Looking for good philosophical arguments on not attending the MARCH FOR SCIENCE

[lynnvinc]

It is true that honesty is good. And so, we have one argument to use: one can point out that pretending that “March for Science” and agenda of its organisers is the same thing as “science” (and support for one is the same as support for another) is dishonest, and thus that should be avoided. Participation in such a march or support of it can be seen as just such pretending. Therefore, it must be avoided.

Now, of course, leftist groups were pretending that their agenda is “science” for a long time. For example, in USSR one of subjects in universities was “Scientific Communism”.

If there is any need to show what the agenda of “March of Science” is, one blog has made several posts about that, for example:

• shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/snake-oil-salesman-becomes-hononary-chair-of-march-for-science/
• shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/getting-harder-to-hide-to-partisan-agendas-behind-the-march-for-science/
• shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/march-for-science-supporters-dont-seem-all-that-interested-in-science/
• shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/march-for-post-modern-science/

One of the points made there is that “March for Science” is post-modernist. Thus, if many atheists here proclaim that science is the only reliable way to find truth, some of the supporters of “March of Science” seem to deny that there’s even a truth that can be found. Pointing out that might also work.

And if a more philosophical point is necessary, one can simply ask what science actually is. Is it even something that can be “supported”?

Actually the left is no friend of impact science either. You almost never hear about climate change, for instance, on progressive TV channels. And you almost never hear about products that are linked to health harms. (Tip: look at the advertisers of both rightist and leftist channels.)

What one can say is that both the right and left have pretty much sold their souls to corporate powers that be, and impact science is truly under threat. It would be good if the people, esp those at risk or concerned about those at risk, would stand up for impact science as our Holy Fathers have been doing for decades.

If our deceitful media do not cover issues like climate change and other serious harms to life on planet earth, you can at least learn about them from papal writings. For instance, see Laudato Si (most recent and most thorough discussion of these) at w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

God is Ttruth. Scientists studying God’s creation can in a way be seen at exegeters of God’s Bible written in His creation. They seek the truth, even tho scientific truths can be advanced and improved with better evidence and theory. Science is to be respected – the Catholic Church acknowledges that.

Be not afraid to stand up for Truth (God) and the scientific truths about His creation that speak to important life and death issues. May God’s grace give you all the courage and fortitude, compassion and love, to stand up for impact science, no matter what its troublesome and disturbing findings may be.

 

[MPat]

Good idea. Let’s stop all funding. I mean, what has science ever done for us?

Apart from medicine and transport and clean water and the internet and protection from the environment, hospitals, beer, comminication, knowledge…etc

OK, now it’s your turn to list all the bad stuff like bombs and things. Off you go…

And, conveniently enough, you didn’t say what science is.

So, it is not clear if “social sciences” and “humanities” are a subspecies of “science”. It is not clear if “science” is something that is supported by funding (or is it just “scientists”, “research”, something else?)…

But let’s see what we did find out… “Science”, apparently, is something that gives us good things (namely, beer ), as long as we offer sacrifices to it (in form of funding) and offer praises (for example, in form of marches)… Looks like the “science” you talk about is not easily distinguishable from a god…

Now, of course, you won’t agree that this is, in fact, your position. Yet it seems to be stronger than your position: “March for Science” makes sense as an act of worship. It makes less sense as a protest. If you don’t believe that, explain what you expect “March for Science” to achieve.

Actually the left is no friend of impact science either. You almost never hear about climate change, for instance, on progressive TV channels. And you almost never hear about products that are linked to health harms. (Tip: look at the advertisers of both rightist and leftist channels.)

What one can say is that both the right and left have pretty much sold their souls to corporate powers that be, and impact science is truly under threat. It would be good if the people, esp those at risk or concerned about those at risk, would stand up for impact science as our Holy Fathers have been doing for decades.

If our deceitful media do not cover issues like climate change and other serious harms to life on planet earth, you can at least learn about them from papal writings. For instance, see Laudato Si (most recent and most thorough discussion of these) at w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

God is Ttruth. Scientists studying God’s creation can in a way be seen at exegeters of God’s Bible written in His creation. They seek the truth, even tho scientific truths can be advanced and improved with better evidence and theory. Science is to be respected – the Catholic Church acknowledges that.

Be not afraid to stand up for Truth (God) and the scientific truths about His creation that speak to important life and death issues. May God’s grace give you all the courage and fortitude, compassion and love, to stand up for impact science, no matter what its troublesome and disturbing findings may be.

The same question: what do you expect “March for Science” to achieve?

 

[adamhovey1988]

Because scientism isn’t scientific

 

[lynnvinc]

And, conveniently enough, you didn’t say what science is.

So, it is not clear if “social sciences” and “humanities” are a subspecies of “science”. It is not clear if “science” is something that is supported by funding (or is it just “scientists”, “research”, something else?)…

But let’s see what we did find out… “Science”, apparently, is something that gives us good things (namely, beer ), as long as we offer sacrifices to it (in form of funding) and offer praises (for example, in form of marches)… Looks like the “science” you talk about is not easily distinguishable from a god…

Now, of course, you won’t agree that this is, in fact, your position. Yet it seems to be stronger than your position: “March for Science” makes sense as an act of worship. It makes less sense as a protest. If you don’t believe that, explain what you expect “March for Science” to achieve.

