This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1timspalding
Neil deGrasse Tyson is at it again. His latest tweet launched a thousand congratulations and more than a few "you idiot!"s:
Link: https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/748157273789300736
To my mind, this is everything wrong with scientism.
Some other reactions:
* http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2016/06/30/rationalia-nation-idea-gets-neil-degras...
* http://www.popsci.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-just-proposed-government-that-doesnt-w...
* http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437324/neil-degrasse-tysons-rationality-pi...
* http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064540/3-questions-for-neil-degrasse-tyson
* http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-visit-to-neil-degrasse-tysons-rationalia/article...
Link: https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/748157273789300736
To my mind, this is everything wrong with scientism.
Some other reactions:
* http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2016/06/30/rationalia-nation-idea-gets-neil-degras...
* http://www.popsci.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-just-proposed-government-that-doesnt-w...
* http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437324/neil-degrasse-tysons-rationality-pi...
* http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064540/3-questions-for-neil-degrasse-tyson
* http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-visit-to-neil-degrasse-tysons-rationalia/article...
2davidgn
The name doesn't ring a bell, but why didn't he simply join the Brights and have done with it? Sheesh!
3rrp
Some tweets are just silly. I notice no one here has come to the defense of Tyson, which is a reassuring sign.
The weight of evidence is that dictators do very well in the countries they rule. Based on his constitution, the first policy Tyson should enact is to declare himself dictator and expropriate the assets of all those who wish to join his country.
The weight of evidence is that dictators do very well in the countries they rule. Based on his constitution, the first policy Tyson should enact is to declare himself dictator and expropriate the assets of all those who wish to join his country.
4davidgn
After all, Some are smarter than others!
6timspalding
Tyson writes a lengthy defense
https://m.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/reflections-on-rationalia/10154...
I understand why many in science decry the lack of scientific education among the general public. But I'm alarmed at the lack of basic philosophical training among scientists.
https://m.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/reflections-on-rationalia/10154...
I understand why many in science decry the lack of scientific education among the general public. But I'm alarmed at the lack of basic philosophical training among scientists.
7LolaWalser
This is your perennial "if only Dawkins/atheists/scientists knew philosophy they'd understand why theology isn't a load of pathetic rubbish!" No amount of "philosophical training" is ever going to make religion scientifically acceptable so just give it a rest already. If "basic philosophical training" yet allows you to believe Catholic catechism, it certainly isn't necessary to anyone trying to be rational.
Science is philosophy in action, to which no other compares.
8StormRaven
The "reactions" cited in #1 are idiotic.
Some of them confuse personal decisions with policy decisions. Tyson didn't say "all decisions of any kind must be based on the weight of the evidence". He said the Constitution of his hypothetical nation would say "all policy decisions must be based on the weight of the evidence".
If your response is to say (as one of the "reactions" does) that deciding how to travel from one place to another is a decision that contains many factors, you haven't responded to what Tyson said. All you have done is entirely miss the point.
If your response is to say "pi is irrational, and therefore wouldn't exist in Rationalia!" then you didn't actually respond to what Tyson said, you merely exposed that you don't know what "evidence" means.
If your response is to say "some questions are hard, and we don't know everything!" then you didn't actually respond to what Tyson said, you merely exposed that you don't know what "weight of the evidence" means.
Some of them confuse personal decisions with policy decisions. Tyson didn't say "all decisions of any kind must be based on the weight of the evidence". He said the Constitution of his hypothetical nation would say "all policy decisions must be based on the weight of the evidence".
If your response is to say (as one of the "reactions" does) that deciding how to travel from one place to another is a decision that contains many factors, you haven't responded to what Tyson said. All you have done is entirely miss the point.
If your response is to say "pi is irrational, and therefore wouldn't exist in Rationalia!" then you didn't actually respond to what Tyson said, you merely exposed that you don't know what "evidence" means.
If your response is to say "some questions are hard, and we don't know everything!" then you didn't actually respond to what Tyson said, you merely exposed that you don't know what "weight of the evidence" means.
9gilroy
>6 timspalding: I understand why many in science decry the lack of scientific education among the general public. But I'm alarmed at the lack of basic philosophical training among scientists.
Okay, so the man is asking for anything to contain a stance as policy in his hypothetical realm to have weight of evidence behind it. Philosophy presents merely a hypothesis to be explored, then you need science to back it up in his world. Religion is NOT philosophy. Two different concepts. After all, Religion is about Faith. Philosophy is about thought.
Okay, so the man is asking for anything to contain a stance as policy in his hypothetical realm to have weight of evidence behind it. Philosophy presents merely a hypothesis to be explored, then you need science to back it up in his world. Religion is NOT philosophy. Two different concepts. After all, Religion is about Faith. Philosophy is about thought.
11RickHarsch
>7 LolaWalser: 'Science is philosophy in action, to which no other compares.'
Grand statement, somewhat unscientific.
Grand statement, somewhat unscientific.
12richardbsmith
10> Not deGrasse Tyson. Mike Brown - who BTW has a course on Solar System Science starting again this month on Coursera.
13eromsted
I would argue that in the main policy is made rationally. But rationally in the interest of generally small groups with special access to political power rather than rationally in the interest of the majority. It is political rhetoric which appeals to the irrational and frequently evades or denies evidence as politicians attempt to win broad electoral support for policy that benefits only the few.
14RickHarsch
>13 eromsted: well and accurately said
15timspalding
>7 LolaWalser:
Actually, this has nothing to do with religion. But thanks for sharing.
>8 StormRaven:
The problem is that politics and policy is built on values which cannot be scientifically derived. There is no consideration of a policy's "good" that doesn't involve some judgment of this sort.
He raises art in schools and asks "Does it increase creativity in the citizenry? Is creativity good for culture and society at large? Is creativity good for everyone no matter your chosen profession?" He concludes "These are testable questions. They just require verifiable research to establish answers. And then, the debate ends quickly in the face of evidence, and we move on to other questions."
But this isn't how it works. Research may identify ways in which creativity may be good, but many, and with no "scientific" ways to evaluate them. Do we value the economic value? If so, do we look at the aggregate value, or is there some extra value to a more equal distribution? Alternately, do we value the happiness it brings? If happiness, do we look at aggregate happiness as a utilitarian might--and thus potentially fall victim to policies that create net happiness but make particular people very unhappy?
And what of the core issue of creativity--beauty? Do we value beauty separately somehow? Is there something "better" about a society where people create and understand beauty, like, say, Italy, over places where people are objectively happy to drive an ugly car to an ugly drive-in restaurant listening to ugly music, like most of America? If making everyone duller and less aesthetically sensitive made people's ugly lives happier, as measured by seratonin per square inch, or whatever, or productive, as measured by GDP, should we promote that? Should policy promote full lives, happy lives, rich lives, easy lives—what?
And how do we judge all these goals against each other, and other goals? Is spending money to create a happy, creative and intellectually active citizenry better than alleviating poverty for the poor and miserable bottom 1%? Are there obligations to, say, justice that, although marginal as a metric, should nevertheless be taken care of before adding painting classes to schools?
And speaking of creativity, are there any special "rights" involved there? Should the state protect free creative expression, even if we objectively measure that it hurts the overall polity? Should the state protect some creative rights, such as copyright or the moral rights of European IP law, irrespective of their value across other metrics, or does your right to the integrity of your creation continent on others' ability to exploit it more productively?
Science can never answer these sorts of questions, and so many others. You can't establish "facts" and "move on" at all.
And if you get this, you're as clueless as any creationist.
Actually, this has nothing to do with religion. But thanks for sharing.
>8 StormRaven:
The problem is that politics and policy is built on values which cannot be scientifically derived. There is no consideration of a policy's "good" that doesn't involve some judgment of this sort.
He raises art in schools and asks "Does it increase creativity in the citizenry? Is creativity good for culture and society at large? Is creativity good for everyone no matter your chosen profession?" He concludes "These are testable questions. They just require verifiable research to establish answers. And then, the debate ends quickly in the face of evidence, and we move on to other questions."
But this isn't how it works. Research may identify ways in which creativity may be good, but many, and with no "scientific" ways to evaluate them. Do we value the economic value? If so, do we look at the aggregate value, or is there some extra value to a more equal distribution? Alternately, do we value the happiness it brings? If happiness, do we look at aggregate happiness as a utilitarian might--and thus potentially fall victim to policies that create net happiness but make particular people very unhappy?
And what of the core issue of creativity--beauty? Do we value beauty separately somehow? Is there something "better" about a society where people create and understand beauty, like, say, Italy, over places where people are objectively happy to drive an ugly car to an ugly drive-in restaurant listening to ugly music, like most of America? If making everyone duller and less aesthetically sensitive made people's ugly lives happier, as measured by seratonin per square inch, or whatever, or productive, as measured by GDP, should we promote that? Should policy promote full lives, happy lives, rich lives, easy lives—what?
And how do we judge all these goals against each other, and other goals? Is spending money to create a happy, creative and intellectually active citizenry better than alleviating poverty for the poor and miserable bottom 1%? Are there obligations to, say, justice that, although marginal as a metric, should nevertheless be taken care of before adding painting classes to schools?
And speaking of creativity, are there any special "rights" involved there? Should the state protect free creative expression, even if we objectively measure that it hurts the overall polity? Should the state protect some creative rights, such as copyright or the moral rights of European IP law, irrespective of their value across other metrics, or does your right to the integrity of your creation continent on others' ability to exploit it more productively?
Science can never answer these sorts of questions, and so many others. You can't establish "facts" and "move on" at all.
And if you get this, you're as clueless as any creationist.
16lriley
Just to name a few things rational arguments could be made against--booze, pot, sexual attraction/love, sports and rock and roll/loud music in its various forms. Which is to say that people have their vices and behave in ways that don't always conform to the norm but don't (or don't necessarily) harm others. Just how rational would one have to be to live in Rationalia? I wouldn't want to live in a world that I was always butting against the parameters other people set for me----some spice in life is a good thing.
17timspalding
Maybe freedom is a good. Maybe people have right to do things, even if they aren't helping anyone, or even themselves. Maybe not. I dunno. But there's an instrument somewhere that can tell us!
18southernbooklady
>16 lriley: I wouldn't want to live in a world that I was always butting against the parameters other people set for me
We all live in that world.
I'm a little confused in this discussion about the way "scientific" and "rational" are used interchangeably. In fact the hypothesis that arts and creativity can be good for a person's profession is indeed testable. Of course, you have to define the parameters of "good" for the test, but once you have, you can certainly test for it. (I seem to remember a couple years ago someone did a study that suggested reading literary fiction increases our ability to relate to other people, and perceive and solve problems in more nuanced ways )
We all live in that world.
I'm a little confused in this discussion about the way "scientific" and "rational" are used interchangeably. In fact the hypothesis that arts and creativity can be good for a person's profession is indeed testable. Of course, you have to define the parameters of "good" for the test, but once you have, you can certainly test for it. (I seem to remember a couple years ago someone did a study that suggested reading literary fiction increases our ability to relate to other people, and perceive and solve problems in more nuanced ways )
19lriley
#18---that's a valid point. Maybe to say that I don't like the idea of those parameters constricting any further--instead maybe to expand out further.
20jjwilson61
>18 southernbooklady: Of course, you have to define the parameters of "good" for the test...
I think that was Tim's whole point. The definition of good is a political one and cannot be made scientifically.
I think that was Tim's whole point. The definition of good is a political one and cannot be made scientifically.
21timspalding
>20 jjwilson61:
A political decision can be made scientifically. If the cesium atom decays, Republican; if not, Democrat. A question of morals and values cannot.
A political decision can be made scientifically. If the cesium atom decays, Republican; if not, Democrat. A question of morals and values cannot.
22StormRaven
The problem is that politics and policy is built on values which cannot be scientifically derived. There is no consideration of a policy's "good" that doesn't involve some judgment of this sort.
He didn't say "policy must be based on values that are scientifically derived". He said "based on the weight of the evidence". You inserted the "scientifically derived" part in there all on your own.
There may be valid objections to Tyson's notion, but thus far, you haven't hit on one.
