The most relevant issue for the first part of this Contemplation is a loose definition and lack of agreement at the outset on what all of us involved in the shared conversation below mean by the word \u2018science\u2019. It can refer to a body of knowledge, but it can also refer to a method of ascertaining this knowledge.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n From my perspective, the scientific method, in its ideal form, is perhaps one of the best ways our species has developed for helping us to understand many aspects of our universe; not all, of course, but many. It fails, however, in reaching universal \u2018truths\u2019 in many other aspects and I would argue this is particularly so in the areas where humans are involved but also where complex systems exist. Put complex systems and humans together, and all bets are off as to whether even the most sound use of the scientific method can reach definitive and totally objective conclusions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n A further issue, as my comments below hopefully demonstrate, is that the methodological practice is carried out by us totally subjective, story-telling apes and so the conclusions can be suspect as can much of the body of knowledge we garner from it. And there should be nothing wrong or controversial about skepticism towards such knowledge. Such skepticism is, in fact, (or at least should be) an integral part of the process. As <\/span>this paper<\/span><\/a> argues, \u201c…<\/span>In science, being skeptical does not mean doubting the validity of everything, nor does it mean being cynical. Rather, to be skeptical is to judge the validity of a claim based on objective empirical evidence. David Hume, the 18th century philosopher, asserted that we should accept no things as true unless the evidence available makes the non-existence of the thing more miraculous than its existence. Even extraordinary claims can be true, but the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required\u2026To be skeptical does not mean dismissing claims\u2014even extraordinary claims\u2014out of hand. It means examining the available evidence before reaching a decision or withholding judgment until sufficient evidence is had. One should not start with the assumption that a claim cannot be true any more than one should start with the assumption that a claim must be true. All reasonable evidence on both sides should be considered. Skepticism is a critical feature of a scientific repertoire. Indeed, many of the most prominent skeptics are and have been some of the world’s most prominent scientists, including Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and Carl Sagan\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Many people, however, take extreme umbrage when their \u2018science\u2019 is skeptically viewed. This occurs for a number of psychological reasons, not least of which would be the cognitive dissonance it can lead to. To reduce the anxiety\/stress that can result when one\u2019s beliefs are questioned, our fight\/flight responses take over and we lash out by \u2018attacking\u2019 the critic or simply ignore\/deny their perspective.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Don\u2019t get me wrong, \u2018science\u2019 is great; I love it and practised it somewhat in an earlier life. However, my time engulfed in that world and experiences\/reading since have led me to better understand the human tendencies that impact its practice and story-telling. This is especially so in the past number of years where it all seems to be turning far more \u2018political\u2019 in nature, where \u2018science\u2019 is being leveraged as a new \u2018religion\u2019 that cannot be questioned and is used to justify\/rationalise social policy and action (i.e., socio-political, -economic, -cultural) by those at the top of our power and wealth structures.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I use \u2018science\u2019 to bolster my arguments about those things I discuss and I try (but am not always successful) in couching my words and ideas as possibilities, probabilities, and in terms of evidence. I believe there are paths ahead that are more likely than others based on the evidence humans have observed and gathered, but I also understand that such paths may go in some completely different or unseen way. Much uncertainty exists and, of course, humans loathe uncertainty so we seek certainty regardless of sound evidence.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The meme in question struck me as problematic in a few ways but perhaps mostly because of the us versus them intonation, and the idea that if you\u2019re not \u2018with us\u2019 then you\u2019re \u2018against\u2019 us and the reason we don\u2019t reach our potential and succeed at this experiment of life (especially via our ingenuity and technology, all the result of \u2018science\u2019).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n My conversation with others within a FB Group (Neil deGrasse Tyson) on the topic of \u2018science\u2019 in response to the Bill Nye meme:<\/span><\/p>\n Steve Bull<\/span> SG Steve Bull<\/span> JD Steve Bull<\/span> SG Steve Bull SG Steve Bull JD JD SG Steve Bull<\/span> SG Steve Bull<\/span> RS RY Steve Bull<\/span> RY Projections are that Earth’s population is expected to peak and then decline. Lift people out of poverty and educate them and they inevitably have fewer children.<\/span><\/p>\n Steve Bull<\/span> And the projections about a levelling off of population that you speak of depend almost entirely upon the global population achieving a standard of living comparable to the so-called advanced economies of the world. Such optimistic predictions (dare I say delusional) are fully and completely resource blind (especially as it relates to energy). There is almost certainly not going to be a \u2018managed\u2019 curtailing of the growth our species has been experiencing; it will be forced upon us by Nature and we are unlikely to enjoy the transition.<\/span><\/p>\n RY Steve Bull NZ Steve Bull NZ DC Anyway you look at it or slice it Science has been a net-plus for humanity.<\/span><\/p>\n Steve Bull DC The problem isn’t Science.<\/span><\/p>\n It’s people.