The same question: what do you expect “March for Science” to achieve?

What is science: Aside from good discussions of it in various books and Wikipedia (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science ), I would say science is based on empirical observations (evidence, data) and theories that explain these (and/or predict them), involving objective methods and testable or replicable findings and conclusions. Scientific facts are “robust” like those re anthropogenic climate change when there are many scientific studies from various angles and methods that point to the same conclusions.

There are a range of scientific methods to develop “scientific facts” from classical experiments to inductive methods. Sometimes it would be immoral to involve humans in a scientific experiment, so they use other mammals like mice to find out if various “treatments” are helpful or harmful for certain conditions. Sometimes they cannot conduct classical experiments because they cannot isolate their factor of interest from other factors, but they have devised sophisticated methods to study those factors of interest and control for them.

If your objection is that science is “atheistic,” then that is true. It is not about how God acting like a magician causes things to happen, due to being angry or from someone offering the correct oblation or prayer. However, that it subtracts God from the equation, does not mean it proves there is no God, and in fact science arose from within Catholic traditions, I would say from our more transcendental concept of God (as apart from His creation) that can conceive of a universe that operates on natural laws (whether or not these natural laws were ordained by God). Science is not anti-religious, but rather has circumscribed a limited area for itself – the empirical, material world or what we can know through our senses.

As for “social sciences,” I think the march is mainly about the physical or natural sciences. At least that’s how I understand it, and, as I’ve mentioned, it seems to be more about “impact sciences” rather than “production sciences.”

I would not consider “postmodernism” science – it is a critique of science and more in the realm of philosophy and epistemological questions (how do we know what we know). I’m not a fan of postmodernism, even tho it does raise interesting questions and issues; I think it has had a bad impact on some social sciences, esp my field anthropology.

RE what the March for Science could achieve, I would hope it would alert people to the attacks by the corporate world and the government on science – the science that reveals things they don’t like.

Many people just go to blogsites for their science – even if that “science” contradicts what actual science is telling us as found in textbooks and top tier science journals. Real science will make it thru the gauntlet of peer-review and into top science journal.

People need to be awakened to the pseudo-science created by ideologues and corporate interest and the attacks on science that are putting humanity at risk.

 

[MPat]

What is science: Aside from good discussions of it in various books and Wikipedia (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science ), I would say science is based on empirical observations (evidence, data) and theories that explain these (and/or predict them), involving objective methods and testable or replicable findings and conclusions. Scientific facts are “robust” like those re anthropogenic climate change when there are many scientific studies from various angles and methods that point to the same conclusions.

I was asking what science is. I was not asking what science is based on.

The reason for that question is obviously to make sure that only one of several meanings of “science” is used. Otherwise that word is likely to change meaning during the discussion.

If your objection is that science is “atheistic,”

No, it is not my objection.

As for “social sciences,” I think the march is mainly about the physical or natural sciences. At least that’s how I understand it, and, as I’ve mentioned, it seems to be more about “impact sciences” rather than “production sciences.”

I’m afraid that “At least that’s how I understand it” is not nearly sufficient. So, have you done any research on this matter? Or is your support for the march based on the name of it alone?

I would not consider “postmodernism” science – it is a critique of science and more in the realm of philosophy and epistemological questions (how do we know what we know). I’m not a fan of postmodernism, even tho it does raise interesting questions and issues; I think it has had a bad impact on some social sciences, esp my field anthropology.

Then perhaps you should check if you are not ending up supporting postmodernism…?

RE what the March for Science could achieve, I would hope it would alert people to the attacks by the corporate world and the government on science – the science that reveals things they don’t like.

There are several problems with that.

First, a march is a terrible tool for that. Marches can be “acts of worship”, they can support a proposition of the kind “We are numerous and we’re a force.”. They are not good for supporting propositions that do not depend on this one.

Second, let’s look at this:

Many people just go to blogsites for their science – even if that “science” contradicts what actual science is telling us as found in textbooks and top tier science journals. Real science will make it thru the gauntlet of peer-review and into top science journal.

So, on one hand you think people should look for scientific truth in journal papers instead of blog posts. And then you also want them to listen to slogans in a march? Seriously? Do you really intend to go to a march and shout what is effectively “Don’t listen to me!!!”?

Third, you talk as if there was a good reason to listen to you, yet you say that one shouldn’t listen to blog posts - and you do that in a forum post. “Don’t listen to me!!!” again?

Fourth, let’s look at this:

People need to be awakened to the pseudo-science created by ideologues and corporate interest and the attacks on science that are putting humanity at risk.

Actually the left is no friend of impact science either. You almost never hear about climate change, for instance, on progressive TV channels. And you almost never hear about products that are linked to health harms. (Tip: look at the advertisers of both rightist and leftist channels.)

