I am of the moderately educated opinion that it is time to discard the term "science". It does not refer to anything but a loose federation of people of various fields, investigating different things that sometimes overlap in subject matter, methodology or equipment. There is no essential feature that makes a field "scientific", and there is no such thing as the "scientific method". The structure of the educational institution is perhaps the greatest overall similarity between the sciences.

Continuing to use the term "science" adds no value to discussion. A physicist can explain to someone how they are a physicist and get all they need to say from only this, labeling themselves as a scientist does nothing additionally. Calling yourself a scientist only opens the door to what sort of scientist you are - thus giving the false impression that there is some thing called Science that is unified, organized, official and genuine.

Furthermore, science has become a term of abuse, especially in politics, where the term is slapped around to help justify a poorly thought out policy. Since it is not specific, a shoddy proposal can use the term "science" and get away with murder because nobody knows what specific field they are referring to. It is an abstract, vague, nebulous concept that nobody really knows anything about but what seems to be important and impressive.

Then there is the issue of demarcation, especially "pseudoscience". Since there is no acceptable definition of what makes something scientific, calling something "pseudoscientific" is meaningless. It also fails to actually explain what is wrong with the theory, and gives the impression that anything that comes with the label of "science" is "better than" other forms of inquiry, even if they may be legitimate themselves.

In conclusion, then, "science" has become an honorific term that is exploited and abused, including "scientists" themselves (to promote their social status image as a modern priest of knowledge of sorts, something some will not easily let go of), when in fact this term cannot be uncontroversially defined and has no practical use. It is time to transition away from this term and embrace a more anarchistic and nominalistic conception of inquiry. (A better term for a "scientist" is a "researcher").

Doing so will erode the shallow public image of science as some "other" entity of sorts, as well as the obsession with demarcating what is science and what is not. Physicists will work as physicists, psychologists as psychologists, philosophers as philosophers, artists as artists. There is absolutely no need for the additional term of "science", and it should be jettisoned. — darthbarracuda

It sounds like what you really have a problem with is scientism.

There can't be scientism if there isn't any science! >:O

There can't be scientism if there isn't any science! >:O — darthbarracuda

Right.

But I would say that all of the issues/problems you list are issues/problems with scientism, not science.

The issues/problems you list remind me of Susan Haack’s work on scientism. Haack, as I recall, says that scientism is characterized by things like being obsessed with demarcating science and pseudoscience; having the attitude that science is superior to all other forms/traditions of inquiry; etc.

Yes, I have read Haack and am in a lot of agreement with her. However I have found from my own reading that she calls science a loosely-organized federation of disciplines, and I can't help but wonder why, then, do we need the word "science" anyway and risk the sort of rampant scientism we have today?

I think somehow the "unity of science" hasn't been explicitly addressed in this thread. I'd guess you have your doubts, but If like to see arguments from each side.

Yes, I have read Haack and am in a lot of agreement with her. However I have found from my own reading that she calls science a loosely-organized federation of disciplines, and I can't help but wonder why, then, do we need the word "science" anyway and risk the sort of rampant scientism we have today? — darthbarracuda

I think that the source of the problem that you are trying to address is the magnified anti-intellectualism in the U.S. (and probably in other Western societies); the corporatization of education, especially higher education; and the accompanying decline of the liberal arts tradition.

When I juxtapose science with scientism I mean science as a Western intellectual tradition like philosophy.

I don't think that the latter version of science is what concerns you. I think that it is the contemporary state of science, an institution in service to nothing more than perpetual economic growth, that you have a problem with.

The word "researcher" could mean a biologist working for a corporation solely to develop new products, not to increase appreciation and understanding of the natural world.

I suggest "scholar" be applied to scientists in the liberal arts tradition and "researcher" only be applied to the scientists you are concerned about.

In conclusion, then, "science" has become an honorific term that is exploited and abused, including "scientists" themselves (to promote their social status image as a modern priest of knowledge of sorts, something some will not easily let go of), when in fact this term cannot be uncontroversially defined and has no practical use. It is time to transition away from this term and embrace a more anarchistic and nominalistic conception of inquiry. (A better term for a "scientist" is a "researcher").
--darthbarracuda

I think you are confusing the concepts of what some people think is 'science' and the scientific process/methodology itself. In reality scientific methodology is about speculating on what might be true (although we really don't need 'science' this part since we would do it anyways) and then go about trying to determine what is and isn't true through rigorous testing. In a way science itself is pretty boring and at times may seem useless but it IS useful in providing evidence as to what is and isn't true.

