537: Is Science politics?

In my previous two lectures I have shown you, that the thesis, that science is right, isn’t as simple as it sounds.

There are not only serious questions on a wider intercultural scale, but already directly within the boundaries of our own culture.

Something like ADHD is not straightforward accepted as a scientific FACT. It can be questionable..

Eventually science seems to be based on assumptions and beliefs, like my own ideas about reality are. Why would science be better than MY ideas?

And this morning there was a report on the radio about a secretary of state of the department of education, who had given a speech at some university at the opening ceremony of the academic year.

And what was his main point?! Science seemed to be somewhat isolated from reality and should focus more on the question of social relevance with respect to its activities.

The goal of science should be the growth of knowledge aimed at the increase of our welfare. Thus social relevance of scientific research is priority number one.

Results of science, published in articles, which disappear in expensive journals or are hidden in databases behind financial barriers on the Internet, should be accessible to everyone, for they are financed with our tax money.

Social relevance of science? Why does that sound familiar? And there popped up that other term in my memory: value-free science. And the recollections of heated debates, when I was a student between 1969 and 1976.

And there were all the names again too: Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm, Jürgen Habermas

When you check Wikipedia, it says: 

-QUOTE- Jürgen Habermas considers his major contribution to be the development of the concept and theory of communicative reason or communicative rationality, 

which distinguishes itself from the rationalist tradition, by locating rationality in structures of interpersonal linguistic communication rather than in the structure of the cosmos. 

This social theory advances the goals of human emancipation -END QUOTE-

You may wonder, what in heaven’s name this might mean? Well, just pick out the two concepts: “structures of interpersonal linguistic communication”. 

That is the new way how science should be. It means…..people talk with each other about things and come to a consensus.

And the concept of “the structure of the cosmos”, which could be read as “there are unquestionable facts and that is what science is after. You just have to obey the facts.”

The latter means that there is something like value-free science. You study the cosmos and the facts and scientific results will come to you as they are.

This point of view is questioned already since the early 1930s and revived after World War II in the early 1970s, during my years as at university student.

Then the debate fell asleep, probably due to the rise of neo-liberalism and increasing welfare. A lot of scientific research became finances by the industry, which aimed at new products and increase of profits.

And where Habermas meant to politicize science and scientific research goals and make it the focus of a public debate, 

our secretary of state meant, that science should cooperate closer with the industry and keep a close eye on the social desirability of its activities.

So, maybe the core of this project is the dichotomy between the idea of knowledge as something absolute based on facts and knowledge as the product of social interaction.

For the connoisseurs among you this may sound a bit like the controversy of knowledge a priori against knowledge a posteriori or rationalism against empiricism.

Thank you… ^_^

The Discussion

[13:19] ZANICIA Chau: Thank you Herman

[13:19] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:19] argus Portal: Thank you, herman

[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: very confusing

[13:19] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you!

[13:19] Dawn Rhiannyr: Thank you Herman :)

[13:19] herman Bergson: Confusing Gemma?

[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: to me science has proven facts or theories

[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: that are almost proven facts

[13:20] herman Bergson: YEs I agree......

[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: so trying to equate with voted on agreements ??

[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: strange

[13:21] Lizzy Pleides: a thery can't be proven

[13:21] herman Bergson: But the feeling of confusion is exactly the reason why we'll move deeper into the philosophy of science....

[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: yes it can

[13:21] Lizzy Pleides: Theorie*

[13:21] argus Portal: Sorry for my bad english. But if I understood right, the topic is, that science is too far from the people. I think, science has to be as free as possible.

[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: they start as theories

[13:21] Lizzy Pleides: yes

[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: but if more information is found they can be proven

[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: as fact

[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes argus....but nowadays they come with the argument that this science is financed with public money.....

[13:22] herman Bergson: We'll spend a lot of time on your wondering Gemma, don'tworry....

[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: public money is OUR money

[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: so we are financing science

[13:23] argus Portal: yes, the problem seems to be, that the money lead, what science has to target

[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: i would say that is a good thing

[13:23] herman Bergson: yes....so the next argument is, that science in all its efforts should work for the general good....

[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes argus....the money IS a serious problem....

[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: i guess it depends on one's view of it all

[13:24] herman Bergson: Let me give you an example.....

[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: so, what is the motivation for being a scientist?

[13:24] herman Bergson: was not an hour ago a documentary about it on TV...

[13:25] herman Bergson: Scientist discover that lack of sexual drive is due to lack of testosteron in women around 50... what is it called...the transition?

[13:25] herman Bergson: anyway...the industry creates a medication for the extreme cases.....

[13:26] herman Bergson: then they try to get the medicine approved for all women at that age...

[13:26] herman Bergson: the Health Board Commities who decide on that did’nt approve....

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: ...LOL...

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: typical

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: list their names and gender

[13:26] herman Bergson: The industry takes the medicine from the market....is no longer available...because they don’t earn enouigh money with it...!

[13:27] herman Bergson: This is typical!

