OMFG, Galileo and Copernicus weren't just heretics?! You've further destroyed my faith in my educators. Although, upon reflection - rather than 'faith,' I correct myself with: you caused me to question yet again the trust that I had given my educators in advance.
Something like the fact that smokers were relatively untouched by The Black Plague, and also that the various strands of Evolution are largely twaddle, given that system components cannot evolve independently without destroying their system, and certainly not on the scale suggested.
I consider your work admirable. It is well-written, thoughtful and detailed.
Thank you sincerely, for taking the time and effort to provide it.
Thanks so much for your comment nmae. The problem with Truth in my view is our relationship to knowledge. Too often we perceive knowledge as a thing (a fact or a truth) and then go about using it as a cudgel with which to beat others. My purpose in exposing the myths and tales told by pop-science is to free the minds of folks who believe that by "following the science," they have found a reliable body of beliefs that don't require questioning. Too many are under the impression that science provides facts that don't require scrutiny because these fact things have been established by a sort of individual and institution that is somehow superhuman. Unlike religion--the thinking goes--science doesn't tell stories and doesn't accept ideas based on authority. This simply isn't the case. Science believers are in the throes of religious zeal and when cornered, appeal to authority as much as any theologian. My hope is that once the curtain is drawn aside, folks will consider the dialogic approach to knowledge as a negotiation because they realise that the present approach is barbaric and inexorably leads to conflict.
It seems to me that it might be useful to distinguish what scientists do as scientists and what they create, from what is presented to non-scientists as science.
The work products of scientists are the papers published in peer-reviewed, specialized journals and conference proceedings. With a few exceptions these products are intellectually accessible to only the scientists working in that particular discipline. There are fundamental reasons why this is so.
For a variety of reasons, the rest of us (including scientists in unrelated fields) are keen to follow the stories science is developing. This desire is serviced by journalists, and also by some scientists who attempt to explain the stories they are creating to those of us who do not know the language or discip0line of a particular science. In this sense we are almost always dealing with pop-science, not science itself. What we have are stories about stories.
Excellent point, Frank. Thank you. Indeed there is good reason to make this distinction. I have consequently taken on the work products, publishing, peer review, etc. in "The Louis Pasteur Myth," "The Scientific Method Myth," and "The Millikan & Michelson-Morley Myths" (in Barstool Bits). There are many serious problems affecting what scientists do these days, especially certain forms of endemic fraud.
The idea that the products of science are not "intellectually accessible" except to specialists is a deeply troubling issue: (a) because it's not true; (b) because believing it to be true shrouds science in a sort of mystic or hierophantic sensibility, conferring a kind of priestly authority beyond question and criticism; and (c) because science ought to be made intelligible, or what's the point?
Some months ago Robert Malone opined that he'd been sucked into a debate with an MD who wasn't a virology specialist, and that he was loathe to enter these sorts of debates because he feels he doesn't have to explain himself or any principles of virology to anyone who isn't an expert. I think this is a dangerous way to relate to one's own field. If you love what you do and really know your material, why on earth wouldn't you want to discuss, explain, educate and converse? especially in this case with a health professional!
In short, as a culture, we must demand more of scientists. They cannot be allowed to hide behind their certifications. They have a duty to the society that values and funds their research to account for what they do in plain language. The argument that something is too complicated for mere mortals to understand won't cut it.
Asa, thanks for the dialogic reply. I’ll comment on your last assertions:
“In short, as a culture, we must demand more of scientists. They cannot be allowed to hide behind their certifications. They have a duty to the society that values and funds their research to account for what they do in plain language. The argument that something is too complicated for mere mortals to understand won't cut it.”
I agree that as citizens of a democracy whose work is, in a substantial measure being funded from the public purse, scientists have a moral duty to explain their processes and products to their fellow citizens. In the areas of science that use common language this duty is straightforward, although everyone needs to understand that a science story is just that. And the degree to which the story can be taken as a reasonable or useful model of what was, or is, should depend on how well it has been validated over some period of time, and how well it fits with other models.
