Is Science Insufferably Arrogant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How does the adulation of science escape from being due to one’s genotype? 🙂
 
Sounds like someone is trying hard to justify their own shortcomings as anything other then their own poor choices.

These genetic excuses will not stand the scrutiny of final judgement.

But then, I had a predisposition in my genes that would take this viewpoint.
So don’t blame me.

:rolleyes:
 
Doubtless it was in our genes to create weapons of mass destruction sufficient to wipe out the human race and many other life forms. In that case, the great Dr. Freud was right! The human race has a death instinct, and Einstein’s letter to FDR urging the A-bomb was the opening moment of the final Apocalypse.

Thank you Science! At last we understand! 😃
 
How does the adulation of science escape from being due to one’s genotype?

And how does the arrogance of a Dawkins escape being due to his own genotype?
 
In my opinion, the answer is a strong YES. Science, and most scientists are insufferably arrogant. They have a “science uber alles” feeling. So, if science solves everything, who needs morality? Who needs God? Who needs religion?

I’ve always been a humanities guy-literature, paintings, music-and in my opinion, science can lead to questionable activities.

I respect science-my mother is a cancer nurse for over 30 years-so, clearly, I don’t think all science/scientists are immoral. But read Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins,and even the average person in the science field-you’ll see they are quite full of themselves.

(even those darn cancer nurses can be quite intolerable! 😉 )
 
The only thing that has drove me batty is the appeal to “evolution” for everything. “Oh, well, we evolved such an such because of this reason and that one.” What??? You can’t just assert that - don’t you have to do some specific research and study to say that? You can’t just pull it out of your behind!
 
The higher you go in science the more you learn we don’t know everything. Most scientists have a very good understanding of the limitations of our knowledge. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t continue to learn how things work.

More than likely what the study said was there is indications there is a link between the presence of this gene and this habit and the article is exaggerating the findings.

Lets say all the claims in the article are true. So what? Maybe a gene does make this habit more likely to occur-- why is that at odds with religion? You can still work to overcome it.

For example, I have a hearing problem (not genetic) which would make it much harder for me to learn another language than someone with normal hearing. Harder- but not impossible…I could learn if I wanted too. But it is a lot easier for me to work harder if I understand why I have to work harder.

If I know I am more likely to do x because of my DNA, I’ll be more alert an on guard about forming that habit.

Maybe some people will use this as an excuse. But so what? Those are the people that will find an excuse no matter what. How is more knowledge a bad thing?
 
Is science arrogant? No, science is value-neutral, when properly conducted.

Are some scientists arrogant? Absolutely.

Please note the difference.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
 
Kat
*
How is more knowledge a bad thing?*

It isn’t, unless it’s bogus knowledge, or knowledge we are better off without. 👍
 
Discovery Science had an episode where 15 plus scientists were given our tax dollars to fly to the North Pole, where they established a base camp and then they rolled out enormous sheets of white nonreflective plastic and attempted to peg the sheeting down in Arctic windstorm conditions.

What a hoot that was to watch, at least I got a bit of enjoyment from their tax payer funded junk science.

“I am scientist, watch me save Earth.”

They actually thought this was how the effects of “global warming” could be curbed in order to save the polar ice sheets.

Then, as always, Discover spent the last 5 minutes of the program boo hooing about how the polar bears will suffer horrible consequences from vanishing ice sheets.

Which is a more junk science and a complete lie.
 
OrangeKnight
*
No, science is value-neutral, when properly conducted.*

The problem here is that we cannot dissociate science from scientists. Your point is well taken. There are no doubt many scientists who are humbled by their knowledge. However, the prevailing sentiment within the scientific community, ever since Descartes, has been that scientific knowledge is the solution to the world’s problems. This is a bogus notion. Science and technology together have created at least as many problems as they have solved. But to hear most scientists that can’t be so. Even the nuclear weapon must be a blessing, according to Einstein, when he first realized the possibility. He changed his tune soon enough after he saw that arrogance on display at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Science and technology in Germany made a Jewish holocaust possible.

Science since then has made Armageddon possible. Satan is an arrogant S.O.B.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Science and technology in Germany made a Jewish holocaust possible.
.
Click to expand...
Your onto something. Germany of that time period was very science literate.

However, I think alot of tragic events started the holocaust and made it possible, not just science.
 
Rascalking said:
In my opinion, the answer is a strong YES. Science, and most scientists are insufferably arrogant. They have a “science uber alles” feeling. So, if science solves everything, who needs morality? Who needs God? Who needs religion?

I’ve always been a humanities guy-literature, paintings, music-and in my opinion, science can lead to questionable activities.

I respect science-my mother is a cancer nurse for over 30 years-so, clearly, I don’t think all science/scientists are immoral. But read Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins,and even the average person in the science field-you’ll see they are quite full of themselves.

(even those darn cancer nurses can be quite intolerable! 😉 )
Click to expand...
Many high-profile scientists are that way, yes (after all, I have yet to see a book called A Guide to some Neat Stuff that isn’t Really All That Important in the Grand Scheme of Things, though I’m still looking), but I don’t think this applies to all or even most of them (us?). I got my undergrad in math and physics and most of the professors in those subjects that I’ve met were really nice people, and the same for those I’m working with now as I get my PhD in Math.

