Why Science Sucks: REVISED EARTHQUAKE EDITION!
HOT OFF THE PRESSES!
Just as this post went live, God proved, once again, why science sucks. An earthquake struck the Los Angeles area with moderate power. What did science have to say about this? First, it lied and told us it was a 5.8 score on their fancy scale system. Turns out, it was actually a 5.4. Second, what does this score mean for you and me in our lives post-earthquake (post 7/29 if you will)? You guessed it, absolutely nothing.
I also ran into this example from the communist/socialist/atheist leaning nuts at the New York Times. You know if even the New York Times has examples of why science sucks, it must actually suck.
If you've ever met me, you know how I feel about science: it sucks. And for those of you who knew me when I was a charming young tyke, you might be shocked by such a proclamation. Indeed, there was a time when I did not believe science, in fact, sucked and was rather swept away with its grand ambitions: the pursuit of mysterious (read: dangerous!) truths, an endless frontier of discoveries in a world already mapped from pole to pole. How exciting! Despite a minor speech problem, eight-year-old Jeremy sought out the details of a career digging up dinosaur bones, including its impressive sounding title—paleontologist. Chemistry sets, books on nature, and lab equipment (think Fisher-Price microscope) were de rigueur for birthdays and Christmases. Guess what show wedged itself into my afternoon viewing schedule between Spider-Man and Batman. It was none other than Bill Nye the Science Guy. And who could deny the thrill of building a mini Mt. Vesuvius with home cooked magma (baking soda and vinegar) violently bursting into the air for all to marvel at, all in the name of science, glorious SCIENCE!?
The question must be asked, then, "What brought this passion to a screeching halt?" When did I discover that science was not all it was cracked up to be but actually sucked? There was no singularly defining moment, really. One could argue it started in 9th grade biology—the branch of science lying on the 9th circle of hell. Others may argue for a slow, corrosive build up that involved a failed trip to the natural history museum, the realization that physics was more math than science, and a burgeoning admiration for philosophy. Indeed, the latter point was, at the very least, the nail in the coffin for my love affair with science. Science's unnecessarily antagonist and condescending attitude toward philosophy, my target career, and religion may have forever damaged our relationship. If philosophy is my new wife and religion my parents, science is that old high school friend still living at home and still working at Starbucks, talking me into weeknight trips to the local dive bar. When I stroll through the door at 1 AM on Wednesday night, my philosophy wife is there waiting in the dark, wondering where I've been, "Were you at the planetarium again? Who were you with? It was RIchard Dawkins wasn't it, wasn't it!?"
Well, I don't have to lie any more. I cut off science. We don't really hang out any more. I couldn't stand to get burned again. First science told me we were the center of the universe—huzzah! False. Then science told me we were entering another ice age—break out the parkas. False. Now you are telling me I should stop driving my hummer on a three hour commute every morning? Excuse me if I don't take the bait this time. I plan on killing as many endangered species as possible while eating and drinking only those foods grown with the highest levels of DDT and infused with the highest amounts of high fructose corn syrup while also clamping a cancerous cell phone to my ear and driving said hummer. In fifty years, we'll see who comes out on top.
Apart from those obvious points of contention, here are some other reasons why science sucks.
- Scientists are more popular than philosophers in the media. Quick: name three famous philosophers from the 20th century. Wittgenstein, Quine? One could argue for Bertrand Russell, but I doubt either of my parents could tell me anything about him. What about famous scientists from the 20th century? Take your pick: Einstein, Hawking, Frued, Dawkins, Crick, Gould. One could go on for quite some talking about their so-called discoveries. How many philosophers had their own television show? How many have ever been on television... ever? Science, on the other hand, is splashed all over the news. And let us not forget our dear friend, Bill Nye, or his old school counterpart, Mr. Wizard.
- Science is a poor man's... take your pick: hobby, manipulative power tool (truth sword), childhood toy, religion, career. So you got a chemistry set for your birthday? Cool. Mix some stuff together, watch some powdery substance bubble up when mixed with some other seemingly benign, clear liquid. Maybe you become a scientist when you grow up. You mix together other chemicals. Maybe when those bubble up and mix with a seemingly benign, clear liquid, it explodes and everyone dies. How do you like your science now? Nobody ever got killed by a book on linguistics.
- Science doesn't know its own limits. Scientists are always making claims that fall well outside its domain of knowledge and always in popular publications, not so much scientific journals. They make sweeping claims about the nature of existence and metaphysics. Scientists think there is a natural, biological answer for everything—if you can engineer a perfect human being biologically, give her "perfect genes", that person will be perfect. A philosopher says, "Will she be?" Think about it.
Addendum: Science operates on a handful of logical principles before it can ever start doing the work of science, which means not EVERYTHING can be "proven" (whatever that means) by science. For example, it assumes that our senses are not lying to us; that we exist; that facts exist; that a thing is a thing and not 'not a thing'.
This list is not comprehensive, obviously. There are an infinite number of reasons why science sucks. Science can't even explain the idea of infinity, that's how much it sucks. So feel free to come up with your own reasons why science sucks, and, while you're at it, go buy a copy of the Republic and do everyone a favor.
I also ran into this example from the communist/socialist/atheist leaning nuts at the New York Times. You know if even the New York Times has examples of why science sucks, it must actually suck.
If you've ever met me, you know how I feel about science: it sucks. And for those of you who knew me when I was a charming young tyke, you might be shocked by such a proclamation. Indeed, there was a time when I did not believe science, in fact, sucked and was rather swept away with its grand ambitions: the pursuit of mysterious (read: dangerous!) truths, an endless frontier of discoveries in a world already mapped from pole to pole. How exciting! Despite a minor speech problem, eight-year-old Jeremy sought out the details of a career digging up dinosaur bones, including its impressive sounding title—paleontologist. Chemistry sets, books on nature, and lab equipment (think Fisher-Price microscope) were de rigueur for birthdays and Christmases. Guess what show wedged itself into my afternoon viewing schedule between Spider-Man and Batman. It was none other than Bill Nye the Science Guy. And who could deny the thrill of building a mini Mt. Vesuvius with home cooked magma (baking soda and vinegar) violently bursting into the air for all to marvel at, all in the name of science, glorious SCIENCE!?
The question must be asked, then, "What brought this passion to a screeching halt?" When did I discover that science was not all it was cracked up to be but actually sucked? There was no singularly defining moment, really. One could argue it started in 9th grade biology—the branch of science lying on the 9th circle of hell. Others may argue for a slow, corrosive build up that involved a failed trip to the natural history museum, the realization that physics was more math than science, and a burgeoning admiration for philosophy. Indeed, the latter point was, at the very least, the nail in the coffin for my love affair with science. Science's unnecessarily antagonist and condescending attitude toward philosophy, my target career, and religion may have forever damaged our relationship. If philosophy is my new wife and religion my parents, science is that old high school friend still living at home and still working at Starbucks, talking me into weeknight trips to the local dive bar. When I stroll through the door at 1 AM on Wednesday night, my philosophy wife is there waiting in the dark, wondering where I've been, "Were you at the planetarium again? Who were you with? It was RIchard Dawkins wasn't it, wasn't it!?"
Well, I don't have to lie any more. I cut off science. We don't really hang out any more. I couldn't stand to get burned again. First science told me we were the center of the universe—huzzah! False. Then science told me we were entering another ice age—break out the parkas. False. Now you are telling me I should stop driving my hummer on a three hour commute every morning? Excuse me if I don't take the bait this time. I plan on killing as many endangered species as possible while eating and drinking only those foods grown with the highest levels of DDT and infused with the highest amounts of high fructose corn syrup while also clamping a cancerous cell phone to my ear and driving said hummer. In fifty years, we'll see who comes out on top.
Apart from those obvious points of contention, here are some other reasons why science sucks.
- Scientists are more popular than philosophers in the media. Quick: name three famous philosophers from the 20th century. Wittgenstein, Quine? One could argue for Bertrand Russell, but I doubt either of my parents could tell me anything about him. What about famous scientists from the 20th century? Take your pick: Einstein, Hawking, Frued, Dawkins, Crick, Gould. One could go on for quite some talking about their so-called discoveries. How many philosophers had their own television show? How many have ever been on television... ever? Science, on the other hand, is splashed all over the news. And let us not forget our dear friend, Bill Nye, or his old school counterpart, Mr. Wizard.
- Science is a poor man's... take your pick: hobby, manipulative power tool (truth sword), childhood toy, religion, career. So you got a chemistry set for your birthday? Cool. Mix some stuff together, watch some powdery substance bubble up when mixed with some other seemingly benign, clear liquid. Maybe you become a scientist when you grow up. You mix together other chemicals. Maybe when those bubble up and mix with a seemingly benign, clear liquid, it explodes and everyone dies. How do you like your science now? Nobody ever got killed by a book on linguistics.
- Science doesn't know its own limits. Scientists are always making claims that fall well outside its domain of knowledge and always in popular publications, not so much scientific journals. They make sweeping claims about the nature of existence and metaphysics. Scientists think there is a natural, biological answer for everything—if you can engineer a perfect human being biologically, give her "perfect genes", that person will be perfect. A philosopher says, "Will she be?" Think about it.