[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: strange that did not happen with viagra

[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: wouldn’t you say?

[13:27] herman Bergson: The medicine has NO social meaning....it is only there for profit

[13:27] herman Bergson: Yet viagra is a disaster too

[13:28] Dawn Rhiannyr: agrees... see to the many medical problems that are not worked on due to too less known cases

[13:28] herman Bergson: It does something with the blood, yes....but not a thing with where the problem lies...in the mind

[13:29] herman Bergson: Here science is completely controled by the big companies

[13:29] herman Bergson: There is another example.....

[13:29] herman Bergson: 43% of the women in the US have a sexual disfunction....

[13:30] herman Bergson: This number of 43% is mentioned everywhere....

[13:30] ZANICIA Chau: it's called men

[13:30] Dawn Rhiannyr: lol

[13:30] herman Bergson: in talk shows ...on the internet....dozens of examples...

[13:30] ZANICIA Chau: just kiddin'

[13:30] herman Bergson: no Zan...that is the other 57% of your problems

[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)

[13:31] ZANICIA Chau: Excuse me? I'm alright....it's all the others!

[13:31] herman Bergson: that number is created by a so called scientific research which was just 7 YES-NO questions.....

[13:31] Dawn Rhiannyr: how many participants?

[13:31] herman Bergson: Sorry .Zan..didn’t meant it personally :-)

[13:31] ZANICIA Chau: 7

[13:32] ZANICIA Chau: That was strange British humour, Herman

[13:32] herman Bergson: The problem is...when 43% of the women BELIEVE this nonsense, because it is scientific fact, you have a huge market for all kind of nonsense medication

[13:32] Lizzy Pleides: true

[13:33] Dawn Rhiannyr: yes agree

[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: that is bad science

[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: not fact

[13:34] herman Bergson: So we live in a world where Gemma wonders about the possibility of real scientifically proven facts and on the other hand a kind of commercialized science

[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: is it science or is it marketing?

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate GIGGLES!!

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: ...LOL...

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: yes

[13:34] ZANICIA Chau: good question

[13:34] herman Bergson: Science USED for marketing purposes, I would say

[13:35] herman Bergson: First create the disease with some "scientific" research , then sell the medicines for the disease

[13:35] ZANICIA Chau: yes

[13:35] herman Bergson: It happens today....!

[13:35] ZANICIA Chau: that’s what has happened

[13:35] Dawn Rhiannyr: again important for everyone to be able to see facts and figures of so called science projects

[13:35] herman Bergson: A promotion at the University of Utrecht was paostponed today....

[13:36] herman Bergson: The subject was medical research on the effectiveness of a "lust pill" for women...

[13:37] herman Bergson: The committee that had to evaluate the dissertation was 8 professors, of which 5 were paid by the company that has "invented" this pill

[13:37] herman Bergson: Due to publicity they halted the train.....

[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:37] Dawn Rhiannyr: shakes head

[13:37] ZANICIA Chau: male...obviously

[13:38] herman Bergson: Indeed......

[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: my point way back

[13:39] herman Bergson: What you hear is incredible....how they come up with reasons for the product....

[13:39] ZANICIA Chau: there isn't a man alive on the planet who needs a 'lust pill'.

[13:39] ZANICIA Chau: so....target the women

[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: well... still its produced ;) viagra - right?

[13:39] herman Bergson: Men need viagra....it seems :-)

[13:39] ZANICIA Chau: that's for the equipment not the mind

[13:40] herman Bergson: I think these are examples that would have made Habermas furious.....and had proven his point....

[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: and highly advertizedon tv

[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: every day

[13:41] herman Bergson: The discussion about sense and nonsense in science should be a broad public debate....

[13:41] Dawn Rhiannyr: oh yes I agree

[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: yes

[13:41] ZANICIA Chau: yes it should

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: yes

[13:41] Lizzy Pleides nods

[13:41] argus Portal: yes

[13:41] herman Bergson: We should learn to see the political consequences of scientific research....

[13:42] herman Bergson: Not what new products we can put into the market

[13:42] ZANICIA Chau: Bravo

[[13:42] herman Bergson: But the very computer you are using finds its main development in the military....

[13:42] herman Bergson: Like nuclear power does...

[13:43] herman Bergson: And the pharmaceutical industry is a chapter you should read very closely too!

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: a bad one yes

[13:44] herman Bergson: They promote the idea that biochemical health is the road to happiness....so take another pill

[13:44] Dawn Rhiannyr: yes horrific

[13:44] herman Bergson: Of course there is a lot of good in our medical possibilies too....

[13:45] herman Bergson: But an industry that askes 80.000 a year for keeping a cancer patient alive for three months "extra"?

[13:45] herman Bergson: Very mysterious debates....

[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: true

[13:46] herman Bergson: What kind of scientific research is it based on?

[13:46] herman Bergson: How do you know you have livesd three months "longer" now that you got that expensive medication?

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: well it is a hard catch...

