Skip to main content

A Lifestyle Brand

Has anyone written a good essay about the whole "I believe in science and trust the scientists" phenomenon which is more a lifestyle brand than an actual belief in the scientific method, which is a process, not a set of facts handed down like the Bible? Like the way science actually operates, you're constantly trying to disprove the things we think we know. It's not like there's an authority and you listen to them because they've been handed religious truth. Scientists know this but I think at least a portion of them have enjoyed the politicization of the field and won't point this out to the followers of the lifestyle brand version. – https://mobile.twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1340364878897438720
The development of science relies on an open-ended orientation towards experimentation and the testing of ideas. Science is an inherently skeptical enterprise and its findings are provisional, open to reinterpretation. That's the theory. But in public controversies over policy and related matters, science often comes across as a moralizing project. Many have adopted a defensive version of science that constantly targets doubts and uncertainties and their moralized interpretation of science is one where findings have a fixed, unyielding and unquestionable quality. Frequently, they prefix the term science with a definite article, using "The Science" to assert claims about a variety of threats. Statements like "The Science says" serve as the twenty-first-century equivalent of the exhortation "God said". Unlike science, the term "The Science" serves a moralistic and political project. The constant refrain of "Scientists Tell Us" serves as a prelude for a lecture on what threat to fear. This leads to a defensive posture where scientists are reluctant to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong and that their critics might have a point. Sadly, a science that cannot work with the assumption that it might be wrong has more in common with a religious dogma than with open-ended experimentation. Such moralization of the imperative of fear has important implications for the conduct of public life. By representing skepticism and criticism as a threat that deserves to be feared, disciples of "The Science" set in motion a cultural dynamic that is inherently hostile to the free and open exchange of views. [Frank Furedi (2018), How Fear Works: Culture of Fear in the Twenty-First Century]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Domains

The building blocks required to achieve success in a business domain and differentiate the company from its competitors:  Core domains : The interesting problems. These are the in-house activities the company is performing differently from its competitors and from which it gains its competitive advantage.  Generic domains : The solved problems. These are the things all companies are doing in the same way. There is no room or need for innovation here; rather than creating in-house implementations, it’s more cost-effective to adopt \ buy existing solutions. Supporting domains: The problems with obvious solutions. These are the activities the company likely has to implement in-house or outsourced, but that do not provide any competitive advantage. Domain experts are subject matter experts who know all the intricacies of the business that we are going to model and implement in code. In other words, domain experts are knowledge authorities in the software’s business domain. T
Post a Comment
Read more

Meaning

Of all the information that every second flows into our brains from our sensory organs, only a fraction arrives in our consciousness: the ratio of the capacity of perception to the capacity of apperception is at best a million to one. A million times more bits enter our heads than consciousness perceives. Consciousness lags behind what we call reality. It takes half a second to become conscious of something, though that is not how we perceive it. Outside our conscious awareness, an advanced illusion rearranges events in time. Our consciousness lags behind because it has to present us with a picture of the surrounding world that is relevant. But it is precisely a picture of the surrounding world it presents us with, not a picture of all the superb work the brain does. The sequence is: sensation, simulation, experience. But it is not relevant to know about the simulation, so that is left out of our experience, which consists of an edited sensation that we experience as unedited. What we
Post a Comment
Read more

The Evolution of Cooperation

The Tragedy of the Commons occurs when a group’s individual incentives lead them to take actions which, in aggregate, lead to negative consequences for all group members. It is a multi-player version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. In the version of the game from which it got its name, the players are two prisoners, held in separate cells. Each has to choose between “cooperating” with the other (keeping quiet) or “defecting” (giving evidence against the other). Each makes the choice without knowing what the other will do. If both prisoners keep quiet, they are each sentenced to one year in prison. If one rats on the other, he or she goes free and the other gets 10 years. If they both rat on each other, they each get 5 years. The problem arises because whatever your opponent does, defecting gives you a higher payoff than cooperating.  In 1984 Robert Axelrod published a book called The Evolution of Cooperation, which contained a surprising reflection: if you play a Prisoner’s Dilemma game, n
Post a Comment
Read more