The Corrupted Sciences

Arnold, Arnold
The Corrupted Sciences: Challenging the Myths of Modern Science
London Paladin, HarperCollins 1992
ISBN: 0 586 08891 1

Arnold Arnold in his book "The Corrupted Sciences", makes some very succinct observations:

"Much of modern science is tainted with eight deadly sins, each of which is related to the others"

He goes on to list them as:

1) An exclusively mechanistic and materialistic orientation.

2) A preoccupation with operations ('how' things work) to the exclusion of causes and consequences ('why' things work).

3) Excessive specialization unrelated to global concerns.

4) Passing on of 'revealed knowledge' by means of operant conditioning of one sort or another.

5) A catering to vested interests and fashions.

6) A dedication to acquiring credentials - publish or perish.

7) The pretense that science is value free.

8) Most of today's science, like Western religions and philosophies past and present, is not human-centered.

Note: Operant training is the normal stick and carrot / reward and punishment system that our societies and schools use.

I want you to think about these points and then make a conclusion on what you think the world would be like if we didn't follow these mistaken pathways of judgment?

We can discuss each one as we go along.

I have a problem with the how and why part of the argument.

Of course science looks for how things work thats what science is about. You start asking why and you've left the realm of science and entered into philosophy.

Mixing philosophy with science causes dogmatic scientists to come up with untestable theories like string theory and m-theory.

Knowing how things work is the most important thing in science. This knowledge leads to breakthroughs in whatever discipline as well as tech advances (usually).

When you ttalk about why you leave the realm of measurements and probabilities and enter a realm of the supernatural and superstitious. The one realm science should always avoid.

The real problem with science imo is that to many scientists are pseudo philosiphers these days.

Number 3 also slightly erks me. There has to be specialization. The more you know about one subject the more likely you'll uncover information not yet known. Even with all this specialization most science is still geared towards improviong the human condition (or lowering it), either way its usually meant to be of global consequence.

The entrance of philosphy into science has lead to the problem of catering to vested interest. People want to invest in something they think is bigger than greater than mankind and always with a hint of religion attached (i.e. string theory). So whoever autherd your source did't think to make the connection between the philosophy he says science should adopt and dogmatic belief in an untestable pseudoscience it has already created.

Most of today's science, like Western religions and philosophies past and present, is not human-centered.

This statement is the worst of them all imo. Why in the hell should science be human centered? We aren't the center of anything and we should look at the bigger picture.

The anthropic principle has no place in the laboratory. Science should not be egocentric. We aren't the center of the universe nor the most important part of the universe. So if we anthropamorphize all of science we'll never get answers to questions outside our tiny sphere of exsistance.

It seems to me science could do without some of its dogmaticness. However, if science behaved the way this person thinks they should it would only get tons worse.

CW

[edit on 31-7-2009 by constantwonder]

Humans still being a relatively primitive species are doing the best they can with their primitive science's; physics in particular.

As they evolve and eventually see the big picture; their science will more resemble majic than the silly cause and effect methodology currently in vogue.

Humans really have great potential if they don't create something they can't control and it makes them all sick and they die.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by whaaa]

reply to post by constantwonder


Thanks for your response constantwonder.

Lets start with your first conjecture:

"A preoccupation with operations ('how' things work) to the exclusion of causes and consequences ('why' things work)"

All of nature works on the basis of the laws of cause and effect. The operations (How) - the main concern of modern science - only describe what takes place in the gap between both (i.e. the gap between cause and effect). Meanings - in other words 'Why' events in nature occur - depend on all three (i.e. Cause, the gap, and the effect).
Hence, principles are discovered by establishing causal - consequential relationships between facts, old and new.

Nature can be said to be self-organizing inasmuch as a large number of redundancies (identical repetitive sequences of events) are likely to recur again and again in the short run, even in the most random systems. This fact becomes apparent only once the operations of randomness are analyzed causally, consequentially and hence semantically (i.e. 'why'), rather than merely operationally (i.e. 'how'); combinatorially (in terms of relationships), rather than merely permutationally (in terms of sequence).

The object of learning is to understand the meanings of what you know rather than merely to accumulate knowledge.

Contrary to the myth that modern sciences are solely devoted to seeking truths about ourselves and the universe, many ideas expressed in their names have their roots in mysticism, religious fundamentalism or science fiction. These can be as prejudiced and superstitious as those of witch doctors and shamans. Others are incomplete theories, costly half-truths, delusions or frauds.

Will continue to next point, in next post: (Just separating them for clarity)

reply to post by starwarp2000

Contrary to the myth that modern sciences are solely devoted to seeking truths about ourselves and the universe.

