Does Science Ever Apologise?

[wolven7]

Religious groups have apologised to the world, when they've been wrong. Slavery, the Holocaust, all kinds of shit.

I want you to seriously consider this, for a second: One day, some day, the methods of science become sophisticated or merely different enough to tell us that certain actions, words, sounds, and extremely small events can, when placed in the correct combinations and/or concentrations, have an emergent effect on the reality around us. Not only that, but these things feed into larger and larger events and settings of concepts, which make this Kind of thing more and more easily done.

Spells, prayers, meditation, focus, and will-work... Work. Would the "scientific community" apologise for the years of derision and scorn heaped on believers and practicioners? I only ask, because I have never seen a large public admitance of wrongness from said "SC."

In what could be considered an admirable trait, the tendency is to take the new, "right" conception of reality, and replace the old one. Simple. But certain things seem like they would... need some acknowledgement of previous wrongness.

Granted this is a vast and heavily-laden conditional question, but I think it's one worth asking. If we could "prove" Magic's reality, one day, or, more accurately, if Science accidentally proved Magic, independently, would Science apologise?

I don't know, because I'm not Science. But I would like to hope that Science would.

Comments

[morven.livejournal.com]

Based on the treatment of peoples with successful herbal medicine cures that have been examined, what they will do is copyright the methods involved and laud themselves for their new discoveries.

Not that I'm not hopeful it would be otherwise.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

for every successful medicinal herbal cure, there's plenty more that are unsuccessful, or completely fraudulent. And the scientific community doesn't copyright/patent things, corporations do that. Blame capitalism, not science.

[morven.livejournal.com]

for every successful medicinal herbal cure, there's plenty more that are unsuccessful, or completely fraudulent

Not sure how that is relevant, I'm not touting herbal cures. What I am trying to do is to describe a history where the results of science proved something ancient and non-scientific to be valid, and not acknowledging forbearers of said knowledge.

And the scientific community doesn't copyright/patent things, corporations do that. Blame capitalism, not science.

Not particularly blaming research scientists for the mistreatment of indigenous knowledge, but predicting (albeit negatively) that no, should science expose the ghost in the shell, there would be no apologies to anyone.

If I were to blame anyone, I would blame the way we use science that has become its own fundamentalist worldview despite the fact that evidence for discovery might come from other perspectives that are promptly disregarded. I just think there might be room for improvement in that area.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

"Not sure how that is relevant, I'm not touting herbal cures."

My mistake. Sorry.

"What I am trying to do is to describe a history where the results of science proved something ancient and non-scientific to be valid, and not acknowledging forbearers of said knowledge."

I'm not sure of exactly what you're describing of when you describe ancient, non-scientific things, other than herbal medicines, so I'll only comment on them in particular.

To say that herbal medicine is non-scientific isn't entirely true. Trial and error is part of the scientific process. If ancient peoples used trial and error in order to find out which herbs were or were not beneficial or harmful in some way, then in essence, they WERE practicing science.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that herbs are generally localized to one region, the knowledge of their benefits does not often disseminate sufficiently for it to be included in the common knowledge of all peoples, or even the basic medical literature. While I do admit, and find it unfortunate, that many a medical practitioner or scientist scoffed at many an herbal remedy, the point I made earlier about many being unsuccessful or outright fraudulent is what made this so much the case.

In a sense, it is a chicken and egg question: Which came first? The frauds causing the scientists to be skeptical of herbal medicine? Or the scientists being skeptical which led to scores of frauds?

I would assume the former, but certainly don't deny the possibility of the latter.

So, yes, limited success and fraud have a part in the reluctance of the scientific community. I won't defend their reluctance, though I will cite those who had a hand in CAUSING that reluctance.

"If I were to blame anyone, I would blame the way we use science that has become its own fundamentalist worldview despite the fact that evidence for discovery might come from other perspectives that are promptly disregarded."

Define "we". The layperson? The scientist? The scientific community? The medical practitioner? And if they are reluctant of "other perspectives" is it because of scientific bias? Religious bias (such as a Christian's possible bias against magic or shamanism, and all things associated with it, such as herbalism)? Or is it that in 60,000 years of human history one perspective has put us on the moon and no other perspective has had such a high level of success, leading some to the conclusion that it is simply more useful?

"I just think there might be room for improvement in that area."

Until humans attain perfection, that will always be something I agree with you on. All communities and worldviews require refinement.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

This is a pretty naieve view of how science works, it's not a bunch of guys in their homes trying o make the world a better place. Science requires funding and every day scientists wil make compromises to secure that funding.

Similarly scientists do not all share the same beliefs, or ethics. The weirdet hing about these debates to me is the portaying of the scientific as som sort of homogenous inhuman mass. You're ignoring so much here it's painful.

[(Anonymous)]

I hadn't seen this earlier, as I just now checked for email responses...

Anyway, I'm still working on what I want to say in the other post, but I'll be quick about this.

Everything you're saying that I'm ignoring I am fully aware of. I am aware that not all scientists are the same. I'm aware it's not an inhuman mass.

I disagree with your interpretation of my wording and intent here, but that's okay. I think it's just miscommunication.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

That was me, sorry. Stupid anonymous posting...

[wolven.livejournal.com]

That entirely depends on how you define "magic." I don't define it as something unprovable, necessarily. Simply provable or explainable by specifically different means than the standard.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

In that the explanation removes the meaning, or something else?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Not an uncommon perspective. Not one I completely share, but one I understand.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

Science itself can't be blamed for what people do with it. Religion can be blamed for what people do with it, because it's the people that made it in the first place. It's one and the same with the actions of the people, it incites the people to do it.

The scientific community has ammended its stance on everything since the dawn of man. Time and time again, it changes views on medical treatments, physics, and every other thing.

While there may be individuals in the scientific community that are asshats, one thing you need to realize is that it's the lay person who more often than not abuses science. It's the corporations who control the pharmaceutical industry, not the scientific community. It's the dictators that establish atrocious regimes and hire unscrupulous individuals to carry out their whims.

The scientific community as a whole is made up of fallable people, just like every community. People do stupid shit sometimes.

Einstein had to admit he was wrong about the cosmological constant. Stephen Hawkings admitted he was wrong about theories. The guy who told Louis Pasteur that he was wrong about crystallization admitted he was wrong. The list goes on and on.

You should be blaming the mainstream media and moronic societies for the wrong-doings, and as dmlaenker pointed out, if science comes to accept magic as part of the natural world, then it doesn't owe you an apology when you've stated time and time again that it's not science's place to judge when it finally rules in your favor.

A large public apology isn't often seen in the scientific community, you're right. It's not newsworthy, because the scientific community has to admit it's wrong about something on a daily basis as new information is brought to light, making it more and more right about things as time goes on. When a religious group admits it's wrong, it's a big deal because their supposed truth is DIVINE, and UNQUESTIONABLE.

There's a big difference between saying "I see no evidence of this, and assume it doesn't exist until further evidence arrives, and find it laughable for someone who admits that there is no scientific evidence to believe it to be valid" and saying "God/gods/the spiritual truth in all of us/divine absolute unquestionable perfect truth says you're wrong and you can't argue with that" so there's a big difference in either side admitting they're wrong.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

er... he didn't point out that it doesn't owe you an apology, he pointed out that it would be joined into the consensus. Sorry, lost track of my sentence there.

[jerem-morrow.livejournal.com]

Yup.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

The thing that I keep trying to explain is that science is not some perfectly objective method. Our understanding and continual use of it has allowed us to figure more things out through it, but it is a system, created by humans, to put shape to a shapeless, meaningless, Empty Void.

The void that generates the multiverse is equally infinite, and every system we create, every step we take, and every thing we do is there to make the briefest most infinitesimal of impressions on a thing that, ultimately, will remember us exactly as much as it remembers any universal configuration. Ever.

Science is created by humans as a means of engaging and understanding the world. Religion. Magic. Poetry. Mathematics. They are none of them anything other than human-made systems to make fleeting shapes on a void.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I believe that it is a thing that we have named for the things that we have seen and done and experienced..

Stuff happens. What we name it, how we correlate it? Human means, human words, human concepts.

Without the conceptual component, the phrases "global warming" or "particle physics" are completely meaningless, because, guess what? There's no inherent meaning, without some thinking, conceiving thing to give it meaning.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I'm saying that as we change our perceptions and undrestandings of the world, as we work toward new conceptions, we can, yes, change reality.

We cannot necessarily change what has already happened, but we can more easily affect the shape of what Will happen.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

"The thing that I keep trying to explain is that science is not some perfectly objective method"

Agreed, there is no method of observation that can't be boiled down to being in some way subjective. The goal of science is to take as much subjectivity out of the equation, which is why repetition is used, why multiple methods of testing are used, etc... All aimed at removing the possibility that it's all hallucination or freak accident.

And this is the exact reason that I am skeptical of ALL things, why I need methods of testing to see if things are true objectively (in so much as that can even be shown at all, which I'll always admit cannot be PROVEN with ABSOLUTE certainty). Wheras religions (specifically jedeo-christian-muslim, and tribal polytheism, hinduism, etc...) are based solely on COMPLETELY subjective revelation and speculation on the unobservable.

You cannot speculate on that which you cannot observe. The gods cannot be observed, it cannot be assumed with any level of certainty that we are the product of their actions, and we can therefore not be used as examples of how they may be observed through their actions. So the concept of gods specifically has no weight whatsoever, as the only method of observation is subjective hallucinations which cannot be tested at all, and vary between individuals to a degree as to say they are unrelated and irrelevant.

Same with afterlives, and various other "supernatural" occurrences.

As stated before, I am not lobbing that complaint against your personal concept of magic, as I require more information about the actual claims of your magic itself before I can say they are or are not one thing or another.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

"The void that generates the multiverse is equally infinite, and every system we create, every step we take, and every thing we do is there to make the briefest most infinitesimal of impressions on a thing that, ultimately, will remember us exactly as much as it remembers any universal configuration"

Not arguing that, and largely I agree. Mostly I just word it differently, but I think the concept (except for maybe the part about it "remembering", which is probably just a semantic difference) is not in dispute.

"Science is created by humans as a means of engaging and understanding the world. Religion. Magic. Poetry. Mathematics. They are none of them anything other than human-made systems to make fleeting shapes on a void."

Again, I think this is largely a semantic disagreement, but you often bring up literature and music into this discussion of comparing science and religion or science and magic. I understand that they full under the heading of "systems of interpretation of data" or whatever, but that's where the similarities end. Language and literature systematize associated bits of data, just as math does, and I understand the similarity between that and science or religion, but the part I don't understand is where... *thinks*

Ok, you've said that science is a way of explaining reality (physical reality, objective reality, whatever) and that it doesn't mind if math and language are there to explain OTHER systems and things, which is true I think. You then go on to say that it just doesn't want another system around who also attempts to explain reality (physical reality, objective reality, the natural world, etc...) Which I don't agree with, as I've obviously stated.

Religion is not a system for understanding anything. It's closer to literature. Religious texts, revelation, etc... These are not systems of anything other than recording subjective experiences. It is a blind input with zero output. Everything is welcome, regardless of source or "truthiness", and absolutely no information can be reliably gleamed from it. To quote my old evangelical youth-group pastor, (when he was talking about metal music and its affect on young minds) "garbage in, garbage out".

There is no test for accuracy in religion, no way to certify data of any kind. All is welcome, none is discriminated against, and inconsistency and contradiction is handled ARBITRARILY, by people, and people have limited knowledge of cosmic workings and hardly equipped to make such judgments without outside sources of authentication.

Science ATTEMPTS, if not fully succeeds, at finding a way of authenticating information. What religion if ANY has a method of authenticating information about the workings of reality that do not involve using science to authenticate them, or about the workings of reality that are NOT explained by science. What is it that science can't do that any religion or other system of "knowing" CAN do? Specifically, not just "looking at it from other angles", not a mission statement of what it's supposed to do, give me one specific instance.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

This is sloppy thinking:

Certain phenomena are not subjective creations, though our interpretation of data sometimes is. Gravity is not a product of human creation as an example. Howver some ideas that surrounded its observation have been flawed for a variety of reasons.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

While what "gravity" Is may not be subjective, what it means, and how we do things in the world, in relation to it, certainly is.

Without that meaning, nothing gets done, one way or the other. That's all I intended, by the above.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

Gravity doesn't mean anything in the sense meaning is most often used.

Gravity is a force nothing more or less, it's effect on our planet affects how we do things and that force is not subjective. A gerbil doesn't understand gravity, is not consciously aware of the force as humans are and is incapale of understanding any of the relevant mathematics, it's still just as impacted by gravity as you are.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

True, but I think that the difference is that we do create systems of symbols and concepts whereby we use that force to change things, to operate in the wider universe, that changes how we're impacted by it, drastically.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure what you're sayng here, can you give me a concrete example?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Planes, space shuttles, satellites. We use systems we have developed to explain gravity to make it work for us, in various ways.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

Well for starters planes don't use gravity to fly. Very basically, flight is the product of two sets opposing forces, lift versus weight and thrust versus drag.

The weight which is a product of the force of gravity opposes the lift created by the air flowing over the wings. Thrust is generated by the propellers and opposes the drag created by the air resistance to the plane. For flight to happen lift must be greater than weight and thrust must be greater than drag.

