Science Deniers are Everywhere

Let's be clear here Olivier. What you are saying is that when your side denies science, it isn't important. I don't know why this argument about who denies the more important science is even worth having.

Sure, Global Climate change is very important. But, modern agriculture and food security are also pretty damn important. Vaccinations are pretty damn important. But who cares.

Science at its best rises above political ideology.

If you are not willing to accept scientific consensus even when it contradicts your own political ideology, then science is meaningless. Science is useful when it challenges your ideological beliefs and causes you to change direction. If you only accept science that validates your prejudice (and the other side does the same) then we will be stuck in these political bubbles with no ability to agree on facts.

This is what seems to be happening. This is why I get so frustrated at my own political side for jumping onto bad science.

I will give another example (just because I am an idiot who can't help himself).

In the US and Canada, people are developing programs aimed at reducing the occurrence of sexual assault on campus. Most of the programs are targeted at changing the attitudes of young men. These programs push very hard on the concept of consent... telling these young men that they need to get clear verbal happy consent every time they switch positions.

These programs are then scientifically tested, the measure the attitudes of the men to see if they have changed. And they follow the participants to track the incidences of sexual assault compared to a control group to see if the program actually reduces sexual assault.

These programs fail fantastically. They fail to change attitudes. They fail to have any impact on the incidence of sexual assault. There was an NPR story on this; the students are rejecting these messages because they are ridiculous (as anyone here with an adult sex life knows, you don't ask permission for every change of position in a normal relationship).

There are programs that actually work. They are scientifically proven in several studies to reduce the incidence of sexual assault. However there is a problem...

The programs that are shown scientifically to work (i.e. to significantly reduce sexual assault) are focused on giving two messages to young women. They teach young women to be assertive (to clearly say 'No' when they don't want sex) and to avoid problem drinking.

This, of course, goes against the prevailing political ideology in modern colleges. So the failed programs continue and the scientific program (that actually reduces the incidence of sexual assault) is rejected.

Whether this is important or not is up to you.

Let me start by saying Scientific consensus above all should be questioned! God forbid arguments from authority when a good question comes your way...First by Philosophy of Science at the base, especially in regards to "language technology", and internal logical consistency, and then by better more accurate in depth Science. That's how Science itself progresses.
As for GMO's I think most people don't have anything against them per se other than reasonably thinking we are way off of being able to tell what is trash in the gene pool and what is not to go editing and crossing on those. Moreover, we don't like the idea big corps should control those in regards to food. There is no one thinking that eating a GMO will kill them but it might well be the case that what is being edited is not fully understood, and that, of course, entails in the least an eco risk. I go as far as to say the problem with public perception of GMO's is asking for more science not less!

You are confusing science with philosophy, Fil.

1) The process of science "progresses" through the hard work of scientists. To become a scientist, you study for 12-16 years at a University to learn classical Physics, advanced mathematics, modern Physics. You study the latest advancements on a deeply technical level, and you do your own work critiqued by peers.

This is how science is done. It isn't done by random people on the internet. And, it isn't done by philosophers.

2) The so-called "philosophy" of science has every right to criticize science, particularly on the question of "truth". Science doesn't claim to be "truth" nor does science even attempt to define "truth". Science aims at being able to make predictions and form models.

Yet, when scientists test a hypothesis and state (based on expertise, study and hard data) that the hypothesis is correct... this means something. Scientific consensus has been very effective at building technology, expanding life expectancy and curing diseases. This doesn't have anything to do with philosophical "truth".

There is a role for philosophy. There is a role for science. They aren't the same.

However, when you step onto a jet airplane, you should be glad that science (rather than philosophy) went into its design.

3) Science is also not politics. We live in a democracy. The government is not run by science... it is run by people. If there was a government that was run by science, our society would work quite a bit differently.

4) The problem with this thread is that people are using science as part of their political ideology. The claim that science supports one political ideology over another is ridiculous.

And in our system of democracy it is irrelevant.

I'll try and chip in more often on GMOs then. But you might not like what I say... They're not a magic wand either. Just a tool. In contrast, global warming will define the future of mankind.

One example where GMO's and CRISPER scares me goes well in the case that only recently we start to understand better the concept of Superorganisms and their complex relation. Most people might not know that 99% of the genes they have in their body is not from themselves. Genetic science has a long way to go.
The industry might wait till we know more about it...

At every scientific paradigm, there are axioms and there are a hypothesis to problem solve something. If you had a clue what you talking about you would know separation from Philosophy and good Science is nonsense! For one a lot of money would be saved...the bloody discussion is nothing else but a territorial tribal idiotic dispute!

You have to admit that not all issues are equally important for the welfare of our societies, though. How students **** in American campuses is certainly a more important issue than global warming... :-)

You apparently have never been a student in an American campus.

Questioned, yes. Manipulated, no.

I haven't had the priviledge. :-)

Agree, of course!

When I got my Physics degree, I didn't study very much philosophy. I had to take an introductory course, and a course on ethics (which I found quite interesting). But no one suggested that Physics had any significant connection to philosophy. In Physics we spend a great deal of time studying Math. And we go over the results of experiments and the models that explain them. This isn't philosophy.

My impression in studying physics is the philosophy was often at odds with scientific advancement. Aristotle is widely used as a counter example. It was a philosophy that got Galileo in trouble with the Church. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics and relativity, are quite counter-intuitive (something that philosophy is trying to preempt). When math and data contradict common sense or intuition, science goes with the math and data. Philosophy has trouble doing this.

I think that most of the people actually doing Physics would agree. These are the people who are curing diseases, discovering planets and putting robots on Mars... so what do they know.

Sheeesh oh **** off honestly!
Do you even know what Philosophy of Maths is?
The ignorance is glaring!!!

You don't know how wrong you are. The very concept of your question is wrong. Europe is lots of different countries, different cultures, different p0olitical parties, different opinions, different priorities. Your question is based on a load of assumptions that really don't exist.

Fil is from Portugal, why don't you ask him what the Portuguese politicians have to say, or would you rather we speculate on what the Moldovans might think?

Here is the issue (and there is no need for vulgar attacks).

The most prominent Physicists don't care about Philosophy. Hawkings says "Philosophy is dead". I wouldn't go that far... but I don't think philosophy is at all important to a scientific career.

I earned a Physics degree with only the most basic introduction to philosophy (I think just 2 courses). I worked on scientific research in the University (in non-linear optics). I taught science in both high school and college. I then went into a successful career in engineering where I work with algorithms for speech recognition.

This work is highly mathematical and technological. It requires the ability to come up with solutions where there is an absolute right answer, and a wrong answer and success and failure is clear and measurable. What I do is science (not philosophy).

I have no problem admitting my ignorance a philosophy (I have read some philosophy, informally, where it has interested me).

My ignorance of philosophy is irrelevant to what I do. I won't go so far as to say that all philosophy is irrelevant (and some prominent scientists will say this). But as far as the progress of science; mathematical rigor, experiments, peer review and data are the tools of the trade. Philosophy is not a part of this.

Sorry.