Scientific Evidence Shouldn't Dictate Your Opinion... But It SHOULD Guide It - A Response to Kyriacos' Post (Part 1)
A few days ago I read this article by @kyriacos, an incredibly popular poster on the Steemit platform.
Frankly, I was a little disturbed by the anti-science tone of the article, one I've noticed as being fairly prevalent here on this site. Now, everyone's entitled to express their own opinion - that's part of what makes this platform in particular so great. But I'm concerned that we haven't heard a lot of voices from the other side to give a more balanced feel to the arguments being made.
I am volunteering to be just such a voice.
In his article @kyriacos makes the argument that science shouldn't be used to form opinions because scientists themselves are flawed - "[Scientists] can be biased, make errors, have wrong assumptions and most importantly, they can be manipulated either financially or ideologically," that "scientific evidence cannot produce facts. Ever," and that "we are always wrong about what we assume as facts — at least to a degree." For these reasons he concludes by arguing: "Next time you are in an argument, try to use your own rational mind in order to speak about something." The ending quote, and my favorite of the post:
Claiming "facts" is the equivalent of a spoiled brat that demands approval for no reason whatsoever. Not only they can be refuted with equally abstract evidence, but you end sounding like a cult member reciting from a holy book. Let us not turn science, one of the best tools in our disposal, into a meme of entitlement.
Wow. These were statements that deserved more than a mere comment. They needed a proper post in response. Sadly, I wasn't able to get to it until now.
Before I respond to each of the aforementioned statements, I want to express my opinion in general on using scientific facts (or "facts" according to @kyriacos) in arguments and discussions.
The scientific method is such a valuable tool in our society because it allows us to extend our reach beyond each individual's intellectual reach alone. It's allowed us to destroy disease, connect the world, and travel to the stars. It's true that it isn't perfect, but science has demonstrated time and time again that it can deliver ever more accurate pictures of our reality.
Whether any given picture is "true" is a philosophical conundrum that has to do with whether it's possible for human beings to ever know any absolute truth. But, I mean, we have to base our opinions on something. Whatever that something is should be a something that has shown itself to have strong predictive power. It should be something that, while not totally immune to human imperfection and bias, does allow us to a great extent to over come it.
In a modern society, when we have discussions about our ideas and opinions, we are literally deciding what our society will look like. Each voice is a tiny piece of the puzzle, spreading from one person to another like neurons firing in an interconnected brain. Our votes, what we watch on television, our standards for how we treat each other - these are all defined by the prevailing thoughts of the period.
It's true that this does require a degree of faith in the scientists themselves... but humanity has always made decisions and built our knowledge on top of previously, rigorously tested and verified, ideas. It may not be perfect, but it's better than common sense alone. Just think about trying to have a 'rational' argument about the abilities of planes to fly before the first one had taken flight. And there are many more things that run counter to common sense and the wiring of the human brain in our world. Science allows us to transcend our limitations to some degree, and I think that rigorously tested and verified ideas are fair play as a tool for use in arguments of almost any kind.
In Part 2 I'll address each of @kyriacos' arguments in turn. In the meanwhile let me know what you think down in the comments.
Thank you so much for reading! If you enjoyed this post, please upvote, resteem, and follow!
Images: 1
Than why most of scientific findings from 30 years ago are discarded by new scientific findings from today ?
Someone keeps dumping this post modernist, moral relativist garbage on my feed. If you watch for it, you can see a few people making bank on this crap all day. The money voters eat it up. It allows them to justify feeling superior without actually using reason. When civilization crumbles because of this new age twaddle, they'll probably blame everyone else then too.
A rather harsh critique, but I can't say I disagree. We've got to draw a line somewhere.
Maybe too harshly stated, but I've had at least three of these nonsense posts resteemed onto my feed in the last week. The relativists can not be reasoned with, I try to avoid them, but still they are there.
The popularity of such posts is disturbing, which is why I wrote this. It's true that having a conversation with people who hold these sorts of views is... challenging. Still, I feel compelled to try. If only because there are apparently so many on Steemit it won't be possible to avoid them.
Came here to say this. Lie to people and they eat out of your hand. Tell them the truth and they tar and feather you.
That sounds about right. Sometimes truth is like a shot to the gut.
Beautiful too sometimes, moreso than any fiction. I take the good with the bad. If truth were all bad, it wouldn't attract many defenders.
I find even the painful truths fascinating. Each one is a view into the dynamics of the natural world, and interconnects with the other pieces developing toward a more coherent picture. Fiction is a pale and often dangerous substitute.
Not post-modernist at all. I respect science. More than you think. Hence the criticism. What I criticize is the culture of the academia..which is like you say..post-modernist. read again my post.
Great article, giving a very persuasive alternative view. Steemit will thrive in this type of environment every one is able to contribute to the discussion.
I think so, too. Thanks for reading!
You are welcome. If you enjoy reading positive post like this
https://steemit.com/poetry/@positivesteem/if-i-am-a-superhero-a-poem-dedicated-to-my-autistic-son
Do follow me.
I don't have the time or the mental energy to engage with him and try to show him that what he's been saying is hogwash. His worldview is premised on the notion that nothing can be knowable with certainty, which, of course, means that this premise can never be falsified.
We can postulate whether the universe actually exists or whether it's some elaborate simulation, a hallucination, a holograph, etc., but none of that is meaningful. Even if we assumed that the universe doesn't exist until you observe, what difference does that make? Our observations can be compounded and predictive models generated, like you said.
I fell much the same. The only reason I bothered writing this is because of how shocking it was that it seemed to have so much support.
It's as you say, it's not like we can falsify his main premise. Thanks for reading and for the well articulated response.
The level of support for that worldview is the reason a number of my friends, who are not moral relativists and don't ascribe to these ideas, are no longer on this platform. Hopefully, now that more of the wealth and voting power is distributed into more hands, their power is less intense.
meep
Nice answer! I am happy you wrote it! Thanks a lot!