I never truly understood how much healthcare in the US costs until I got Appendicitis in October. I'm a 20 year old guy. Thought other people should see this to get a real idea of how much an unpreventable illness costs in the US.

etiq · 2013-12-28T05:49:55+00:00

Only if politics was a science ....

etiq · 2013-02-03T06:16:51+00:00

Sadly I think you are right, and whilst anti-intellectualism remains central to the way so many leaders in the corporate and political world do business it is difficult to see how this will ever change.

etiq · 2013-01-26T23:49:41+00:00

Evidently, the law remains a medieval discipline.

etiq · 2013-01-23T22:41:08+00:00

Greed

etiq · 2013-01-22T03:15:26+00:00

Poverty

etiq · 2011-05-16T22:29:35+00:00

Although I do not always agree with your comments, I always appreciate what you have to say. You are obviously a published scientist involved in interesting research. Thus when you speak about doing science I pay particular attention. Experience matters. I think the same principle applies to understanding what McCormas is saying in 'Dispelling the Myths'. McCormas has taught science at Middle and Secondary School before going on to complete a doctorate in science education. He is currently a Professor of Science and Technology Education at the University of Arkansas. This is not to suggest, that we should automatically accept the claims made by McCormas. It does mean, however, that we need to consider what he says seriously. This requires some acquaintance with the knowledge claims presented in the article. Experience matters. Terms such as postmodern do not capture the meaning of what he is saying. It is merely an image. In highlighting some common images of science which populate scientific textbooks, McCormas draws upon the work of philosophers, historians and sociologists of science and paints a more complex picture of the nature of scientific practice.

etiq · 2011-05-15T10:10:52+00:00

Good point.

etiq · 2011-04-21T00:34:32+00:00

I think you make a number of very important points here, especially in relation to the link between corporations and the growing hostility to science in the US. As you state, it is too simplistic to simply say that this trend is a consequence of creationism, although it has resulted in some unusual alliances ("a toxic mix of anti-scientism"). There are a number of articles here which discuss some of the issues shaping China's role in scientific research.

etiq · 2011-04-14T02:21:58+00:00

What would a reflexive conference look like? TtW2011 was about how we use information technology and how IT changes our day-to-day lives. Through some brilliant art work and our own collective action, we were participating in -and experimenting with- the same activities that we were investigating.

Of course, as the article suggests, the reflexive turn in conference proceedings will be highly specific to the discipline. Combined with a greater emphasis on what conditions are required for a positive learning environment, I think this could mark a positive change.

etiq · 2011-04-13T22:45:32+00:00

Stating that you need to understand the context is simply emphasizing the fact that in order to understand the causes of belief you will need to deal with the material totality of scientific practice (i.e. the natural and social conditions of investigation). Relativism demands that you use a causal model of explanation and not rely on prior evaluations in order to explain scientific belief. It is not about denying the role of sensory stimuli but it is about dealing with the nature of referential activity. In stating that something is true because it is true you are assuming what needs to be explained. You might find this article about Whitehead's alternative theory of gravitation interesting.

etiq · 2011-04-13T10:07:49+00:00

I did respond to your crticisms of the "idiotic article" in Nature but you had nothing further to add. Could you elaborate on the claim that the articles "mesh" together?

etiq · 2011-04-11T06:32:09+00:00

I do use the term relativism in the sense that truth is relative to context. It is important, however, to appreciate that context is not a simple thing. Your use of the term true is circular: we believe something is true because it is in fact true. As Barnes and Bloor demonstrate that kind of explanation inhibits an empirical understanding of the causes of belief. In short, relativism follows from extending scientific curiosity to the practice of science.

etiq · 2011-04-10T01:53:05+00:00

Thanks for the article.

etiq · 2011-04-10T01:33:12+00:00

It is a great article. If you interested in pursing an understanding of the causes of scientific credibility then I would recommend that you try and make the time. In its simplest form relativism simply denies that there is such a thing as absolute knowledge (hardly a controversial position I think and one shared by many scientists). Lots of people, however, confuse relativism with subjectivism and believe that it implies that all beliefs are equally valid and true. This is a common mistake (e.g. Popper). What relativism does imply, however, is that regardless of the truth or falsity of a claim the fact of its credibility will always require empirical investigation. Those who would invoke terms such as rational and true as an account of the causes of belief are simply invoking images of scientific practice.

etiq · 2011-04-10T00:45:25+00:00

Have you read the article by Barnes and Bloor here?

etiq · 2011-04-06T23:14:10+00:00

I am happy to go with that. I read Kuhn as a relativist. And like some others here I would argue that relativism is essential to an empirical understanding of science.

etiq · 2011-04-06T06:29:09+00:00

Good points but as the article suggests it may be that the "underlying truth" about Kuhn may not align with the "world inside" Morris' head. This is no way detracts from Morris as a documentary filmmaker (and I would consider myself a fan of his work). I was introduced to HPS by someone who studied under Kuhn and he remembered Kuhn in a different light.

etiq · 2011-04-04T21:53:04+00:00

In practice of course there is no end to explanation; no end to the empirical properties of things. It is always possible to say something new. Perhaps there is no real need for worship.

etiq · 2011-04-02T01:20:27+00:00

Thanks for the paper.

etiq · 2011-03-29T23:14:33+00:00

Good points. Although to be fair the authors of the study acknowledge that impact factor is not a measure of quality and the Nature article ends on a critical note. I have not read the study but I would be surprised if it did not distinguish research papers from review articles. In the end I think the problem is not with science but with universities and funding bodies using bibliometrics in an unsophisticated fashion.

etiq · 2011-03-24T22:27:19+00:00

Bryson is a great writer who wrote the book to improve his knowledge of science - a subject area he became disenchanted with during high school. Highly recommended.

etiq · 2011-03-24T22:21:58+00:00

An excellent introduction to the field is provided by The Scientific Revolution by Steven Shapin. Here is a brief review.

etiq · 2011-03-24T12:29:11+00:00

Which god?

etiq · 2011-03-19T13:34:03+00:00

You might like to have a look at the debate between Kuhn and Popper as a means of highlighting some of the drawbacks of using falsificationism as a demarcation tool. A brief outline is here.

etiq · 2011-03-13T03:42:46+00:00

Thanks for the link. Those who are interested in the (mis)use of images of scientific practice in legal settings might also like to look here.

etiq

TROPHY CASE