Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Point to ponder: The problem with science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

By Kevin D. Williamson:

o repurpose Willi Schlamm, the problem with science is scientists. In the current issue of National Review, Charles C. W. Cooke has a pitiless essay on the cult of Neil deGrasse Tyson and “America’s nerd problem,” and in the prior issue I touched on a similar subject, the meme-ification of science for political purposes, in “Nobody @#$%&*! Loves Science.” The common theme is prestige: Science enjoys enormous public esteem, which it has earned for itself, and it is inevitable that political types seek to bask in that prestige themselves, or to dress their policy preferences in white lab coats. Thus the MSNBC humble-braggadocio about being “nerds” — Neil deGrasse Tyson and Chris Hayes being fellow nerds in the same sense that Buzz Aldrin and those monkeys were fellow astronauts.

The problem is that scientific prestige accompanies scientists well outside their fields of expertise. That’s true when they wander into other scientific fields — as I noted in my essay, … More.

Doubtless worth a read, for what the pom poms won’t tell you.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Mung: "The problem with science is that it claims to offer salvation without being able to carry through on the claim." Who has ever made the claim that science is the salvation? If this has ever been said, it has been said by non scientists.Acartia_bogart
July 12, 2014
July
07
Jul
12
12
2014
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
The problem with science is that the materialist religionists have deluded themselves into believing that they alone own it and that they have a rightful monopoly on knowledge production.Mapou
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
The problem with science is that it claims to offer salvation without being able to carry through on the claim.Mung
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
And the fossil record, and experimentation, and genetics, and comparative anatomy, and comparative molecular biology.
None of this has anything necessarily to do with natural selection which is the result of a winnowing process of what is already there. Science is still lacking any mechanism for the appearance of new life forms that are not trivial. Until it can find anything, the default position has to include ID. Right now ID is the only explanation that makes sense. Your response is proof positive that there is no known mechanism or else you would have presented it So you have just supported the ID thesis.jerry
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Jerry:
The only reason natural selection is still around is politics.
And the fossil record, and experimentation, and genetics, and comparative anatomy, and comparative molecular biology.Acartia_bogart
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Robert Byers @ 5
Evolution is and always was about attacking christianity and christiandom.
More than 12,000 christian clergy say you're wrong.CLAVDIVS
July 11, 2014
July
07
Jul
11
11
2014
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Evolution is and always was about attacking christianity and christiandom. its not just another idea in science. So it is staying around as long as they don't have anything else to deny God and genesis. yes people want to become the new einstein but in evolutionism something else trumps. is this Neil guy really a scientist??hmmm. Yes science, or rather its accomplishments, are held in great esteem as always. however discoveries and inventions are not everything to people.Robert Byers
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
There are numerous examples of theories that were initially looked at with great scepticism. Heliocentrism, the big bang, plate tectonics, natural selection, etc.
The only reason natural selection is still around is politics. It exist but never been associated with anything meaningful. It resembles geocentrism in that sense. Part of the current metaphysical belief by a ruling culture.jerry
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Science is like any other endeavour that is run by humans. There is politics, childish attitudes, cheaters, etc. But that doesn't mean that there is any conspiracy to ensure that the orthodoxy is never questioned. It is being questioned all the time. It is every scientist's wet dream to propose a theory that upsets the apple cart. If they have merit they will eventually be accepted (after some heal dragging) and if they don't, they won't. There are numerous examples of theories that were initially looked at with great scepticism. Heliocentrism, the big bang, plate tectonics, natural selection, etc. No theory is immediately embraced. It is only after a lot of hard work that any paradigm shifting theory is generally accepted. But for every paradigm shifting theories that are generally accepted, there are thousands of cold fusion and Mars microbes theories that are discarded.Acartia_bogart
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
'Great esteem of science' is established fact. Like Darwinism. Nor should you believe your lying eyes, when your privately- owned voting machines show the vote you gave to your Democratic candidate being registered for the Republican.Axel
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
I very much doubt if science is much esteemed in the UK beyond junior school. However, one thing is for sure, particularly in the USA, if it is viewed with indifference or even in contempt, by the public, you will hear nothing about it from the mainstream media. The same wall-to-wall message of a universal adulation of science on the part of the general public will continue to be the line peddled. Manufactured consent and b/s of all kinds is a speciality of the US; possibly even more than the UK. Though we are probably the proto-propagandists of flim-flam.Axel
July 10, 2014
July
07
Jul
10
10
2014
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply