What is Science?

Vincent has written an interesting OP about an essay that George Orwell wrote: what is science?

Orwell distinguishes between science as a method and science as a body of facts. I think most of us accept that. Both  Orwell and Vincent seem to be in favour of teaching the method but not the facts.

The demand for more science education, as Orwell astutely perceived, reflects an underlying political agenda, based on the naive belief – falsified by history –

Although what those facts are has changed. Vincent writes:

In Orwell’s day, it was seen as a Good Thing that students should learn about “radioactivity, or the stars, or the physiology or their own bodies”; nowadays, educating our young about Darwinian evolution, sexual health for kindergartners, and global warming is deemed to be the latest Good Thing. The focus has changed; but sadly, the paternalistic mindset of the “powers that be” hasn’t.

And the reason is we should avoid teaching scientific facts is because all science is political and the naive belief – falsified by history – that we’d all be better off if scientists ruled the world

The first thing to say is Orwell need not have worried. Our countries continue to be ruled by people with humanities degrees and lawyers. Most scientists seem to be happy not to be politicians. Western governments worry incessantly about the poor level of science education in the population. Science non-facts thrive from MMR to homeopathy to YEC. If someone has a political agenda that we’d all be better off if scientists ruled the world then they have been remarkably unsuccessful.

But I would also argue strongly that the population would benefit from knowing a good level of science fact. Governments often argue for it from an economic and practical point of view. We need basic science teaching to generate enough science and technology graduates for industry. But I think it goes deeper. Without understanding about  electromagnetics television becomes magic, without understanding about DNA and genetics the very discussions we have here and on UD would not be possible. We need to know science just as we need to know about arts and humanities and economics. It is part of our culture.

I suspect Orwell might well have changed his mind had he lived another 50 years. He was writing shortly after the first atomic bombs were dropped and he is quite open about his fear and disapproval of the project. This leads to him to write some things that by his standards are rather childish:

Just before writing this, I saw in an American magazine the statement that a number of British and American physicists refused from the start to do research on the atomic bomb, well knowing what use would be made of it. Here you have a group of sane men in the middle of a world of lunatics. And though no names were published, I think it would be a safe guess that all of them were people with some kind of general cultural background, some acquaintance with history or literature or the arts – in short, people whose interests were not, in the current sense of the word, purely scientific.

Actually Oppenheimer, for example, had an extraordinarily broad and deep education. And:

In England, a large proportion of our leading scientists accept the structure of capitalist society, as can be seen from the comparative freedom with which they are given knighthoods, baronetcies and even peerages. Since Tennyson, no English writer worth reading- one might, perhaps, make an exception of Sir Max Beerbohm – has been given a title.

Scientists do get titles but nowadays so do artists, sports stars, bankers, academics.

Had he lived through the next 50 years he would have seen first the rise of scientific and technological optimism in the 50s and 60s (still ruled by humanities graduates and lawyers) and then the disillusionment of the 70s and 80s and the subsequent rise of anti-science and pseudo-science.

Vincent is concerned about the teaching of evolution, climate-change and sexual health for kindergartners.  But does he oppose the teaching of radioactivity, or the stars, or the physiology of their own bodies i.e. the things which concerned Orwell? He seems  to muddling the case for teaching science facts from disputes about what are the  facts and when it is best to teach them. Yes some science has political implications. If climate change is true then there are political consequences. And faulty science has been taught for political reasons.  But the answer to this is not stop teaching science facts. We need both facts and method.

122 thoughts on “What is Science?

  1. Gregory: … acknowledged the work of J.D. Bernal in HPSS …

    So I looked up HPSS:

    High Performance Storage System
    Health and Personal Social Services
    High Performing Specialist School
    Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
    Health Promotion Summer School
    Humboldt Park Social Services
    Health Promotion and System Strengthening

    I wonder which of those it is?

  2. You mean to tell me that whole splooge of Gregory’s was about
    .
    .
    .
    Sociology jargon???

    Damn, what a let down.

    After all Gregory’s teasing and foreplay, I sure hoped for somethin’ … bigger … ya know.

  3. I have been around universities for decades, and I have never seen a course offering in any course catalog of any university that is entitled “Evolutionism”.

  4. Neil Rickert: So I looked up HPSS:

    High Performance Storage System
    Health and Personal Social Services
    High Performing Specialist School
    Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
    Health Promotion Summer School
    Humboldt Park Social Services
    Health Promotion and System Strengthening

    I wonder which of those it is?

