I enjoyed this and the post just before it. I recently read an essay by Jeffrey A. Tucker quoting Hayek's 1974 Nobel speech. May I? I am sure you know it well. "In the sciences of man, what looks superficially like the most scientific procedure is often the most unscientific." He was wary of use of such procedure to shape society "entirely to our liking." He added that "the confidence in the unlimited power of science is only too often based on a false belief that the scientific method consists in the application of a ready-made technique, . . . as if one needed only to follow some cooking recipes to solve all social problems."
Dear Asa, I get the feeling that our shallow society nonetheless has started developing a deeper, more philosophical metaphysic, one nascently engaged in restoring lost knowledge and wisdom. I may be wrong about this, but such a phenomenon seems to be happening among a growing number of people, even in my limited circle of acquaintances, and maybe this is cause for a wider optimism. A case in point occurred last night when I had a conversation with a friend who remains a man-made climate change zealot, but now he says that industrial agriculture and urban development, not CO2, are the prime culprits of ecological destruction. It's a start! He also says that a wealth of traditional farming knowledge has been lost and needs to be restored. This gradual reframing of consciousness in which progress means 'going forwards by looking backwards' seems to be gaining traction, and I've borne witness to more than one person in my little circle reorienting their minds accordingly. It reminds me of the way Frances Yates describes the nature of consciousness in Renaissance Europe in her wonderful book Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition:
"The cyclic view of time as a perpetual movement from pristine golden ages of purity and truth through successive brazen and iron ages still held sway [in Renaissance Europe] and the search for truth was thus of necessity a search for the early, the ancient, the original gold from which the baser metals of the present and the immediate past were corrupt degenerations."
I suspect that this mental outlook of the classical humanist is slowly making a comeback, and if so it could serve us well in helping move us away from the illusion of materialist science progressing like an arrow toward utopia. I hope that what I think I'm seeing is real: a growing understanding that we share a vanished communal knowledge, something like a collective consciousness in abeyance, about living healthy, holy, meaningful lives that's been lost but is well within our power to recover. So, nowadays I keep asking myself: what can I do to help encourage such a mental reorientation in people I communicate with? That question seems to hold promise in showing a way forward, albeit slowly, out of this rotten civilisation we live in.
Thanks for bringing these things up, Harry. I've been coming to the same conclusion as your friend, and I hope the carbon silliness gets cleared up so we can focus on repairing our ecosystems and local climates. I'm glad to see a glimmer of hope at the other end of the present madness.
As a former astrophysicist myself, I enjoyed this piece. I haven't dabbled with 'Electric Universe Theory', but there are dozens of similar competing interpretations in physics that I am familiar with (e.g. Bohm's version of quantum mechanics). The story is often the same as you outline here - competing theories are treated as blasphemies! 🙄
However, I want to engage with your piece here not as an ex-astrophysicist, but with my philosopher of science cap pulled on tightly...
Firstly:
"The word, 'real' is a bent truth, if not an outright lie."
Ha, well if we were permitted to have the important discussions about epistemology and ontology, we could come at this differently, of course, but it is the case that science reporters (I place marginally more blame here than the research community in this instance) treat as 'real' things that are fabricated in the most blatant ways.
Yet fabricated doesn't necessarily mean 'not real' - we fabricate the view through our eyes, but we still tend to think of what we see as real... There are interesting discussions here that don't happen, including the philosophical dimensions of 'seeing' (Kendall Walton, who's been very supportive of my philosophy, suggests we 'see through photographs', which is a much more interesting claim than it first sounds!).
Am I saying this is all the fault of science reporters? No. The research community also has major issues. But the promulgation of material that serves the research budget agenda is fostered greatly by the way that reporting is approached. This opens a huge side-line, of course...
"We’ve entered a pseudoscientific age in which the most absurd hypotheses are being promulgated as fact and verified via confirmation bias."
I resist the deployment of 'pseudoscientific' in this and many other cases: for something to be rendered as 'pseudoscientific' there must be a clear practice of 'science' against which you are positioning yourself. But what is it...? Paul Feyerabend makes a strong case that this part of the dogma has been wildly broken pretty much from the start, and while I don't want to go into the details here, I don't think we'll get anywhere presuming there is 'science' and 'pseudoscience' - this is arguably just doctrine and heresy rebranded*.
"Science is supposed to seek falsifications of its own hypotheses, but this critical aspect of science has been lost over the past century or so."
Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery was published in 1934. So this idea of falsification as the sine qua non of science is less than a century old. So talking about a critical aspect of science being lost over the past century must be some kind of mistake, as this whole approach is only a century old!
This is another of those cases where my point about 'scientist' being coined in 1834 (a century before Popper's key contribution to philosophy of science) is crucial. There are two entire ages of natural philosophy in between those two centuries, and back-projecting 'science' in its contemporary meaning to before about 1659 (Boyle's vacuum experiments) entails some gerrymandering I'm resistant to, as we've discussed before...
"Nothing could be more unscientific than present-day science."