He didn't say "policy must be based on values that are scientifically derived". He said "based on the weight of the evidence". You inserted the "scientifically derived" part in there all on your own.
There may be valid objections to Tyson's notion, but thus far, you haven't hit on one.
23southernbooklady
>21 timspalding: The definition of good is a political one and cannot be made scientifically.
Meh. The definition of "good" is always bounded by the parameters of the question. Is capitalism "good"? For a business owner, sure. For an employee, maybe not so much. If "good" is defined as "makes me a lot of money" then sure, but if good is defined as "a small earnings gap and an equally higher standard of living for everyone in the community, then perhaps not. But you can measure things like earnings and standards of living. You can even measure indicators of happiness and discontent. These are all of-this-world things and thus create empirical evidence.
>17 timspalding: But there's an instrument somewhere that can tell us!
A huge part of the population on earth thinks that instrument is a book.
Meh. The definition of "good" is always bounded by the parameters of the question. Is capitalism "good"? For a business owner, sure. For an employee, maybe not so much. If "good" is defined as "makes me a lot of money" then sure, but if good is defined as "a small earnings gap and an equally higher standard of living for everyone in the community, then perhaps not. But you can measure things like earnings and standards of living. You can even measure indicators of happiness and discontent. These are all of-this-world things and thus create empirical evidence.
>17 timspalding: But there's an instrument somewhere that can tell us!
A huge part of the population on earth thinks that instrument is a book.
24lriley
#23--Did I say that?
I might agree that the public has ideas about what is good for them or isn't and those ideas are quite often dependent on framing more susceptible to political interpretations of the truth than scientific proofs. Hence the Republicans and their continual denial of climate change or that marijuana is worse for you than alcohol or cigarettes. Keeping in mind too that scientific knowledge like humanity itself is a constantly evolving thing. So there is the truth(s) we have today and the truth(s) of the future.
I might agree that the public has ideas about what is good for them or isn't and those ideas are quite often dependent on framing more susceptible to political interpretations of the truth than scientific proofs. Hence the Republicans and their continual denial of climate change or that marijuana is worse for you than alcohol or cigarettes. Keeping in mind too that scientific knowledge like humanity itself is a constantly evolving thing. So there is the truth(s) we have today and the truth(s) of the future.
25BruceCoulson
>22 StormRaven:
I'm merely curious as to whom the residents of the hypothetical country would be... as the weight of evidence would indicate it could not be human beings.
Tyson's proposal is interesting, but only as it provokes thought about how we reach decisions.
I'm merely curious as to whom the residents of the hypothetical country would be... as the weight of evidence would indicate it could not be human beings.
Tyson's proposal is interesting, but only as it provokes thought about how we reach decisions.
26StormRaven
25: That is an interesting question. Could humans living under such a Constitution adhere to it? That is questionable. On the other hand, humans living under the various Constitutions in force in the nations of the world now seem to have a hard time adhering to them, so expecting perfection would probably be irrational.
27timspalding
He didn't say "policy must be based on values that are scientifically derived". He said "based on the weight of the evidence". You inserted the "scientifically derived" part in there all on your own.
Right. He assumes that evidence is enough. You can't get from the "weight of evidence" to policy, because policy also involves questions of values.
As he says, you can solve whether to fund art in schools establishing the evidence. Then "the debate ends quickly in the face of evidence, and we move on to other questions." This is childishly wrong, for the reasons spelled out clearly. If you don't get it, that's okay. But let's not pretend the inability to think clearly and critically about questions of philosophy is okay. It's not. It's as bad a problem as the inability to think clearly and critically about scientific evidence.
Right. He assumes that evidence is enough. You can't get from the "weight of evidence" to policy, because policy also involves questions of values.
As he says, you can solve whether to fund art in schools establishing the evidence. Then "the debate ends quickly in the face of evidence, and we move on to other questions." This is childishly wrong, for the reasons spelled out clearly. If you don't get it, that's okay. But let's not pretend the inability to think clearly and critically about questions of philosophy is okay. It's not. It's as bad a problem as the inability to think clearly and critically about scientific evidence.