I’ll defer commenting on “intellectually accessible” at least until I’ve studied your "The Millikan & Michelson-Morley Myths" piece. I’ll also be on the lookout for evidence of “certain forms of endemic fraud”.
Given that the stories science constructs have at least an operational truth, doesn’t it follow that what science creates are often useful models of what is? Stories drive actions, and actions affect what is. If the stories driving an action are a poor fit with what is, disaster can result. Since at best every one of us has only a partially true model of what is, is there any other way we can best align our actions with what is than by a “dialogic approach to knowledge”?
My model is that after ten millenniums of constructing and destroying civilizations we painted ourselves into a very dangerous corner. At this point we do our civilization a service just by modeling a dialogic approach to understanding.
Indeed, 'the sciences' are like any other body, and like 'any other body,' they demand conformity to whatever truths they claim. Deviations from the 'truths' of the body, in this case 'the sciences,' will be permitted, providing that fealty to that body is acknowledged.
Your excellent article should be taken up by "New Scientist" or some such. IMHO your article is superb. It's unlikely your article will be taken up because evolution is evolution; the sciences have devolved, which was inevitable. Galileo will continue to be considered a scientific front-runner forever at odds with The Church - end of discussion. Copernicus too, no differences tolerated.
Thanks Frank. Lots of misconceptions out there in pop-science culture, including the notion that religion and science were enemies from the start. I'd call this sort of story telling that science does yet another form of distortion. It's through this sort of activity (among others) that science--as a cultural or sociological entity or as a brand--imbues itself with an aura of authority that it doesn't deserve. It not only supplants religion (which perhaps had it coming), but humanism too--which is the mother of secular society and the modern democratic republic.
Hi Asa. Just checking in. Only a free subscriber (for now, anyway). Who are you? You first became an entity in my mind when I read a reply of yours on Stranger Worlds. Are you an AI? Probably not. Manifestations of you on the web go back aways. And the sophistication of what I’m finding of yours is beyond the capability of any AI I know of.
From my perspective, do you have all your marbles? I was just looking at The Atlantic article on Costin Alamariu, “How Bronze Age Pervert Charmed the Far Right”. From my perspective the social reality of the Bronze Age Pervert is a backassward kaleidoscope of what is. It can be useful to analyze such views, but at 84 I ration my remaining time. So, with bit of trepidation, I’m jumping in.
Yes, I also think there is a difference between analytical thinking and analogical thinking because (1) I’m aware of these two modes in my own thinking, and (2) I find this distinction almost everywhere I look in social reality. So, with this affinity in mind I start the task of processing your words into my own internal world.
Last I checked, the marbles were still knocking around. I don't think I've lobbed a similar insult your way. Perhaps keep things civil? I mean, I might consider anyone still reading The Atlantic and NYT as missing a few marbles.
Who am I? As noted in by bio notes, I'm a poet. I'm also a literary scholar and historian. As such I'm a trained researcher. Especially historical research is rigorous in its methods and expectations. Why on earth would you think I was an AI? I mean, AI is not even remotely capable of the sort of thinking I do... so there's that. You, however, I can't be sure of just yet.
I trust this is just playful banter. I promise respect and civility. Clearly, you've taken the time to check in: thank you, Frank. More anon I'm sure.
Sorry to be a pest, but VDH also wrote a novel about the war called "The End of Sparta." I am only a few pages it; it is richly historical, needless to say!
Another set of myths I can retire, for which my thanks. More of the humanist ideas I learned in classes and find in my reading have been disproved, many of them now seen as rhetorical conveniences of the modern period. Years ago I could see in the history of Anglo-Saxon studies that myths of progress were far more influential than historical events, persons, and texts. The more "scientific" John Kemble's ideas about "Beowulf" became, for example, the more the poem was thought to confirm the ideas about language change and cultural development endorsed by his contemporaries. I saw this work as a search for origins. Lately I have been discovering that what I thought I knew about Athens, Sparta, and the Peloponnesian War (so-called) is incorrect. I'm enjoying Victor Davis Hanson's "A War Like No Other." I was amused to find that Hanson also wrote a novel about how the Athenians and Spartans fought the war. He chose to cover the ground in two genres instead of one. The upside of revisionism is that I will never run out of historical paradigms to rethink.