[13:47] herman Bergson: Such things in our world make me angry :-)

[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: can see that

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: an ex colleague of mine has ms - a lighter form

[13:47] herman Bergson: How we are manipulated....just for profit

[13:47] Lizzy Pleides: and what a live quality have cancer patients in these 3 months

[13:48] Dawn Rhiannyr: yes that for sure

[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes LIzzy...

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: she had serious episodes while taking pills - now she is a vegan and did not have one for 10 years

[13:48] herman Bergson: When they don’t make enough money on a medicine they take it away from us....you can get it when they get big profits...!

[13:49] herman Bergson: Yes Ciska...such examples exists...but then they come with their statistics....

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: yes

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: of course

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: its not that you should do that

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: but the problem is that no one can tell you whats right there

[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: on the other hand the companies have to make profit for surviving

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: no doctor no pharmaceut

[13:50] ZANICIA Chau: well you know the old saying about Lies, Damn lies.....and statistics!

[13:50] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy..in the financial system we have now indeed...

[13:51] herman Bergson: Just imagine that the research and production of medicines only should be a non profit industry controled by society itself?

[13:52] Lizzy Pleides: I guess that wouldn't work

[13:52] herman Bergson: That this system should focus on development of needed medicines..not medicines that generate the highest profit?

[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: not sure it would culturally work yes

[13:52] argus Portal: that would no work. It would be almost communism

[13:52] herman Bergson: No...we are trapped in the system....

[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: sounds like "utopia"

[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes I know....

[13:53] Dawn Rhiannyr: it would probably work for the medicines many need but not for the ones of smaller groups

[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: orphan drugs they call them

[13:54] herman Bergson: Well...at least you can see that science and politics and social responsability are closely related...

[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: related or in opposition

[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: they are

[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: sometimes

[13:55] argus Portal: maybe the industry could lead by law: If a company create medicine, that increases illness, so they have to pay

[13:55] herman Bergson: indeed Gemma....a point to think about...

[13:55] herman Bergson: Ohh they do argos.......

[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: won't work argus - they will make it a cooperation so no one is responsible

[13:55] herman Bergson: But have you ever read the instructions that come with the medicine?

[13:56] argus Portal: in that cases the law is weak

[13:56] ZANICIA Chau: quite right

[13:56] herman Bergson: the collateral effects....?

[13:56] herman Bergson: A huge list......

[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: it is difficult to define whats right - it seems to be easier to define whats wrong as soon as it has gone wrong

[13:56] Dawn Rhiannyr: nods

[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: right

[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate GIGGLES!!

[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: ...LOL...

[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: side effects more scary than getting better

[13:57] herman Bergson: so they cover their position......whatever you get from the medicine....it is in the list of collateral negative effects....

[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma.....

[13:57] Dawn Rhiannyr: sure that's an easy way to say "can happen"

[13:58] herman Bergson: But I bet that 90% of the mentioned side effects are nonsense for 99% of the users of the medicine

[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: hopefully

[13:58] herman Bergson: It is just to prevent that lawsuit with a claim of millions

[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: they have to list any that have ever been reported by anyone

[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: yes

[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: reading side effects on a prescription makes us see how much we do not know - how weak science really is, so to speak.

[13:59] herman Bergson: they are super scary Ciska :-))

[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: It shows us that what we think is "proven" is p"proven" in most cases but is not a rule

[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: but it could be only 1 incident

[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: yes

[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: they have to list it

[13:59] herman Bergson: Yes Ciska...

[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: so no one can make them responsible

[14:00] herman Bergson: Exactly......

[14:00] ZANICIA Chau: just so

[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: but the question is... is it not time for us as humans to acknowledge that the facts we know are very relative?

[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: and start to sort things down and live with the relativity?

[14:00] herman Bergson: Greta observation, Ciska....

[14:01] herman Bergson: That is why we are delving into the more technical aspects of the philosophy of science.

[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: i belive that due to the internet... this process already started...

[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡

[14:02] argus Portal: They will say, that "sort things" will lead to stagnation

[14:02] herman Bergson: Our theme is :Why science is right"

[14:02] herman Bergson: Maybe we also should include the question "When is science right?" :-))

[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: oh oh

[14:02] Dawn Rhiannyr: ah good point

[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: well lets not try that today

[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: loooong list of when it is right

[14:03] Lizzy Pleides: I have to go, good night everyone

[14:03] herman Bergson: No....Gemma...:-)

[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye  ㋡ 

[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: yes

[14:03] ZANICIA Chau: Bye Bye

[14:03] Ciska Riverstone: night lizzy

[14:03] herman Bergson: Now I just want to thank youfor your participation again...

[14:03] argus Portal: bye lizzy

[14:03] Dawn Rhiannyr: bye

[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[14:03] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[14:03] Ciska Riverstone: thanx all

[14:03] herman Bergson: and wish you all a pleasant weekend

[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: you too

[14:03] Dawn Rhiannyr: thank YOU herman :)

[14:03] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....

