probably an old and worn out question

[renormalised (Carl)]

Faith seems to be a dirty word, which is unfortunate.

[CraigS]

Yes Carl, I also don't feel that 'faith' is a dirty word .. its just not relevant to science.

"Faith is a confident belief in the truth or trustworthiness of a person or an idea .. a belief that does not rest on logical proof or evidence."

We've discussed 'proof' (based on evidence) in this thread and I hope, we've made it clear that there is no 'proof' in science. There is also no 'truth' in science. It seems that 'faith is simply a variant, (or an outcome ?), which relies on the existence of 'proof', and that the 'truth' actually exists, and is actually known presumably, to someone.

I'd like to think that I can both: give, and receive the truth, in say a conversation about some topic. So, in that sense, having 'faith' is definitely admirable .. not dirty.

But when it comes to writing a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis taking steps to ensure the objectivity, conducting the experiment and publishing method and the results (so others can repeat the process), it just doesn't take the prime seat of relevance in the outcome.

Brian's language is perhaps, a product of where he is coming from .. which is a different place from where mainstream science sits.

That's my 2 cents worth, anyway.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

I don't think you're seeing what I am getting at here, Craig. In the cold, hard light of the scientific method, faith has no procedural place because the scientific method rests purely in logic. However, if you really pushed a scientist far enough (well, at least some), they would tell you that faith is relevant to science...in that a scientist would have faith in the veracity of their theories, through all the usual hypothesis testing and experimentation etc etc. If they didn't, they would never hold to any ideas that they postulated. Most just don't want to admit to it because they see the other, religious, overtones to the meaning of faith and they don't want to associate what they do with religion. Though, if you look at the way most scientist uphold and defend some cherished notions they hold, you'd swear that science was a religion and the scientist were its "high priests".

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Though, if you look at the way most scientist uphold and defend some cherished notions they hold, you'd swear that science was a religion and the scientist were its "high priests".

I totally agree !!
And the temptation to do this and display this fervour, is what feeds the pseudosciences and their criticism that science is a religion! … Scientists create pseudosciences !

Having made this assertion, I understand why they display this fervour, as well … if they didn't, they would seem to be ambivalent towards their own bids for funding. This, I think is where the problem lies in the process … and its not the science process bit .. its the political process bit.

Not sure I know what the answer is, however .. its all about politics and economics.

Still, keeping the two perspectives firmly separated, gives a scientist a fighting chance to preserve the two perspectives, (ie: true science and public persuasion).

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

And that's the hypocrisy of pseudoscience and those that delve into it...if anything is more religious about its ideas, it's pseudoscience. You only have to look at the proponents of EU and the TB site to see this. It's the same with all the others and whatever brand of stupidity they profess.

[CraigS]

So how does a 'scientist' distinguish himself, (in the public perception), from a pseudoscientist ?

My answer is that it HAS to be in the way he/she behaves, (ie: communicates) and asserts leadership … which all comes back to suppressing the religious fervour !

Cheers

[CraigS]

I think Bert said the other day …

Originally Posted by avandonk

I have been to the Synchrotron in Grenoble France. This is a very expensive machine. The politicians most probably have no concept of what it really is. They are after all scientifically ignorant. You have to tell porkies to politicians if you want your great big shiny machine to do experiments. Just say with a wink it will give them world domination and the wallet will be opened. They are only interested in power as they completely lack any redeeming human attributes.

Hope he doesn't mind me quoting his words of wisdom on this one.

The point being that a real scientist has to manage the two 'personnas' carefully, whilst remaining honest to oneself and the work being performed.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

So how does a 'scientist' distinguish himself, (in the public perception), from a pseudoscientist ?

My answer is that it HAS to be in the way he/she behaves, (ie: communicates) and asserts leadership … which all comes back to suppressing the religious fervour !

Cheers

Problem is, it's the religious fervour that sucks the general public in....the sensational, the righteousness of cause and the certainty it supposedly offers.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Problem is, it's the religious fervour that sucks the general public in....the sensational, the righteousness of cause and the certainty it supposedly offers. Precisely the same reason why religion holds the sway it does, that and indoctrination.

Brian Cox, Lawrence Krauss, Lisa Randall and your bevvy of young scientific starlets seem to have found 'other ways' … perhaps there are others !


Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Brian Cox, Lawrence Krauss, Lisa Randall and your bevvy of young scientific starlets seem to have found 'other ways' … perhaps there are others !


Cheers

Yes there are....hype it up, make it sexy, water it down to make it accessible but don't make it so superficial you lose the meaning of what you're trying to get across. That's what they do. If they really wanted to get across the real substance of their work, 99% of the people would be left standing there scratching their heads. As arrogant as it may sound, despite there being quite a few intelligent people around, most of the general population is not all that terribly smart. If they were, we wouldn't be in the confused mess and trouble we're in.

[CraigS]

I know that Randall has some real substance behind her work and its published in the usual, quality peer-reviewed scientific journals. So does Brian Greene.