<\/span><\/p>\n Even now….with all the evidence that Science has given us revealing how we are harming the planet and our long term prospects on it in we refuse to come together and take the necessary steps to mitigate the damage.<\/span><\/p>\n That isn’t Science’s fault.<\/span><\/p>\n Without Science life for humans would have remained short and brutal with women frequently dying in childbirth, children frequently dying young from common pathogens, and a general average life expectancy of 30.<\/span><\/p>\n Steve Bull DC But, again…..Science has explained to us how to “undershoot.”<\/span><\/p>\n We won’t listen.<\/span><\/p>\n It would be interesting to see how humanity would be doing now if Science was never used.<\/span><\/p>\n I suspect we would be generally miserable.<\/span><\/p>\n Or could already be extinct.<\/span><\/p>\n Too bad advanced Science wasn’t around 66 million years ago and used to deflect the asteroid that wiped out most life on the planet at the time.<\/span><\/p>\n Or maybe it’s a good thing because if the dinosaurs had the tech to do that we wouldn’t be here lol.<\/span><\/p>\n Steve Bull<\/span><\/a> That human populations were \u2018miserable\u2019 prior to the widespread use of \u2018science\u2019 assumes a lot about the life and times of the prehistoric hunter-gathering groups that existed for 100,000+ years prior to \u2018modern\u2019 times (say the past 12,000 since large, complex societies arose)as well as assumptions about how most of the current 8+ billion live (only a minority live in the \u2018splendour\u2019 of so-called \u2018advanced\u2019 economies that exploit and use the majority of finite resources to support their \u2018advantaged\u2019 living standards).<\/span><\/p>\n DC All available archeological evidence indicates that prehistoric humans lived short and largely miserable lives spending most of their time just trying to stay alive as do most of the current world’s population that doesn’t have advanced technologies readily available to them.<\/span><\/p>\n The Science of Agriculture and irrigation alone has saved countless lives from starvation.<\/span><\/p>\n Even if some paradise or garden of eden ever existed or exists today I see little point or advantage in a humanity that never advances beyond a primitive nature.<\/span><\/p>\n DC Steve Bull RR Steve Bull RM Steve Bull CB LM Steve Bull<\/span> MO Steve Bull<\/span> Similar \u2018simplistic\u2019 memes have appeared on this FB Group repeatedly. The other one that makes me shake my head (for a variety of reasons) is this one:<\/span><\/p>\n A handful of relevant articles:<\/span><\/p>\n https:\/\/www.ces.fau.edu\/nasa\/introduction\/scientific-inquiry\/why-must-scientists-be-skeptics.php<\/span> https:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/article\/what-skepticism-reveals\/<\/span> https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/abs\/pii\/B9780123984982000023<\/span> https:\/\/royalsocietypublishing.org\/doi\/10.1098\/rsta.2011.0177<\/span><\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/bill-nye-on-science.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\nWould that be the science that led humanity to 10,000+ nuclear warheads? Or maybe the science that leveraged hydrocarbons to help put us into ecological overshoot and helped to destroy the ecological systems all life depends upon. \u2018Science\u2019 has been as much a curse as a saviour.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span>, Discoveries and invention always have the capacity to be used or misused. Science is about discovering the nature of things. We can’t stop doing that. It is humans that are flawed not science.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nSG, Yes, and who carries out the science and the interpretation of observable phenomena? Humans. Humans that can never be completely objective and interpret the universe through biased eyes. Conclusions based upon perfectly performed scientific methods still require interpretation. And especially when systems being studied are complex and are impacted by nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena, it is impossible to control all the variables to thoroughly test hypotheses and reach absolute certainty. Throw on top of this the incentives that influence research (socio-cultural\/-economic\/-political) and science simply provides us with mostly socially-constructed stories that may or may not represent accurately the phenomena it is hoping to understand. One needs \u2018faith\u2019 to accept conclusions at complete face value given all the impediments to the \u2018ideal\u2019 we hold science against. And then there\u2019s the whole interpretation via established paradigms (refer to Thomas Kuhn\u2019s work on scientific revolutions) that can overturn decades of conclusions by shifting the interpretation of phenomena\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>SG, great point. Same is true with religion. Religion isn\u2019t flawed it\u2019s just the leaders and the people who practice it<\/span><\/p>\n
\nJD, I am reminded of the line by Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park: \u201c\u2026your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn\u2019t stop to think if they should.\u201d Perhaps, for example, performing gain-of-function research on viruses was\/is not an area that should be \u2018explored\u2019\u2014I mean, what could go wrong?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> So should we stop trying to figure it all out because we are flawed and biased? What are you saying here?