[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye  ㋡ 

[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: for now

[14:03] argus Portal: Thank you all

[14:04] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡

[14:04] Dawn Rhiannyr: a very interesting time again :)

[14:04] Ciska Riverstone: bye gemma

[14:04] argus Portal: Was interesting

[14:04] herman Bergson: And forgive me if I got a bit too much taken away by the subject :-)

[14:04] ZANICIA Chau: yes

[14:04] ZANICIA Chau: haha

[14:04] Ciska Riverstone: hahah

[14:04] ZANICIA Chau: Goodnight everyone

[14:04] argus Portal: Goodnight all

[14:04] herman Bergson: lol... I am on pills myself now :-))))

[14:04] Ciska Riverstone: well its nice to see that it happens to you too herman

[14:04] Ciska Riverstone: ;)

[14:05] herman Bergson: Oh yes Ciska :-))

[14:05] Ciska Riverstone: hehehe

[14:05] Ciska Riverstone: good night

[14:05] herman Bergson: Good night

[14:05] Dawn Rhiannyr: Good night Herman was a great time

[14:05] herman Bergson: thank you Dawn

536: Can we believe in Science?

It was our philosophical thinking that stood at the cradle of our sciences. And it was to a great extend science, that shaped our culture.

And this culture is a winner, or a future source of a lot of conflicts with other cultures. This is what we could conclude from the Fukuyama - Huntington controversy, as discussed in the previous lecture.

But inside our own culture there too is a growing controversy. Not everybody is happy with science. People are no longer willing to blindly believe the experts. 

A simple example. Take ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).  It is a controversial disorder because the symptoms occur in greater or lesser degree in most people,

the extent, to which the behavior function normally impedes, depends on what in a society is supposed to be normal and because there can not be pointed out a  single cause for the symptoms. 

For diagnosing ADHD various tests and observations are used, but there is no standard test. 

Due to the lack of a uniform method of diagnosis, the diagnosis is often arbitrary and biased.  In a Swiss study they found, that in 75 percent of cases the diagnosis of ADHD was the wrong diagnosis.

Then there is a pill for it. Among others the very popular drug Ritalin (methylfenidaat) as it is called in the Netherlands. Rilatine in Belgium, for instance.

You can imagine, that this can lead to heated discussions between parents and experts, which are then easily qualified as alleged experts.

I seem to be guilty too regarding this controversy between science and society. The scientist says….these are the FACTS…case closed.

But some of you might remember, that, when discussing epistemological questions about certainty of knowledge or absolute truth, (scientific) knowledge originates from fundamental philosophical assumptions.

Assumptions?? Not absolute certain principles? But I have my assumptions about life and reality too. Then science is just an opinion about life and reality, just like I have an opinion about life and reality, isn’t it?

And even if science were right, we all can see, that it is all about money. Every scientist has to beg for grants. Spectacular findings are published in magazines like Science and Nature.

In retrospect we have to conclude, that it has been a lot of fuzz about nothing. And such magazines hardly publish articles , that refute the with so much publicity proclaimed discoveries.

And that scientifically proven effectiveness of Ritalin? Did the pharmaceutical industry finance the research perhaps? 

And why the focus on only a biochemical aspect, when we not even know the real cause of ADHD? Money perhaps……?

Ever done a Google search using the search key “Scientific Fraud”? Fasten seatbelts !!! ….. 5.610.000 results in 0,17 seconds. Shouldn’t we be shocked?

Just take a look at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.list/tagNo/2642/tags/scientific-fraud/

Almost scary….!

Our Dutch scientist, Diederik Stapel, is mentioned to. Just imagine they write this about YOU on the Internet:

-QUOTE- A Dutch psychologist who admitted engaging in wide scientific fraud has had 2 more of his papers retracted from the literature, bringing the total of yanked studies to 53, according to the blog Retraction Watch. -END QUOTE-

Don’t think we are done yet. We all accept that certain facts are true and we even call them scientific facts. For instance, that the earth is not the center of the universe, that is a scientific fact.

But do not Google on the question: “Why do people  believe in what is not true”, because you’ll get at least 313.000.000 results in 0,43 seconds!

What should we believe? Should we believe in science? We’ll see ^_^

By the way…… Try Google with “Why do people believe in what is true” too. It is really fun! I got 682 million hits! :-))

Thank you ^_^

The Discussion

[13:16] herman Bergson: The floor is yours ...:-))

[13:16] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:16] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you!

[13:17] Nymf Hathaway: is still digesting this

[13:17] Bejiita Imako: I think the problem is that the word science itself is a term defining proven and observed things and then people misuse it to make money by making up stuff and put the word science in

[13:17] Loo Zeta: I am living with a full time philosophy student and a psychotherapist, and I have a research degree in health studies, we have been in hot debate here.