I've not heard of this myth. As far as I understood things, science was about seeking facts in order to gain understanding of the laws that govern nature.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by starwarp2000

 

I've not heard of this myth. As far as I understood things, science was about seeking facts in order to gain understanding of the laws that govern nature.

And hence gain an understanding of ourselves

reply to post by starwarp2000

And hence gain an understanding of ourselves

... In a we are all one and part of the universe cosmic kinda way then sure. But science has been quite anti-anthrocentric since the screw up with Clever Hans.

I watched a presentation on the aquatic ape theory last night and the speaker brought up some arguments that pertain to this discussion.

www.ted.com...

It's my opinion that it becomes very easy to get stuck on an idea and that answers seekers take it very personal when their beliefs are struck down or proven wrong.
Of course these are often the same people that mock creationists for holding on to their beliefs.

I think the biggest myth about science is that it is somehow distinct from art, or philosophy, or politics, or economics.

Science is a historically contingent belief system like any other, like a major religion. It functions in a paradigmatic way, where over time certain beliefs take hold and dominate and are supported by numerous observations and experiments and are sometimes even dogmatically posed as certain. Inevitably, anomalies are discovered, observations made that contradict the paradigm and there's usually a brief scientific crisis followed by a paradigm shift.

This is all in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He was both a scientist and a philosopher of science.

However, sometimes scientists just lie, or are so hideously incompetent that they can't tell the difference between truth and falsehood. Sometimes, regardless of historical or economic or ideological pressure, science is just crap because the people who are doing it aren't very good.

reply to post by Vinciguerra

Science is a historically contingent belief system like any other, like a major religion.

But unlike religion, Science produces technology - the proof of concept for scientific theories.

The "scientists are dogmatic" argument is rather misplaced because it blurs the great chasm of distinction between 'scientist' and 'scientific method'.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by Vinciguerra

 

Science is a historically contingent belief system like any other, like a major religion.

But unlike religion, Science produces technology - the proof of concept for scientific theories.

Two things here:
1) Religion 'produces' religious experience, its own 'proof of concept' accepted by billions.
2) It is only if we accept the scientific paradigm of cause and effect, of humans being the origin of technology, that we accept that science produces technology. Which is circular.

The "scientists are dogmatic" argument is rather misplaced because it blurs the great chasm of distinction between 'scientist' and 'scientific method'.

The method is only as good as its application by scientists. If scientists rigidly followed the method then no one would ever listen to them or accept them as an authority, because they'd have to admit that no scientific theory can ever be confirmed, only refuted. That's hardly going to get the research grants, awards, titles and status rolling in, is it?

reply to post by constantwonder


Thanks for your response constantwonder.

Lets continue with your second conjecture:

"Excessive specialization unrelated to global concerns"

There are two ways of looking at the world.

The first is to recognize that the cosmos is accessible to us only through human senses and an understanding of human experiences - the Anthropic view. This places man at the center of the universe but at the same time enables him to step outside and regard it with total objectivity, recognizing it's predominately subjective characteristics.
This seems the most promising way of looking at nature, provided our value judgments are correct. These depend on accurate assessments of the chief characteristics of human nature: self-knowledge and an understanding of our own sense impressions and behavior. For example, ideas like balance and conflict or randomness and chance in nature must first be understood in a human context before we can impose the meanings of these states onto any cosmology. Thus the micro- and macrocosm are filtered through human perceptions and value judgments.

The second, most common, approach is to interpret existence piecemeal and in terms of rival theories concocted by specialists in religion, philosophy or science and filtered through the distorting lenses of purely materialistic, 'spiritual' or expert dogma. Here definitions of nature and human nature depend on pockets of expertise in fundamental particle physics, astronomy,
religions, the technologies,or in other subjects that may be unrelated to direct human experience.

The Anthropic view is regarded as simplistic by most modern scientists largely because this was the method employed by the Ancients, East and West, and by primitive cultures. While their knowledge was limited, many came closer to fundamental truths than we do despite our greater knowledge or perhaps they were not overwhelmed by facts and theories. Clearly an Anthropic orientation is preferable subject to the stated conditions, for it is easier to know ourselves than to be certain of the operations of the universe, many of which are inaccessible to direct experience.

If, as in today's sciences, we speculate about ourselves from a limited external position, based on insufficiently objective criteria and observations, we are likely to assign the wrong meanings to our own perceptions and behaviors. This 'Specialist Expert' outlook is relatively objective (i.e. it excludes subjective components) and has led to misunderstandings epitomized by four self complimentary conceptual errors that run through much of twentieth century science and philosophy.