<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>SG, Basically, what I’m suggesting is that we need to not place science upon a pedestal from which it cannot be questioned\/criticised, which is what I sense from a lot of commenters in this group. The scientific method and the interpretation of conclusions from it is always impacted by the humans who practice it; it is impossible to separate the social influences humans are susceptible to from it. Humans can never be completely objective, so the narratives we weave are oftentimes if not always influenced by our social circumstances and conditioning. Ecologist Dr. Bill Rees and coauthor Megan Siebert perhaps place things in perspective via this statement at the beginning of a recent paper on our energy ‘transition’: “We begin with a reminder that humans are storytellers by nature. We socially construct complex sets of facts, beliefs, and values that guide how we operate in the world. Indeed, humans act out of their socially constructed narratives as if they were real. All political ideologies, religious doctrines, economic paradigms, cultural narratives\u2014even scientific theories\u2014are socially constructed \u201cstories\u201d that may or may not accurately reflect any aspect of reality they purport to represent. Once a particular construct has taken hold, its adherents are likely to treat it more seriously than opposing evidence from an alternate conceptual framework.”(<\/span>https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/1996-1073\/14\/15\/4508<\/span><\/a>) As for ‘figuring it all out’, have we not learned enough to understand that we will never achieve such lofty ideals. That instead of focusing on those learnings that indicate we have proceeded significantly into ecological overshoot and need to begin preparing for the inevitable consequences of this, we are attempting to sustain, even expand upon, the unsustainable (which is what a lot of science is being used for). We need to recognise and acknowledge our limits and reorient our existence towards living within Nature’s hard, physical boundaries–not try and keep the growth party going and putting us even further into overshoot because ‘science will figure it out’.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> I realize we will never \u201cfigure it all out\u201d and there will always be new discoveries and new interpretations. A true scientist does not stop questioning. The whole point of science is to question. If some people choose to close their minds to the possibility of new information that may change what we think we know, they are missing g the point of \u201c science\u201d Again it\u2019s more of a human failing not a science failing.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>SG, While the properly carried out ‘scientific method’ is likely our best process for determining universal ‘truths’ it is, unfortunately, carried out by humans and we can never be eliminated\/isolated from the equation. This is especially true for complex systems (those with nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena) where all variables are impossible to control for and interpretations of results are carried out.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span>, the moral high ground scientist operate off of because they believe they aren\u2019t participating in religious activities is extraordinary. It\u2019s absolutely 100% no different than what born again Christians experience as they operate. I have no judgment of either party, but only interested in pointing out the similarities, which makes finger pointing silly. \ufffc\ufffc<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>SG, maybe he\u2019s just pointing out that scientists are no different than religious zealots. You might say well, religious zealots murder in the name of God. Well, scientist did a bunch of murdering in the last few years in the name of I\u2019m not sure what. So it\u2019s not that people should stop trying to figure it all out, it\u2019s people should stop pointing to that process as justification for an implicit moral high ground. \ufffc\ufffc
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>JD, It is not the intent of science to murder people but it is sometimes the intent of religion<\/span><\/p>\n
\nSG, Consider how \u2018science\u2019 contributed to the eugenics movement or what virus gain-of-function research has accomplished. There are plenty of examples of scientific research into better ways to eliminate other humans.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> Again, human failings. Science has no conscience, it just tries to research answer to questions. If humans misuse it it is not the fault of \u201cscience\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>SG, We’re simply talking past each other and will have to agree to disagree. I stand committed to the perspective that you cannot remove the human aspect from the practice of science. It is a human endeavour, through and through.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> Your point of view is quite narrow. Science never hurt a person, reality was the one who hurt. And that is humans wanting to use science as a weapon. Science is merely knowledge and what the human does with this knowledge is what needs to be addressed. We the human are not , at this time, capable of handling mind altering information<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> You are probably alive because of vaccinations and anti-biotics, so no.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nRY, Perhaps, but there\u2019s an argument to be made that humans are well into ecological overshoot because of our inability to allow \u2018natural\u2019 processes to keep our population numbers below the planet\u2019s carrying capacity. So are our interventions in these processes helpful or harmful, in the long run? The consequences that a species in overshoot experiences are often if not always quite \u2018harmful\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> I agree, in fact that may be an answer to the Fermi Paradox. But science itself is neutral. It is neither good nor bad. Only how it is used can determine that. Science also gives us birth control, while religion often opposes it and urges people to procreate endlessly.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nRY, There are many economists and futurists that also encourage increased population growth (but that\u2019s mostly to keep the Ponzis that are our monetary and economic systems from imploding, and based upon the view that infinite growth is entirely possible on a finite planet).<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> Sadly, I suspect you are correct. We are not good at recognizing or addressing rolling threats.