We do have a hard time not coming across as arrogant to non-science people a times though, for 4 reason:
  1. There are questions which are commonly argued that we know the actual answer to, and occasionally get impatient explaining. The airplane will take off the treadmill, and .999… does in fact equal 1. It doesn’t help that because we know the answer we often dismiss an argument for the wrong answer immediately.
  2. It is extremely hard to say things like the last reason without coming across as arrogant, even if they’re true.
  3. We get “you must be so smart” a lot. We don’t know how to respond to that.
  4. We occasionally are surprised that people in other fields aren’t familiar with the stuff it took us a couple years to learn, simply because it’s become background to our thoughts. This occasionally comes across as “what do you mean you don’t know that?” followed by realization and then the statement “oh, right, there’s no reason you should know that.” But that statement, though usually meant well (and true, there is no reason that most people should know that the spin of an electron can be thought of as a vector in a 2-d Hilbert space), doesn’t in fact make things better.
So if us sciencey people come across as arrogant, it’s often by accident. Though I’m not sure about Dawkins, I’m not sure how anyone could be that arrogant without trying.

I do have to say, though, that a couple of the people I respect the most (leaders of a scout troop I was in, in fact) were researches at government facility near where I grew up. They were both elderly gentlemen, of that quiet Southern Protestant type that reminds you of the American Gothic picture (one of them spoke at a rate of 3 words per minute and everything.). Some of the most principled people I knew, and certainly devoted to God. Also extremely skilled with chain saws. I learned a lot from them about stuff not related to science at all (unless using a chain saw is a science, but I’ve always considered it more an art), and only even found out they were researchers after they heard I was going into science myself.
 
Iron_Donkey said:
Many high-profile scientists are that way, yes (after all, I have yet to see a book called A Guide to some Neat Stuff that isn’t Really All That Important in the Grand Scheme of Things, though I’m still looking), but I don’t think this applies to all or even most of them (us?). I got my undergrad in math and physics and most of the professors in those subjects that I’ve met were really nice people, and the same for those I’m working with now as I get my PhD in Math.

We do have a hard time not coming across as arrogant to non-science people a times though, for 4 reason:
  1. There are questions which are commonly argued that we know the actual answer to, and occasionally get impatient explaining. The airplane will take off the treadmill, and .999… does in fact equal 1. It doesn’t help that because we know the answer we often dismiss an argument for the wrong answer immediately.
  2. It is extremely hard to say things like the last reason without coming across as arrogant, even if they’re true.
  3. We get “you must be so smart” a lot. We don’t know how to respond to that.
  4. We occasionally are surprised that people in other fields aren’t familiar with the stuff it took us a couple years to learn, simply because it’s become background to our thoughts. This occasionally comes across as “what do you mean you don’t know that?” followed by realization and then the statement “oh, right, there’s no reason you should know that.” But that statement, though usually meant well (and true, there is no reason that most people should know that the spin of an electron can be thought of as a vector in a 2-d Hilbert space), doesn’t in fact make things better.
So if us science people come across as arrogant, it’s often by accident. Though I’m not sure about Dawkins, I’m not sure how anyone could be that arrogant without trying.

I do have to say, though, that a couple of the people I respect the most (leaders of a scout troop I was in, in fact) were researches at government facility near where I grew up. They were both elderly gentlemen, of that quiet Southern Protestant type that reminds you of the American Gothic picture (one of them spoke at a rate of 3 words per minute and everything.). Some of the most principled people I knew, and certainly devoted to God. Also extremely skilled with chain saws. I learned a lot from them about stuff not related to science at all (unless using a chain saw is a science, but I’ve always considered it more an art), and only even found out they were researchers after they heard I was going into science myself.
Click to expand...
I think you raise a much bigger point. I’m working on an advanced degree in English, and the arrogance of all people in academia is pretty irritating.

I include myself, mea culpa.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
How does the adulation of science escape from being due to one’s genotype?

And how does the arrogance of a Dawkins escape being due to his own genotype?
Click to expand...
According him it doesn’t and thereby renders him guilt-free, the only problem being that he’s not responsible for his thoughts and conclusions either… So what are they worth? :confused:
 
So what are they worth?

When Dawkins said that evolution pre-empted God and made atheism respectable, he declared his own worth as a thinker.

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Here’s the latest explanation for all our fault-ridden behaviors thanks to so-called scientific studies.

theweek.com/article/index/210065/infidelity-and-12-other-things-we-blame-on-our-genes

Any comments?
Click to expand...
Is Science Insufferably Arrogant? It depends.

I’m a retired engineer (applied scientist, as it is sometimes called). Engineers are different than “pure” scientists in that we actually have to make things work. A project might start with a “theory of operation”, but eventually the bridge gets built, or the airplane takes off the runway, or the computer is powered up. That means that there is a built-in check on one’s arrogance. Because as we all know, sometimes things don’t work per the “theory of operation.” You rarely see an engineer saying “I know absolutely, positively, that the design based on my theory of operation will work.” And those with any experience will never say it.

Pure scientists, on the other hand, have no built-in check on their arrogance. They come up with theories left and right - dark matter, dark energy, black holes, evolution via random mutations. Etc. But when it’s “show me” time, the answer is "Well, the nearest black hole (dark matter/energy/evolution) would take us 100,000 years to get to. If we could travel at the speed of light. But the math for black holes looks really really good. At least it does right now. And I insist that you believe that black holes exist because the math looks so good. And the rest of us are ignorant and stupid if we don’t believe them. Because, after all, it’s the best theory available, so it must be True.

All the scientific theories which exist today have replaced many times over previous theories which were arrogantly correct at the time (but later proven to be incorrect), and which only ignorant and stupid people refused to accept. But scientists still tell us that we must believe them, because they are right THIS TIME. (Global cooling is our doom. Oh wait, I meant global warming. Hold on, I really meant climate change. But really, you need to believe me, because I’m Mr. PhD Science - and who the heck are you?.)

Humility and pure science seem to be polar opposites.

Whereas the great works of art, architecture, music, literature, and even science (in the past) were created in the pursuit of God’s glorification (which indirectly demonstrates our own humility), science has removed itself from that overarching objective. It seems that many scientists want Science to replace God. Is that arrogant?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top