Learn from the mistakes of others

In reply to a recent post (March 30th, 2006) by Jason Soon on catallaxy, The Cultural Constructionist Left war on Science I wrote the following:

I find it interesting how many of those who label contemporary evolutionary theory as 'neoDarwinism' have no background in science. Indeed, as soon as someone uses the term I am immediately on alert to identify whether they are in the religious camp or the political one.

Back in my days as an undergraduate biology student (I majored in molecular biology, genetics, and microbiology) I attended a lecture on the philosophy of science over the other side fo the campus in philosophy. I was curious, and hoping to date one of the class. The lecturer didn't get halfway before we were in a stand-up shouting match (he began the shouting).

As a third-year biology major, I was well aware of the models of science used by scientists. This guy mentioned the prevailing models in science in passing ... and launched into some esoteric stuff about power and hegemony. Then it was on ...

Scientists are under no illusions about the power of the dominant ideas in science. The whole point of peer review and so forth is to find a balance between accepted ideas and challenges. But science is an *empirical* process, not merely a bunch of guys arguing over a few beers (though we do that too).

Sociologists, and other social scientists, seem to have significant difficulties really understanding what science is - they are under some illusion that if they don't understand it, no one else does either ...

As to the methods used by the various factions arrayed against contemporary science, they all read form the same book of propaganda techniques. The past hundred years or so have seen huge developments in the art and science of propaganda - driven largely by advertising (the oft overlooked 'benign' 'version'). Anyone can hire a PR/Marketing/Ad Monkey, or read a book, or take a course. The principles are pretty consistent.

No one has a monopoly on self-reification. And presuming that "if I don't get it, no one else does either" (and it's opposite) is a common psychological game that makes people feel better. Otherwise, simplistic, irrational ideologies would be far less common than they are.

In reply to a recent post (March 30th, 2006) by Jason Soon on catallaxy, The Cultural Constructionist Left war on Science I wrote the following:

I find it interesting how many of those who label contemporary evolutionary theory as 'neoDarwinism' have no background in science. Indeed, as soon as someone uses the term I am immediately on alert to identify whether they are in the religious camp or the political one.

Back in my days as an undergraduate biology student (I majored in molecular biology, genetics, and microbiology) I attended a lecture on the philosophy of science over the other side fo the campus in philosophy. I was curious, and hoping to date one of the class. The lecturer didn't get halfway before we were in a stand-up shouting match (he began the shouting).

As a third-year biology major, I was well aware of the models of science used by scientists. This guy mentioned the prevailing models in science in passing ... and launched into some esoteric stuff about power and hegemony. Then it was on ...

Scientists are under no illusions about the power of the dominant ideas in science. The whole point of peer review and so forth is to find a balance between accepted ideas and challenges. But science is an *empirical* process, not merely a bunch of guys arguing over a few beers (though we do that too).

Sociologists, and other social scientists, seem to have significant difficulties really understanding what science is - they are under some illusion that if they don't understand it, no one else does either ...

As to the methods used by the various factions arrayed against contemporary science, they all read form the same book of propaganda techniques. The past hundred years or so have seen huge developments in the art and science of propaganda - driven largely by advertising (the oft overlooked 'benign' 'version'). Anyone can hire a PR/Marketing/Ad Monkey, or read a book, or take a course. The principles are pretty consistent.

No one has a monopoly on self-reification. And presuming that "if I don't get it, no one else does either" (and it's opposite) is a common psychological game that makes people feel better. Otherwise, simplistic, irrational ideologies would be far less common than they are.

shock! horror!

see the results of nifty aus politics test.



as if any of you are surprised by the result.

shock! horror!

see the results of nifty aus politics test.



as if any of you are surprised by the result.