I'm assuming that you're thinking of gravity asists sometimes used by space shuttles. In this case the shuttles are taking advantage of the relative movement and gravity of a planet (or other celestial body). This is an example of attempting to take advantage of the force of gravity, it is not in any way an example of making gravity do something.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

That's what I'm saying. The force itself has to be understood and overcome via a system that uses our made/subjective concepts of it as inputs, in order to make the things work, at all.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

I'm really not following you on this.

There is nothing subjective about the physics involved in flight, it doesn't depend on our understanding of language or the symbols we use to discuss the physics at work.

It seems like you're possibly trying to reference the observer effect, which is a legitimate phenomenon but does not explain how everything in the universe works the way it does. We relate to eachother and to the world through subjective means, but it's a mistake to assume that our subjective experience drives all external phenomena. Subjective manipulation of symbols is particularly effective in systems that are more subtle than the physics involved in making a giant mechanical object fly through the air.

If you're looking for a scientific foundation for the theoretical validity of the basic premise of magic (by which I mean the possibility of human consciousness exerting influence over consensus reality) I'd say your best bets are chaos theory in general, the butterfly effect in particular, the observer effect, and godel's proof.

Most discussions of magic get bogged down in extraneous philosophy. This why I don't get bogged down in conversations about what goetic spirits are, or ideas about magical"energy" it's so pointless to me. To me, that shit is the province of priests not magicians. I'd rather explore my existence than develop philisophical justifications for it. I take an interest in the ideas of course, in the same way that as a writer I am interested in the stories other people write. Occasionally aside from being entertained you pick up something useful, but its usually something hiding underneath the surface.

And ftr, I do think that one day science will in some way "prove" magic, but I also know I'm not the scientist who's going to do it, and it isn't going to be proved by besting the scientific community in a debate either.

I'm also still interested in establishing a mainstream interest and validity in and for magic, but I'll also say that Grant Morrison did a better job of that with the invisibles than I'll ever do debating one person at a time online or irl. I mean really it was ingenious on his part, because it's not just a simple matter of him writing a great story, as a magician what is evident to me is that he used magic to convince people there was something to magic. Maybe not with hard lab tested evidence but he opened a small crack in many minds, and that's all magic ever needs.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

"Science itself can't be blamed for what people do with it."

That is ludicrous, and ignores the reasons for fields like bioethics.

"While there may be individuals in the scientific community that are asshats, one thing you need to realize is that it's the lay person who more often than not abuses science. It's the corporations who control the pharmaceutical industry, not the scientific community. It's the dictators that establish atrocious regimes and hire unscrupulous individuals to carry out their whims."

You're living in a fantasy land. You're seriously going to argue that scientists who work on weapons development have no culpability? The pharmaceutical companies don't exist with out the scientists who crate their products, and as I've mentioned elsewhere they can and have done unethical things in order to secre funding for what they consider, the greater good.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

"Science itself can't be blamed for what people do with it."

That is ludicrous, and ignores the reasons for fields like bioethics.

Science is a tool, a method. It's like a hammer. You can't blame the hammer for me hitting someone with it. You blame me for it. The scientific COMMUNITY can be blamed for something if it endorses it, but not SCIENCE. That's all I meant.

"You're living in a fantasy land. You're seriously going to argue that scientists who work on weapons development have no culpability? The pharmaceutical companies don't exist with out the scientists who crate their products, and as I've mentioned elsewhere they can and have done unethical things in order to secre funding for what they consider, the greater good."

As I said, "more often than not" meaning "not always the case". A scientist who works on weapons is partly responsible for what is done with them, agreed. That's where the "unscrupulous individuals" comes in, referring to either military personnel or research scientists. I agree with the rest of that paragraph, except the fantasy world part, and only when I'm not playing Fable or Warcraft or something... Then I am living in a fantasy world.

I promise I'll get to the rest of your/everyone's comments, but my time is being split up unevenly between projects at the moment.

[vonfaustus.livejournal.com]

Spells, prayers, meditation, focus and will-work are all antithetical to pure Empirical Reasoning which is still a foundation of the Scientific community.

As such, it can never be admitted. If it can't be analyzed in a lab, and proven through repeat tests, it aint real.

But let's be honest: that's better for the rest of us. If will-work and magick (including "prayer-craft" if you will) were accepted and widely entered popular belief again, we'd see real fear pointed widely at the Neo-Pagan and magickal communities again.

Humanity will accept what it will accept when it's ready. The day will come. This century alone has aided formerly believed "fringe" theories. I'd, personally, ask for no apologies. I like my fringe status. It keeps everyone but the fundies off my back.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

No, no one said anything about it, but ALL OF POLITICAL MANEUVERING is about changing the perception of the individual and the populace.

