Adam Rutherford, in the Guardian claims that: "The domain of knowledge amenable to science has only ever changed in one direction: at the expense of all others"
ARSNOTORIA responds to Adam Rutherford
AN
Well science is a form of knowledge. Are you sure you don't mean science as a metaphor for western imperialism.
Let's rejig your statement in the light of the Neo Atheist foot soldier public intellectuals taking their part in the battle against the Southrons in the clash of civilisation.
Let's look at neo atheism as the new colonial ideology. Of course it didn't matter to the bible thumping British colonialists that you had to "Love thy neighbour as thyself." or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Christianity was just an excuse for an ideology. It was an ideological weapon.
New Atheism, that invokes science in such a cavalier way, (Science is the "God" on their side.) is the new ideological weapon.
So let's redo that initial statement to see if it makes sense. We are seeking truth, after all and truth needs a socio-political context:
X has only ever changed in one direction: at the expense of all other cultures.
Adam Rutherford
@ARSNOTORIA scientific truth does not need a sociopolitical context. You cannot seriously believe that.
What's true for the behaviour of an electron here on earth is also true in deep space. where there are no socials or politics.
AN
"scientific truth does not need a socio-political context." You cannot seriously believe that.
Now think about that statement, people. Dwell on it a moment. Savour it.
Does it strike you as being ridiculous to the same extent that it strikes me as being ridiculous?
AN
"What's true for the behaviour of an electron here on earth is also true in deep space. where there are no socials or politics." You say.
And yet what you are doing on this website is both social and political.
The point I made was about science being used as a metaphor with an imperial subtext.
The uses to which science is put outside of it's domain specific truth. The truth outside its domain. Social Darwinism is a good example.
Does the "truth" of science warrant the ideological uses you and other Neo Atheist warriors put it. That's rather dubious. I think that's the problem a lot of us have with the Vuvuzela scientism which so easily leaps out of its domain to make pronouncements (social and political) about itself.
AR
@ARSNOTORIA You are really confusing me. Are you saying that, for example, the behaviour of gravity is determined by people?
AN
Of course the ultimate aim could actually be a technocracy. In other words where the 'domain' of objectivist science' (think pink on a world map circa 1920) stretched to art appreciation, sociology and politics.
We would all have to defer to scientists then. We'd actually have to take Dawkins, Rutherford and Dennet's 'social and political' pronouncements seriously.
AR
@ARSNOTORIA you'll have to enlighten me as to what social Darwinism has to do with science.
AN
OK. Adam, what you exhibit is what is known as an avoidance error. In other words you don't respond. To me, you bluster.
Social Darwinism, you say. OK Social Darwinism. Let's extend the metaphor.
There is no evidence for string theory and yet that theory is the best working hypothesis, primarily because it is based on rigorous mathematical modelling.
In a similar way, though there is no confirmatory evidence, or convincingly falsifiable hypothesis either, the idea of evolution (a scientific idea) is percolating into many social sciences.
Now in a sense this can be called social Darwinism. There is no real evidence for the role of evolutionary mechanisms in people's attitudes to...say...religion. And yet an evolutionary account is posited.
But evolutionary accounts have to be very careful to stay within certain limits because then they can be more openly accused of being social Darwinism. They have to stay within the cover of their paradigms. They have to nod to existing theories and use the right language.
But, in a sense, the people who make the grand claim that everything, including consciousness, will ultimately be explained by the behaviour of the brain and that this can also, in large part, be explained in evolutionary terms, have already staked out their territory.
Their territory is, ultimately, the whole of human experience.
Now this is a grand claim and underlying it is an unprovable assumption and that assumption is Social Darwinism.
I think of Dawkins as a modern sort of Cecil Rhodes, carving out a new empire for 'science'. An imperialist of science. But suppository science. In both senses of the word.
AR
@ARSNOTORIA no, not avoidance, I just don't understand your points at all. I shall try to explain.
Certainly, there are plenty of people who don't class string theory as being scientifically robust. Again, this is the fuzzy boundary between maths and science. So we can agree to ignore that.
The bit I was challenging when you accuse me of avoidance is this notion that evolutionary principles are extended into the social sciences. 1) they are? 2) are they testable? 3) Are the social sciences science? 4) the evolutionary attempts to explain religion are weak and far from good science.
So, I am not clear what you mean by social Darwinism (although it seems clear that you don't mean it in the way that everyone else means it). Furthermore, I don't say that consciousness can be solely explained by evolutionary mechanisms (although I think there is much evidence to suggest that large parts can). But that's not to say that it can't be understood in scientific terms. If not, you are invoking super-nature, which science does not recognise.
AN
Well in that case I can only suggest that you ask someone sitting next to you with a modicum of education to read through my comments and explain them to you.
aelwyd
"I think of Dawkins as a modern sort of Cecil Rhodes, carving out a new empire for 'science'. An imperialist of science."
... Would that be the same Cecil Rhodes who said:
"To think of these stars that you see overhead at night, these vast worlds which we can never reach! I would annex the planets if I could; I often think of that. It makes me sad to see them so clear and yet so far [...] I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race."
AN
Exactly so, thank you.
ARSNOTORIA
ARSNOTORIA responds to Adam Rutherford
AN
Well science is a form of knowledge. Are you sure you don't mean science as a metaphor for western imperialism.
Let's rejig your statement in the light of the Neo Atheist foot soldier public intellectuals taking their part in the battle against the Southrons in the clash of civilisation.
Let's look at neo atheism as the new colonial ideology. Of course it didn't matter to the bible thumping British colonialists that you had to "Love thy neighbour as thyself." or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Christianity was just an excuse for an ideology. It was an ideological weapon.