Thanks Allen. Glad you enjoyed. I've got a few more science myths in the pipeline. It's been a fascinating journey, learning how unscientific science has been since the big personalities of the mid- to late-nineteenth century. The whole endeavour became wrapped up in religious fervour and battles for personal prestige, which led to all manner of fraud in the twentieth century.
Interesting what you say about the Peloponnesian War. I've read Thucydides twice and expect to read it again. I suppose since I like that work so much, it could be fun to read a secondary source. Which do you recommend?
I'm partial to humanism because it bridged the divide during the wars of religion and had a lot to do with the development of what we've come to call scientific inquiry. We could use some sort of humanist revival. A shame to witness the destruction of that faculty in the universities.
Victor Davis Hanson, "A War Like No Other," is remarkable because it about the how of war, not the why of war. I have felt a bit swamped with information on shields and ships, to be honest; why in a ship with 3 levels of rowers you did not want to be in the bottom row; why war in ancient Greece was in some sense a function of agriculture; and much more. Hanson is also a farmer; he talks about how long it took him to chop down a tree--since chopping down olive trees, old ones especially, was important to attacks on Athens. Humanism in universities was eaten up by critical theory when I was teaching (retired in 2014) and theory has since been eaten by woke politics. Hanson, by the way, seems very strong on primary sources.
OMFG, Galileo and Copernicus weren't just heretics?! You've further destroyed my faith in my educators. Although, upon reflection - rather than 'faith,' I correct myself with: you caused me to question yet again the trust that I had given my educators in advance.
Something like the fact that smokers were relatively untouched by The Black Plague, and also that the various strands of Evolution are largely twaddle, given that system components cannot evolve independently without destroying their system, and certainly not on the scale suggested.
I consider your work admirable. It is well-written, thoughtful and detailed.
Thank you sincerely, for taking the time and effort to provide it.
Thanks so much for your comment nmae. The problem with Truth in my view is our relationship to knowledge. Too often we perceive knowledge as a thing (a fact or a truth) and then go about using it as a cudgel with which to beat others. My purpose in exposing the myths and tales told by pop-science is to free the minds of folks who believe that by "following the science," they have found a reliable body of beliefs that don't require questioning. Too many are under the impression that science provides facts that don't require scrutiny because these fact things have been established by a sort of individual and institution that is somehow superhuman. Unlike religion--the thinking goes--science doesn't tell stories and doesn't accept ideas based on authority. This simply isn't the case. Science believers are in the throes of religious zeal and when cornered, appeal to authority as much as any theologian. My hope is that once the curtain is drawn aside, folks will consider the dialogic approach to knowledge as a negotiation because they realise that the present approach is barbaric and inexorably leads to conflict.
It seems to me that it might be useful to distinguish what scientists do as scientists and what they create, from what is presented to non-scientists as science.
The work products of scientists are the papers published in peer-reviewed, specialized journals and conference proceedings. With a few exceptions these products are intellectually accessible to only the scientists working in that particular discipline. There are fundamental reasons why this is so.
For a variety of reasons, the rest of us (including scientists in unrelated fields) are keen to follow the stories science is developing. This desire is serviced by journalists, and also by some scientists who attempt to explain the stories they are creating to those of us who do not know the language or discip0line of a particular science. In this sense we are almost always dealing with pop-science, not science itself. What we have are stories about stories.
Excellent point, Frank. Thank you. Indeed there is good reason to make this distinction. I have consequently taken on the work products, publishing, peer review, etc. in "The Louis Pasteur Myth," "The Scientific Method Myth," and "The Millikan & Michelson-Morley Myths" (in Barstool Bits). There are many serious problems affecting what scientists do these days, especially certain forms of endemic fraud.
