his other essay on "Politics as a calling", where sociological explanations are sought). This psycho or sociological approach is not chiefly about judging or approving of such motivations but about studying their nature, origins and consequences. On the other hand, as resources are unfortunately always scarce, allocating resources (at the societal or personal level) is always a problem: if you are an enthusiast of Ancient Egypt culture, but find there is not much money to be made in Egyptology (supposing money is an important point for you), you may decide not to take a PhD in Egyptian Studies after all. This does not mean you cease to like ancient Egypt, nor does it mean it is not important, and it means even less that studying the Pharaohs is not worthwhile from a variety of viewpoints: it only means that you (or your potential grant givers) regard that subject not as a first priority at the moment (be that judgment objectively justifiable or not, whatever that means).Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80402358557366199992011-03-07T14:20:57.090-05:002011-03-07T14:20:57.090-05:00Hector said: "I think an interesting distinct...Hector said: "I think an interesting distinction to make is between the psychological motivation of scientists, the rational policy justification for the allocation of resources to science, and the usefulness of science to satisfy human needs or desires."<br /><br />I agree. However, while I think there needs to be a rational justification for the allocation of societal resources to science, I'm not sure there needs to be any objective justification for people to practice and engage with science. I mean, do we ponder the objective justifications for music and art?Michael De Dorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054469707295070655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41286170346225667492011-03-07T13:00:57.760-05:002011-03-07T13:00:57.760-05:00I would agree that science develops critical think...I would agree that science develops critical thinking abilities--what profession doesn't--but I think the author trivializes Nussbaum's point, and thereby expresses what I thing is a dangerous viewpoint. There's a crucial difference between the general critical-thinking abilities cultivated by the professions in general and the critical capacities developed by the humanities. Beyond the fact that all humanities fields develop a historical awareness that is essential to a critical perspective in the fullest sense--something not necessarily found in science--most humanities graduates are trained to produce critical writing of some kind: e.g. historical, literary, and philosophical writing; that is they are trained and educated to pursue projects that exist for the sole purpose of changing negative aspects of the world through criticism.<br /><br />While of course science does much to improve the world, it is cumbersome and ill-prepared as an organ of social and political criticism. The projects science workers work within are generally chosen and funded at a high level within a top-down hierarchy. Importantly, this means that the general population of science workers have little socio-political critical capacity. Note that in many case that when scientists do want to be critical socio-politically, they exercise skills they learned in their humanities classes. <br /><br />I say the author's attitude is dangerous because it trivializes (devalues) what is really our culture's only arm of critical think in the fullest sense. Imagine if all the people who are supposed to be critical of our society were employees of the military, of pharmeceutical<br />companies, of the government, who haven't read history, literature, or philosophy since college.Paul Paolinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04580285404702244031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24673837896796728772011-03-07T12:52:09.967-05:002011-03-07T12:52:09.967-05:00I think an interesting distinction to make is betw...I think an interesting distinction to make is between the psychological motivation of scientists, the rational policy justification for the allocation of resources to science, and the usefulness of science to satisfy human needs or desires. Crosscutting the above categories, another further distinction is between immediate or ultimate usefulness (e.g. quantum physics or cosmology may seem to lack any useful application but in fact many have emerged from those fields of research, all not foreseen or foreseeable at the time of the original research or discovery).Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23351514417207527602011-03-07T12:34:23.797-05:002011-03-07T12:34:23.797-05:00I like the Nietzsche-esque take on the scientific ...I like the Nietzsche-esque take on the scientific mindset you present. Have you read "The Gay Science"? For him, 'science' wasn't merely the 'hard' or applied sciences, but any serious, rigorous study - which would include, I presume, many disciplines in the humanities. In fact, the title of his book implies a hybrid character of the scientist as artist, or vice versa. <br /><br />That book has one of the best critiques of knowledge - or at least the 'value' of knowledge, and 'truth' - out there. And for Nietzsche, 'value' was always considered in the context of value for the individual.<br /><br />JunoSteve Neumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07711295082644210782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73092925792202760602011-03-07T11:47:04.538-05:002011-03-07T11:47:04.538-05:00If anyone thinks science is not worthwhile, let th...If anyone thinks science is not worthwhile, let them try ignorance.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-92092561041699238822011-03-07T10:48:54.567-05:002011-03-07T10:48:54.567-05:00A very nice first piece, Lena. As a scientist, I a...A very nice first piece, Lena. As a scientist, I agree completely with you, science builds character and teaches you that certainty is an unproductive position and a dangerous one, it teaches you that intellectual discourse is not for the faint of heart or for the thin-skinned, and it should not be. When you data gets ripped to pieces and thoroughly questioned, it teaches you humility and diligence. I have had many bumps along the road, but I consider myself so lucky to have had the opportunity to train as a scientist and to make science my profession. I get paid to think critically, what more could I have asked for?<br /><br />Good luck with your column, Lena, I will be a follower for sure.<br /><br />http://atheistuniverse.net/group/scienceAdrianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11449319476888682571noreply@blogger.com