A series of strawman arguments about what science is... - Mindwalk (1991) Discussion

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

"Science IS a Religion, and not a good one."

What a perfect example of a straw man argument!!
Could it be that Science is so bad a religion, that it shouldn't even be one.

Haha.
Similarly:

the lid of the pizza box IS a plate, and not a good one.
a milk crate IS a seat, and not a good one.
"X" IS a "Y", and not a good one.

reply

[–] tltl2 18 years ago

Y is an X, and not as good, but consider the possiblities as this film poses; you can be better.

reply

[–] knightsmadness 19 years ago

Science is about as much a religion as Math.

reply

[–] registered-13 18 years ago

Gardner, Arthur O. The History of Mathematics as a Part of the History of Mankind. Mathematics Teacher 61 (1968), 524--26.

Briefly discusses how factors such as religion and warfare have influenced the development of mathematics.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8428) 3 years ago

"The End Of The Megamachine" by Fabian Scheidler
totally brilliant summary of human history.

reply

[–] tripmark 19 years ago

Anti-science branch of the Humanities? The story was written by Fritjof Capra, Ph.D., physicist and systems theorist, a founding director of the Center for Ecoliteracy in Berkeley.

Who's the manipulator, the former physicist? I thought the manipulator was the writer and director. Please substantiate in scientific terms (not metaphores) your statement "the box created, and it later being broken through," because I'm not getting your point.

I dug the movie.

- Mark

reply

[–] Satan2016 (23352) 3 years ago

Ecoliteracy is bullshit, not science! Off to IMDb to rate this 1*.

reply

[–] rajajoe-746-880120 8 years ago

Hi everyone. I would like to know what is Systems Theory, much discussed in the movie, in layman's terms. Also other scientific theories propounded in the movie are they real science or just pseudo science?

reply

[–] Owlwise 7 years ago

It's not anti-science, but it is anti-scientism. There's a big difference.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

ooooops, 16 years ago? Oh well, you've had 16 years to inform yourself on this movie - it is not anti-science.

The former physicist had a point - most science done in the USA and the world is done if not in the service of the military, in the pursuit of control and profit.

Betrand Russel .. you mean Bertrand Russell, is touting a science that does not exist anymore - if it ever did. Science is not pure. In fact the deliberate dumbing down of Americans is because if people know too much they are danger to the status quo.

Really disagree with you.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1494) 4 years ago

Well said!

If forced to make an absolute choice between science or the humanities, my personal interests & innate temperament would tend towards the humanities. But the two fields are not mutually exclusive, and it's a pity that they've come to be regarded as such by many. I quite literally owe my life to science, as well as the restoration of my eyesight, so I'm not going to dismiss or downgrade it.

To me, what the film is saying is that science is a vital & necessary part of human knowledge ... but that it's not the end-all & be-all of the human experience. For instance, an intensely Romantic poet like Shelley was a lifelong enthusiast for science. But he also saw that there is more the substance & meaning of our existence than just science.

It's not an accident that the final words of the film are given to the Poet.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

> my personal interests & innate temperament would tend towards the humanities.

Me too.

Science is a myth, it is packaged up in science books, like religion to try to make things look better and more respectable than they really are.

Shelley is an interesting choice of artists, considering his wife wrote Frankenstein! ;-)

Science needs to be democratic for it to mean anything, and that is political. The world is moving away from democracy, and education, and that can never be scientific, and in fact science is used, or should I abused to bring that about.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1494) 4 years ago

The late English philosopher Mary Midgley has written extensively about the mythic aspect of science—or more accurately, scientism. She is far from despising science, rightly regarding it as the best means of resolving many questions. But she also has concerns about its claims to answer everything, including questions of deeply personal meaning & personal experience, by reducing all of human life to "nothing but—"

Consider Charles Dickens' Mr. Gradgrind:

"Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else. And root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir! ... In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir: nothing but Facts!"

Except that human life is more than just a conglomeration of Facts.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

Midgley sounds interesting. Everything bad people do, in any area of human
endeavor is to use their status to control other people. That is the most
unscientific thing and has gotten us in to the most problems.

I think of Reagan, who I hate, but I liked when he said in terms of the Russians,
"Trust But Verify". We should all be able to demand proof ... and if there is none,
then other criteria must be used to arbitrate reality.

