Scientists are slightly less political. Scholars have long known that attending college seems to encourage people to increase their engagement in the political process. However, there is a statistically significant difference in the rates of political participation between those who have graduated with humanities majors and those who graduate with STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) majors. Data from the Department of Education shows that, for the class of 2008, while 92.8 percent of humanities majors had voted in an election within a year of graduation; the same was true of only 83.5 percent of STEM majors. A comparison of 1993 graduates showed that 44.1 percent of former humanities majors had written to a public official within ten years of graduating, while the percentage of STEM majors who had written to a public official was 30.1. https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2016/spring/feature/the-future-the-humanities-democracy
Statistically speaking. I suspect college graduates in general are more engaged than those who aren't I graduated in engineering and have always been engaged. In term of left vs. right I am in the minority among engineers and more aligned with humanities types.
Poor Human Olfaction is a Nineteenth Century Myth It appears that the politicization of science isn't a new phenomenon (paging Dr. Fauci). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5512720/ It is commonly believed that humans have a poor sense of smell compared to other mammalian species. However, this idea derives not from empirical studies of human olfaction but from a famous nineteenth century anatomist’s hypothesis that the evolution of human free will required a reduction in the proportional size of the brain’s olfactory bulb. Strangely, the idea that humans have tiny olfactory bulbs and a poor sense of smell is derived in part from the religious politics of nineteenth century France.
And olfaction is strongly tied to emotional memories: Different works have shown that odor-cued memories are more emotional than memories triggered by visual or verbal cues... Taken together, these studies suggest that human olfaction is unique in its ability to cue the emotional aspects of autobiographical memory, including experiences formed early in life. In animals, memory for environmental odors plays a vital role because it regulates many behaviors that are crucial for their survival. Memory and Plasticity in the Olfactory System: From Infancy to Adulthood
I'm carrying this over from the Do You Believe in an Afterlife thread because it's more appropriate here. If anyone wants to see the fuller context, click on the upward-pointing arrow in one of the quotes below and scroll up a few posts in that thread. One thing science has never been very good at is predicting things from existing evidence. Especially things far out in the future. I was watching a video last night with Brett Weinstein talking to Joe Rogan about Quantum Gravity theory, how it's considered the leading theory of them all, worked on by all the brightest minds, and yet it hasn't been able to make an accurate prediction ever. Apparently it's been nothing but a huge dead end. And according to Brett, it's untouchable, meaning no one is allowed to question it. There seems to be a lot of scientific dogma around it and many other theories lately. Science bogs down when it forgets it's a method of exploration and becomes dogmatic instead. Certain theories become 'darlings' that should be murdered, but aren't. And let's keep in mind the Big Bang theory (which sounds a heck of a lot like many religious ideas about the creation of the universe) is brand new, only having been born around the same time I was in the early 60's. Big questions like the origin of the universe and how life came into being are very slippery subjects for science, there isn't enough data to form anything solid yet. Dark matter and dark energy are strictly theoretical constructs—possible ways to explain things we don't understand yet. Ok, to be clear, I don't want to get into a huge open-ended debate about all of science. I don't want to debate at all, just to clarify what I was talking about. When I say science isn't very good at making long-term predictions, it's because the future is very very complex, to such an extent that nobody, no group of scientists, can possibly understand every factor that will affect the future. Look at the Butterfly Effect—a scientific theory which says that unexpected things will happen and rapidly mount up so that it becomes impossible to predict anything with any certainty. Chaos Theory says the same thing in a somewhat different way. As a concrete example, I was thinking about the theory that was pushed so hard in the 70's that we were headed into a new ice age. It was the accepted theory at the time, and I remember it being the cover story on Newsweek at one point. Now science seems to have given up on that prediction and replaced it with a very different one. I definitely don't want to argue about climate change, it's far too politically charged right now. But this is one example of the fact that science isn't right about everything, especially when it comes to making long-term predictions. With predictions of the future, you're best off keeping them very short-term, because the more time that goes by, the more unpredictable factors will accrue. "Seems likely"? Really? How very un-scientific of you! This sounds more like faith to me. Science does not proceed on the basis of what seems likely. But assuming you're right, that it will be explained, what makes Quatum Gravity the right theory, and why should all progress in any other direction be shut down? This is a logical fallacy—the idea that someone can't point out problems in something unless they're an expert in the field or have done work as distinguished as what they're referring to. If it were true, then forums like this one couldn't exist, because in order to critique somebody's writing you'd need to prove first that you're a better writer than they are. We can critique writing because we read and because we can tell when things feel off. That's really all it takes. Weinstein is to some extent an insider in scientific circles. I don't know how well he knows physics, but he seems to know a lot about the goings-on among the people involved in it, which is what we're discussing here. It isn't the theory itself he's criticizing, but the fact that it's been declared untouchable, and that anyone who speaks out against it is immediately unpublishable in the scientific community.
