Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the green-skinned-dancing-metaphors dept.

Alva Noë has an interesting piece on NPR about how some scientists, and cultural defenders of science, like to think of themselves as free of prejudice and superstition, as moved by reason alone and a clear-eyed commitment to fact and the scientific method. "I'm pro-science, but I'm against what I'll call "Spock-ism," after the character from the TV show Star Trek," writes Noë. "I reject the idea that science is logical, purely rational, that it is detached and value-free, and that it is, for all these reasons, morally superior."

According to Noë, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, Spockians give science a bad name because if you think of science as being in the business of figuring out how atoms spinning noiselessly in the void give rise to the illusion that there are such things as love, humor, sunsets and knuckleballs, then it isn't surprising that people might come to think that the inner life of a scientist would be barren. "The big challenge for atheism is not God; it is that of providing an alternative to Spock-ism. We need an account of our place in the world that leaves room for value. What we need, then, is a Kirkian understanding of science and its place in our lives. The world, for Captain Kirk and his ontological followers, is a field of play, and science is a form of action."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by JimmyCrackCorn on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:31AM

    by JimmyCrackCorn (1495) on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:31AM (#93791)

    Science, or good science, is about good data. If you let the bias steer your data that is not good science. Collect some data and show others how hard it can be to remove bias, that might be good science. You need to account for bias and you need to account for yourself, that is good science. Leave you shit at the door and get to some science. Show others that your breed of science is illusion of form of science. Most, if not all people can see that the rest is bullshit.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:05AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:05AM (#93806)

    Unless your studying bias ..

    • (Score: 1) by JimmyCrackCorn on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:07AM

      by JimmyCrackCorn (1495) on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:07AM (#93809)

      HA!

    • (Score: 2) by MrNemesis on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:24AM

      by MrNemesis (1582) on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:24AM (#93887)

      Leave my studying bias out of thi's!

      --
      "To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."