1 check Ken Robinson and TED talks on social constructivism of ‘a dancer’

2 Health research in the UK is governed very closely with quality stuff

[13:18] herman Bergson: I guess that happens indeed

[13:18] Bejiita Imako: and then people believe its true even the scientist maybe is not a real scientist but one only want to make money from false facts

[13:18] Dawn Rhiannyr: great topic Herman... just discussed the ADHD topic recently with Eo... money is always a great influence unfortunately

[13:18] Roger Amdahl: herman, you mentioned 53 cases of fraude.. out of how many papers written?

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: ADHD is a very wide definition it seems indeed , its even gone so far today its "in" to have ADHD

[13:19] herman Bergson: It doesn’t matter, I would say Roger....one faulty paper is already one too many

[13:19] herman Bergson: That cardiologist in Rotterdam.....wasn’t it Polderman?

[13:19] Nymf Hathaway: No you cannot say that Herman... even a scientist is a human ㋡

[13:19] Dawn Rhiannyr: agree Bejiita, every child that doesn't suit our system is said to have ADHD

[13:19] Nymf Hathaway: the amount really matters

[13:20] Roger Amdahl: Yes, but the point is .. is science to blame, or is it a normal pewrcentage of people who end up on the wrong road in their carreer ?

[13:20] herman Bergson: Faked data and might be reponsable for the death of parients due to that

[13:20] Nymf Hathaway: Agrees Roger

[13:20] herman Bergson: You cant blame science for it is not a person

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: the problem is we cant even believe science today because it might just be made up and no real fact as the word science means

[13:21] herman Bergson: Nor can you blame your car  because bad construction qualities

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: misused

[13:21] Dawn Rhiannyr: nods

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: to make people believe fraud

[13:21] herman Bergson: Well...at least  my point is clear...how to look at science?

[13:21] Lizzy Pleides: it is the connection between science and economy which should be regarded critically

[13:21] aindrea1: pure science ended when money took over

[13:22] Nymf Hathaway: The fact fraud comes to light shows something isn't a proven fact because we claim it to be ㋡

[13:22] Loo Zeta: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en // http://www.rand.org/standards/standards_high.html

[13:22] Roger Amdahl: Then blame the money ... no money, no fraud ?

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: seems so unfortunately

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: at least in many areas

[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes aindrea.....

[13:22] herman Bergson: and the obligation to publish....

[13:22] Loo Zeta: It is not just money it is credibility

[13:23] herman Bergson: the more you publish the more sure you can be of your job

[13:23] Loo Zeta: and some will flounce results for degrees

[13:23] Dawn Rhiannyr: agree Loo

[13:23] Roger Amdahl: job brings it back to money again

[13:24] herman Bergson: Just compare these observation with the status of science a hundred years ago

[13:24] aindrea1: and what is scientific fact now many times ends up being proved wrong i do not think people now think oh he a scientist i have to believe what he says

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: today they say for ex they have proven all sort of stuff is dangerous to eat even it isn’t just to scare and make money from the industries that hired them to scare customers to buy their ooo soooo good products

[13:24] Nymf Hathaway: as in ANY other field Sports/Politicians/Bankers/Business... in science you see people trying to fool others

[13:24] herman Bergson: Just look how (pseudo) scientific terms are used in advertizements...for instance for shampoo or body cremes

[13:24] Dawn Rhiannyr: so true

[13:25] Dawn Rhiannyr: for money or fame

[13:25] Nymf Hathaway: That’s bad Herman :( shouldn't be allowed

[13:25] Loo Zeta: When a student says to me.... 'recent research says'. I reply. 'Who did it, why did they do it. auspices?'

[13:25] Nymf Hathaway: ㋡

[13:25] aindrea1: used to be what drove science was human need to know answers now its business needs to make money sadly not all but most of time

[13:25] herman Bergson: Exactly Loo!

[13:26] Loo Zeta: A lot of good midwifery practice has been shelved due to not being able to be 'proven'

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: damn internet! GRMMMBL

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: there now working again

[13:26] herman Bergson: Ok...I opened a box of Pandora here :-))

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:27] Nymf Hathaway: You did ㋡

[13:27] Loo Zeta: lol sorry

[13:27] herman Bergson: So the question is...is it really that bad for science?

[13:27] Roger Amdahl: I thought it was a garbage-bin :)

[13:27] Nymf Hathaway: :)))

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: true loo

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: very true

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: sadly

[13:28] Nymf Hathaway: I think like Hackers are the best for our improving the internet... so are these cases best to get us grounded again about the Woooot factor of science herman

[13:28] aindrea1: we need science sadly science need money for research

[13:28] herman Bergson: Well...this lecture was meant to make you think about what science means in our society...:-)

[13:28] Roger Amdahl: it builded our society

[13:29] Loo Zeta: It is when science is seen over all other metaphysicals as the 'truth' then we need to be worried.