    None. It’s another one of Gregory’s games. It’s a Gregory-ism that doesn’t even rise to the level of “jargon” because Gregory is the only user. I’m pretty sure he gets a thrill from having his very own special word and only wants to reveal it to people when the mood is just right.

    But I’m okay with spoiling Gregory’s little surprise.

    Ready?
    .
    .
    .
    You’re sure you want to know?
    .
    .
    .
    History Philosophy and Sociology of Science..

    Holy christ, that was an anti-climax, wasn’t it. Sorry.

  5. None. It’s another one of Gregory’s games.

    Thanks. That’s pretty much what I thought.

    I was making a sarcastic point about Gregory’s skills at communication.

  6. Gregory,

    I skimmed through the link you posted and I got the impression that ‘evolutionism’ is a sort of a general view that progress in certain directions is inevitable. So ‘evolutionism’ in politics might be the view that all societies will eventually become democracies, in economics it might say capitalism or socialism is inevitable. In art history it might be the view that all cultures will eventually hit upon abstract art. Is this correct? I assumed that what you were talking about here was creating some worldview or philosophy from the scientific theory of evolution.

  7. Gregory: Evolutionism is a grave ideological problem in many ‘western’ universities and societies today.

    Part of the art of communication is in knowing your audience. And your audience here is mostly scientists (plus the odd creationist or two). You won’t find many sociologists here.

    I would not be at all surprised if some of the people at TSZ see the existence of sociology departments as a grave ideological problem in universities.

  8. Neil Rickert: Part of the art of communication is in knowing your audience. And your audience here is mostly scientists (plus the odd creationist or two). You won’t find many sociologists here.

    Plus the occasional philosopher. I do know a bit of sociology — not enough! — and I have an undergrad background in biology. But my professional training has been in philosophy for the past fifteen or so years.

  9. Kind of weird to expect us to think by evolutionism he meant anything other than the creationist appellation.

  10. Gregory, you might go look at the Archdruid. He has a narrative he calls the myth of progress that seems similar to your evolutionism. Just google ‘The Archdruid Report’.

  11. If anyone is a Blairophile and hasn’t read this biography, I thoroughly recommend it:

    Bernard Crick. George Orwell A Life. Secker and Warburg, 1980.

    Also recommend the Penguin four-volume edition of Orwell’s essays and journalism.

  12. Considering that HPSS (yes, History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science) is the main field to assess the OP’s question, it is not as much an anti-climax as demonstration that several participants at TSZ simply have no knowledge of discourse, theories and methods in that field. For people who pride themselves in knowledge, it is a glaring omission to exclude the field most relevant to a given topic.

    Thanks to RodW, the only person to actually address the content of evolutionism, rather than the sillyness of questioning whether or not to take its ideological representation seriously. Let me just answer yes, in short.

    Mike Elzinga has obviously given up and willfully won’t do the work to update his view that *only* IDists & creationists use the term ‘evolutionism.’ I have demonstrated already (with just one article, among hundreds, perhaps thousands more available) that Mike’s claim was and is false. He can and likely will be right about a good many things (in general, I agree with his criticisms of IDism/YECism, though don’t get as prickly as he does about it), but about ‘evolutionism’ he is clearly and unequivocally wrong. It would be a welcome sign of trust and humble humanity for him to admit this, given the evidence and names (that he could choose to follow) already provided that contradict his claim.

    “I assumed that what you were talking about here was creating some worldview or philosophy from the scientific theory of evolution.” – RodW

    Yes, evolutionism often becomes one of the main planks or even the cornerstone of a worldview, especially for agnostics and atheists. This is why the notion of ‘theistic evolutionism’ doesn’t make sense; because at the end of the day, theists reject the strictly materialistic evolution of spirit in humanity, as an affront to the Abrahamic faiths. Evolutionism, in its simplest form is simply an exaggeration of the fields or topics to which the term ‘evolution’ can be properly and responsibly applied scientifically or philosophically. Faulty transfer of concepts, such as ‘evolutionary ethics’ or ‘evolutionary morality’ is a basic case in point, as is much of the outdated idea of ‘sociobiology’ (E.O. Wilson et al.).

    The main question is: what are the limits of evolutionary explanations? Or indeed, as I’ve suggested here before, establishing that there indeed *are* “things that don’t evolve.” Once one realises this they can begin to appropriately ‘situate’ evolutionary theories within a much narrower conceptual space. The ID project, at least the negative side of its ‘Wedge’ is partially dedicated to this, though they do it in such an ineffective way, imo due to their generally low-level HPSS.