Agreed. Science does the best it can with the evidence available. I didn't say that. I would approach anything Weinstein says with caution. He is known for his political agenda. Never! And I'm sorry if I give that impression. Wasn't my intent. But, overall, science proceeds forward in our accumulation of knowledge about our physical reality.
Here's the video, I'll let Brett speak for himself: I just looked him up on Wiki, and it says "He has a PhD in mathematical physics from Harvard."
He is, and that might be a factor if we were talking about climate change or something, but I don't see how Quantum Gravity is affected by politics. Well, actually I take that back. This is probably a matter of internal scientific politics, as so many things are these days. Many scientsts have a political agenda. Since one political side tends to sponsor scientific research and grants etc, they do get an unwarranted amount of control over which theories get promoted and which get shut down, so maybe in such a case what's needed is somebody who's not afraid to speak out against that political bias. But I won't say any more about that.
And I wouldn't say Weinstein has a political agenda so much as he's brave enough to stand up against one.
Ok, I got some wires crossed. I don't know who Eric Weinstein is (except that he's the guy in the video). I thought it was Bret Weinstein. They might be brothers, they look and sound very similar, and have a way of droning on and on and putting you to sleep when they talk. I know nothing about this guy. No idea what his political leanings might be or anything else. Ok yeah, they're brothers.
Yes, he has a PhD in Math from Harvard but he left an undistinguished career in academia to run a hedge fund and be a podcast host. He is most well known as the originator of the intellectual dark web. I think what he was touting as untouchable was string theory. And he's inaccurate when he says it is untouchable. String theory has had its share of critics. Whole books have been written criticizing string theory. In the video, there was something sensationalist about his casting Edward Witten as "Voldemort" - someone to fear. Weinstein won no awards during his career but below is a listing of the awards won my Mitten. Witten has been honored with numerous awards including a MacArthur Grant (1982), the Fields Medal (1990), the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement (1997),[34] the Nemmers Prize in Mathematics (2000), the National Medal of Science[35] (2002), Pythagoras Award[36] (2005), the Henri Poincaré Prize (2006), the Crafoord Prize (2008), the Lorentz Medal (2010) the Isaac Newton Medal (2010) and the Fundamental Physics Prize (2012). Since 1999, he has been a Foreign Member of the Royal Society (London), and in March 2016 was elected an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.[37][38] Pope Benedict XVI appointed Witten as a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (2006). He also appeared in the list of Time magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004. In 2012 he became a fellow of the American Mathematical Society.[39] Witten was elected as a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1984, a member of the National Academy of Sciences in 1988, and a member of the American Philosophical Society in 1993.[40][41][42] In May 2022 he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Sciences from the University of Pennsylvania.[43] In an informal poll at a 1990 cosmology conference, Witten received the largest number of mentions as "the smartest living physicist".
No, it was Quantum Gravity. Later he also talked about String Theory. But this is turning into a debate and I'm not interested in it. I'm Audi.
No need for debate - 'Quantum Gravity' is a field of research within physics (the problem of describing gravity in quantum mechanical terms) - 'String Theory' is a possible solution to that problem.
The researcher Weinstein attacked - Edward Witten - is known for his work in string theory. When evaluating sources, it is helpful to consider the motivations of the ones presenting the information. What is the motivation of people like Rogan and Weinstein? It's to get people to listen to their podcast. Now, just presenting the current science into quantum gravity is not going to do that. Boring. No, we need to stir some controversy into the mix. That makes for better listening. And so controversy is mixed in.
Yes, it's like when the media added controversy and impact to the discovery of the Higgs bosun by calling it 'The God Particle' . I don't know where they got the name from, or what they mean by it, but it put science on the front pages for a day at least. PS - I read that Witten tied various string theories together to form M-Theory.