28southernbooklady
>24 lriley: So, sorry. I swear I don't know how that happens. Fixed.
Keeping in mind too that scientific knowledge like humanity itself is a constantly evolving thing. So there is the truth(s) we have today and the truth(s) of the future.
Which suggests fairly strongly that policy, whatever it is, ought to be responsive to our evolving understand of truth. That is, to the evidence.
Keeping in mind too that scientific knowledge like humanity itself is a constantly evolving thing. So there is the truth(s) we have today and the truth(s) of the future.
Which suggests fairly strongly that policy, whatever it is, ought to be responsive to our evolving understand of truth. That is, to the evidence.
29lriley
#28---the last couple centuries it seems to me humanity has had its greatest but most negative effect on how our planet is evolving. We've gained so much knowledge in that time but much of that knowledge has been very harmful. Best if our knowledge evolves towards benevolent outcomes rather than destructive ones--the science of nerve gas, of nuclear plants and weapons, the oil/fracking well etc etc. So I'm skeptical that all science is good.
30richardbsmith
All science is good, if knowledge and understanding (even progress) are valued as good.
Specific uses of knowledge and understanding might not always be good.
Specific uses of knowledge and understanding might not always be good.
31RickHarsch
Ideally there would be a moratorium on science and its uses until the globe achieves economic and environmental equilibrium--only science towards those direct ends allowed.
32richardbsmith
That would not be my ideal.
33southernbooklady
>29 lriley: So I'm skeptical that all science is good.
In so far as "knowledge" can be regarded as a description of reality, it is neither good nor bad. It is amoral. "Good" and "bad" are just measurements of how much we like or don't like something. They are born of our desires and our fears. Of course, the more we understand a thing, the less likely we are to fear it, which again is an argument for why evidence is integral for developing policy.
In so far as "knowledge" can be regarded as a description of reality, it is neither good nor bad. It is amoral. "Good" and "bad" are just measurements of how much we like or don't like something. They are born of our desires and our fears. Of course, the more we understand a thing, the less likely we are to fear it, which again is an argument for why evidence is integral for developing policy.
34lriley
#33--Margaret Atwood's Maddaddam trilogy is kind of science going wild. If I'm remembering correctly biospheric stuff because the atmosphere is fucked and a lot of creating of human and animal hybrids from the manipulation of genetics. Again if I'm remembering correctly I think I've read an interview of Atwood--and she said she borrowed most all of the science in her books from researching current/ongoing experimentation in those sciences. In those books calamity and catastrophe follow upon those experiments. Now they are novels. Atwood though is a lot more than your average thrill seeking novelist. She really is brilliant IMO.
It's not that I think it's best to curtail knowledge when or as it's gained but as you say knowledge on its face 'is neither good or bad'. It can be and very often is used for bad purposes though.
It's not that I think it's best to curtail knowledge when or as it's gained but as you say knowledge on its face 'is neither good or bad'. It can be and very often is used for bad purposes though.
35southernbooklady
>34 lriley: I think I've read an interview of Atwood--and she said she borrowed most all of the science in her books from researching current/ongoing experimentation in those sciences. In those books calamity and catastrophe follow upon those experiments. Now they are novels.
Margaret Atwood sometimes gets called a science fiction writer, but really she excels in writing novels that might be called "allegories of the now." The Handmaid's Tale is famous not for it's vision of some awful dystopian future, but for the way it satirizes the present, things that have actually happened:
http://www.genderforum.org/fileadmin/archiv/genderforum/queer/interview_atwood.h...
Margaret Atwood sometimes gets called a science fiction writer, but really she excels in writing novels that might be called "allegories of the now." The Handmaid's Tale is famous not for it's vision of some awful dystopian future, but for the way it satirizes the present, things that have actually happened:
I didn't put in anything that we haven't already done, we're not already doing, we're seriously trying to do, coupled with trends that are already in progress such as the results of global warming, the results of the fragmentation of society into those with and those without - which are accelerating - and the opening of the great big fun-with-the-genome project we seem to be doing right now.
http://www.genderforum.org/fileadmin/archiv/genderforum/queer/interview_atwood.h...