    Neil Rickert’s teachings in the ‘art of communication’ are quite obiviously a pious joke: given that he either couldn’t or wouldn’t (and still won’t) back up his own nonsense claim – “Philosophers, as a group, tend to look at things from what I consider a[n] intelligent design perspective.” – he seemingly wants to blame me just for pointing out his ridiculous claim and then later his communicative strategy of avoidance. Give this guy a rest, please.

    He is twerking the TSZ audience with his evasive antics. E.g. I pointed to “the work of J.D. Bernal in HPSS”. Neil could have at least looked up Bernal and made an actual contribution based on what he read and learned about Bernal and HPSS related to this OP topic. Instead, Neil is playing like a goofy 16 yr-old guessing/imputing acronyms. Bernal is a significant figure in the discourse of ‘What is Science?” that Mark Frank raised via VJ Torley’s thread. But this doesn’t seem like a topic that TSZ (or at least, just Mr. Rickert) wants to discuss in much depth or breadth.

    Let clowns like Rickert, hotshoe and cubist entertain with childrens’ play-pen logic and language rather than engage a significant topic. It’s just really all about being skeptical and dedicating one’s life to opposing IDism and YECism anyway, isn’t it? Is that what TSZ is mainly supposed to be about, replacing a higher search for truth or understanding reality and ourselves?

    I gave 12 names and a link. Neil Rickert gave no names, no links and just displays a bad attitude. All hail, the skeptics have won without evidence, just rallying fanfare?!

    Thanks Aardvark, one link via a link was interesting, considering you recommended (seemingly sarcastically?) neo-Druidist thought. Are any of the Americans participating here familiar with T. Parsons’ ‘American Progress’ evolutionist fantasy? It was dreamed, with an attempted scholarly basis, in the later spirit of PNAC (to get back to the gov’ts theme of Mark Frank’s Orwell-oriented OP).

  13. Come on Gregory. I was surprised googling your list of names (the only familiar one being Edward O. Wilson) and finding this whole field of social science to which (Social science as a discipline, not evolutionism, of which I was totally unaware), yes I admit, I was prejudiced against since my University days when the very new social science faculty was generally scoffed at (in my circle of science, dentistry, language students) as a bit of a soft option.

    But you seem to be suggesting that this evolutionism that we all appear to be ignorant of is discredited anyway. One is therefore moved to wonder, then why do we need to discuss it?

    PS Your style can be abrasive and it would help if you avoided personal attacks on other posters and I will try to ensure that comments that attack you move to guano.

  14. Thanks, Alan, for recognising this “whole field of social science” that does indeed use the language ‘evolutionism’ by non-IDists and non-YECists. Lack of familiarity does not prove non-existence or non-importance, which is the point I was making. And *IF* evolutionism does still pose an ideological problem in higher education, then honest folks should be willing to face up to it.

    The suppsed divide between natural-physical sciences (NPS) and human-social sciences (HSS, or social sciences and humanities as anglo-americans usually say it) is being challenged in today’s atmosphere of interdisciplinarity.

    David S. Wilson is not an HSS scholar, but he is nevertheless proposing “Evolution for Everyone.” Do you not consider that an example of ‘evolutionism’? I sure do. And he’s alive and practising his evolutonism in higher education today.

    It is the transfer of ‘evolutionary theory/theories’ from NPS to HSS (including philosophy) that causes the ideological problem. And indeed, if this wasn’t so commonly done in certain societies (again, note the reference to T. Parsons in the USA), then there would be very little fuss about evolution and much less to talk here for TSZ’s horn-locking with UD. That is, if this conversation was *only* about biology, most people wouldn’t really care or get nearly as excited about it, as WJM obviously demonstrates here.

    If you’re interested to learn more, the back and forth debate over “Does Culture Evolve?” (1999) between Fracchia and Lewontin against Runcimann “Culture Does Evolve” (2005) in History and Theory is an interesting place to start.

    ‘Memes’ and ‘memetics’ are of course one of the easiest symbols of ‘evolutionism’ to identify. Some people still think ‘memes’ are a good idea; most thoughtful persons reject it as nonsense. Are people at TSZ interested to think about what might be wrong with this biologistic approach? Or is the tendency to defend the ‘evolutionism’ that it is my guess many, if not most participants at TSZ try to hold (even if they don’t know people who write about it and openly teach it) as part of their skeptical/atheist or agnostic worldview a significant feature of peoples’ resistance here?

  15. I’m all for interdisciplinarity (is that a word? Spellcheck doesn’t like it). We should all strive to be polymaths. Biology is an amalgam of many new disciplines these days and professionals often seem at a disadvantage when confronted by some slick “Gish galloper”.

