Scientific McDonaldization

Are you sure Today's Sciences are over-rationalized A.K.A. McDonaldized? (anything can be irrational if it gets Over-rationalized)

[edit on 3-3-2010 by masonicon]

Elaborate please?

I do not see your link with Micky D's and rationalization, even if you are just saying they are keeping it simple, which i'm not sure of either.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by pazcat]

I think this is what the op was getting at:

McDonaldization (or McDonaldisation) is a term used by sociologist George Ritzer in his book The McDonaldization of Society (1993). He describes it as the process by which a society takes on the characteristics of a fast-food restaurant. McDonaldization is a reconceptualization of rationalization, or moving from traditional to rational modes of thought, and scientific management. Where Max Weber used the model of the bureaucracy to represent the direction of this changing society, Ritzer sees the fast-food restaurant as having become a more representative contemporary paradigm (Ritzer, 2004:553).

Ritzer highlighted four primary components of McDonaldization:

* Efficiency – the optimal method for accomplishing a task. In this context, Ritzer has a very specific meaning of "efficiency". Here, the optimal method equates to the fastest method to get from point A to point B. In the example of McDonald's customers, it is the fastest way to get from being hungry to being full. Efficiency in McDonaldization means that every aspect of the organization is geared toward the minimization of time.[1]
* Calculability – objective should be quantifiable (e.g., sales) rather than subjective (e.g., taste). McDonaldization developed the notion that quantity equals quality, and that a large amount of product delivered to the customer in a short amount of time is the same as a high quality product. This allows people to quantify how much they're getting versus how much they’re paying. Organizations want consumers to believe that they are getting a large amount of product for not a lot of money. Workers in these organizations are judged by how fast they are instead of the quality of work they do.[1]
* Predictability – standardized and uniform services. "Predictability" means that no matter where a person goes, they will receive the same service and receive the same product every time when interacting with the McDonaldized organization. This also applies to the workers in those organizations. Their tasks are highly repetitive, highly routine, and predictable.[1]
* Control – standardized and uniform employees, replacement of human by non-human technologies

en.wikipedia.org...

McDonaldization is a Rationalization taken to extreme levels A.K.A. Over-Rationalization and Anything can be Irrational if it gets Over-Rationalized

[edit on 3-3-2010 by masonicon]

I think todays science has completely lost the plot. Its beleived in and defended as though its a religion for the ones too intellectual for religion. It has lost its balls, science the one that sticks cameras up vaginas and smashes monkey heads against brick walls dont dare ever venture out of the paradigm of fundamental beliefs that it assumes must be correct. I believe the problem is an ontological one. When the observer is not percieving reality correclty it doesnt matter what instruments or measurments you take it is fundamentally flawed. Ill use an example Fish dont know what water is. This is because they have no relativistic different to compare it too (unless they are blessed as the dolphin which isnt even a fish) they spend their whole lives in it. Humans are the same with three dimensional space time reality. Even if the fish became intelligent enough to conduct experiments they would see the effects of water in the controll experiment. Science has to become a bit less certain its correct about even the basics and constantly entertain new ideas. Reductionism is also flawed, scientist cannot all specialize and compartmentalize themselves and think their interdisciplinary communication is sufficient. I agree with science in so far as its been a good start and its still a good observation predictor of some phenomena eg. falling objects. But if all the theory were thrown out and science was re-written using the data from every experiment ever we would end up with a completely new science but no too many careers are staked on the old, with the mis-guiding push from illuminati who has the money to fund research they like and power to get on University boards its just gonna get worse and more complicated, rather the theory of everything should be able to be tought in primary school. Ive had my rant Ive left my university and im not looking back they can keep their stone age nonsense.

The Problem is: today's Scientific Method is McDonaldized A.K.A. Over-Rationalized

[edit on 3-3-2010 by masonicon]

reply to post by polarwarrior


Wow. You clearly don't understand what the scientific method is, or how it is applied. "Science" can't be rewritten, any more than "walking" can be.

Variants:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Dubbed ''Einstein's razor", it is used when an appeal to Occam's razor results in an over-simplified explanation insufficient to meet needs or goals.

Oversimplification is just as bad as unnecessary complexity. Or as I like to say, "Occam used to cut himself shaving every morning." Some things are inherently complex.

Originally posted by Crito

Variants:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Dubbed ''Einstein's razor", it is used when an appeal to Occam's razor results in an over-simplified explanation insufficient to meet needs or goals.

Oversimplification is just as bad as unnecessary complexity. Or as I like to say, "Occam used to cut himself shaving every morning." Some things are inherently complex.

