|
April 22, 2005
Why I hate "science"
When I was in high school, I was taught that DDT is dangerous. That this was a scientifically proven fact. DDT caused cancer, and it caused the thinning of egg shells in predatory birds. Thus it was responsible for the near-extinction of the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon, and other raptors. Claims are now appearing (at least according to this site) that there's no evidence to support these "scientific" assertions. Yet I was taught them as "facts" when in school, and to this day I have never seen an official retraction. According to Steven T. Milloy, the ban was the product of a lying scientist who died last summer. Ron Bailey also pointed out that Rachel Carson's theories, while wrong, are still being invoked at the cost of millions of third world lives. Millions died because science lied? (Some scientists are still claiming that DDT is dangerous.) Needless to say, all of this pisses me off bigtime. Where is science? A more proper question should be what is science? I have no idea. If science is a form of politics, I can handle that. Much as I hate politics, I accept the fact that it is battleground of opinion. Things like facts and truth are often of secondary importance. It's all a game, and it can be a form of art. If science is the same thing, then how on earth can I say that I hate science? I should enjoy watching scientists in one camp launch ad hominem attacks against scientists in the other camp, and yell at each other like schoolboys. It ought to delight me to see a Dreyfus-style circling of the wagons by scientists whose bogus theories caused millions to die..... Maybe I really don't hate science after all. Maybe I only hate it when it masquerades as truth, and scientists pose as bearers of the truth. At least when politicians do that, people laugh. UPDATE: Is my problem maybe that I'm expecting too much of science? After all, students nowadays (at least at the Julian Thomas school) are taught that it's OK to be wrong in science: Nearly 90 students at Julian Thomas are participating, many for the first time.I learned, um, that it's OK to be wrong, even when millions of people die as a result. It's probably a total coincidence that just today at the same school, an 8 year old beat the principal with a stick: Apmann approached the student when she saw him carrying a large pole - about 28 inches long and 1½ inches in diameter - on school grounds, Macemon said. When she went to take away the pole, the boy started swinging it at her. The boy struck Apmann several times before he was subdued by other staff members.And, um, from that I learned not only that "arithmetic" rhymes with "stick," but that scientists can dispatch crisis counselers to help the relatives of the people who died because they were wrong. Hey, it's OK! posted by Eric on 04.22.05 at 11:46 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2234 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why I hate "science":
» Carnival of the Vanities #136 - Blogger Refugee Edition from Ravings of John C. A. Bambenek
Welcome to the #136 Edition of the Carnival of the Vanities. This weeks edition is brought to you by your local coffeehouse, because nothing says misanthropy better than a local coffee house (particularly if it only brews fair-trade coffee). Next week ... [Read More] Tracked on April 27, 2005 12:04 PM
» Carnival of the Vanities #136 - Blogger Refugee Edition from Ravings of John C. A. Bambenek
Welcome to the #136 Edition of the Carnival of the Vanities. This weeks edition is brought to you by your local coffeehouse, because nothing says misanthropy better than a local coffee house (particularly if it only brews fair-trade coffee). Next week ... [Read More] Tracked on April 27, 2005 12:09 PM
Comments
The Scientific Method (Hypothesis, experimentation, evaluation) is valid for determining physical effects. However, using it for policy decisions is only as good as the scientist doing the reporting. I've also become fascinated with the fact that premise is vitally important to conclusion. Some politically motivated scientists will end up with the answer they want, because they start with that answer. Scott Rassbach · April 22, 2005 01:55 PM And thus, Scott, they engage in bad science. People make mistakes, things don't work out the way you think they will. A scientist learns from his mistakes and from the divergent results and tries again. If the results/observations say the hypothesis is wrong, then you correct the hypothesis. However, in the real world people have a tendency to hold on to cherished beliefs, even in the face of evidence against them. Scientists did see thinner eggshells in predatory birds, and latched on to DDT as the culprit. Other scientists tested the hypothesis and concluded there was nothing to it. Yet, what if DDT does cause the thinning of eggshells in conjunction with a dietary deficiency? Really, the fault isn't science, it's people. We err, we alter results to confirm our suppositions, we get defensive about our work. That's why you check another's result with work of your own. Even when their results agree with your ideas on a subject. Especially when their results agree with your ideas on a subject. The fault, dear Eric, lays not in our test tubes but in ourselves. Alan Kellogg · April 22, 2005 04:47 PM Science is really dangerous, guys. I've seen a lot of people study science and it really destroys their values. bink · April 22, 2005 07:47 PM I agree that scientisrs shouldn't lie about or misrepresent their findings. But I think that you should be very happy with that science teacher. She's teaching her kids that following the experimental process is more important than whether your original notion is right or wrong; that you use science to discover if you're right, not to prove that you're right, and that it's okay to find out that you were wrong. Those are all good, healthy attitudes and habits in science. The sort of person who will throw a tantrum if they discover that their hypothesis is wrong is the sort of person that will falsify or misrepresent their results. And what does that have to do with an out-of-control brat assualting a principal? Correlation is not causation . . . like thin-shelled eggs showing up at the same time DDT is used is not proof that the DDT caused the thinning of the shells. Teri · April 24, 2005 09:39 AM Actually, according to this science site, the student's hypothesis was right! "Any foreign substance added to the water will cause a freezing point drop. For every mole of foreign particles dissolved in a kilogram of water, the freezing point goes down by roughly 1.8°C. Sugar, alcohol, or any chemical salt will also lower the freezing point and melt ice. Salt is used on roads and walkways because it is inexpensive and readily available." http://www.wcsscience.com/saltandfreezing/ofwater.html As to the assault on the principal, as I said, it's probably coincidental. Eric Scheie · April 24, 2005 10:49 AM BTW, I would love to know what the student "learned" from being "wrong." Did she learn (as the article states) that the hypothesis was "wrong?" Did she learn that she did something wrong in her experiment? Or did she learn merely that it's OK to be wrong? Eric Scheie · April 24, 2005 11:00 AM That's the sticking point, isn't it? Did the student learn how to correct the error? Was he shown how to deal constructively with being wrong. I mean, there is a big difference between, "You were wrong, but that's okay." and, "Well, that didn't work. Let's find out why." Alan Kellogg · April 24, 2005 01:00 PM Thought you may be interested in these DDT thoughts.... http://charlottecapitalist.blogspot.com/2005/03/new-york-times-whitewashing-millions.html Thanks, Andy The Charlotte Capitalist · April 27, 2005 01:40 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Science is the official religion of secular humanism.