The idea that the products of science are not "intellectually accessible" except to specialists is a deeply troubling issue: (a) because it's not true; (b) because believing it to be true shrouds science in a sort of mystic or hierophantic sensibility, conferring a kind of priestly authority beyond question and criticism; and (c) because science ought to be made intelligible, or what's the point?
Some months ago Robert Malone opined that he'd been sucked into a debate with an MD who wasn't a virology specialist, and that he was loathe to enter these sorts of debates because he feels he doesn't have to explain himself or any principles of virology to anyone who isn't an expert. I think this is a dangerous way to relate to one's own field. If you love what you do and really know your material, why on earth wouldn't you want to discuss, explain, educate and converse? especially in this case with a health professional!
In short, as a culture, we must demand more of scientists. They cannot be allowed to hide behind their certifications. They have a duty to the society that values and funds their research to account for what they do in plain language. The argument that something is too complicated for mere mortals to understand won't cut it.
Asa, thanks for the dialogic reply. I’ll comment on your last assertions:
“In short, as a culture, we must demand more of scientists. They cannot be allowed to hide behind their certifications. They have a duty to the society that values and funds their research to account for what they do in plain language. The argument that something is too complicated for mere mortals to understand won't cut it.”
I agree that as citizens of a democracy whose work is, in a substantial measure being funded from the public purse, scientists have a moral duty to explain their processes and products to their fellow citizens. In the areas of science that use common language this duty is straightforward, although everyone needs to understand that a science story is just that. And the degree to which the story can be taken as a reasonable or useful model of what was, or is, should depend on how well it has been validated over some period of time, and how well it fits with other models.
I’ll defer commenting on “intellectually accessible” at least until I’ve studied your "The Millikan & Michelson-Morley Myths" piece. I’ll also be on the lookout for evidence of “certain forms of endemic fraud”.
On endemic fraud, best to get your hands on Judson's The Great Betrayal.
Given that the stories science constructs have at least an operational truth, doesn’t it follow that what science creates are often useful models of what is? Stories drive actions, and actions affect what is. If the stories driving an action are a poor fit with what is, disaster can result. Since at best every one of us has only a partially true model of what is, is there any other way we can best align our actions with what is than by a “dialogic approach to knowledge”?
My model is that after ten millenniums of constructing and destroying civilizations we painted ourselves into a very dangerous corner. At this point we do our civilization a service just by modeling a dialogic approach to understanding.
Couldn't agree more.
"Pop-science," great term, I like it.
Indeed, 'the sciences' are like any other body, and like 'any other body,' they demand conformity to whatever truths they claim. Deviations from the 'truths' of the body, in this case 'the sciences,' will be permitted, providing that fealty to that body is acknowledged.
Your excellent article should be taken up by "New Scientist" or some such. IMHO your article is superb. It's unlikely your article will be taken up because evolution is evolution; the sciences have devolved, which was inevitable. Galileo will continue to be considered a scientific front-runner forever at odds with The Church - end of discussion. Copernicus too, no differences tolerated.
Meanwhile, every once in a while we get this sort of discussion:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-part-of-the-fabric-of-the-universe/
Unfortunately, they always overlook Henri Bergson. If you're interested in this subject, Stephen Robbins wrote a great piece on it here: https://analogymagazine.substack.com/p/welcome-to-the-holofield-rethinking
Oh dear, the "'Scientific' American" is pushing fake news.
Stephen Robbins, and, a search for answers... That isn't a problem of mine, but thx.
A nice piece. Thank you, Asa. Just a summary of part of Koestler’s “Sleepwalkers”, but a great five-minute anecdote to misinformation about the past.
Thanks Frank. Lots of misconceptions out there in pop-science culture, including the notion that religion and science were enemies from the start. I'd call this sort of story telling that science does yet another form of distortion. It's through this sort of activity (among others) that science--as a cultural or sociological entity or as a brand--imbues itself with an aura of authority that it doesn't deserve. It not only supplants religion (which perhaps had it coming), but humanism too--which is the mother of secular society and the modern democratic republic.