    On memes, I don’t think the concept has been discredited as much as not proved to be very productive; no more than a pointing out of the obvious.

    As confession is good for the soul, I wouldn’t object to being described as an evolutionist. I would be easily convinced were anthropologists to promote the idea that the development of human language, society, culture and civilization all have an important evolutionary element.

  16. Gregory

    Gregory: Thanks to RodW, the only person to actually address the content of evolutionism, rather than the sillyness of questioning whether or not to take its ideological representation seriously. Let me just answer yes, in short.

    I feel like I’ve walked into a room of people shouting at each other, so I’m surprised you even saw my post.
    I think the ‘evolutionism’ of your article would have to be analyzed on a case by case basis but many examples would be valid. For example who would argue that hunter-gatherer societies would eventually evolve agriculture and towns…or that money would eventually replace barter?
    This is very different than the evolutionism you’re arguing about – and I have heard nonIDists use the term to mean someone whose worldview is informed by the scientific theory. I think its a mistake though, if you’re using that for leverage against the scientific theory. Consider that snake-oil salesmen sometimes appeal to quantum mechanics to sell their crap but this doesn’t invalidate quantum mechanics. If you read the primary scientific literature you see immense amounts of work on evolutionary biology presented in a dispassionate and worldview-free way. I think spending too much time on these blogs tends to warp ones view of what science is. It has this effect on me and I used to be in science.
    I think very few people who are accused of being ‘evolutionists’ would agree with that label. Anyone who actually understands evolution would know its completely unsuitable for running your life or society. The label arises because people whose worldview is threatened by the science of evolution will naturally consider it a worldview as a result. I’ve seen many statements to that effect over at UD and ENV. A similar one is that saying humans evolved without purposeful direction is a religious statement.
    I’ll be shocked if anyone actually reads this post

  17. RodW: I think the ‘evolutionism’ of your article would have to be analyzed on a case by case basis but many examples would be valid. For example who would argue that hunter-gatherer societies would eventually evolve agriculture and towns…or that money would eventually replace barter?

    Lots of things evolve. If, by evolution, we mean “change over time”, then just about everything changes over time.

    I still don’t know what Gregory means by “evolutionism”. I doubt that he is referring to the observation that everything changes over time. What is distinctive about biological evolution, is that we have a pretty good scientific explanation of it. We do not have the same kind of explanation of language evolution, of cultural evolution.

    In biology, we see evolution as adaptive. It is not at all clear that cultural evolution is adaptive. Perhaps it can sometimes be maladaptive.

    My guess is that Gregory uses “evolutionism” to refer to views that might claim that, for example, cultural evolution is necessarily adaptive and necessarily progressive.

    I’ll be shocked if anyone actually reads this post

    Perhaps I have given you reason to be shocked.

  18. “I think its a mistake though, if you’re using that for leverage against the scientific theory.”

    Yes, we are definitely agreed and I am intentionally and carefully not doing that. Your point is well given and accepted.

    If it helps, RodW, here is my view of ‘science,’ the first with my title and the second (just a shorter version) with theirs (which I only link to because it corresponds with the title of this thread).

    “I think very few people who are accused of being ‘evolutionists’ would agree with that label.”

    Yes, and that’s the rub. Sociobiology is perhaps the worst example of it. But just as bad imo is evolutionary and neo-evolutionary anthropology, evolutionary economics, evolutionary ethics and evolutionary psychology. Biology is a distraction when it comes to these fields, but the worldview proponents of ‘universal Darwinism’ and ‘biologism’ are working hard to obscure the misuses of ‘evolution’ in higher education today.

    “The label arises because people whose worldview is threatened by the science of evolution will naturally consider it a worldview as a result.”

    Yes and no. I know many people who have ‘accommodated’ or ‘accepted’ what is called ‘the science’ of evolutionary biology, yet who do not elevate it into a worldview. Evolutionism happens when people cannot possibly identify *anything* that doesn’t evolve.

    As Rickert says:

    “If, by evolution, we mean “change over time”, then just about everything changes over time.”

    What does the ‘just about’ signify? (Is it something like your empty ‘ID philosophy’ claim? – Sorry, Neil, I’m still not over this evasion, this fast retreat without explanation on your part yet.) What in your opinion *doesn’t* change-over-time (and space)?

    Rest assured, RodW, there is no shouting implied or intended coming from me. In fact, I’d welcome voice correspondence with Neil, rather than only textual correspondence. The former usually provides more grace through much closer personal understanding (if less precise) in the exchange.

    “I doubt that he is referring to the observation that everything changes over time.” – Rickert

    That’s exactly it.

    But I think Neil would be surprised to read some of the cultural evolutionists I noted, to discover how much they think they have a “pretty good scientific explanation of it,” which seems to me a simple ideological display of evolutionism, indeed of hubris. And it is already obvious that some people, especially natural scientists prefer to avoid, evade and wish away the truth, and instead claim ‘evolutionism’ as a nonsense word that nobody uses except IDists / YECists. But they are wrong and the evidence goes against them, if they will but pause for a reality-check to admit it.

    [This should likely go in a new thread, since it diverts from Mark Frank’s simple/complex question in the OP, don’t you folks think?]

  19. So what exactly is evolutionism and how is it wrong? What blind alleys has it created for researchers?

    I perceive the word used the way some of my childhood friends used the word n****r. Not as something having meaning, but simply as a pejorative.

    I suspect that in one sense I have been an evolutionist since early youth — going back nearly 50 years. I was convinced then that evolution provided a useful analogy in the field of learning. Since then I think evolutionarily in politics, technology, civilization. Change and selection seems to be a useful way of thinking about many aspects of life.

  20. Alan, please move this http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=3075&cpage=1#comment-29926 to Guano for personal abuse (twerking, clowns). Sorry, I hate to ask you when you don’t like moderating.
    If you don’t think it’s serious enough offense to warrant moving, then I’m doubly sorry to have bothered you. But Gregory accusing Neii of twerking makes me sick to my stomach and I hate to think that Gregory’s abuse is acceptable conduct.

  21. Gregory: Considering that HPSS (yes, History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science) is the main field to assess the OP’s question, it is not as much an anti-climax as demonstration

    No, HPSS is not a field. HPSS is a token you made up, Gregory, (or copied from some wanker) and now you expect us to recognize it as currency. It’s just plain not currency. That was exactly the point of Nei Rickert’s link to the “dictionary meaning” of HPSS – that since Gregory chose to withhold any clarifying info on his idiosyncratic meaning of HPSS, we had no way of guessing it.
    It’s true that history, philosophy and sociology are a legitimate disciplines, so if you want t talk abut the history, philosophy and sociology of science, we can. As long as we leave your counterfeit tokens out of the discussion.

  22. Gregory: I pointed to “the work of J.D. Bernal in HPSS”. Neil could have at least looked up Bernal and made an actual contribution based on what he read and learned about Bernal and HPSS related to this OP topic.

    That is not true. Neil could not, no one could. Not without the secret personal knowledge, which only Gregory had and which Gregory was withholding, regarding what Gregory meant by using his counterfeit token “HPSS”.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=J.D.+Bernal+HPSS

    See those results? There’s only one result on the page which has even a hint of being relevant to Gregory’s comments here, and surprise, surprise, that sole result is Gregory riding his hobby horse of “HPSS” five years ago in a different forum, then also failing to explain why he thought J.D. Bernal was relevant to whatever point Gregory was trying to make at that time.

    Sorry, Gregory, you may be a great thinker (or maybe not, who can tell from your writings) but when it comes to communicating the points you supposedly want to communicate, you have objectively failed Google proves it.

    Maybe you want to try to be more clear in the future? Instead of accusing every other person on the planet of being too lazy/childish to understand what you explicitly did not say.

  23. hotshoe, dare you become a bit more charitable?

    HPS – history and philosophy of science is a fairly well-known acronym, at least in the academic circles. Cambridge University, for example, offers degrees in this ‘field.’ In the context of this discussion, it should be clear to anyone willing to spend a few minutes searching.

    It is true that HPSS is less well-known and a newer ‘field.’ Bielefeld University in Germany offers degrees in HPSS. Within the context, I thought it would make sense, given that I’ve spoken of sociology already.

    I’m sorry the acronym seemed like such a stretch. But is it really worth the belly-aching? Boy o’boy, it’s getting tough here at TSZ. You suggest people doing a little reading, bringing in a significant name like J.D. Bernal in response to an OP theme and a few angry people treat you like you’re demanding grown men and women to do homework. On the internet, even! 😉

    In any case, for me it was good to look this up. Obviously HPS is more commonly used, as is SoS (sociology of science). The point of course is those are the main fields that study the question in the OP – “What is Science?”

  24. See Neil’s comment. If Neil, a fellow admin, is OK with the tit-for-tat, then I will let it go. You might see that I was concerned as I asked Gregory to curb his abrasiveness. I can’t commit to monitoring threads regularly enough to catch comments that break Lizzie’s rules straight away. Sorry it’s an imperfect World. I am sure Gregory can be relied on to reign back in the future.

  25. Gregory: As Rickert says:

    “If, by evolution, we mean “change over time”, then just about everything changes over time.”

    What does the ‘just about’ signify? (Is it something like your empty ‘ID philosophy’ claim? – Sorry, Neil, I’m still not over this evasion, this fast retreat without explanation on your part yet.) What in your opinion *doesn’t* change-over-time (and space)?

    Sigh!

    The “just about” is a recognition that I am not omniscient. And I didn’t want to pick a fight with the pedant who is a mathematical platonist and wants to insist that the number 1 is timeless.

    I was not thinking about the other kind of pedant — the kind who staggers into a bar and picks a fight with everybody (thanks, Mike, for that colorful expression).

    But I think Neil would be surprised to read some of the cultural evolutionists I noted, to discover how much they think they have a “pretty good scientific explanation of it,” which seems to me a simple ideological display of evolutionism, indeed of hubris.

    I am aware of some of the writings in evolutionary psychology which seem to be made up stories with no actual supporting evidence. And I tend to be skeptical of some of the claims of sociobiology, economic Darwinism and the like. But I don’t put all of those together as “evolutionism”.

  26. O.k. then Neil, fair enough. How would you define ‘evolutionism’?

    I wrote: Evolutionism, in its simplest form is simply an exaggeration of the fields or topics to which the term ‘evolution’ can be properly and responsibly applied scientifically or philosophically.

    “If, by evolution, we mean “change over time”, then just about everything changes over time.” – Neil Rickert

    This question is still fair ground:
    What does the ‘just about’ signify? What in your opinion *doesn’t* change-over-time (and space)? Iow, what in your opinion doesn’t ‘evolve’?

    Will you dig a bit deeper to face it here or does it require a thread of its own?

    This is one of the current pregnant questions in HPS – the limits of evolutionary theories. It is a question that biologists mostly hate because it makes them draw limits around their field(s) which they are not easily wont to draw. Like with the gross exaggeration and pseudoscience of sociobiology, there are seemingly many biologists (surely this is the case for evolutionary biologists) who don’t want to think about what biology can’t do, but only what it can do. And that, folks, leads quickly to biologism.

    But when economists do it too, when psychologists and anthropologists and sociologists do it…probably it is much easier to identify a serious problem. The problem, folks, as I said in my first response in this thread, which has drawn an unusual amount of fire for whatever (curious?) reasons, is with ideological evolutionism.

  27. Gregory: Neil Rickert’s teachings in the ‘art of communication’ are quite obiviously a pious joke: given that he either couldn’t or wouldn’t (and still won’t) back up his own nonsense claim – “Philosophers, as a group, tend to look at things from what I consider a[n] intelligent design perspective.” – he seemingly wants to blame me just for pointing out his ridiculous claim and then later his communicative strategy of avoidance. Give this guy a rest, please.

    He is twerking the TSZ audience with his evasive antics.

    Let me try to clear this up, as I have done before.

    I made a statement. Gregory took it as meaning something completely different from what I intended. So, yes, that was a communication failure on my part.

    Since then, Gregory has repeatedly demanded that I provide evidence to support what he has misinterpeted me to have been saying. No, I cannot and will not provide evidence for what is a complete misinterpretation of what I intended.

  28. Gregory: O.k. then Neil, fair enough. How would you define ‘evolutionism’?

    It is not a word that is part of my normal vocabulary. That is to say, it is not a word that I would ordinarily use. I have no need to define it.

  29. Gregory: This question is still fair ground:
    What does the ‘just about’ signify? What in your opinion *doesn’t* change-over-time (and space)? Iow, what in your opinion doesn’t ‘evolve’?

    That was fully explained in a previous comment.

    Will you dig a bit deeper to face it here or does it require a thread of its own?

    There is no deeper to dig.

  30. Gregory:
    hotshoe, dare you become a bit more charitable?

    After you, my dear Alphonse.

    HPS – history and philosophy of science is a fairly well-known acronym, at least in the academic circles. Cambridge University, for example, offers degrees in this ‘field.’ In the context of this discussion, it should be clear to anyone willing to spend a few minutes searching.

    “HPS” is, of course, not the counterfeit token which you attempted to pass off here, so Cambridge is a pointless distraction. But, please do carry on …

    It is true that HPSS is less well-known and a newer ‘field.’ Bielefeld University in Germany offers degrees in HPSS. Within the context, I thought it would make sense, given that I’ve spoken of sociology already.

    No, HPSS is not a known “field” at all, not even a lesser-known one, unless you already know in advance where to look. Google proves that. Neil already proved that.

