Science and Society

[Ned]

So how is science related to our societies, beyond keeping us alive?

I often hear people argue about their country. I have heard educated, intelligent people try to explain it on television, in books, in speeches. What bothers me is the almost total lack of reference points. The body of explanation is floating in air, without an anchor in reality. We have no starting point on which we agree.

We just express emotional and personal opinions and expect others to agree with our unstated assumptions. Sometimes even we ourselves do not know what assumptions. Our opponents are no better off, so arguments seldom go anywhere. We keep shouting each other down, interrupting each other's statements -- nobody convinces anybody about anything; the argument is doomed from the start. Quite often the purpose is to score points. We treat the discussion as a contest, instead of an attempt to find a solution and thus let everybody win. This attitude, of course, is consistent with the aggressive genes in our species that want to fight, rather than cooperate, for survival.

If we tried to build science and industry by this method, we would still be in the caves. It just doesn't work. It can't. The scientific method, which was so successful over the centuries in technology, is not limited to science: it is a general problem-solving method that could and should be applied to all our problems.

We need a common starting point. If we go from there, step by step, making sure we agree on each step, then either we arrive at the same conclusion, or a point of disagreement. Work on that point, until we reach a compromise, and then resume our discussion, knowing that we are still together, solving our problem.

The general public assumes that the scientific method is designed for, and restricted to, science. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Take the judicial system, for example. The body of laws ought to read like a scientific document. All the terms must be clearly defined, all the laws clearly stated, covering every probable scenario, every possible exception. No contradiction is allowed in the document and if one is demonstrated, it needs to be revised to remove the contradiction.

Of course, no law-book is perfect, just as no encyclopaedia of science is flawless. But the intent is there and with the right attitude, things can be improved all the time.

In criminal trials both the defender and the prosecutor have to use precise logic to draw their conclusions (even though each tries to cheat as much as he thinks he can get away with) and the evidence they present has to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

It is a sad state of affairs that our politicians can get away with undefined concepts, gross errors of facts, blatantly illogical arguments, glaring contradictions and transparent emotional manipulation. Just compare the public ‘debate’ that led to attacking Iraq in 2003, with the process I described above and ask yourself the following questions:

• Were all the terms used clearly defined
• Were all the relevant data considered?
• Were all the statements offered consistent with one another?
• Were all the presumed facts clearly demonstrated?
• Were the conclusions reached by meticulous logic?
• Have the need for, and goals of, action been clearly identified?
• Had every alternative action been considered?
• Were the leaders ready to admit error when contradiction was found?
• Was the course of action changed according to new evidence?
• Was there an attitude of honesty, integrity, openness, objectivity?

Somehow I think that it would help if the citizenry were better educated in science and logic. This is part of the reason I decided to write this book.

[Pluto]

To your above questions, I think, of course no, but then, the iraq invasion was never about truth, but about lies. Deception was the order of the day, is the order of the day, today. Those in power want a populace in the dark, a book would be a good idea, like a lamp of light.

[Ned]

To your above questions, I think, of course no, but then, the iraq invasion was never about truth, but about lies. Deception was the order of the day, is the order of the day, today. Those in power want a populace in the dark, a book would be a good idea, like a lamp of light.

Yes, but how many American citizens believed the lies?

With elementary rules of critical thinking they might have seen through the deception?

[Ned]

It is absolutely essential that critical thinking rules and the scientific method be taught in schools all the way from the beginning.

Without that, very few will learn how to evaluate information in a reliable way.

Without that, society is doomed.

[Pluto]

To your above questions, I think, of course no, but then, the iraq invasion was never about truth, but about lies. Deception was the order of the day, is the order of the day, today. Those in power want a populace in the dark, a book would be a good idea, like a lamp of light.

Yes, but how many American citizens believed the lies?

With elementary rules of critical thinking they might have seen through the deception?

How many, I'm not sure, but I would think a majority did. In the US it is a special case as the whole mediated environment is flooded with messages designed to contain any critical thought one might have, to frame the issues and to implement a ceiling where thought can go no higher. To teach elemental rules of critical thinking would be a start, whatever they would be? But I also think there needs to be education on the actual relationship between power structures and how they communicate to a populace. To understand that the whole mediated culture of entertainment is being used as a conduit for spreading and instilling ideas about society and the world. I think it is this passive transfer of info, where one thinks it's just a film, or tv show, where the real power lies in creating consensus thinking.

[Ned]

But I also think there needs to be education on the actual relationship between power structures and how they communicate to a populace. To understand that the whole mediated culture of entertainment is being used as a conduit for spreading and instilling ideas about society and the world.

To what extent do you think it (the dumbing down process) is deliberate?

I don't mean that there is a mastermind planning it all but, to some extent, policy decision makers must be aware of the effect of NOT teaching critical thinking and scientific method in a systematic way?

[Pluto]

[/quote]

To what extent do you think it (the dumbing down process) is deliberate?