I think I value the "scientific method" way above the "institution of science".
Maybe our political institutions will only evolve to the extent that people learn to
think scientifically, logically, to look at something, formulate a hypothesis and then
turn to experiments and data to find out what is the right way to see it.

ALWAYS REMEMBERING THAT WHATEVER WE KNOW, IT IS ALWAYS PROVISIONAL,
and subject to change with further data. The perfect example of that is the
change from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics.

Science has just scratched the surface, and in an analogy to how we say we know
more about outer space than we do the depths of our own oceans - we know almost
exclusively about the behavior of matter than we do about ourselves. And we know
extremely little about what is in our heads, and the differences we have psychologically
between each other.

I would answer your Mr. Gradgrind that we need principles - not facts. We really benefit
by teaching people math, because math is the distillation of the facts that scientific
understanding comes from.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1494) 4 years ago

Beautifully & truthfully said, brux. :)

As to how little we know about what is in our heads? e.e. cummings said it well:

“When skies are hanged and oceans drowned, the single secret will still be man.”

reply

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

Nice, thanks.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1494) 4 years ago

I have to admit, it's nice to be able to discuss this film with someone else who appreciates it, as it obviously doesn't get much love or attention otherwise. So much of it seems just as relevant now as it was 30 years ago—and maybe even more so.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

I would so much rather see a movie like this, even with its flaws than the nonsense movies and TV these days.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1494) 3 years ago

I agree. Whatever its flaws—and it certainly has some, mainly amateurish more than anything else—its a film that remains rewarding decades later, as it gets the engaged viewer to join the conversation & continue it afterward.

And these days, it also serves as a reminder that there's more to life than just mindless entertainment. Wondering about the meaning of life—or the meaning of one's own life—isn't all that popular now. ("Pretentious! Navel-gazing! Self-indulgent! Pseudo-intellectual!") But it's all the more needed for that very reason.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8428) 3 years ago

Just uncovered this old thread. I always like to mention this book in these kinds of discussions ... it is brilliant and all-encompassing and puts everyone on the same page. I'v never seen a book like that before that was not too simpleminded or cold-blooded and inhuman.

"The End Of The Megamachine" by Fabian Scheidler

reply

[–] Owlwise (1494) 3 years ago

Thank you for the recommendation! I'll check it out.

Let me recommend in return a slim little book by the late Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?, that also looks at the soul of current society in terms that the protagonists of Mindwalk would recognize.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8428) 3 years ago

Thanks.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1494) 3 years ago

When going to order a copy of The End of the Megamachine just now, I noted that both it & Fisher's book are published by Zer0 Books, one of the best small publishers around today, dealing smartly & deeply with the world as it currently exists. So, a good sign!

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8428) 3 years ago

Interesting.

I read the Megamachine on my Kindle with text-to-speech. I wish they had an audio version though.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

I think I value the "scientific method" way above the "institution of science".

You phrased this very well. Love it. Indeed, differentiating between the two is key.

Otherwise, you may end up one of two extremes.

1. You value the scientific method, and then presume that everything that scientific institutions establish to be beyond reproach, and beyond question, forgetting the fact that we are supposed to seek data to disprove our hypotheses, not cherry pick data to support only the ones we want to defend. You end up appealing to the authority of the scientific method and eschewing rationality in the process.

2. You abhor the institutions of science, and then reject the scientific method period by extension, and forget what the scientific method is actually meant because you can't differentiate rationality and logic from the flawed people who are misappropriating those tools.

reply

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

You said it right here .... "scientific institutions". The best of human institutions have proved that they get corrupted over the years, and science is no different.

BLM showed on thing if nothing else, that the American people - including the government - even in this day and age of data science does not have the all-knowing information it pretends and behaves like it has.

Most of science is managed by elite and the media, and the information they use is hidden. Way back decades ago I read about how no institution of the US government does not keep any national data on police actions throughout the country.

Yet another way to scramble democracy is to keep the people in the dark, lacking and even starving for data - and then substituting lies instead.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

Yup. And what data there is, is often leveraged inappropriately. I worked in research enough to see how sometimes well-meaning, well-intentioned people don't fully understand the quantitative implications of what they're saying and doing. How to implement measurements correctly, and how to acknowledge the shortcomings of those measures.

Well intentioned people...

Let alone the parties that may have more nefarious interests: the substitution with lies that you noted lol.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 3 years ago

Strawmen arguments is all that I ever see anymore.
Some aren't enough to call strawmen but somehow the idiots posting them believe in them.

BLAH

reply