...and here's the thrust of the argument, so far as there is one:

Yes, the application of science has brought about much that is unwanted. Nevertheless, science is our best understanding of what is going on, and hence our best chance at ameliorating negative results lies not in rejecting science but in following it.

As ugly as it got, I have been impressed with how well science-based policy making worked in the US. — T Clark

I hope you would allow that people of good will could see the politicized science of the past year very differently.

I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are. — Banno

I see science like I see a gun: It's a useful tool in the hands of people who have my sense of morality, and a horrible curse in the hands of everyone else. So, science is neither good nor bad. It just is. That's why I like to see STEM follow Liberal Arts; not lead it, and definitely not going it alone.

I see science like I see a gun... neither good nor bad. — James Riley

A very 'Mercan view. Elsewhere guns are generally considered bad, or at best a necessary evil.

Here's the thing: Science is not neutral; rather it is the information needed to work out what to do next.

Elsewhere guns are generally considered bad, or at best a necessary evil. — Banno

Everywhere else is illogical. Besides, it's not a popularity contest. It's an inanimate object.

Science is not neutral; rather it is the information needed to work out what to do next. — Banno

If science is the information needed to work out what to do next, then it is neutral. Like actionable intelligence, like the gun, needed information is just a thing, as is unneeded information, or wrong information. It all boils down to the people using or failing to use it.

But the story is such that what one takes from it the that one should blindly and unquestionably obey what God commands. — Fooloso4

That’s not my takeaway, but then I’m not putting reason aside in my interpretation. I don’t believe that ‘God commands’ anything - we are only ever interpreting from a limited perspective.

If he brought reason to the relationship he would have baulked and challenged God. He actually did this later when God was ready to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah. — Fooloso4

With Sodom (which was discussed significantly before Isaac, not after) he neither baulked nor challenged, but respectfully questioned, simulated and hypothesised - conscious that he may not yet have all the facts. And there was no place in this discussion for his own fears, desires or personal opinions. Take away the mythical element, and isn’t this reason? And does it always need to be verbalised?

Says who?
— Possibility

I provided the reference. Proverbs says "wisdom is fear of the Lord". — Fooloso4

Different author. Much later cultural context. And ‘fear’ here is deference - to the infinite significance of an existence/understanding beyond your own. Take away the personification, and there is nothing irrational or unreasonable about this kind of fear.

...and here's the thrust of the argument, so far as there is one:

Yes, the application of science has brought about much that is unwanted. Nevertheless, our best chance at ameliorating these results lies not in rejecting science but in following it. — Banno

...cautiously, mindful of the qualitative and affective limitations we set in pursuit of illusions of certainty.

If science is the information needed to work out what to do next, then it is neutral. — James Riley

...that just doesn't work. If it is going to help decide between our options, then it cannot be neutral towards them If it is neutral it cannot help us make a decision.

Everywhere else is illogical. — James Riley

Other places do not give guns to children, nor have regular mass shootings in schools.

If science is the information needed to work out what to do next, then it is neutral.
— James Riley

...that just doesn't work. If it is going to help decide between our options, then it cannot be neutral towards them If it is neutral it cannot help us make a decision. — Banno

That does work. Information is not going to help decide. People help themselves to information and then people decide. People use information. Information is a tool and nothing by itself.

Other places do not give guns to children, nor have regular mass shootings in schools. — Banno

'Merica doesn't give guns to children either. And I've never seen a gun carry out a mass shooting.

That does work. Information is not going to help decide. People decide, not information. People use information. Information is a tool and nothing by itself. — James Riley

That is in line much of the rhetoric from the gun lobby.

Cheers. Bye.

That is in line much of the rhetoric from the gun lobby. — Banno

That's got to be argumentum ad sumptin', right?

If Hitler says one apple plus one apple makes for two apples, is he wrong?

Bye.