The force of will and strength of purpose and belief amassed behind a common goal, simply and completely could not be called "magic," in those circles, and have it be accepted enough to work. Calling it magic would cause those people to instantly stand against it. But after its establishment and doublethink sublimation, anyone from outside who calls it magic will be shouted down and shut out.

The nature of an insular, persecution-complex-commerce community. ;\

To put it another way: If it were ever called magic, it wouldn't ever be called magic.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Right, mostly agreeing with you, but with the caveat that what vonfaustus means (I think, and I hope Jack will correct me, if I'm wrong) is that if magic were ever to gain wide recognition, via other means, it would create a giant row, especially within the circles where the means of operation are, shall we say, strikingly similar to those of magic.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

You make a good point, and I try to see things this way, but part of my ethos is to try to make that (as I see it) inevitable integration of systems operations as beneficial to my worldview as possible.

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

Untrue the affects of meditation on human physiology have been doccumented in scientific studies. I'll be happy to link you if you want.

Science and Religion

[gamoonbat.livejournal.com]

I think that science and religion are about on the same level in terms of how frequently mistakes have been corrected or apologies given. On the other hand, science does have an ideology which is more strongly committed to revision of fundamental claims when confronted by experience which goes against those claims. This is what Karl Popper based his "open society" concept on. There has been a long-running debate among philosophers of science with respect to how much scientists share this ideology and how well they actually live up to it. Many of the Manhattan Project scientists would be good examples of scientists who apologized for what they created, Edward Teller for example.

Re: Science and Religion

[wolven.livejournal.com]

VERY good point, there. Thank you.

Re: Science and Religion

[sammhain.livejournal.com]

glad to see someone beat me to this.

Re: Science and Religion

[gamoonbat.livejournal.com]

I like most of your comments above as well.

Re: Science and Religion

[(Anonymous)]

I've seen way too many of these debates at this point and the problem is almost always gross oversimplification by both parties.

Re: Science and Religion

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

Many of the Manhattan Project scientists would be good examples of scientists who apologized for what they created, Edward Teller for example.

Maybe I'm thinking of someone else, but if you're referring to the Edward Teller that I'm aware of, he never apologized and spent the remainder of his life trying to find new uses for the hydrogen bomb.

Edward Teller

[gamoonbat.livejournal.com]

You are right! It looks like I mixed up Teller and Oppenheimer, perhaps. I know that Glenn Seaborg also advocated for nuclear weapons control.

[momentai.livejournal.com]

The scientific community doesn't need to apologize for something being proven as the so called community, as a whole, is not guilty of anything. Science is simply a way to analyze and present information about a particular situation or thing. That is done thru experiment and observation. If magic, by any definition, could be proven, than it would be proven thru this method. As such, there would be nothing to apologize for. There would be a general acknowledgment of

"Huh. There's a new way to analyze information. Let's get started on using that to see what we can find out next."

There may be individuals who might owe other individuals or organizations an apology for certain remarks made or actions taken (or not taken), but no, the "scientific community" does not owe anyone anything except due diligence, which is what it does. It has to as that is what science is. The method is not responsible for the actions and words of the practioners, no matter how pervasive those actions may seem to someone on the outside.

Science is not responsible for most atheists being assholes. Those assholes are responsible for that. Religion is not responsible for certain people being hate mongerers, those bigots are responsible for that. There is no concerted effort to deride magic or black list it or any such thing. If anyone thinks there is then their thinking is just as faulty as a scientist who goes into an experiment hoping for an outcome or with the intent to twist the outcome to match his hope. Now, there may be some sort of consensus among certain groups of scientists or at a particular school to ignore magic or any other non proven notion, but again, that has nothing to do with "science" much like the Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with God.

Science would have to acknowledge the new way of understanding b/c it would have become evident and because science would have to absorb it since the point of science is to explain. However, there is no previous wrongness. People who beleive in magic, of any form or definition, and those who claim to be able to practice it, cannot prove this. Which is to say that cannot consistently demonstrate in public and in controlled environments what they state they can do or what exists in private spaces and in their minds. If the claim cannot be demonstrated or if the person making the claim feels it is beneath them to even try to demonstrate it, than it is not wrong to dismiss the claim.

The way the claim was dismissed and any future reluctance to test the claim b/c of bias toward it may be wrong, but that again falls on individuals to discuss with other individuals.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Very good point. I have to remember to separate the so-called "community" (hence the quotes) from the assholes within it.

Thank you.