Why do pompous scientists now like to separate science from people, and elevate "science" to godliness?

Question

Have you noticed this relatively new phenomenon where pompous scientists and "experts" always use the word "science" in a new way? They consider science as this infallable deity, and if you disagree with any scientist, you thereby disagree with "Science" and are therefore a r****d or a caveman.

For example - these scientists will say :

"Science tells us that... (fill in the blank)"

or

"You have to listen to 'the Science', or you will be led astray"

As if science is an actual authority or person, and can speak.

The reason for this is obvious - they know that scientists and "science" is always wrong about anything when it's corrupted by politics and agendas, but they don't want to admit when they are wrong. It's SCIENCE, therefore it's TRUE , is their pompous and flawed logic.

Do you agree with my analysis?

Answer 1

Exactly...and this has been going on for a long time, too! I don't have a problem with science, per se. It's the way the media portrays science. It just annoys me they way some of them (both scientists and media types) lord it overone else.  It's as if they put the scientist and the journalist as all knowing, all superior to everyone else...as though they are somehow infallible, God-like.  

Those folks are probably the same geeks who got pushed into lockers and made fun of by the popular kids while in jr. high school, and now what you are seeing unfold in the media in the science section  is the REAL "revenge of the nerds." lolol

Answer 2

I agree with you in that Science is always portrayed the way you have descibed, by the media. In fact, the media often picks out portions of scientific findings and broadcasts them. The ones that will have the greatest impacts on viewers.

However, I do admire the information process of the scientific community. New theories and findings are put out there all the time. These new items are left for the rest of the scientific community to research, disagree with, follow up on, try to discredit, and everything else. Over time, additional research either confirms or rejects these earlier theories. For example, the existence of Pluto began as a theory, before anyone ever saw it. So, I do admire the scrutiny that scientists put one each other to come up with viable claims. It's usually the media that gets it wrong or out of context.

Answer 3

For the sole purpose of annoying you.

This is hardly new.  It is a way of cutting off argument and ensuring that your own viewpoints are not listened to.  To people who think they know more than others because they are overly educated, it is a valuable time saver.

Answer 4

Ok. Science in it's truest form would be an absolute truth because the person leaning on it would have proven what they are saying beyond a reasonable doubt.  If this were a perfect world science would be a reliable thing. I don't think science is the issue; it would more likely be those who have an agenda to push and want to get something using the "science" or portions that go their way.  What really needs to happen is for people to not trust one sided stories.  Real Scientists wait for someone else to be able to duplicate their work independantly then go to the people with their discovery or proof.

Answer 5

Anyone who has no vested interest in a scientific institution will agree you are mostly correct in your observation, and this is a function of where American mainstream culture has gone, especially since post-WWII. Science is the new God for many Americans, and the term "empirical evidence" is the only thing that now matters if you make any claim. If you question something that bears the label "science" this often leads to others immediately denigrating you and claiming you are ignorant. Many people worship statistics as if the numbers can never be misleading. There is so much "scientific evidence" for so many things that students are often in a position where they are so overwhelmed they can't waste time thinking how things like Darwinism have become distorted to the point that it's just "rational" as if there's scientific evidence to bomb a country like Iraq for the sake of our survival (which is actually a social Darwinist's perspective, but still one that has science behind it).

The trend you see is one in which many CONSERVATIVE scientists have taken control of institutions, and thereby they are enforcing a scientific agenda in such a way that no other cultural perspective (e.g., spiritual, philosophical, etc.) is allowed when it comes to discerning reality. It's not all of them, but many are atheists, and proud of it in the name of stamping out anything that might be considered "dogma." These are the same people who like to use the term "rant" when you raise the kind of concern your question here does, and it is indeed a valid concern. The term "scientism" has been used to distinguish between what is a science and what is more something that seems to be taking the place of a religion among atheists, and an Internet search on the term "scientism" will show you that you are not alone in your thinking.

You do see a very conservative scientific thinking gone arwy with terrible consequences for it in our society at around the turn of the century when hundreds of thousands of people were forced to become sterile (and women through surgical methods too) because of Francis Galton and others who thought they had the empirical evidence that IQ is inherited (but in reality is only PARTLY responsible for anyone's IQ), which meant for the "betterment" of society it was neccessary for anyone whose genetic endowment was linked to low IQ to stop breeding. Talk about a witch hunt! Too many Americans do not even know about things like this, and too many scientists have forgotten or downplay such atrocities.

The responsibility of any true "free thinker" is to question both scientific claims as well as scientific methodology itself, no matter how "annoying" we may seem to the conservative scientist. You might also keep in mind that just as Yahoo Answers is swarming with religious zealots, it has its share of conservative scientists and atheists ready to pounce on anyone who might try to dethrone the godliness of their science.  

Read the book --  In The Name Of Science.

Watch the movies -- The Island or Artificial Intelligence

Above all-- Learn about the scientific method but do so in a way that you understand the limitations of the scientific method.

Answer 6

I don't agree with your analysis.

Science is by definition open to testing and fact checking.  Because of that it corrects itself when it's come up with the wrong answer.  With new observations and experiments new data is always being collected that changes our view of the natural world.  When science is done right there is no agenda except trying to build a more complete and accurate picture of the universe around us.  

Now since you've got a problem with science maybe you can come up with another way to study the natural world.  Should we consult ancient texts written by bronze age primitives?  Maybe we should meditate and pray on the nature of dark matter?  Would that give us answers faster than the Large Hadron Collider will?  Probably not.  When it comes to studying the universe around us, the world we live on and the way living things work science is our best bet.