New Atheism, that invokes science in such a cavalier way, (Science is the "God" on their side.) is the new ideological weapon.
So let's redo that initial statement to see if it makes sense. We are seeking truth, after all and truth needs a socio-political context:
X has only ever changed in one direction: at the expense of all other cultures.
Adam Rutherford
@ARSNOTORIA scientific truth does not need a sociopolitical context. You cannot seriously believe that.
What's true for the behaviour of an electron here on earth is also true in deep space. where there are no socials or politics.
AN
"scientific truth does not need a socio-political context." You cannot seriously believe that.
Now think about that statement, people. Dwell on it a moment. Savour it.
Does it strike you as being ridiculous to the same extent that it strikes me as being ridiculous?
AN
"What's true for the behaviour of an electron here on earth is also true in deep space. where there are no socials or politics." You say.
And yet what you are doing on this website is both social and political.
The point I made was about science being used as a metaphor with an imperial subtext.
The uses to which science is put outside of it's domain specific truth. The truth outside its domain. Social Darwinism is a good example.
Does the "truth" of science warrant the ideological uses you and other Neo Atheist warriors put it. That's rather dubious. I think that's the problem a lot of us have with the Vuvuzela scientism which so easily leaps out of its domain to make pronouncements (social and political) about itself.
AR
@ARSNOTORIA You are really confusing me. Are you saying that, for example, the behaviour of gravity is determined by people?
AN
Of course the ultimate aim could actually be a technocracy. In other words where the 'domain' of objectivist science' (think pink on a world map circa 1920) stretched to art appreciation, sociology and politics.
We would all have to defer to scientists then. We'd actually have to take Dawkins, Rutherford and Dennet's 'social and political' pronouncements seriously.
AR
@ARSNOTORIA you'll have to enlighten me as to what social Darwinism has to do with science.
AN
OK. Adam, what you exhibit is what is known as an avoidance error. In other words you don't respond. To me, you bluster.
Social Darwinism, you say. OK Social Darwinism. Let's extend the metaphor.
There is no evidence for string theory and yet that theory is the best working hypothesis, primarily because it is based on rigorous mathematical modelling.
In a similar way, though there is no confirmatory evidence, or convincingly falsifiable hypothesis either, the idea of evolution (a scientific idea) is percolating into many social sciences.
Now in a sense this can be called social Darwinism. There is no real evidence for the role of evolutionary mechanisms in people's attitudes to...say...religion. And yet an evolutionary account is posited.
But evolutionary accounts have to be very careful to stay within certain limits because then they can be more openly accused of being social Darwinism. They have to stay within the cover of their paradigms. They have to nod to existing theories and use the right language.
But, in a sense, the people who make the grand claim that everything, including consciousness, will ultimately be explained by the behaviour of the brain and that this can also, in large part, be explained in evolutionary terms, have already staked out their territory.
Their territory is, ultimately, the whole of human experience.
Now this is a grand claim and underlying it is an unprovable assumption and that assumption is Social Darwinism.
I think of Dawkins as a modern sort of Cecil Rhodes, carving out a new empire for 'science'. An imperialist of science. But suppository science. In both senses of the word.
AR
@ARSNOTORIA no, not avoidance, I just don't understand your points at all. I shall try to explain.
Certainly, there are plenty of people who don't class string theory as being scientifically robust. Again, this is the fuzzy boundary between maths and science. So we can agree to ignore that.
The bit I was challenging when you accuse me of avoidance is this notion that evolutionary principles are extended into the social sciences. 1) they are? 2) are they testable? 3) Are the social sciences science? 4) the evolutionary attempts to explain religion are weak and far from good science.
So, I am not clear what you mean by social Darwinism (although it seems clear that you don't mean it in the way that everyone else means it). Furthermore, I don't say that consciousness can be solely explained by evolutionary mechanisms (although I think there is much evidence to suggest that large parts can). But that's not to say that it can't be understood in scientific terms. If not, you are invoking super-nature, which science does not recognise.
AN
Well in that case I can only suggest that you ask someone sitting next to you with a modicum of education to read through my comments and explain them to you.
aelwyd
"I think of Dawkins as a modern sort of Cecil Rhodes, carving out a new empire for 'science'. An imperialist of science."
... Would that be the same Cecil Rhodes who said:
"To think of these stars that you see overhead at night, these vast worlds which we can never reach! I would annex the planets if I could; I often think of that. It makes me sad to see them so clear and yet so far [...] I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race."
AN
Exactly so, thank you.
ARSNOTORIA
Comments
Certainly science has a political dimension. The development of nuclear weapons is one example of that. Another is the way that environmentalists claim that their views are not political and subjective but scientific and objective. This is the mirror-image of the accusation of 'scientism'.
But I don't agree that science is by nature imperialist. People may put scientific developments to bad use, but that is not the fault of science. The Nazis had the first operational jet combat aircraft - does that make jet engines fascist by nature?
Dawkins is certainly a mad ranter, and he may even be trying to set himself up as a technocrat. But I don't think that he is representative of academics in general.
And I agree with you. The question is. Who is using the Scientistic ideology purveyed by Dawkins and his bretheren? What are they using it for and to what end.
Islam bashing is one fun thing they are doing. With the blessing's of the God science. They are also being used to justify US imperialism through the Clash of Civilisations narrative. They are being used to justify the commodification of huma life through their stands of euthenasia animal rights = human rights etc.
These are all the uses to which the new scientism is being put.
The danger of course is the new Social Darwinists. Arguments using evolutionary accounts BY ANALOGY are creeping into the social sciences.
Remember the history of eugenics and social Darwinism in the first half of the 20th century.