So, if information about health risks and global warming is so hard to find, how did you (and probably not just you) find out about them? Maybe it is not quite that hard?

Fifth, I’m afraid that you haven’t made the case that there is any bad will from the other side. Don’t forget that we have to try to find a good interpretation of actions of others. Thus, if there is any chance that the ones who disagree with you are merely wrong, that’s an interpretation one should choose. For that matter, it would be nice if you would start by ruling out the possibility that they are right…

 

[lynnvinc]

I was asking what science is. I was not asking what science is based on.

The reason for that question is obviously to make sure that only one of several meanings of “science” is used. Otherwise that word is likely to change meaning during the discussion.

No, it is not my objection.

I’m afraid that “At least that’s how I understand it” is not nearly sufficient. So, have you done any research on this matter? Or is your support for the march based on the name of it alone?

Then perhaps you should check if you are not ending up supporting postmodernism…?

There are several problems with that.

First, a march is a terrible tool for that. Marches can be “acts of worship”, they can support a proposition of the kind “We are numerous and we’re a force.”. They are not good for supporting propositions that do not depend on this one.

Second, let’s look at this:

So, on one hand you think people should look for scientific truth in journal papers instead of blog posts. And then you also want them to listen to slogans in a march? Seriously? Do you really intend to go to a march and shout what is effectively “Don’t listen to me!!!”?

Third, you talk as if there was a good reason to listen to you, yet you say that one shouldn’t listen to blog posts - and you do that in a forum post. “Don’t listen to me!!!” again?

Fourth, let’s look at this:

So, if information about health risks and global warming is so hard to find, how did you (and probably not just you) find out about them? Maybe it is not quite that hard?

Fifth, I’m afraid that you haven’t made the case that there is any bad will from the other side. Don’t forget that we have to try to find a good interpretation of actions of others. Thus, if there is any chance that the ones who disagree with you are merely wrong, that’s an interpretation one should choose. For that matter, it would be nice if you would start by ruling out the possibility that they are right…

You seem to be very bitter and hostile about something. Why not just avoid going to the march. Then if anyone asks where were you and if your job depends on you showing up, then say you were sick. I don’t think that would be a lie, since you seem sick of heart over this march.

As for me, I’m not going bec I live very far away and have other involvements, but I do support their objectives. In fact I started a CAF thread about it when it was first announced back in Jan. See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1039835

Here is how the idea for the march started by 2 scientists: “Are scientists going to march on Washington?” at washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/01/24/are-scientists-going-to-march-on-washington/?postshare=7811485307292866&tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.56f37feb7e46

BTW, I don’t think the march will accomplish a whole lot. If it helps some people to understand there is an attack on impact science and that attack is a threat to life on planet earth and that there are a good number of scientists and others who care, that will have been a victory of sorts. I don’t expect the powers-that-be to start doing the right thing.

 

[MPat]

You seem to be very bitter and hostile about something. Why not just avoid going to the march. Then if anyone asks where were you and if your job depends on you showing up, then say you were sick. I don’t think that would be a lie, since you seem sick of heart over this march.

As for me, I’m not going bec I live very far away and have other involvements, but I do support their objectives. In fact I started a CAF thread about it when it was first announced back in Jan. See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1039835

Here is how the idea for the march started by 2 scientists: “Are scientists going to march on Washington?” at washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/01/24/are-scientists-going-to-march-on-washington/?postshare=7811485307292866&tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.56f37feb7e46

BTW, I don’t think the march will accomplish a whole lot. If it helps some people to understand there is an attack on impact science and that attack is a threat to life on planet earth and that there are a good number of scientists and others who care, that will have been a victory of sorts. I don’t expect the powers-that-be to start doing the right thing.

What can I say? Thank you for agreeing that “March for Science” is unlikely to achieve any significant good. I’d say that this is the point that the original poster might find useful.

 

[lao_tzu]

I’m hoping the moderators will allow me to keep this thread in the Philosophy forum, but if not, please move me to the right category.

I work as an environmental scientist at a US state agency. recently, on the work bulletin board one of my co-workers posted a flier for April 22nd’s MARCH FOR SCIENCE. I know this movement has various leftist political agendas behind it, so I most likely will not attend.

Anyways for those scientists, other epistomologists, and ethicists: If you were in my place and a secular-or even religious co-worker asked you why you are not attending, can you suggest what you might say to them? I’m looking for some good old fashioned natural law based arguments.
thanks!

Dear spangler,

Please allow me to point out that good philosophical arguments do not begin with a conclusion, but rather end there.

As ever, Jesse

 

[lynnvinc]

Dear spangler,

Please allow me to point out that good philosophical arguments do not begin with a conclusion, but rather end there.

As ever, Jesse

That reminds me of the good old Confucian dictum that policy should be based on science, not science on policy implications.

The march is in part against creating bogus science based on unfavorable or feared policy implications (like having to reduce our CO2 emissions), or just shutting the science down altogether (so we’ll never know what harms and kills us).

((However, if we had been living in harmony with Dao, we probably wouldn’t even need policy or science. ))