Culture science education

Who is really anti-science?

Spread the love

From science prof Darrin Durant at The Conversation:

Florida recently passed a law which “authorizes county residents to challenge use or adoption of instructional materials” in schools. It’s been described as “anti-science” by individual scientists and USA’s National Center for Science Education.

The National Center for Science Education is, among other things, the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby. For what that tends to mean, see Zombie Science.

In his book How to be Antiscientific, Steven Shapin argues that descriptions of science, and what ought to be done in science, vary tremendously among scientists themselves.

So you’re not anti-science if you have a preference for or against things like a preferred method, or some particular philosophy of science, or some supposed “character” of science.

Nor are you anti-science because you highlight the uncertainties, the unknowns and the conditionality of scientific knowledge. Even when you are the outsider to science. That’s called free speech in a democracy. More.

Durrant delineates the relationships between social groups and various sciences as fairly as one might expect.

Personally, I (O’Leary for News) think it is fairly simple: Few people are anti-science in the sense that, if their doctor tells them about a promising new cancer treatment, they won’t consider it out for themselves or a loved one. Most people are anti-science when environmentalists put them out of work, making quite clear in the process that they do not consider fellow human beings with crushed dreams to be part of the environment.

So most people treat science the way they treat economics or politics: How does it affect them and their loved ones?

See also: Parents questioning curricula? Must be “anti-science” at work

and

From Nature: US “Academic freedom” bills are “anti-science”

One Reply to “Who is really anti-science?

  1. 1
    harry says:

    What could be more anti-science than redefining science in a way that restricts it to that which affirms atheism?

    Contemporary science perverted by atheism can’t bring itself to admit that currently there is no plausible explanation for a mindless and accidental emergence of life on planet Earth. They can’t bring themselves to admit that life at the cellular level has all the hallmarks of intelligently designed phenomena, regardless of the religious implications of that fact.

    It can’t bring itself to admit that it was virtually impossible for the Universe to have mindlessly and accidentally configured itself such that life would be a possibility; they prefer instead to speculate about a bajillion other universes without any evidentiary basis for such speculation whatsoever. They do this so they can claim that some universe had to win the fine-tuned-for-life lottery, and our universe was the lucky winner. In other words, it irrationally resorts to countless flying-spaghetti-monster universes to make the proposition that ours was fine-tuned for life mindlessly and accidentally seem more plausible, rather than face the implications of the Universe being miraculously fine-tuned for life.

    Contemporary science perverted by atheism has lost the relentless objectivity true science requires. It is has become not just anti-science, but the mortal enemy of science in that science must remain rational to remain true science. Irrational science isn’t science at all.

Leave a Reply