What you are having problems with is the "filler" so to speak of which people create in the absence of what people wish science would do but doesn't. Such things as morality, answers to some of the big questions in life,etc.,etc. Science isn't a religion, science doesn't change reality to suit our needs (although we try and use it to do so), and science doesn't fix the human condition. If your upset at people saying stupid things and other issues with the human condition then it might be helpful to understand that it is a problem with the human condition and not with science that you are having a problem with. In a way it is kind of like mixing up a screwdriver for a hammer, or a hammer for a screwdriver and then getting frustrated as to why it doesn't seem to be working right when in reality it is not the right tool for the job you are using it for.

In a nutshell science works and is useful, it just may not be as useful in the way you are trying to use it since it is not made to deal with issues with the human condition directly.

He knows more than you do. He has a masters degree -- in PHILOSOPHY!
--Bitter Crank

Whoever this person is that you are talking about I would like to talk to them so that too could learn a thing or two from them. :D

There is no essential feature that makes a field "scientific", and there is no such thing as the "scientific method". — darthbarracuda

It looks like your "moderately educated opinion" is not worth very much.

Science, as already stated, is a methodology for the exploration and categorization of knowledge. The scientific method has been carefully laid out and has a common core shared by all branches of science. The basics of the method are easy enough to grasp but learning it with proficiency is something that takes years of education.

A scientist is someone who has been trained and educated in the use of the scientific method. A physicist is not just someone that learns physics, but someone that learns how to apply the scientific method in the exploration of physics.

It's a reference to an old radio show I believe, that I've never heard... but it's also reminiscent of beware the believers.

agree with the OP. Science is essentially an umbrella marketing term for fundraising and shielding against criticism. There are no standards, there are no methods. Just some claims that are rarely challenged since the industry has so thoroughly insulated itself both in academia and commercial industry. Once in a while though there are some articles that challenge the scientific method myth, that are accepted in some journal, which are quickly shot down by the industries' hired censors self-named skeptics. — Rich

What sort of claims? Climate change, evolution, radiocarbon dating, QM, DNA, cell theory, the periodic table, the heliocentric model?

What you stated there is on the level of creationism or holocaust denial.

What you say sounds right.

Michael Ossipoff

"Rational" would be a better word than "science". Might get a better look in politically too.

For the people who took issue with it, I'll try to give a more moderate version of what Rich might have been touching on.

First of all, there's money in science. University bosses can pull in as much as £700k per year in the UK. Individual scientists will earn themselves or their universities/employers money through articles (bought by journals), books (bought by everyone), being on advisory boards or sponsorships/grants from companies/governments, etc. Universities pull in funding from donations, selling/leasing intellectual property, tutoring fees pay by (or on behalf of) students, etc. We're at a point now where ordinary people buy science books and magazines, which is more money for the universities and publishers, etc. There's also TV, radio and movies which will work on the same principles.

There's also very obvious salesmanship in science. Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc. They're in the public eye constantly promoting science - never really saying anything particularly profound, but discussing science at a GCSE level so the general public can keep up with it. These people have almost a religious following - whole legions of people who think these science popularizers are the smartest people on the planet, regardless of the fact that each of them have said some unbelievably stupid things, are considered average at best amongst their peers in the scientific community, etc.

Then you hear about things like one example anecdote I read a while ago about an experimental physicist who (I'm struggling to recall the details, but it was something like) made a discovery that would cause some problems for quantum physics - and as a result, he was apparently censored and fired. Did it happen? Who knows, but if it did, it's terrifying - and considering quantum physics is THE big thing at the moment, it's not unreasonable that the institution wouldn't so easily let their best selling product be called into question.

A personal favourite of mine is quantum computing. I'll predict it now: It will never happen. A lot of the theory behind quantum computing is founded on misunderstandings of quantum physics. Even MIT's #1 expert on quantum computing is skeptical. The "quantum computers" that exist today are only "quantum" on a technicality; they don't do any of the fancy stuff quantum computers are supposed to be able to do. But it's a project that will keep pulling in the funding from people who want it to happen - and as long as they can make a convincing case for it, they'll keep peddling it. The beauty of the system being that, at the end, they don't have to return all the funding or all the money made from book sales and magazine articles just because they never succeeded.

I had to omit so much from this to keep it from getting even more absurdly long so it may come across worse than I'd intended. To clarify: I'm not saying that all scientists are willing scam artists; just making a case that money is involved in science - and we all know what money can do to people.

It could be that, like in lottery, there exist certain trends which are helpful in trying to win lottery, so our Earthly life can provide us with trends, like scientific laws, which help us to run our Earthly lives, may be even temporarily, and in a grandeur scim of things they can fail.

As we sadly learn, history is written by winners, which means history is rewritten, distorted and passed in its biased from to new generations. It adheres to new administrative or political set up, to the power at hand. Science world also has winners, so it is logical to assume that fallowing the winners, science becomes distorted as well, promulgating forward that which would agree with the movement or stream of the time, and sweeping under the carpet that which disagrees. It is esecially easy assumption because scientific research is funded, and without funds it will not thrive.