OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Grow Up!

Entry 2124, on 2021-04-30 at 10:55:01 (Rating 4, Science)

Much of our knowledge today comes from well-respected areas of science. For example, we trust that computers will work correctly for us (at least, most of the time) because the physics that transistors and other components are based on is extremely solid. And we know that the fuel we use in our vehicles can be trusted because the chemists who developed it understand their subject extremely well. And most medicines are reliable because the biology they are based on is fairly well understood.

But what about other subjects? Well, as we move further away from the "pure" sciences - and from maths itself, which is maybe the purest form of knowledge of all, unless we accept some philosophers' thoughts that that should that be logic or metaphysics - we find they become less and less trustworthy.

So sociology, economics, anthropology, and other "softer" sciences are less trusted - and rightly so, in my opinion. One reason for this is that, in some ways, they are just intrinsically more difficult. I say "in some ways" here because there is no doubt that from a technical perspective fundamental physics is incredibly difficult. The maths in some areas, such as fluid dynamics, is often quoted as being exceptionally complex. But when investigating phenomena involving humans there is an extra element of complexity because humans are more difficult to predict than electrons!

I also wonder if some subjects just haven't "grown up" yet. Many scientists in the early days of science, or before modern science was even developed, dabbled as much in pseudoscience and superstition as real science. Newton, for example, famously spent a lot of time working on alchemy and religion. At that time, there was no clear distinction between science and non-science.

So a lot of astronomy came from astrology, a lot of chemistry came from alchemy, and a lot of physics came from non-empirical philosophy. But eventually these subjects moved forward and abandoned their roots which had proved to be problematic.

I do wonder whether many areas of human knowledge haven't reached that stage yet. For example, there are some areas of economics which do seem to rely on empiricism, but there are others which seem to be little more than adherence to a dogma. And some subjects in the social sciences - such as women's and indigenous studies - seem to almost entirely consists of superstition. They haven't even started the transition to reality yet. It's like going into the astronomy department of a university and finding people casting their horoscopes!

At this point I should admit that I might be indulging in a certain amount of hyperbole just to make my point. I have never studied any of those "modern social sciences" so I only know about them through indirect means. Maybe I am being a bit unkind there. However, I believe the underlying idea is sound, even if I might have gone a bit too far. Maybe I might have indulged in exactly what I criticise them for! But hey, this is a blog, not a scientific paper, and I don't pretend to follow exact scientific methodology.

So here's my point: if a subject wants to be called a science it should follow strict scientific protocols; at least as much as is practical, because we should never expect perfection. And if a subject wants to operate on non-scientific principles, then don't call it a science. Also expect that its credibility and reputation might be somewhat diminished as well.

I would claim that many of the social sciences aren't sciences at all. That doesn't mean they are useless - although some people would make that claim, and others might say they are worse than useless in that they are actually harmful - it just means they are different from science. Maybe they are art, or philosophy, or something else. Who knows?

And some of the postmodern concepts we see tossed around in fairly respectable circles nowadays are even worse. For example, I have recently seen apparently serious proposals for "black science" and "indigenous science" and "women's science". These are either just like normal science, in which case why the need for the qualifier, or they aren't science at all. I strongly suspect the second possibility, because these seem to have been created with the specific purpose of reaching predetermined conclusions before any real research is done, and this is arguably the most important thing that science doesn't do.

So, here's a summary of my points on this subject. First, if something is a mature science and has "grown up" then fine, everything is OK. If something is calling itself science, but is still at an immature stage, either throw it out or try to get it to the next stage quickly. And if something looks as if it will never get to a good place, try to terminate it now, or just call it something else, like "women's fiction" or "indigenous mythology" or "black narratives".

After all, cultural appropriation is something I would be criticised for if I started "stealing" aspects of other people's cultures. Well, modern science is an important part of mine (and yes, I know that there are some contributions to science from other cultures as well, but I'm talking about modern science which is primarily a result of the Western Enlightenment) so no one else should be stealing it, especially if they are then going to warp it for their own nefarious purposes.

When I see the word "science" included in the name of a subject area, I look to see if it is a conventional science (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc) being carried out using a fair approximation to the scientific method. If it isn't, then I am skeptical... very skeptical!

Comment 1 (6608) by Anonymous on 2021-05-03 at 20:31:49:

Showing your white supremacist tendencies again OJB? Science doesn't belong to any one culture, it is there for everyone. Stop being so western-centric and join the 21st century.

Comment 2 (6614) by OJB on 2021-05-04 at 10:32:45:

This phrase "white supremacist" seems to be just a lazy way to reject someone's argument while making no effort to address the real issues. I proudly support Western culture, and believe it is the best. If you think that is wrong, please say why, don't just indulge in an ad hominem.

I did say that *modern* science *mainly* came from the Western world. I totally recognise the contribution from places like India and the Islamic world in the past.

I am Western-centric, and I realise that some elements of society will condemn me for that. I really don't care what these people think, unless they can offer some rational argument against my position, which they never seem to do.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.