The story from Wiki: The Higgs boson is often referred to as the "God particle" in popular media outside the scientific community.[188][189][190][191][192] The nickname comes from the title of the 1993 book on the Higgs boson and particle physics, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? by Physics Nobel Prize winner and Fermilab director Leon Lederman.[25] Lederman wrote it in the context of failing US government support for the Superconducting Super Collider,[193] a partially constructed titanic[194][195] competitor to the Large Hadron Collider with planned collision energies of 2 × 20 TeV that was championed by Lederman since its 1983 inception[193][y] [196][197] and shut down in 1993. The book sought in part to promote awareness of the significance and need for such a project in the face of its possible loss of funding.[198] Lederman, a leading researcher in the field, writes that he wanted to title his book The Goddamn Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question? Lederman's editor decided that the title was too controversial and convinced him to change the title to The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question?[199] While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest,[200] many scientists feel the name is inappropriate[15][16][201] since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers;[202] the particle also has nothing to do with any God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe. Higgs, an atheist, was reported to be displeased and stated in a 2008 interview that he found it "embarrassing" because it was "the kind of misuse ... which I think might offend some people".[202][203][204] The nickname has been satirised in mainstream media as well.[205] Science writer Ian Sample stated in his 2010 book on the search that the nickname is "universally hate[d]" by physicists and perhaps the "worst derided" in the history of physics, but that (according to Lederman) the publisher rejected all titles mentioning "Higgs" as unimaginative and too unknown.[206] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
Thank god there are no areas where the science is unquestionable today! Obviously that was ancient history—all that heresy and excommunication and burning at the stake. Barbarians! It's good to know that any and all theories can be openly discussed and questioned today, and nobody ever gets called a science denier and canceled, fired, publicly humiliated, or blacklisted. I'm sure if such a thing did exist, we'd be freeely able to discuss it on any message board anywhere, and not pulled into a debate room or shut down entirely. Because that would be totally against the free and open nature of scientific enquiry! Surely any scientist can publicly voice opposition to any theory or explore alternatives and not have to fear losing his career or the destruction of his reputation.
Till politics are removed from science, science will always bow to politics.. Endless THEORYS; never proven, never disproven. Global freezing, global warming, ozone depletion, massive sea rising. Theories have less real meaning than a farmer with a good crop of potatoes.
A human brain is the result of the accumulation of four billion years of random mutations in a molecule called DNA. I wonder what evolution led to on other habitable planets.
The politics will not be removed from science, until the people giving out the research grants become non-political.
Based on all the science that’s been done before and, albeit there’s been many a wrong turn, I think it undeniable that progress in the realm of human understanding would appear astounding to those from only a couple of centuries ago never mind the Sun worshippers from our dawn. So our brains: the accumulation as you say, the product of selfish genes’ ad hoc aberrations that fortuitously suit circumstances they find themselves in, can do that science. They can prod and poke and peel back the layers of our origins. < In much the same way as evolution, many cul de sacs, but in the round on the right track. We’re at a juncture now where that pulling force of evolution is handing the reins (briefly I believe)… oo let me rephrase with a visual: the wild horse of evolution has been lassoed and soon will be tamed. It’ll be mounted and driven by spur thereafter to whatever destiny, and by whoever (or whatever) gets to be the horseman, desires. By saying ‘whatever’ I mean it appears the next juncture will arrive quite swiftly after the this current one.. we gots the ai , we gots the gi, to come – maybe they’ll saddle up. Good luck to us with that! I’m not one for god (note the small G), not in our theistic/worship sense at least, but I do leave space for a ‘universe up’ you know one that gave rise to this one and what’er may have concocted ours from within it. < Just as we’re doing now, being low grade gods in creating ‘universes down’ with all this ‘meta’ stuff and such. Being meta in a different way, maybe god is dead, maybe god was smashed to smithereens in the Big Bang, maybe evolution is god pulling himself back together¿ And our brains be a mere step in the process. I just got goosebumps. Someone do the science on that! As for evolution on other planets, I’d wager it’s going on, not in our space nor time alas (Kardeshev/Fermi issues), but I’d like to place a bet, cashable at Universe’s heat death, there’d be something akin to DNA again out there,sometime/somewhere, and from that some forms of life emerge with brains like those in our noggins. Convergent evolution on a grander scale.