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>RY, It\u2019s the complexity that we can\u2019t understand. Nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena cannot be predicted no matter how sophisticated one\u2019s model. It also doesn\u2019t help that we tend to believe our species stands outside and apart from Nature. We continue to tell and believe in stories where we have significant agency and can control everything. That\u2019s not the real world; that\u2019s magical thinking.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> no, that was the politics <\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>NZ, Humans, including scientists, are \u2018political\u2019 animals. Look into how academic\/economic incentives influence research.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> it could have been worse \u2026 they could have used them<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> no that would be the Science that allows you to gripe about science while doing so on a device that lets you fit the sum of all human knowledge in the palm of your hand and communicate instantly with nearly everyone worldwide.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>And a contrarian perspective could be that all this technology that many crow on about as being so \u2018beneficial\u2019 has also\u2014because of the industrial processes required in their production and the geopolitical dynamics involved in acquiring resources\u2014has not only placed humanity in ecological overshoot (with a problematic \u2018collapse\u2019 to come) but helped to destroy the ecological systems all life depends upon. The experiment that Homo sapiens is (especially its last 10-15000 years with the rise of complex societies) has not yet concluded and there\u2019s good evidence that the hyper-exploitation of finite resources over the past couple of centuries (thanks a lot to technological developments) will not end well.<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span>, I feel you are looking at it through not just a contrarian lense but a myopic one as well.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>DC, Yes, it\u2019s helped to expedite our journey into overshoot.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span>, well…..yes.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nDC, The evidence suggests strongly that we are too far past the tipping point for overshoot to be \u2018corrected\u2019; with or without \u2018science\u2019. The best we might do is mitigate at the margins, but instead (mostly because of denial combined with who sits atop our complex societies\u2019 power and wealth structures) we are continuing to pursue policies and actions that are taking us further into overshoot\u2014especially the belief that there\u2019s a technological \u2018fix\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> whether we are past a tipping point is, again, the fault of humans and not Science.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> ironically, if not for Science I doubt either one of us would have the luxury of the time it has taken to engage in this debate.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>DC, I’d argue it’s more about net energy surpluses than science. Net energy surpluses (especially thanks to hydrocarbons) have afforded humans the luxury to engage in all sorts of non-survival practices. And as these surpluses have encountered ever-quickening diminishing returns, such ‘luxuries’ are increasingly looking to be in the rear-view mirror in the not-too-distant future.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> More people have been killed “in the name of God” than by nuclear warheads<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>RR, I don\u2019t disagree. There\u2019s also been a lot killed in the name of politics and supposed democracy\/freedom.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> back to the caves<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>RM, While it is impossible to predict the future with much accuracy, it seems certain that a societal transition to a much simpler existence is ahead for those that make it through the bottleneck we have led ourselves into.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> Science is observing the facts of electricity. Social & economic forces create light bulbs or electric chairs, or rail guns. Scientists discover politicians, military people, & capitalists manipulate those findings to fit THEIR desires.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> One of the things “sciences” doesn’t do is tell us how to use the knowledge science uncovers. Usually taught at the middle school level. Miss something?<\/span><\/p>\n
\nLM CB, That’s a convenient logical runaround for abdicating responsibility for the misuse of knowledge. As I stated above, the line from Jurassic Park by Jeff Goldblum is apropos here: \u201c\u2026your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn\u2019t stop to think if they should.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Steve Bull<\/span> You’re confusing scientists with the politicians and military or corporate entities that put advancements to a nefarious use. That is like blaming architects for the building of the gas chambers.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nMO, You’re missing (or perhaps ignoring) everything I have stated about the social influences that impact the scientific process and thus the work of supposed ‘objective’ and ‘non-partisan’ scientists. In an ‘ideal’ world where such impacts don’t exist or can be completely controlled for, the scientific method appears to be our best means of understanding our universe. We don’t live in such a world, however.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Screen-Shot-2024-06-02-at-7.44.25-AM.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/a>The Skeptical Scientist<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/a>What Skepticism Reveals about Science<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/a>Elements of Scientific Thinking: Skepticism, Careful Reasoning, and Exhaustive Evaluation Are All Vital<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nScience as organized scepticism<\/strong><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Screen-Shot-2024-06-01-at-9.18.45-AM-1.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n