Hi Asa. Just checking in. Only a free subscriber (for now, anyway). Who are you? You first became an entity in my mind when I read a reply of yours on Stranger Worlds. Are you an AI? Probably not. Manifestations of you on the web go back aways. And the sophistication of what I’m finding of yours is beyond the capability of any AI I know of.
From my perspective, do you have all your marbles? I was just looking at The Atlantic article on Costin Alamariu, “How Bronze Age Pervert Charmed the Far Right”. From my perspective the social reality of the Bronze Age Pervert is a backassward kaleidoscope of what is. It can be useful to analyze such views, but at 84 I ration my remaining time. So, with bit of trepidation, I’m jumping in.
Yes, I also think there is a difference between analytical thinking and analogical thinking because (1) I’m aware of these two modes in my own thinking, and (2) I find this distinction almost everywhere I look in social reality. So, with this affinity in mind I start the task of processing your words into my own internal world.
Last I checked, the marbles were still knocking around. I don't think I've lobbed a similar insult your way. Perhaps keep things civil? I mean, I might consider anyone still reading The Atlantic and NYT as missing a few marbles.
Who am I? As noted in by bio notes, I'm a poet. I'm also a literary scholar and historian. As such I'm a trained researcher. Especially historical research is rigorous in its methods and expectations. Why on earth would you think I was an AI? I mean, AI is not even remotely capable of the sort of thinking I do... so there's that. You, however, I can't be sure of just yet.
I trust this is just playful banter. I promise respect and civility. Clearly, you've taken the time to check in: thank you, Frank. More anon I'm sure.
Sorry to be a pest, but VDH also wrote a novel about the war called "The End of Sparta." I am only a few pages it; it is richly historical, needless to say!
Another set of myths I can retire, for which my thanks. More of the humanist ideas I learned in classes and find in my reading have been disproved, many of them now seen as rhetorical conveniences of the modern period. Years ago I could see in the history of Anglo-Saxon studies that myths of progress were far more influential than historical events, persons, and texts. The more "scientific" John Kemble's ideas about "Beowulf" became, for example, the more the poem was thought to confirm the ideas about language change and cultural development endorsed by his contemporaries. I saw this work as a search for origins. Lately I have been discovering that what I thought I knew about Athens, Sparta, and the Peloponnesian War (so-called) is incorrect. I'm enjoying Victor Davis Hanson's "A War Like No Other." I was amused to find that Hanson also wrote a novel about how the Athenians and Spartans fought the war. He chose to cover the ground in two genres instead of one. The upside of revisionism is that I will never run out of historical paradigms to rethink.
Thanks Allen. Glad you enjoyed. I've got a few more science myths in the pipeline. It's been a fascinating journey, learning how unscientific science has been since the big personalities of the mid- to late-nineteenth century. The whole endeavour became wrapped up in religious fervour and battles for personal prestige, which led to all manner of fraud in the twentieth century.
Interesting what you say about the Peloponnesian War. I've read Thucydides twice and expect to read it again. I suppose since I like that work so much, it could be fun to read a secondary source. Which do you recommend?
I'm partial to humanism because it bridged the divide during the wars of religion and had a lot to do with the development of what we've come to call scientific inquiry. We could use some sort of humanist revival. A shame to witness the destruction of that faculty in the universities.
Victor Davis Hanson, "A War Like No Other," is remarkable because it about the how of war, not the why of war. I have felt a bit swamped with information on shields and ships, to be honest; why in a ship with 3 levels of rowers you did not want to be in the bottom row; why war in ancient Greece was in some sense a function of agriculture; and much more. Hanson is also a farmer; he talks about how long it took him to chop down a tree--since chopping down olive trees, old ones especially, was important to attacks on Athens. Humanism in universities was eaten up by critical theory when I was teaching (retired in 2014) and theory has since been eaten by woke politics. Hanson, by the way, seems very strong on primary sources.
Will add to my reading list... though I have to say, I'm missing fiction and will likely return to that for a spell.