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: is it true science or misuse of the term to fool people its true even its not

[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Roger but now we have a society only based on economics....not on scientific insights

[13:29] aindrea1: agree Loo

[13:29] Dawn Rhiannyr: agree Loo

[13:30] herman Bergson: That is a serious nerve you touch Loo :-))

[13:30] Roger Amdahl: economics creates it's own mess, they need no science for that, I agree

[13:30] Loo Zeta: apologizes again

[13:30] herman Bergson smiles

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:30] herman Bergson: no...it was a good hit, Loo ^_^

[13:31] herman Bergson: That question certainly will reappear a number of times in this project

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: indeed, its an important subject

[13:31] Loo Zeta: Well as I said I have a heated debate RL going on in the background

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: since you are supposed to be able to believe in science

[13:32] herman Bergson: I not yet have mentioned the relation between sience an religion for instance

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: heheh can imagine loo

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: i still believe the guys at CERN at least

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:32] Nymf Hathaway: ㋡

[13:32] Loo Zeta: Well Dawkins is a great example of evangelical atheism and since over everything

[13:32] Nymf Hathaway: ESA is doing great work too ㋡

[13:32] aindrea1: the impact of result search in science for a specific thing based on the company funding research for it means many things that where discovered by mistake now get binned

[13:33] Loo Zeta: whoops typos.... getting carried away

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: yes, and NASA as well

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: all 3 do a great job

[13:33] Nymf Hathaway: yes

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: and i believe their work

[13:33] herman Bergson: Well....there must be some truth in scientific facts eventually ^_^

[13:34] Loo Zeta: As I said I have to be subjected to audit, and quality controls over any health research I undertake

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: if used properly yes

[13:34] Loo Zeta: They have learnt sticky lessons from shoddy researchers

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: when it is actually facts

[13:35] Loo Zeta: From too small samples to tweaking the figures.

[13:35] herman Bergson: classics, Loo

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:35] aindrea1: need for funding makes this happen

[13:35] Loo Zeta: yep

[13:36] herman Bergson: Wow...this was some debate !

[13:36] herman Bergson: I guess we all got the right feeling here....:-)

[13:36] aindrea1: we stop your funding in 4 month if you cant show us a result

[13:36] herman Bergson: Now the question is ...how to get out of this marsh...:-)

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: science i say is only science when done properly and without manipulation, otherwise its false science since science = fact = truth

[13:36] Dawn Rhiannyr: that's why you need to have a closer look at how did they get their results

[13:37] Loo Zeta: BUT is it 'truth'

[13:37] herman Bergson: Therefor we'll have a closer look at the roots of science....the philosophy of science....

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: its not science then, in that case its misuse of the term science

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: to fool people

[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: thats the question Loo - are we ready for the fact that there are not many changing truths out there

[13:37] aindrea1: some need the extra time and funding to complete and that leads to a little manipulation of results

[13:37] Loo Zeta: you can subject something to statistitcal inferences and come out with a probability of 0.05 and perhaps it may show something

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: the problem is we cant tell the difference since they use the same word science even its just a makeup

[13:38] Loo Zeta: but then there are lies, damn lies and statistics

[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: statistics always need interpretation

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hahaha yes

[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: not necessarily wrong

[13:38] herman Bergson: Exactly Loo :-))

[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: but describing changing facts.

[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: so are changinge facts facts?

[13:38] herman Bergson: correlations are not causal relations....

[13:38] aindrea1: so how can it be policed

[13:39] Loo Zeta nods

[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: they used to be ... but with the internet fastening up process in science...

[13:39] herman Bergson: Well...the site I mentioned.....it looks like a kind of fraud police

[13:40] herman Bergson: The Internet could play a purifying role

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: or a disguising one

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: depends on the interests behind it

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:40] Loo Zeta: it can also confuse by false collusion

[13:40] aindrea1: then again is this really a new thing in science

[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes....disinformation is widely spread easily too

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: true

[13:40] herman Bergson: So it all end up in our own minds....and our personal ethics

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: which might bring us back to the buddha again ;)

[13:41] Loo Zeta: not specifically, it is a cultural ethic

[13:41] Dawn Rhiannyr: yes agree Herman... and how easily you accept or be probably manipulated

[13:42] herman Bergson: Well, I guess we are aware now of all pitfalls we have to face in science :-)

[13:42] aindrea1: we are in many ways a product of what we been told was true we as grow older look to see what really is true

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:42] herman Bergson: May I thank you for this brilliant discussion and your participation....

[13:43] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.....^_^

[13:43] Loo Zeta: yw

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[13:43] Roger Amdahl: Thanks Herman ..

[13:43] Dawn Rhiannyr: it is a joy Herman, thank you :)

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: this was an eye opener

535: Clash of Cultures

http://slnewserpeople.blogspot.nl/

When -in my first years, ( in the Netherlands the university study took six years ) as a diligent student of philosophy I kept notebooks, in which I wrote down my personal philosophical thoughts and ideas.

Of course, I hoped to develop and use them later for pioneering publications on, for instance, epistemology, the theory of Knowledge.

Unfortunately, when I later specialized in Analytical Philosophy, I had to discover, that all those “unique” ideas of mine already existed, some even dating back from the time BEFORE I was born.