What is this 'science' you speak of that you can judge this the 'most unscientific' age...? That run from 1834 to 1934 is hardly more impressive, nor would I leap on either leg of 1659-1834 as being much better, and before this is a couple of millennia of natural philosophy that, frankly, looks extremely 'unscientific' to contemporary eyes!
While I agree with you that the contemporary sciences have tied themselves up into a philosophical knot, how we raise our complaints about what researchers and promulgators are doing might be crucial. That statement of yours is tough to defend without a fully developed philosophy of 'the scientific' that is widely accepted - and no such thing currently exists...
'The scientific method', as I believe we've discussed before, is mostly a post hoc justification for what is supposed to happen. It is certainly not fully laid out in Bacon's Novum Organum (1620), which merely gestures at a research programme - one that I think defensible to connect to contemporary research, even though it's very amusing that many of Bacon's accusations about the natural philosophers of his time apply so well to the 'scientists' in our own time! 😂
Ah, but there's the rub! For the more one delves into the history of the sciences and natural philosophy the more apparent it becomes that "nothing could be more unscientific than any era of science judged by any other era of science's standards (even, sometimes, its own!)".
I hope this pushback is intriguing to you... I very much enjoyed this piece, although evidently it sets off a lot of fires that aboard my philosophy of science fire truck I have attempted to sketch (rather than extinguish).
Stay wonderful,
Chris.
* Footnote: I developed a different way of using the term 'pseudoscience' in 2021 that I still feel is very productive:
Thanks Chris. Perhaps there's some amnesia going on here. You actually wrote a piece for analogy on pseudoscience. And I too have discussed some of the intricacies regarding the term. Previously, I concluded that it's a slippery category owing to the demarcation problem and applies best to politicised science, as was the case with Lysenko. So you'll get no pushback from me. I found it tempting nonetheless to use the term in the present context because if anything does qualify as pseudoscience it's the sort of thing I was examining in this essay. I can't see anything scientific about the black hole image. It appears to be marketing.
Ha ha! I did? Goodness, I write so much I am now forgetting some of the things I've written. 😂 I only remember writing the piece on squirrels, which I was especially pleased with. To be fair, this is not the first time I've forgotten some of the things I wrote... When you write or edit around 100,000 words every week, it is perhaps forgivable that it doesn't all 'stick'.
"I can't see anything scientific about the black hole image. It appears to be marketing."
I enjoyed this and the post just before it. I recently read an essay by Jeffrey A. Tucker quoting Hayek's 1974 Nobel speech. May I? I am sure you know it well. "In the sciences of man, what looks superficially like the most scientific procedure is often the most unscientific." He was wary of use of such procedure to shape society "entirely to our liking." He added that "the confidence in the unlimited power of science is only too often based on a false belief that the scientific method consists in the application of a ready-made technique, . . . as if one needed only to follow some cooking recipes to solve all social problems."
Great additions to the conversation, Allen. Thank you.
Dear Asa, I get the feeling that our shallow society nonetheless has started developing a deeper, more philosophical metaphysic, one nascently engaged in restoring lost knowledge and wisdom. I may be wrong about this, but such a phenomenon seems to be happening among a growing number of people, even in my limited circle of acquaintances, and maybe this is cause for a wider optimism. A case in point occurred last night when I had a conversation with a friend who remains a man-made climate change zealot, but now he says that industrial agriculture and urban development, not CO2, are the prime culprits of ecological destruction. It's a start! He also says that a wealth of traditional farming knowledge has been lost and needs to be restored. This gradual reframing of consciousness in which progress means 'going forwards by looking backwards' seems to be gaining traction, and I've borne witness to more than one person in my little circle reorienting their minds accordingly. It reminds me of the way Frances Yates describes the nature of consciousness in Renaissance Europe in her wonderful book Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition:
"The cyclic view of time as a perpetual movement from pristine golden ages of purity and truth through successive brazen and iron ages still held sway [in Renaissance Europe] and the search for truth was thus of necessity a search for the early, the ancient, the original gold from which the baser metals of the present and the immediate past were corrupt degenerations."
I suspect that this mental outlook of the classical humanist is slowly making a comeback, and if so it could serve us well in helping move us away from the illusion of materialist science progressing like an arrow toward utopia. I hope that what I think I'm seeing is real: a growing understanding that we share a vanished communal knowledge, something like a collective consciousness in abeyance, about living healthy, holy, meaningful lives that's been lost but is well within our power to recover. So, nowadays I keep asking myself: what can I do to help encourage such a mental reorientation in people I communicate with? That question seems to hold promise in showing a way forward, albeit slowly, out of this rotten civilisation we live in.
Thanks for bringing these things up, Harry. I've been coming to the same conclusion as your friend, and I hope the carbon silliness gets cleared up so we can focus on repairing our ecosystems and local climates. I'm glad to see a glimmer of hope at the other end of the present madness.
Dear Asa,
As a former astrophysicist myself, I enjoyed this piece. I haven't dabbled with 'Electric Universe Theory', but there are dozens of similar competing interpretations in physics that I am familiar with (e.g. Bohm's version of quantum mechanics). The story is often the same as you outline here - competing theories are treated as blasphemies! 🙄
However, I want to engage with your piece here not as an ex-astrophysicist, but with my philosopher of science cap pulled on tightly...
Firstly:
"The word, 'real' is a bent truth, if not an outright lie."
Ha, well if we were permitted to have the important discussions about epistemology and ontology, we could come at this differently, of course, but it is the case that science reporters (I place marginally more blame here than the research community in this instance) treat as 'real' things that are fabricated in the most blatant ways.
Yet fabricated doesn't necessarily mean 'not real' - we fabricate the view through our eyes, but we still tend to think of what we see as real... There are interesting discussions here that don't happen, including the philosophical dimensions of 'seeing' (Kendall Walton, who's been very supportive of my philosophy, suggests we 'see through photographs', which is a much more interesting claim than it first sounds!).
Am I saying this is all the fault of science reporters? No. The research community also has major issues. But the promulgation of material that serves the research budget agenda is fostered greatly by the way that reporting is approached. This opens a huge side-line, of course...
"We’ve entered a pseudoscientific age in which the most absurd hypotheses are being promulgated as fact and verified via confirmation bias."
I resist the deployment of 'pseudoscientific' in this and many other cases: for something to be rendered as 'pseudoscientific' there must be a clear practice of 'science' against which you are positioning yourself. But what is it...? Paul Feyerabend makes a strong case that this part of the dogma has been wildly broken pretty much from the start, and while I don't want to go into the details here, I don't think we'll get anywhere presuming there is 'science' and 'pseudoscience' - this is arguably just doctrine and heresy rebranded*.
"Science is supposed to seek falsifications of its own hypotheses, but this critical aspect of science has been lost over the past century or so."
Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery was published in 1934. So this idea of falsification as the sine qua non of science is less than a century old. So talking about a critical aspect of science being lost over the past century must be some kind of mistake, as this whole approach is only a century old!
This is another of those cases where my point about 'scientist' being coined in 1834 (a century before Popper's key contribution to philosophy of science) is crucial. There are two entire ages of natural philosophy in between those two centuries, and back-projecting 'science' in its contemporary meaning to before about 1659 (Boyle's vacuum experiments) entails some gerrymandering I'm resistant to, as we've discussed before...
"Nothing could be more unscientific than present-day science."
What is this 'science' you speak of that you can judge this the 'most unscientific' age...? That run from 1834 to 1934 is hardly more impressive, nor would I leap on either leg of 1659-1834 as being much better, and before this is a couple of millennia of natural philosophy that, frankly, looks extremely 'unscientific' to contemporary eyes!
While I agree with you that the contemporary sciences have tied themselves up into a philosophical knot, how we raise our complaints about what researchers and promulgators are doing might be crucial. That statement of yours is tough to defend without a fully developed philosophy of 'the scientific' that is widely accepted - and no such thing currently exists...
'The scientific method', as I believe we've discussed before, is mostly a post hoc justification for what is supposed to happen. It is certainly not fully laid out in Bacon's Novum Organum (1620), which merely gestures at a research programme - one that I think defensible to connect to contemporary research, even though it's very amusing that many of Bacon's accusations about the natural philosophers of his time apply so well to the 'scientists' in our own time! 😂
Ah, but there's the rub! For the more one delves into the history of the sciences and natural philosophy the more apparent it becomes that "nothing could be more unscientific than any era of science judged by any other era of science's standards (even, sometimes, its own!)".
I hope this pushback is intriguing to you... I very much enjoyed this piece, although evidently it sets off a lot of fires that aboard my philosophy of science fire truck I have attempted to sketch (rather than extinguish).
Stay wonderful,
Chris.
* Footnote: I developed a different way of using the term 'pseudoscience' in 2021 that I still feel is very productive:
https://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2021/01/what-is-pseudoscience.html
...I then applied it to community masking, which was what inspired me to take this path:
https://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2021/02/a-case-study-in-pseudoscience.html
That's a lot of extra reading, but I feel it's pertinent so thought I'd include it!
Thanks Chris. Perhaps there's some amnesia going on here. You actually wrote a piece for analogy on pseudoscience. And I too have discussed some of the intricacies regarding the term. Previously, I concluded that it's a slippery category owing to the demarcation problem and applies best to politicised science, as was the case with Lysenko. So you'll get no pushback from me. I found it tempting nonetheless to use the term in the present context because if anything does qualify as pseudoscience it's the sort of thing I was examining in this essay. I can't see anything scientific about the black hole image. It appears to be marketing.
Ha ha! I did? Goodness, I write so much I am now forgetting some of the things I've written. 😂 I only remember writing the piece on squirrels, which I was especially pleased with. To be fair, this is not the first time I've forgotten some of the things I wrote... When you write or edit around 100,000 words every week, it is perhaps forgivable that it doesn't all 'stick'.
"I can't see anything scientific about the black hole image. It appears to be marketing."
Well said! It is precisely this.
Chris.