I think this is where their true substance is revealed (or not), as the case may be.

These two would seem to be good cases to demonstrate that both 'personnas' can be maintained .. both having different purposes/goals.

As a slight aside, interestingly, Randall heads up some very important funding decision making committees, also.

There is value in the approach of avoiding religious fervour in citing scientific arguments. I think it very worthwhile that scientists delve deeply into the philosophical basis of science, as I think this is where an understanding of the importance of all this stems from.

Cheers
PS: I think Dawkins is the worst offender I can think of. In the longrun, I really don't believe his leadership style will achieve the goal he has set for himself. It does however, legitimise the atheism conversation. (I'm not sure however, that this conversation leads to a better position for science in society … I believe it serves more to 'muddy' the water, and take us backwards in time.)

[renormalised (Carl)]

All of them have substance in their works....but it's conveying that to the public which is the hardest thing to do. In coming down to their level, they can lose the essence of the meaning behind their work. How do you convey even the philosophical ramifications of something like String Theory or even something as relatively easy as GR to the average person out in public??. It's damn hard, I know, because I've tried to do it and it just goes over their heads. They aren't interested for the most part because they haven't any understanding (even basic) of what you're on about, and yet these theories (of science, in general) impinge on everything they do. That's why most scientist don't bother to try and explain things to people...they won't understand you anyway. Not only that, many aren't the best of communicators and don't like talking to audiences...but that's not just them, either.

Put it this way....a mechanic can fix your car. But how many mechanics know the physics behind the workings of a car engine....any engine, for that matter. I would say very, very few, and it would be only those intelligent enough to have the curiosity to find out.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

It's damn hard, I know, because I've tried to do it and it just goes over their heads. They aren't interested for the most part because they haven't any understanding (even basic) of what you're on about, and yet these theories (of science, in general) impinge on everything they do.

Which places the emphasis on the delivery. If they like the speaker's style, then they're more likely to trust the speaker and support them … goal achieved !

I think you'll find that when people realise they have no hope in understanding a complex topic, they're happy, (as a fallback position), to know that they can always find out from the speaker, if the speaker is open and amenable.

The 'content' may never be understood by the listener, (as you say), so the true objective of the speaker is to garner their support. This can easily achieved by deleting 'the religious fervour'. Leave the 'real' content conversation, for those who'll understand it. This can still be delivered, using the same techniques as the first conversation also, (aka religious-fervour-free).

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's why most scientist don't bother to try and explain things to people...they won't understand you anyway. Not only that, many aren't the best of communicators and don't like talking to audiences...but that's not just them, either.

Then this is what they should be developing in their professional skills. Communication is a skill, and it can be learned. There is no excuse for not doing so.

Religious fervour is totally inconsistent with what differentiates the scientific process and science's greatest strengths. Arguments coming from this basis, are basically playing in the pseudoscience arena, and is not leading from a position of strength.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Well, I pride myself on being a very good public speaker. I always have been. I have no worries speaking to any sized audience and being very effective in my delivery, but that still doesn't make it any easier trying to make myself understood at times. Actually, it's the one thing I really enjoy doing....teaching. However, you have to realise it's sometimes impossible to get something across if the audience just doesn't have the ability to see what you can. Even when you deliver it on a level they should be able to understand. It's just a fact of life that the majority of people don't have the ability (or the interest) to do science and can't understand it, or have a very skewed understanding of what it is.

If people have no hope of understanding a topic, then it's useless trying to convey to them later on what you were on about. I always stay open to questions and I'm very happy to help out anyone who's having trouble with things, but if they don't have a clue what you said first up, then despite trying to help out later on, it can be like pushing the proverbial ball of cow dung up a steep hill, trying to do so later on. They're in no better position to understand than what they were in before and if you want their support, then they must have at least a basic understanding of what you're on about and your own position.

The reason why pseudoscience gets the audience it does because it plays on the ignorance of others by spinning what appears to be a convincing argument. Being ignorant, the public knows no better and so falls for all the hype and the "glamour" it portrays to them. With a little knowledge and understanding, it's easy to see just how much real substance is there, but that's what the public lacks. It's much easier to believe in and follow the snake oil salesmen of the world than it is to follow the facts because the facts can be rather unpalatable, whereas the snake oil tastes exactly how you want it to and it's sold to make it taste that way.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Hi Guys, I did check out the video, actually I found the complete documentary and it is fascinating.

Now a request and then a point or two on the above conversation.

Could you point me in the direction of a good refresher... make that really basic on line math course. High school was in the 60's and whatever I learned has long since left.

Carl perhaps you are confusing ignorant and stupid. I have met many people from a very broad range of cultures and societies and have met very few that are actually stupid. But the vast majority of the people I have met are certainly not trained up to even a grade 8 level from an industrialised western (including Australia and New Zealand) country.

But this doesn't make them stupid, it just makes them uneducated in one particular way.