Now you might think, oh dear…….what a disappointment that must have been. Actually, it was not for two reasons; one, it was quite easy for me to accept that there had been smarter people than I am,

and second, I came to the conclusion that I had to be a true child of my time, that I was in tune with modern philosophy. 

I had to think of this experience of more than 40 years ago, as I read my morning newspaper.

In my previous introduction lecture of the new project, I told you that I take a stand with my title “Why Science is Right”. 

Oh boy, what a daring statement! And to make it more daring I referred to non Western philosophy and how Western philosophy differs from it.

Well, forget it. This morning there were several articles in my newspaper, which dealt with the very same subject. Not only with respect to clashing cultures but also concerning the position of science in our own society.

I didn’t come to my choice of the present theme, because of newspaper articles, but because of my own delving into non western philosophy. So, in that sense it is still an original conclusion and choice, which rationalization saves my Ego a little :-)

But on the other hand this debate is already going on since in his 1989 article “The End of History?” Francis Fukuyama (1952), an American political scientist, political economist, and author.proclaims: 

“What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War … but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological development and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”.

According to Fukuyama, liberalism's great ideological rivals failed in the long term for two reasons. 

First of all, communism has the wrong theory of economic management, and could not provide long-term economic prosperity. Thus Marx's claim that capitalism was materially unstable proved true of communism instead. 

Second, following Hegel, Fukuyama asserts that only liberalism can satisfy the human desire for recognition in a stable fashion.

But is Fukuyama right? Samuel Huntington, (1927 – 2008), an influential conservative political scientist from the United States of America, says NO.

In a 1993 Foreign Affairs article titled "The Clash of Civilizations?", exhorted Huntington to cultural and political  modesty. 

In addition to the Western civilization he distinguished some other great civilizations which cherish their own values, which are not necessarily identical with those from the West. 

- QUOTE- 

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. 

The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, 

but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. 

The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

-END QUOTE-

The euphoria over the fall of the Wall and on the basis thereof loudly sang ideological victory of capitalism over communism at the time, were so great, that the Huntington warnings that other types, partly cultural conflicts, were now possible, barely  were heard.

Politicians and  progressive opinion leaders dismissed him as a conservative warmonger,  who  in particular wanted to discredit  Islam.

Huntington's article in Foreign Affairs drew more comments than almost any other essay ever in that magazine. 

His thesis has received much criticism and his implications, methodology and even  basic concepts were seriously questioned. 

In his article, Huntington relies mainly on anecdotal evidence. Against his expectations, serious, empirical studies have shown no serious increase in the frequency of cross-cultural conflicts in the post-Cold War era. 

Some argue that the civilizations he identifies, are fragmented and have low internal unity. Thus, the Islamic world is seriously divided, 

including ethnic groups, as Kurds, Arabs, Persians, Turks, Pakistanis and Indonesians ,which all have very different worldviews.

And while I looked at our present theme from a much smaller perspective, you see, that we are right in the middle of a much wider debate, which is going on today.

Thank you ^_^.....

The Discussion

[13:23] ZANICIA Chau: Thank you Prof

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[13:23] Nymf Hathaway: ㋡ Thank you Herman

[13:23] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:23] herman Bergson: The floor is yours...:-))

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: indeed today there is really cultural chaos, what worries me is IS that toture murders al that don’t think as they do and have a fatwa that basically says that lets eradicate all life on the planet with bio weapons, then everyone get to met the RIGHT god!

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: they are really scary

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: makes me a bit worried

[13:25] ZANICIA Chau: Amazing to think that down through the generations, there always seem to have been far-seeing thinkers born. I agree with Huntington

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: in contrast to science that is the way to see how the world really works and in a peaceful way

[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita...the Huntington hypothesis is still interesting

[13:26] herman Bergson: The medieval decapitation of people challenges our culture seriously....

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: it is

[13:26] ZANICIA Chau: There is so much fanaticism, that's what is scary

[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: yes

[13:27] herman Bergson: I wonder if it is fanaticism.....

[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: what do you think it is?

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: yes, i didn’t thought it could really become so horrible, its even worse then in the worst horror movie and its for real!

[13:27] herman Bergson: The way we value a human life is different from how other cultures do....

[13:28] herman Bergson: The decapitation of humans is in an other culture not as shocking as in our for instance...it seems....

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: that humans can transform into beasts worse then the scariest monsters u can imagine

[13:28] herman Bergson: but it is a perfect way to provoke for instance the US

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: I don’t get it

[13:28] ZANICIA Chau: The belief that humans are expendable if they don't conform to your thinking is TOTAL fanaticism

[13:29] Beertje Beaumont: they don't see people as individuals but as a group

[13:29] ZANICIA Chau: yes

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: and other groups don’t have right to exist, they are like wasps or ants that should be exterminated

[13:29] herman Bergson: Well Zan..look at Wordwar I for instance....