Science is not neutral; rather it is the information needed to work out what to do next.
— Banno

If science is the information needed to work out what to do next, then it is neutral. Like actionable intelligence, like the gun, needed information is just a thing, as is unneeded information, or wrong information. It all boils down to the people using or failing to use it. — James Riley

There is no point in human experience at which information exists unaffected, except as meaningless noise. How do you think we distinguish between needed and unneeded information? If science is needed information, how can it then be neutral?

Science is our limited capacity to reliably describe the ongoing distribution of attention and effort within a system, of which the observer is always the missing aspect.

There is no point in human experience at which information exists unaffected, except as meaningless noise. — Possibility

Being affected does not render the inanimate animate. Nor does that render the inanimate meaningless. But it is people that make for the meaning, not the inanimate.

How do you think we distinguish between needed and unneeded information? — Possibility

Does the inanimate distinguish, or is it "we" who distinguish? You said "we distinguish." That is correct.

If science is needed information, how can it then be neutral? — Possibility

Science doesn't care. Science doesn't decide if it is needed. We decide if science is needed, not science.

Science is our limited capacity to reliably describe the ongoing distribution of attention and effort within a system, of which the observer is always the missing aspect. — Possibility

The operative words in that sentence are "our", "describe" "distribution" "attention" "effort" "observer". That's us, not science. Science is inanimate. It is nothing and does not even exist without us. It is a tool that we use. Like logic. Like religion. Like a gun. Like a car. I honestly don't understand what the difficulty is here.

Perhaps raising it will amount to throwing the religious blowfish back. — Banno

This position is entirely consistent with religious belief, but I do suppose it matters which religious belief we're referencing. Some do believe the world is getting better, cite the same data as you and Pinker, and even believe it headed toward perfection:

First I referred you to the Amish, now to the Hasidic:

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2752144/jewish/What-Makes-You-Think-the-World-Is-Getting-Better.htm

https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/4405247/jewish/Chapter-29-Where-is-our-World-Heading.htm

How fascinating.

I think my head hurts.

Recently watched a very measured lecture on science by Susan Haack - Science, Yes; Scientism, No. Do you rate her?

Foundherentism looks to be a long stretch; I hadn't given it more than a passing glance.

Was it a vid worth the time?

Edit: this might be interesting: SIX SIGNS OF SCIENTISM

With the benefit of hindsight, it looks as if Popper’s criterion of demarcation proved so attractive to so many in part because it was amorphous...

Nice.

Nobody explained how the scientists are going to save the coral.

They're not. But they might be able to clearly identify the issues and tell you if your solution is woking.

They're not. But they might be able to clearly identify the issues and tell you if your solution is woking. — Banno

Oh, so it's up to me to save them?

this might be interesting: SIX SIGNS OF SCIENTISM — Banno

Excellent essay, says all that needs to be said, I think.

a Christian can claim that the bible constitutes evidence, but it seems clear that it cannot constitute what could be counted as empirical evidence. — Janus

Not peer-reviewed scientific journal studies, but it does purport to contain witness testimony, and for those who accept its premisses, it presents a coherent worldview, notwithstanding that it doesn’t meet the criteria of scientific empiricism. Besides, we all believe more than we can plausibly prove or know for certain.

Yep. Others might help, if you ask nicely.

Yep. Others might help, if you ask nicely. — Banno

Considering that we'd probably need a global government and the ability to transition off of hydrocarbon fuel, that's some happy optimism you've got there. Good for you.

Was it a vid worth the time?

Edit: this might be interesting: SIX SIGNS OF SCIENTISM — Banno

I though the vid was good. I'll check this out too. Cheers.

that's some happy optimism you've got there. — frank

Hey, I didn't say it would work. Just that it was your best chance.

It's like dealing with Rorty; all you have to do is quote him!

:rofl:

On time? — baker

It's too early to comment.

"6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as poetry or art."

Poetry denial is a huge problem in science!

....When plainly there are excellent evolutionary reasons why poetry should have developed.....

When plainly there are excellent evolutionary reasons why poetry should have developed..... — Wayfarer

Poetry used to get people laid, right? Ask Byron... If Homer was real I suspect he never went to bed alone...