    And to expect us to guess what you meant, to have hung upon your every word (e.g. “given that I’ve spoken of sociology already”) and to therefore magically hit upon the right combination of search terms to get the result you wanted us to get, but were coyly not telling us directly in spite of many requests to you to clarify … well, I don’t know what the “charitable” view of your conduct could possibly be.

    I’m sorry the acronym seemed like such a stretch. But is it really worth the belly-aching? Boy o’boy, it’s getting tough here at TSZ. You suggest people doing a little reading, bringing in a significant name like J.D. Bernal in response to an OP theme and a few angry people treat you like you’re demanding grown men and women to do homework. On the internet, even!

    I already proved that it is not possible to do the “homework” unless we were privy to your secrets thoughts. Did you miss the proof? Here it is again:
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=J.D.+Bernal+HPSS

    In any case, for me it was good to look this up.

    Okay, so you did not miss the proof, you just decided to deny it, and to continue sarcastically blaming us for your own failure of communication (viz: angry people treat you like you’re demanding grown men and women to do homework. On the internet, even). I don’t know what the “charitable” view of your conduct could possibly be.

    Obviously HPS is more commonly used, as is SoS (sociology of science). The point of course is those are the main fields that study the question in the OP – “What is Science?”

    Thank gourd you’ve earned something! Let’s have no more of your personal idiosyncrasy “HPSS” then. Stick to publicly-known terms and we might, finally, be able to communicate.

  31. The Wiki entry on evolutionism identifies it as a 19th century doctrine that oganisms are intrinsically inclined to increase in complexity.

    What does this have to do with 20th century or 21st centry biolgy?

  32. Gregory: This is very bad form that belongs in Guano. : (

    And you have again just insinutated that I am an ID/creationist character. Please stop telling lies in public, Mike. It does not bring you any respect or credibility. It is unscholarly and rude. This, ladies and gentlemen, is sadly what often happens when the ideology of ‘evolutionism’ is exposed for what it is in a house of evolutionists.

    Oh, ferchrissakes, this is how Gregory repays Alan Fox’s trust that he can curb his abrasiveness?

  33. petrushka:
    The Wiki entry on evolutionism identifies it as a 19th century doctrine that oganisms are intrinsically inclined to increase in complexity.

    What does this have to do with 20th century or 21st centry biolgy?

    More to the point of this thread, why should any one of us care if the term has been appropriated (or misappropriated, as the case may be) by some school of sociology/economics, etc? So what. What’s the harm to secular democratic society? What, if anything, are we supposed to do about it? Why complain to us?
    That’s the case Gregory should have been making, and maybe could have made if he hadn’t chosen to start off on the wrong track by concealing his idiosyncratic usage of the terms.

    “Evolutionism” is not evil merely because Gregory says that it is.

    I don’t trust even god’s word on anything. I’m certainly not going to trust Gregory’s mere say-so.

  34. Since he hides behind an ambiguous bit of jargon without telling us which findings of science are incorrect, I conclude that he aspires to the heights reached by JoeG.

    That other user of the term evolutionism.

  35. Neil:

    No need to worry. Gregory’s post tells us far more about Gregory than about me.

    Once again, I agree with you.

  36. In over 50 years in the research community, I have never, EVER, seen researchers sitting at desks making up “isms.”

    Instead they are designing experiments to answer questions about nature. They are writing research proposals to get funding for research. They are doing and supervising research already underway. They are writing up results of completed research. They are presenting results in journals and conferences.

    They are consulting among themselves and carefully defining the questions to be asked and coming up with multiple experimental approaches that will catch systematic errors. They are reviewing and critiquing the research of others. Many have to teach classes if they are in an academic institution.

    They put in typically 60 to 80 hour weeks routinely; constantly on the move and constantly immersed in research activity. That’s what I did, that is what the thousands of researchers I have known over the years have done.

    Never, EVER, have I seen any of these people sitting around in their offices making up “isms.” They don’t think “isms” and they don’t teach “isms” if they teach. “Isms” are not on their minds in any of the intense and time-consuming activities in which they are constantly involved.

    Whatever community this Gregory character lives in, it isn’t connected with the reality of the research world. I have no idea where he gets his “insights” into the science community. These “isms” apparently come from his world; wherever that might be.

    And I still don’t see any evidence whatsoever that he knows anything about any field of science. I’m not buying his taunting and bluster.

  37. Gregory:

    Nice job, Mung-the-IDist. So now, tit-for-tat I should say that you actually deserve to be censored and edited by Cordova? Small and trite is IDism as you represent it.