[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: right

[13:29] Beertje Beaumont: yes Bejiita

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: they would kill me immediately if they could get to me

[13:30] ZANICIA Chau: as did Hitler

[13:30] herman Bergson: a loss of 15.000 human lives in an attack which didn’t make sense was not a problem

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: yes its like hitler if not worse

[13:30] herman Bergson: Look at the Russians in WWII.....they through in their infantry without mercy...

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: but worse then Hitler is hard to imagine

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: its at least equal

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: equally bad

[13:31] Beertje Beaumont: how about Pol Pot?

[13:31] herman Bergson: We have "learnt " to abhor things like that now....

[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: history proves that these occurences are not new

[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: way back

[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje...history has many examples!

[13:31] ZANICIA Chau: so ...how far have we developed?

[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: slowly

[13:32] herman Bergson: I want so say something about that Zan.....

[13:32] Lizzy Pleides: we have many examples in the period of colonialism

[13:32] herman Bergson: Science is our subject in this project....

[13:32] herman Bergson: and yes...we can say that out knowledge has increased....about reality...

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: we have the Higgs boson, ㋡

[13:33] herman Bergson: but on the other hand...if Ethics would be our subject....????

[13:33] Beertje Beaumont: Science feels to me a bit cold...with no feelings

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: however we have not seen much of it at all, its more to come

[13:33] herman Bergson: How much progress did we make there?

[13:33] Nymf Hathaway: Its objective Beertje, yes

[13:33] ZANICIA Chau: nil to zero?

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: indeed but science dont kill people, for gods

[13:34] herman Bergson: We are still the same animal indeed, Zan :-))

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: but tries to find the true answer

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: by observation, much better

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: but people do Bejiita - when they have no ethic

[13:34] herman Bergson: But the remark of Beertje touches another serious issue....

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: I say, make science not war!

[13:34] Beertje Beaumont: empathy

[13:34] herman Bergson: the relation between science and society....

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: Hitler used science

[13:34] ZANICIA Chau: yes..human feeling in all this

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: CERN was for ex formed as a peacemaking project after world was 2 to avoid a 3 rd one

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: to make nations come together to share knowledge

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: and make new

[13:36] Beertje Beaumont: it's the question , what do the DO with that knowledge?

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: in turn it have given us in addition to knowledge about particles the www and cancer therapy research

[13:36] herman Bergson: And there Bejiita only Western scientist were involved, I guess

[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: not sure about that

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: i guess so

[13:36] herman Bergson: Where there Chinese, people from India?

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: but i don’t know

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: there are all sort of nations involved in it i think

[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: shall look that up

[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: I think there were

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: there is a particle physics project developing in middle east as well called SESAM

[13:37] herman Bergson: I guess so too Gemma, but did it show?

[13:37] ZANICIA Chau: open sesame...(sorry)

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: and Japan have the KEK facility, and CERN is involved with them as well

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hehee

[13:38] herman Bergson: So, the hypothesis of Huntington, tho heavily criticized...has a point, I think

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes its a really good name for a such project

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: open sesame! particles show yourself!

[13:38] herman Bergson: On the other hand.....the ideas of Fukuyama make sense too

[13:38] ZANICIA Chau: hehe

[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: I think Fukuyama changed his thinking over time

[13:39] herman Bergson: Is the Western way of science and economics the best route to take?

[13:40] herman Bergson: Could be indeed Gemma..I didn’t study him in detail...so I might miss a few points

[13:40] ZANICIA Chau: who wins the jackpot on THAT answer?

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: i thnk so, as long economic consumer frenzy don’t get too big along with greed and such

[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: well he problem is that the way is the only way so far

[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: the only route

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: its much better then blowing each other up for religion for sure

[13:40] herman Bergson: Well Zan...for the time being I stick to my theme and postulate that science is right^_^

[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: hahaha

[13:41] Nymf Hathaway: Likes to thank Herman and all others ㋡ Jumps in to bed :) Till next week :)

[13:41] ZANICIA Chau: touche

[13:41] ZANICIA Chau: Bye Chantal

[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: I hope everyone read the article I did re the class

[13:41] herman Bergson: But as you see...

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: bye Chantal

[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: in the sl newser

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: sure gemma - great!

[13:42] herman Bergson: this theme can be put in a much wider perspective....

[13:42] Beertje Beaumont: yes

[13:42] Beertje Beaumont: lot's of lectures to come ㋡

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: this will be un

[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje....:-)

[[13:43] herman Bergson: and in the meantime....

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: fun

[13:43] herman Bergson: read Gemma's article at http://slnewserpeople.blogspot.nl/

[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman, i will leave with a lot of questions a usual:)

[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: yes

[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: always

[[13:43] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: makes us read a bit tho

[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes..me too Beertje :-)

[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: smiles

[13:44] herman Bergson: So…thank you all again for your great participation!

[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: til next tuesday

[13:44] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-))

[13:45] Lizzy Pleides: yes, Thank you Herman, great lecture again!