Addendum: Science operates on a handful of logical principles before it can ever start doing the work of science, which means not EVERYTHING can be "proven" (whatever that means) by science. For example, it assumes that our senses are not lying to us; that we exist; that facts exist; that a thing is a thing and not 'not a thing'.
This list is not comprehensive, obviously. There are an infinite number of reasons why science sucks. Science can't even explain the idea of infinity, that's how much it sucks. So feel free to come up with your own reasons why science sucks, and, while you're at it, go buy a copy of the Republic and do everyone a favor.
2 comments:
Hmmmm, I don't know little bro. The sucky science you're describing sounds like a sucky definition of what 'science' is. I agree that bad science sucks and even good science only gets half the picture, but I think the baby may protest to being thrown out with the bath water.
Let's talk about what science and western philosophy have contributed to the cessation of suffering in the world. Not that philosophers haven't contributed anything that has made the world a better place, but...ah...the scientific process helped produce the product that allows these comments to be exchanged. I can give a hundred examples from my line of work that uses the scientific process to answer questions that have meaning here and now. Can we throw medicine in the mix here too? How do you deal with the goods of science? You're too smart not to have thought of this so, what's the argument? What are you really attacking?
I think the problem with science isn't the process itself, but the object of it's application, namely the gross physical world. Here's a Wilber excerpt talking about what he considers science. Food for thought:
"1. A practical injunction or exemplar . If you want to know whether it is raining or not, you must go to the window and look. The point is that "facts" are not lying around waiting for all and sundry to see. If you want to know this, you must do this--an experiment, an injunction, a pragmatic series of engagements, a social practice: these lie behind most forms of good science. This is actually the meaning of Kuhn's notion of "paradigm," which does not mean a super-theory but an exemplar or actual practice.
2. An apprehension, illumination, or experience . Once you perform the experiment or follow the injunction--once you pragmatically engage the world--then you will be introduced to a series of experiences or apprehensions that are brought forth by the injunction. These experiences are technically known as data. As William James pointed out, the real meaning of "datum" is immediate experience .[8] Thus, you can have physical experiences (or physical data), mental experiences (or mental data), and spiritual experiences (or spiritual data). All good science--whether narrow or broad--is anchored to some degree in data, or experiential evidence.
3. Communal checking (either rejection or confirmation) . Once we engage the paradigm (or social practice) and bring forth a series of experiences and evidence (or data), it helps if we can check these experiences with others who have also completed the injunction and seen the evidence. A community of peers--or those who have adequately completed the first two strands (injunction and data)--is perhaps the best check possible, and all good science tends to turn to a community of the adequate for confirmation or rejection. This is where the principle of falsifiability is very useful. Although the fallibility criterion cannot stand on its own, as Sir Karl Popper believed, it is often an important ingredient in good science. The idea is simply that bad data can be rejected by a community of the adequate. If there is no way that your belief system can be challenged, then there is no way to dislodge it at all, even if it is patently incorrect--and therefore whatever else you have, your beliefs are not very scientific (they are instead what is called "dogma," or a truth-claim backed only by authoritative fiat). Of course, there are many realities that are not open to the fallibility test--for example, you cannot reject, or even doubt, your own consciousness, as Descartes knew. But this third criteria simply says that good science constantly attempts to confirm (or reject) its knowledge claims, and the fallibility criterion is often used as one part of this third strand of good science."
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/cowokev8_intro.cfm/
I started writing a really long, honest response, but then I remembered... this is just a satire.
And then I couldn't help myself. A couple quick points:
1. Science necessarily operates on philosophical principles, no matter if it is good science or bad science.
2. Neither science nor philosophy is trying to alleviate suffering in the world. Even if they are, is alleviating suffering the chief end of man? What does it mean to suffer? Are we better people if we don't suffer? These questions (which are philosophic but also religious, not scientific) are more important than what the temperature of boiling water is, one could argue.
3. The goal of the post was not to advocate philosophy over science, but, rather, to highlight the areas where science sucks.
4. The fact that this is being communicated as a result of scientific breakthroughs does not validate its existence as "good" (determining the value of science = something outside of science)
5. Science can't "produce" meaning. That doesn't stop scientists from trying, which is only natural. Scientists are human beings, thus they have a world view and think philosophically (though not by necessity of being human), so they're bound to muddle scientific knowledge with knowledge that falls outside their realm of expertise. So a great scientist who is a very poor philosopher may be able to analyze how the universe began but have difficulty explaining how or why it "came to exist" at all. Or they'll say large scale, macro evolution is a fact, thus God does not exist (which is the silliest of arguments, though I understand not all Scientists claim this)—neither of those things discredits the other.
Post a Comment