Comments on: Science viewed as a way of quickly recovering from stupidity

By: Son2

Son2 — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:38:25 +0000

Why is this debate over Intelligent Design even happening? Who is attracted to the idea?

By: Son2

Son2 — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:16:40 +0000

When I think about science as a “social activity,” I think about people as social animals. They exist in relation to each other and as part of groups that exist in relation to other groups. Okay, I’m saying things that we already agree on probably.

But what I’m trying to do is dissociate the social activity from the cognitive activity. The doing from the knowing, reasoning, judging mind.

Damnint. I have more to say but I have to go to a freakin’ soccer game. I’ll be bahck.

By: son1

son1 — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:56:29 +0000

Yeah: I mean, I think I basically agree. Practically, science is this ongoing process of comment/learning/teaching/boasting. I think your “distributed editorial commentary” is perfectly accurate.

I guess my only point was that the editorial commentary usually occurs (can occur) because most of the editors agree, on some level, about some of the basic principles involved. I mean, they agree that they can only edit “that which is editable.” They can only comment on “things that make themselves open to commentary.” They share a certain set of minimum standards which allow them to maintain this “science” thing — they form an epistemic community, if you will. And one of the concepts that join them is something like “falsifiability” (that is, “edit-ability,” or “open to comment”), in one of its many guises.

But yeah, ultimately, it’s a distributed comment-driven process. Which is why the whole ID thing rubs so many scientists the wrong way — it has the feel of a party-crasher, someone who doesn’t want to participate at all, complaining about how the party isn’t being conducted the way they want.

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:01:31 +0000

This is not to say that scientists, as members of some much-vaunted Community, are nicer than other people, or are trying to be right. Indeed, I know a number who I might say (on an unflattering day) seem to be avoiding saying anything at all for fear of being told they're saying nothing at all. Hell, I seem to be one of those, myself. But that's neither here nor there. In an ideal world, though, the forest of "invective" might be better-described as "distributed continuous editorial commentary", don't you think? Including internalized editorial commenting?

By: son1

son1 — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:51:23 +0000

But things like “theory,” “fact,” and “falsifiability,” (or at least, the last one) are the logical consequences… or at least, the necessary conditions… for someone telling you you’re full of shit.

But you’re right, I suppose that in talking about “theories” and “falsifiability,” you kind of lose the forest for the trees. And the forest is a forest of invective. Indeed.