Science is not a perfect institution

Can someone else help me out by verifying the above posts? Otherwise this is going to turn into a "the world is round" argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you think marriage is an institution?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That will be difficult. For once I find myself in at least partial agreement with Bhudda1: there is an institution called Science.
Certainly it is not an institution in the sense of a single organisation, but Bhudda1 has not claimed it is. Rather he has said, and in this I agree, "When I say the institution of science, I don't mean a particular organisation with office bearers and all. It refers to the entire scientific institution as a whole."

Here is the lead definition of institution from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/institution

A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society

In that regard science is an institution.
The practice of science is according to certain methodologies that have evolved over the years (and continue to do so) that permit a systematic investigation of certain aspects of our world.
The role of science and scientists within the community has many customary features. (By way of example I cite the image of the absent minded professor.)
The relationship between those practicing science and the rest of society is complex and at times volatile. Politicians, engineers, entrepeneurs, economists, medical professionals, educators, ordinary citizens, all have important interchanges with science, that tend to follow particular patterns and are undoubtedly important to society as a whole.

I have no problem agreeing with the headline thesis of the thread: the insitution of science is not perfect.
I have major difficulty in seeing very much (anything?) of value in the claimed shortcomings pronounced by Bhudda1.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the perception is just really biased - completely forgetting all the positive things science brings, and accusing it of creating problems it hasn't

 

Huwy, more dangerous is the perception that ignores or refuses to look at the negative side of something as powerful as science. It is utterly important to know one's limitations --- more important to know one's powers or good stuff.

This is what I mean by the self interest group which is a highly dangerous entitiy --- because they don't want to know about what is wrong with the system they thrive on.

 

Jon Sudbo, a cancer expert at Norway's Radium Hospital has admitted making up data for an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2004 and another in the 'journal of clinical oncology' in March 2005 as well as one in the Lancet in Oct 2005.

He's is the one who got caught! But for each 'one' that does get caught, there are twenty that go scot free. So much for the infallibility of the 'method' of science.

Here, someone went through the trouble of finding out the fault. What if the issue on hand is something like 'homosexuality' (sic), where no one would dare to question the findings because they're afraid to be called a 'homo'!

 

Gee!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You've agreed with me before, only you don't want to admit it here!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As I have commented before, one reason why the west has so confused so many issues is that in English language the same word can be used for so many different things.

Now it seems science has at least four different meanings:

1. Science as a concept, as a way of looking at and observing life, as a world-view and as a mental outlook.

2. Science as an 'accepted' (and standardised) methodology to observe and analyse life.

3. Science as an institution.

4. Science as the knowledge or results gathered through scientific analysis.

All the four applications of the term science have serious drawbacks.

We'll continue to talk about them.

 

2. Science as an 'accepted' (and standardised) methodology to observe and analyse life.

DEFINITION (as given by one poster):

Science is a method, of observation, experiment, and observation of said experimetns results, and the drawing of conclusions from a wide variety of experimental results.

 

4. Science as the knowledge or results gathered through scientific analysis.

DEFINITION:

Science refers to our (human beings') current understanding of the physical laws of nature.

 

This is what people mean when they say that the ancient men practised science too! However, they have been proved to be wrong earlier.

 

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51990

 

Unlike yourself, Bhudda1, I can be objective. I have no problem in agreeing with individuals when they express an opinion, or present a fact, with which I agree. My declarations on any particular matter are based upon my understanding of the evidence and the hypotheses relating to it, not to my view of the personalities involved. Childish comments, such as the one above, seem to me rather irrelevant. Please stick to the facts and stop claiming agreement (implicit and explicit) where none exists. You are deluding yourself in that regard, not the thinking members of the board.

Note: I have taken you off Ignore. Please try to be reasonable in your future posts.