In my own way I was a teacher for a fair number of years. I used to keep a cartoon at my desk. In the cartoon was a preacher proclaiming upon how 'Gladly the cross I bare'. in the pews a young native boy is picturing 'Gladly' the cross eyed bear.

It can be difficult to get the message across.

thanks for all the help,
Brian

[renormalised (Carl)]

No, Brian....some are both ignorant and stupid. What makes them stupid is when they don't use the education they do have to make, at least, an attempt at understanding something they may have trouble with. Ignorance comes from not being educated, stupidity comes from not using what you have learnt. Stupidity also comes from just accepting things at face value, or accepting what you've been told without question, or knowing there's a problem but just accepting it as a fait accompli, or allowing those who don't have the best interests of everyone at heart carry on like they do and just letting them get away with it all (by being duped into and ultimately being complicit in whatever the problem is).

I wouldn't expect people coming from a developing country to have a broad education, or even a specific education up to the standards of an industrialised western nation. But they're not the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people in those industrialised nations. For all the education they supposedly get, all too many of them are not as well educated as their level of schooling would suggest. I know of kids leaving grade 10 and 12 who are functionally illiterate, and it's not just one or two students. I've seen the results of this at uni. I often wonder how some of them even get into uni. Honestly, I believe the old matriculation exams for uni entrance should be brought back into use because it's the only way you're going to be able to get those students and older people who are good enough to handle uni weeded out from the others who aren't. Although, I also know of others who had top marks at school who failed to get past the first semester. Only because they were lazy scholars used to being "hand fed" by teachers and having them look over their shoulders to push them with their work. They just weren't mature enough to handle uni or the pressure it puts on students.

There's no way you're ever going to get the entire public educated up to the standard of a science graduate or higher. It's not only practically impossible, it's also not going to happen because only a few will have the education and intelligence to reach that level and not everyone is interested in science. However, there are skills which can be taught to school children from a young age that are seriously lacking in the education system. Most importantly, the ability to be able to think imaginatively, clearly and critically. What they try and teach along those lines at school these days is an utter joke, especially since most of the teachers themselves have poor to non existent skills in these areas, for the most part. It is a rare teacher who has these skills and can impart them to the students in manner that the kids find learning interesting and enjoyable. There are some about, but there's not enough of them to go around, unfortunately. Another thing seriously lacking is common sense, but that is only something that can be taught to kids in their family situations and through the right example being set by their parents. So it's a sad indictment on us as a society that we who have been taught these skills by our own parents from the previous generations, have largely failed to pass on those skills to our own kids.

[Rob_K]

Originally Posted by renormalised

There's no way you're ever going to get the entire public educated up to the standard of a science graduate or higher. It's not only practically impossible, it's also not going to happen because only a few will have the education and intelligence to reach that level and not everyone is interested in science.

While I have broad agreement with a lot of what you're saying Carl, I think you're on shaky ground with the intelligence bit. It's a bad assumption to think that you need high intelligence to understand or be educated in science, and this idea of exclusivity is one of the prime misconceptions that leads people to undervalue their own brainpower, and even resent science and scientists.

Some of the dumbest people I've ever met were at university, and progressed to perfectly respectable scientific careers. Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have been digging ditches, or working in mines, or shearing sheds. And vice versa! Intelligence is a human condition, while education is a class condition. High intelligence may be required to make the Einsteinian and Hawkingsian ( ) leaps forward in science, but really most are just highly educated punters doing the daily grind in their chosen scientific field.

All that is needed is a relatively privileged (as opposed to underprivileged) start in life that gives you the opportunity & support, and enough interest, ambition and discipline to get you through. Intelligence is the least of the requirements. And it is the least of the requirements if you want to understand science.

Cheers -

[renormalised (Carl)]

It's not intelligence they have Rob, it's common sense, and I agree with you there. I know a quite a few uni people who have a lot of intelligence and have high degrees. But try and get them to see anything blind freddie could see and they're stuffed. But I also know just as many average people (more so), with no degrees who are just as stupid. You have to have a modicum of intelligence to go to uni, but being intelligent is no guarantee of having common sense. However, to be really successful in science, having that intelligence (above average at least) is needed. Of course all the other factors rate higher so far as being given the opportunity to get into uni and succeed at your chosen course and career, but having the horsepower in the noggin and being able to use it makes it a lot easier than just being average in the brain stakes, especially when it comes to subjects like maths, physics, astronomy, chemistry etc etc.

Anyone can be educated in science, but to be able to understand and apply what they've learnt takes more than just working through the processes and going through the grind. To reach the graduate level or higher does take more than your average person normally musters in being able to think critically and intuitively/imaginatively. Being able to do so is a requirement because you're expected to be able to contribute to the advancement of knowledge when you get to that level of education/knowledge. Doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be an Einstein or whoever, but you're expected to achieve a level of knowledge and understanding considerably above the undergraduate level, at least. The undergraduate degrees many people get are only like starter's packs. You just learn enough to be basically proficient at your game and that's all. Then you learn from experience, which is the best teacher of the lot. Or, you go onto further education and then get experience as you progress from there.