I don't mean that there is a mastermind planning it all but, to some extent, policy decision makers must be aware of the effect of NOT teaching critical thinking and scientific method in a systematic way?[/quote]

It's a good question and difficult to answer accurately. But I think, from what I see, that it is structural. To have a society of enlightened critical thinkers would not suit the present system, the system requires people to be ignorant rather than its opposite. In a shallow society, serious discussion comes over as odd, or irrelavant.

[Ned]

I am sure that the fight (and some success) to teach 'intelligent design' (the stupidest design I have seen to date) in science classes is deliberate.

The church has always been against thinking and insisted on mindless faith through history.

Most American politicians pay lip service to religion, because a thinking citizenry mighty not swallow the lies so easily.

Are you aware of any educational institute (elementary or high school) in which the subject of "Critical Thinking" is part of the curriculum?

[Pluto]

I am sure that the fight (and some success) to teach 'intelligent design' (the stupidest design I have seen to date) in science classes is deliberate.

The church has always been against thinking and insisted on mindless faith through history.

Most American politicians pay lip service to religion, because a thinking citizenry mighty not swallow the lies so easily.

Are you aware of any educational institute (elementary or high school) in which the subject of "Critical Thinking" is part of the curriculum?

No, not really. Though I do remember seeing something about philosophy for kids at schools in the UK and Europe, and the teachers wanted to teach the kids to think critically. I believe it is happening in some quarters. But on the whole not.

[Ned]

To teach elemental rules of critical thinking would be a start, whatever they would be?

How about:

1. Exactly what is it that we know for a fact?
2. Exactly how do we know it?
3. What are the sources, the reliability and the limits of our knowledge?

In addition, for me, the words we are using have to be defined by the following rules:

The definition has to:

1./ be based on observed and verified phenomena
2./ it can not be circular (containing references to itself)
3./ it has to be placed in the context of existing human knowledge
4./ it can not use undefined words/concepts
5./ it cannot contain contradictions

My wife is teaching "Critical Thinking" classes in adult education programs. She is bringing in daily newspapers and teach her students how to evaluate articles in politics and in advertising.

She says her adult students are absolutely amazed and delighted by the methods and techniques she shows them.

[Pluto]

Yes, that sounds interesting, especially in relation to what's happening in newspapers and advertising. I'd like to see a class like that in action.

[Ned]

Yes, that sounds interesting, especially in relation to what's happening in newspapers and advertising. I'd like to see a class like that in action.

In my book: "Humane Physics" there is a chapter on logic and logical fallacies.

Here is an example:

There are many typical mistakes people make in logical deductions, sometimes innocently, but often deliberately, with intent to mislead. We have to be aware of these mistakes both in our own thinking and in arguments presented to us. My favourite examples for illogical thinking these days involve political and military leadership:

“Canada won't join missile defence plan” Last Updated Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:32:18 EST CBC News OTTAWA

“Canada has said no to the U.S. missile defence program, Prime Minister Paul Martin announced Thursday. The outgoing U.S. ambassador to Canada reacted swiftly, saying the decision to defend North America now rests with Washington. "We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty – its seat at the table – to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada," said Paul Cellucci. “


The ‘illogic’ in this example is the following:

Premise 1 (If p then q) If you join a decision making process then you are a sovereign country (TRUE by definition of the word sovereignty)
Premise 2 (Not p) Canada did not join the decision making process (TRUE)
Conclusion (Not q) Therefore Canada gave up her sovereignty (FALSE)

In mathematics we say that 'p' is a sufficient but not a necessary condition. The form of this logical argument is invalid.

Canada could have said 'yes', but decided not to. Therefore Canada is a sovereign country. Again, the premises don’t support the conclusion.

Fallacies can be presented in two basically different ways:

• One or more of the premises are false
• The form of the argument is logically invalid

Therefore, when we hear an argument, it is crucial to examine both the correctness of the premises and the validity of the logical form.

[duszek]

We can practise critical thinking when listening to the news on the radio or some other prepared programmes and make spontanuous comments like:

That´s a lie.
This is only partially true, my dear, and you know it.
The choice of words is interesting, isn´t it ? What are you trying to conceal ?
Now you are beaufitying because you try to be diplomatic.
Quite hypocrytical today, aren´t we ?
Etc.

[duszek]

Saying no to a power has a price.

What price does Canada have to pay for saying no to the US ?

No seat at a table (which table ? at the Pentagon somewhere ?) means ... what disadvantage exactly ?

A cowboy is good at putting things bluntly. How would a cowboy explain the problem to those eager to understand ?

It´s even better to have two blunt explanations from two opposing camps.

[Ned]

Excellent point, duszek!

When I was still listening to the news (I stopped years ago) I used to yell and scream at the announcers and the interviewed people, until my wife refused to watch the news with me.

I was so outraged at the stupidity and the blatant lies that stopping to watch was the only solution.

Now I read a few journalists I trust on the internet, instead.