    No, Gregory, I never said that your posts here deserved to be deleted or that their content deserved to be edited to make it seem as if you had written something which you had not said. And in fact, I have asserted at UD that your posts there should not be deleted.

    Here in this thread, I merely agreed with Neil that your post said more about you than it did about him.

    My own stated position here at TSZ is that even though I may have the power to edit or delete posts in threads I have authored, that I chose not to do so because the posts that I choose not to edit and/or delete reveal more about those who oppose what I write, and should therefore be seen by all.

  38. Some comments moved to guano.

    Can people try to observe Lizzie’s rules in the future. The sandbox is available for discussion about discussion.

  39. Gregory asked other folks for their definitions of ‘evolutionism’, so here’s mine, reposted from the comment what got transferred to Guano:

    As best I can tell, ‘evolutionism’ is a meaningless character string which is prominent in some strains of Creationist propaganda. In these strains of Creationist propaganda, the ‘evolutionism’ character string seems to refer to Something That Is Very Bad Indeed, and the presence of that character string serves the practical function of providing its intended audience with a suitable focus for their Two Minutes Hate.

  40. “Never, EVER, have I seen any of these people sitting around in their offices making up “isms.”” – Mike Elzinga

    Just because you personally haven’t seen it done doesn’t make it unreal, does it?

    First, physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists and other natural scientists usually don’t study ideology, philosophy or theology/worldview as part of their research. That should be easy to admit. How about it, Mike? Instead, these scientists are often lab junkies or fieldwork isolated wanderers. Quite often they are very anti-social, though of course not always. Let’s be clear; this is not getting too personal or ad-hominem in any way – and it stands as the obvious correlation to what Mike himself says about what the ‘researchers’ he observes are doing.

    The scientific researchers I am observing and sometimes interviewing, otoh, are much more active in their communities and in society. They are willing to speak about the ‘-isms’ that have already been made up by others because they realise that those ‘-isms’ serve an important communicative purpose. They *also* do research, but are known otherwise for being people too. That’s a significant difference, which Mike’s attitude seems to discount.

    And if Mike’s picture is really accurate, then it’s no wonder that more and more natural scientists are suffering from ‘social science’ envy (just as before it was suggested that biologists suffer from ‘physics envy’); since social scientists have a more full life outside of their laboratories (even if just because they work normal 35-40 hour weeks!). If the social world, the world of human society is one’s ‘laboratory,’ then that is much richer and relationally rewarding and stimulating than dirt, rocks, cockroaches, bunnies or merely physical objects. Well, at least I’ve found it to be that way! 😛

    Second, the people who study how ideology becomes (can become) entangled with science are usually philosophers and social scientists that take a particular interest in natural science, often a specific one, and sometimes a subfield, or they are ex-scientists that take an interest in philosophy and who use their experiences to explore the entanglement of science, philosophy and theology/worldview. In both cases, there are fascinating topics, questions and problems and I encourage people to explore, if they have the time and interest. The topic of this thread speaks to the demarcation of science from non-science, but there are also many other captivating topics for exploration that unfortunately ‘researchers’ who fit Mike’s bill will never know or experience.

    Alan Fox showed the sincerity as a person to admit that I had showed him something new in this thread; a discourse that he previously didn’t know about. That’s shouldn’t be such a hard thing to admit for Mike too, that there are writings about ‘evolutionism’ that are not by IDists or YECists. I appreciate Alan’s willingness to say so publically because for whatever cultural reasons (in America that I don’t understand) there seems to be a tendency not to admit one doesn’t know something, as if the ‘opponent’ is trying to get the upper hand. That is not my intention here, but only to defend my assertion that ‘evolutionism’ is a problem, while evolutionary biology is much less of something to worry about.

    I’m sure there are many things Alan Fox could teach me, which is the same for others, including Mike here too. What I react strongly against is when a person is presented with evidence showing that their personal view (‘evolutionism’ is only used by YECists and IDists) is wrong and not only will they not openly admit it, but instead continue harping on about it and condescendingly attacking the messenger ‘scholarly’ credentials, lumping him in with people ungenerously. Such behavior is anything but pleasant and unfortunately it has become widespread in the atheists vs. IDists culture war mentality.

    p.s. there seems to be some disorder in this thread, with some things at the bottom that should be at the top, isn’t it?

  41. Gregory: And if Mike’s picture is really accurate, then it’s no wonder that more and more natural scientists are suffering from ‘social science’ envy

    That might count as one of the funniest lines ever posted at TSZ.

Leave a Reply