I agree "Einstein's Razor" is better than "Occam's Razor" because Einstein's razor is improved and upgraded version of Occam's razor since Einstein's razor won't results over-simplified explanation of anomalous phenomenon

[edit on 4-3-2010 by masonicon]

OP: the 'Scientific Management' you refer to is a business management strategy developed in the early 20th C, not to be confused with 'scientific method', something else entirely.

Originally posted by john_bmth
OP: the 'Scientific Management' you refer to is a business management strategy developed in the early 20th C, not to be confused with 'scientific method', something else entirely.

Sorry! the Scientific McDonaldization that I mentioned in this thread have nothing to do with Scientific Management, it have to do with today's Scientific Method that has been over-simplified instead!

[edit on 4-3-2010 by masonicon]

[edit on 4-3-2010 by masonicon]

reply to post by Crito


That IS Occham's razor. Not Einstein's razor, not anything else.

Occham's razor is "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", in english: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

It means that the theory that fully explains observations, while invoking the fewest new entities is probably the correct one. It still has to be able to fully explain observations, or it's not a complete theory at all. Einstein's theories are favored over their competitors because they neatly describe a huge number of observed phenomena better than newton's laws, yet also simplify to newton's laws in the conditions where they are correct.

There is no safe Haven from corruption. Science is no exception. I think peoples individual (or corporal) motives start to trump the truth. So, yeah it happens.

Originally posted by mdiinican
reply to post by Crito

 

That IS Occham's razor. Not Einstein's razor, not anything else.

Occham's razor is "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", in english: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

It means that the theory that fully explains observations, while invoking the fewest new entities is probably the correct one. It still has to be able to fully explain observations, or it's not a complete theory at all. Einstein's theories are favored over their competitors because they neatly describe a huge number of observed phenomena better than newton's laws, yet also simplify to newton's laws in the conditions where they are correct.

Unlike Occham's razor Einstein's razor won't hampers scientific method from adhering Pseudo-scientific, Paranormal, Religious, and Supernatural Phenomena

[edit on 5-3-2010 by masonicon]

[edit on 5-3-2010 by masonicon]

It would serve our scientists well to realize that the secret to wisdom is found in doubting.

Originally posted by Pha3drus
It would serve our scientists well to realize that the secret to wisdom is found in doubting.

There's tons of wisdom that that little or no more than fiction for modern world, particularly true wisdom

reply to post by Pha3drus


I cant agree more, if we were to speculate how much we know as a ratio to how much there is to know and survey the scientific community i think the average would be amazingly high, im guessing some would say 75%, most 50, the philosophers could be closer at just 1% but i have a feeling the answer is more like a drop in the ocean or even too small for notation. In fact i feel the only answer one can write is an infintesimly small deviation from zero, the denominator being infinite.
I wonder if this type of survey has ever been done, im purely guessing here but now im interested to see what itd actaully be.

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by Pha3drus
It would serve our scientists well to realize that the secret to wisdom is found in doubting.

There's tons of wisdom that that little or no more than fiction for modern world, particularly true wisdom

What?

Originally posted by masonicon
Are you sure Today's Sciences are over-rationalized A.K.A. McDonaldized? (anything can be irrational if it gets Over-rationalized)

[edit on 3-3-2010 by masonicon]

Soon we will pop a pill for breakfast.

Then pop a pill to keep our teeth and gums healthy and white.

Then pop a pill that will grow a shirt and pants flush right to our bodies, within minutes!

Then pop a pill that will allow us to fly to work.

Then pop a pill to log into our computer (which is shaped like a...pill!)

Then pop a pill to turn invisible so we can sneak into the meeting we were late for.

Then pop a pill to teleport back home after work.

Then pop a pill to go to sleep...

I mean pop a pill for all the pills you popped, then pop a pill to go to sleep...

Originally posted by raj9721

Originally posted by masonicon
Are you sure Today's Sciences are over-rationalized A.K.A. McDonaldized? (anything can be irrational if it gets Over-rationalized)

[edit on 3-3-2010 by masonicon]

Soon we will pop a pill for breakfast.

Then pop a pill to keep our teeth and gums healthy and white.

Then pop a pill that will grow a shirt and pants flush right to our bodies, within minutes!

Then pop a pill that will allow us to fly to work.

Then pop a pill to log into our computer (which is shaped like a...pill!)

Then pop a pill to turn invisible so we can sneak into the meeting we were late for.

Then pop a pill to teleport back home after work.

Then pop a pill to go to sleep...

I mean pop a pill for all the pills you popped, then pop a pill to go to sleep...

And you're going to blame the scientific method for that and NOT drug companies advising pills for everything?