I think that this bias in favor of science is unfair and distorts public discussions in favor of scientists and experts, and could be anti-democratic.
I think it is important to be critical of scientific statements, and not automatically accept such statements.
I agree. Part of what we commonly call science is, when you dig, empiric and based on beliefs rather than empirical. The trick is to separate the two.
Muhammad M Hammami Dear Mr. Hammami, could you kindly explain what are the two things that you wish to separate. I am slightly confused.
Dear Mr Tham,
I guess you were slightly confused because I mentioned that some of what we call science is empiric and based on beliefs. What I had in mind is things like, the observation that scientific facts are difficult to interpret or even to collect without a theory (and theories are based in part on our beliefs of how things work), to Thomas Kuhn's phases of science (and paradigm shifts), to Foucault's episteme, and to Penston article in Med Hypothesis (2005;64(3):651-7).
The other part of science, the objective empirical observations, is of course clear.
Thank you for the clarification. Let me reflect on the many important ideas in your answer.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking