The Separation Of Science And State

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Nutter, May 10, 2007.

  1. Nutter Shake it loose, baby! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    452
    Scientism is based on the assumption that the scientific method is the only way to obtain knowledge or truth. But since this assumption cannot itself be derived scientifically, it cannot consistently be considered to be universally true.

    Philosophically scientism cannot be internally consistent but must start with an act of faith.

    As Dr. Paul Feyerabend clearly explains in his book Against Method:


    Science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favor of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should be left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and church must be supplemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realized ...

    The rise of modern science coincides with the suppression of non-Western tribes by Western invaders. The tribes are not only physically suppressed, they also lose their intellectual independence ... The most intelligent members get an extra bonus: they are introduced into the mysteries of Western Rationalism and its peak - Western Science. Occasionally this leads to an almost unbearable tension with tradition. In most cases the tradition disappears without the trace of an argument, one simply becomes a slave both in body and in mind. Today this development is gradually reversed - with great reluctance, to be sure, but it is reversed. Freedom is regained, old traditions are rediscovered, both among the minorities in Western countries and among large populations in non-Western continents. But science still reigns supreme. It reigns supreme because its practitioners are unable to understand, and unwilling to condone, different ideologies, because they have the power to enforce their wishes, and because they use this power ... Thus, while an American can now choose the religion he likes, he is still not permitted to demand that his children learn magic rather than science at school. There is a separation between state and church; there is no separation between state and science.

    And yet science has no greater authority than any other form of life. Its aims are certainly not more important than are the aims that guide the lives in a religious community or in a tribe that is united by a myth. At any rate, they have no business restricting the lives, the thoughts, the education of the members of a free society where everyone should have a chance to make up his own mind and to live in accordance with the social beliefs he finds most acceptable. The separation between state and church must therefore be complemented by the separation between state and science.

    We need not fear that such a separation will lead to a breakdown of technology. There will always be people who prefer being scientists to being the masters of their fate and who gladly submit to the meanest kind of (intellectual and institutional) slavery provided they are paid well and provided also there are some people around who examine their work and sing their praise.

    Greece developed and progressed because it could rely on the services of unwilling slaves. We shall develop and progress with the help of the numerous willing slaves in universities and laboratories who provide us with pills, gas, electricity, atom bombs, frozen dinners and, occasionally, with a few interesting fairy-tales. We shall treat these slaves well, we shall even listen to them, for they have occasionally some interesting stories to tell, but we shall not permit them to impose their ideology on our children in the guise of 'progressive' theories of education. We shall not permit them to teach the fancies of science as if they were the only factual statements in existence. This separation of science and state may be our only chance to overcome the hectic barbarism of our scientific-technical age and to achieve a humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realized. Let us, therefore, review the arguments that can be adduced for such a procedure.

    The image of 20th-century science in the minds of scientists and laymen is determined by technological miracles such as colour television, the moon shots, the infra-red oven, as well as by a somewhat vague but still quite influential rumour, or fairy-tale, concerning the manner in which these miracles are produced.

    According to the fairy-tale the success of science is the result of a subtle, but carefully balanced combination of inventiveness and control. Scientists have ideas. And they have special methods for improving ideas. The theories of science have passed the test of method. They give a better account of the world than ideas which have not passed the test.

    The fairy-tale explains why modern society treats science in a special way and why it grants it privileges not enjoyed by other institutions.

    Ideally, the modern state is ideologically neutral. Religion, myth, prejudices do have an influence, but only in a roundabout way, through the medium of politically influential parties. Ideological principles may enter the governmental structure, but only via a majority vote, and after a lengthy discussion of possible consequences. In our schools the main religions are taught as historical phenomena. They are taught as parts of the truth only if the parents insist on a more direct mode of instruction. It is up to them to decide about the religious education of their children. The financial support of ideologies does not exceed the financial support granted to parties and to private groups. State and ideology, state and church, state and myth, are carefully separated.

    State and science, however, work closely together. Immense sums are spent on the improvement of scientific ideas. Bastard subjects such as the philosophy of science which have not a single discovery to their credit profit from the boom of the sciences. Even human relations are dealt with in a scientific manner, as is shown by education programs, proposals for prison reform, army training, and so on. Almost all scientific subjects are compulsory subjects in our schools. While the parents of a six-year-old child can decide to have him instructed in the rudiments of Protestantism, or in the rudiments of the Jewish faith, or to omit religious instruction altogether, they do not have a similar freedom in the case of the sciences. Physics, astronomy, history must be learned. They cannot be replaced by magic, astrology, or by a study of legends...

    The reason for this special treatment of science is, of course, our little fairy-tale: if science has found a method that turns ideologically contaminated ideas into true and useful theories, then it is indeed not mere ideology, but an objective measure of all ideologies. It is then not subjected to the demand for a separation between state and ideology.

    But the fairy-tale is false, as we have seen. There is no special method that guarantees success or makes it probable. Scientists do not solve problems because they possess a magic wand - methodology, or a theory of rationality - but because they have studied a problem for a long time, because they know the situation fairly well, because they are not too dumb (though that is rather doubtful nowadays when almost anyone can become a scientist), and because the excesses of one scientific school are almost always balanced by the excesses of some other school. (Besides, scientists only rarely solve their problems, they make lots of mistakes, and many of their solutions are quite useless.) Basically there. is hardly any difference between the process that leads to the announcement of a new scientific law and the process preceding passage of a new law in society: one informs either all citizens or those immediately concerned, one collects 'facts' and prejudices, one discusses the matter, and one finally votes. But while a democracy makes some effort to explain the process so that everyone can understand it, scientists either conceal it, or bend it, to make it fit their sectarian interests.

    No scientist will admit that voting plays a role in his subject. Facts, logic, and methodology alone decide - this is what the fairy-tale tells us. But how do facts decide? What is their function in the advancement of knowledge? We cannot derive our theories from them. We cannot give a negative criterion by saying, for example, that good theories are theories which can be refuted, but which are not yet contradicted by any fact. A principle of falsification that removes theories because they do not fit the facts would have to remove the whole of science (or it would have to admit that large parts of science are irrefutable). The hint that a good theory explains more than its rivals is not very realistic either. True: new theories often predict new things - but almost always at the expense of things already known. Turning to logic we realise that even the simplest demands are not satisfied in scientific practice, and could not be satisfied, because of the complexity of the material. The ideas which scientists use to present the known and to advance into the unknown are only rarely in agreement with the strict injunctions of logic or pure mathematics and the attempt to make them conform would rob science of the elasticity without which progress cannot be achieved. We see: facts alone are not strong enough for making us accept, or reject, scientific theories, the range they leave to thought is too wide; logic and methodology eliminate too much, they are too narrow.

    In between these two extremes lies the ever-changing domain of human ideas and wishes. And a more detailed analysis of successful moves in the game of science ('successful' from the point of view of the scientists themselves) shows indeed that there is a wide range of freedom that demands a multiplicity of ideas and permits the application of democratic procedures (ballot-discussion-vote) but that is actually closed by power politics and propaganda. This is where the fairy-tale of a special method assumes its decisive function. It conceals the freedom of decision which creative scientists and the general public have even inside the most rigid and the most advanced parts of science by a recitation of 'objective' criteria and it thus protects the big-shots (Nobel Prize winners; heads of laboratories, of organisations such as the AMA, of special schools; 'educators'; etc.) from the masses (laymen; experts in non-scientific fields; experts in other fields of science): only those citizens count who were subjected to the pressures of scientific institutions (they have undergone a long process of education), who succumbed to these pressures (they have passed their examinations), and who are now firmly convinced of the truth of the fairy-tale. This is how scientists have deceived themselves and everyone else about their business, but without any real disadvantage: they have more money, more authority, more sex appeal than they deserve, and the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society...

    Modern science, on the other hand, is not at all as difficult and as perfect as scientific propaganda wants us to believe. A subject such as medicine, or physics, or biology appears difficult only because it is taught badly, because the standard instructions are full of redundant material, and because they start too late in life. During the war, when the American Army needed physicians within a very short time, it was suddenly possible to reduce medical instruction to half a year (the corresponding instruction manuals have disappeared long ago, however. Science may be simplified during the war. In peacetime the prestige of science demands greater complication.) And how often does it not happen that the proud and conceited judgement of an expert is put in its proper place by a layman! Numerous inventors built 'impossible' machines. Lawyers show again and again that an expert does not know what he is talking about. Scientists, especially physicians, frequently come to different results so that it is up to the relatives of the sick person (or the inhabitants of a certain area) to decide by vote about the procedure to be adopted. How often is science improved, and turned into new directions by non-scientific influences! It is up to us, it is up to the citizens of a free society to either accept the chauvinism of science without contradiction or to overcome it by the counterforce of public action.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    So, with a separation of science and state, the pharmaceutical companies could make all kinds of drugs for us to take ...without the inspection and approval of the FDA? And if we all died of drug problems, the state could just say, "Well, you dumb fuckin' citizens wanted it that way ....so fuck off!"

    Interesting. I want to buy stocks in the drug manufacturing companies.

    Baron Max

    PS - you sure do type a lot to say very little. Are you in a contest with Tiassa to see how fuckin' long and involved and convoluted you can make your posts???
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The fundies would be more persuasive if they didn't lead off with bizarre assertions, or use fogwords like "scientism".

    Science is based on no such assumption.

    Most scientists, for example, regard mathematical reasoning and proof as a means of obtaining knowledge and truth in some areas of interest. The scientific method is not used much for obtaining truth, in mathematics.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Nutter Shake it loose, baby! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    452

    Thank you.

    As thou hast indicated, philosophically scientism cannot be internally consistent but must start with an act of faith.
     
  8. Nutter Shake it loose, baby! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    452

    No, my good man.

    Thou dost misunderstand Dr. Feyerabend's thesis.
     
  9. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Baron Max can be a bit, shall we say, hasty.
     
  10. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    386
    Science is based on the fact that rationality/logic/etc is the most accurate way to get information. If you think that's an act of faith, then you misunderstand science totally. The fact is, it's so far proven accurate when applied properly.

    So, really, I see no basis for it being faith. Now to read your ginormous first post...

    EDit: after reading your original post: I'm never bothering again. That's the most bigoted piece of trash I've ever read.
     
  11. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Darwinism is a wishful imagination predicated upon flimsey to no evidence.
     
  12. Nutter Shake it loose, baby! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    452


    You're begging the question, my good man. Stating that "rationality/logic/etc is the most accurate way to get information" is in itself an act of faith.

    Question: Is "science" the only way to get information?
     
  13. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    386
    So it's an act of faith to have thousands of years of proof that it's the most accurate way? I don't think so.
     
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Actually, I've been making the point of this thread independently here for a several years now - at least, what seems to be the point from my having skipped most of the OP and inferred stuff from subsequent posts.

    I'd say unfortunately it must be YOU, that doesn't really understand math and science.

    Math is a language, and science is a method that generally uses the language of mathematics to form models of stuff.

    MODELS... of stuff.

    IMO, it's really quite easily explained in terms of itself.

    For instance, you're probabaly familiar with the incompleteness theorum...

    Hackishly paraphrased, it's basically "no system can be internally contained and self-consistent", or something to that end.

    So...

    All systems of models, languages... and logic itself are subject to this inherent limitation. Therefore, all systems are fundamentally steeped in assumption, as they quite literally rely on assumptions for their foundation.

    It's the only way to get the logical ball rolling.

    IMO, "assumption" is necessarily synonymous with "faith".

    Ergo: Faith is the foundation of all knowledge.


    Tangent:

    Reason, on the other had, at least in my lexicon "contains" logic... rather, logic is a subset of reason. Reason accounts for perspective.

    Reason lead to logic.

    But even reason is a system, though it may be only valid from a certain context. As such, it too is subject to the same properties of systems in that it too is founded in faith. The thing is, it's not much of a "leap of faith". It's so "short" that people generally miss it. Their assumptions are so powerful in their own context that they fail to pause and sersiously doubt them. (note a secondary reason that people avoid this question is that questioning the fundamentals can put ego at grave risk, and since ego is simply the "survival instinct" with the added capacity of abstract... it's generally a fight or flight kind of thing not to question "is this real?" --- and a third note is practicality, that "if this real" doesn't necessarily matter because "it seems real". "this is real" assumes authority)

    blah blah blah.
     
  15. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    386
    In your opinion. However, I must disagree with your assertion. It is not assumption that reason/logic relies on, it's the very fact the method for which rationality is based has succeeded in proving it's own validity. You need not faith to believe the scientific method will succeed in finding fact.

    The only possible problem would be the philosophy centered around subjectivity and perception. But it's definitely not faith.



    Seen it. Done it. Said it. Read it. You're putting me to sleep.
     
  16. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    "nuh-uh"

    - very convincing. Thanks.
     
  17. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Philosophy is very concerned with the state at some of its deepest areas of thought.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No. I made no such indication.

    I objected to the false characterization of the scientific approach (which is what seems to be meant by "scientism"). It is not true that people who do science think that science is the only way to obtain knowledge or truth. Asserting that is asserting falsehood.

    As an example I mentioned mathematics, which is accepted by scientists as a way to obtain knowledge and truth, but is not usually done according to the scientific method and is not science.

    Mathematics cannot be internally consistent, either, but the axioms it starts with are not "acts of faith".

    Science, which is what I am assuming you are talking about, does not "start" with "acts of faith". It starts, usually, with an observation. Unless we are taking such assumptions as "there is an external reality" as "acts of faith".

    But perhaps you are not talking about science, but instead have some meaning for "scientism" that actually makes your assertion reasonable. If so, what is it?
     
  19. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    386
    Indeed. It's also very convincing that you entirely didn't get the drift of my retort. Nice job.
     
  20. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Lol.

    The drift was "I'll totally ignore was was presented, calling it boring and just say 'science proves itself and takes no faith'".


    The point about the incompleteness theorum warrants consideration. You gave it none, offering little but scoff and evidence of an apparently unwarranted superiority complex.

    Nice job.
     
  21. Liege-Killer Not as violent as it sounds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    130
    When I read the OP, the Incompleteness Theorem was the first thing I thought of, and I believe wesmorris is correct in his post. However, this does not back up Nutter's claim. He is arguing against a straw man. No one really thinks science is the ONLY way to gain knowledge. And no one seriously claims that science can explain everything ("is universally true" in his words). But for all intents and purposes, and based on the history of our search for knowledge, science is hands down the BEST way we know of to gain that knowledge. There may be truths that can't be explained by science, just as there are mathematical truths that can't be proven by mathematics (according to Gödel's Theorem). But that doesn't mean we throw out science any more than we should throw out mathematics.


    !!!!! :crazy: !!!!! POST-MODERNIST BULLSHIT ALERT !!!!! :crazy: !!!!!
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2007
  22. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Who's saying throw out science goober?
     
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Totally agree there killer.
     

Share This Page