The first of these errors consists of the belief in an indeterminate, purposeless universe governed by chance; the second that our future is pre-determined; the third that human intelligence and behavior operate on purely mechanical principles.
These three 'opinions' are held alternately and sometimes simultaneously and are deeply entrenched in philosophy, psychology and the 'hard' sciences. Yet we are faced with untenable contradictions if we follow each of these ideas to their logical conclusions. (The fourth error concerns the nature of cooperation and competition and wont be dealt with just yet)

Will continue to next point, in next post: (Just separating them (again) for clarity)



[edit on 2-8-2009 by starwarp2000]

reply to post by Vinciguerra

Religion 'produces' religious experience, its own 'proof of concept' accepted by billions.

'Religious experience' is only proof of concept to those who feel subjective personal experiences are proof of anything. The feeling of the presence of God, for instance, can be produced by the brain when people will it to happen and/or going in to a trance from worship or prayer. The explanation they accept is that something spiritual is going on when in reality they are pretty much brainwashing them selves - speaking as an ex-fundamentalist.

Subjective evidence is useless because it's not demonstrable. What is demonstrable is that Science delivers.

The fact that over 1000's of years, people have held 1000's of belief structures and therefore 1000's of different subjective 'proofs'. They can't all be right because they contradict - so they aren't proof at all - but they can all be wrong.

The method is only as good as its application by scientists. If scientists rigidly followed the method then no one would ever listen to them or accept them as an authority, because they'd have to admit that no scientific theory can ever be confirmed, only refuted.

They say that anyway, it's part of the scientific definition of 'theory'. To confirm anything, one needs absolute truths. Instead scientists follow the evidence making established theories more and more accurate.



[edit on 2-8-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Tinman67
It's my opinion that it becomes very easy to get stuck on an idea and that answers seekers take it very personal when their beliefs are struck down or proven wrong.
Of course these are often the same people that mock creationists for holding on to their beliefs.

So true Tinman, it's a case of "Remove the splinter from your eye", when i have a log in there.
Science isn't about finding truth anymore it is just about pecking order. I know two people who dreamed of becoming scientists all their childhood and when they did, they left in disgust at the taunting, backstabbing, bull# and total non-science approach to science.
About time for a shake up.

Originally posted by Welfhard

But unlike religion, Science produces technology - the proof of concept for scientific theories.

Which is another of the big problems: Technology driven science finds just that, "Technology", and isn't concerned about 'morals', 'environment' or 'society', or even finding out secrets of the universe. It just exists to soothe the consumer belly.
This is where we are today, we have raped the Earth with our science and now want to rape other planets.

reply to post by starwarp2000

Yeah you're right. We are bad for developing a science-based society, you ought go back to our caves to live 30-year, painful, agonising & tedious lives. Let's abandon modern medicine and the quality of life it allows.

Spread the anti-intellectualism!

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by starwarp2000

 

Yeah you're right. We are bad for developing a science-based society, you ought go back to our caves to live 30-year, painful, agonising & tedious lives. Let's abandon modern medicine and the quality of life it allows.

Spread the anti-intellectualism!

The point is not against science as a whole just the 'methods' utilized by modern researchers and how they have slowly destroyed our ecosystem and socities by a reliance on dubious methods unrelated to the 'betterment' of our condition.
And no I don't want to go back to living in a cave.
And no this isn't about 'anti-intellectualism either, it is about the wrong type of intellectualism. One so ingrained and obtuse in it's methods that it is a hindrance to the advancement of our species.

Science has went from basic research to learn.

To scientists that will makeup "facts" and "distort" research just to get the almighty dollars in grants, awards and speaking fees.

This can be seen in global warming research, environmental research.
and many other Sciences where you can not or do not have repeatable test or research to prove the theories.

He missed the biggest deadly sin of them all. Propriatary Knowledge.

A very few own much of the key knowledge, usually it is corporations who are loathe to share. Sometimes it is nations, who operate through the corporations. Sometimes the knowledge is simply lost over time because there is no profit base for the particular company in maintaining the knowledge.

I would suggest one more possible candidate for the list, disinformation.

reply to post by starwarp2000


Well what would you say would our advanced form be? [Keeping in mind that anything pertaining to the metaphysical is a philosophical issue and doesn't pertain to science.]

I would say that to transform us into a completely non-organic race of beings would be the aim. That way all our needs could be meet synthetically, we could leave the planet and stop affecting the life thereon and practically become immortal - at least compared to our current measly life expectancy.