There's still Hope! A real lecture for students in: "Calling Bullshit"

[cthulhu]

Wow, a very good read, thx for that elaborate post. Would love to comment on it and i will, but that has to be later.
Now i only copy and paste, my approach would be the kind of Rupert Sheldrake's works:

The Science Delusion (Science Set Free) (2012)

The Science Delusion, published in the US as Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery, summarises much of Sheldrake's previous work and encapsulates it into a broader critique of philosophical materialism, with the title apparently mimicking that of The God Delusion by one of his critics, Richard Dawkins.[77]

In the book Sheldrake proposes a number of questions as the theme of each chapter which seek to elaborate on his central premise that science is predicated on the belief that the nature of reality is fully understood, with only minor details needing to be filled in. This "delusion" is what Sheldrake argues has turned science into a series of dogmas grounded in philosophical materialism rather than an open-minded approach to investigating phenomena. He argues that there are many powerful taboos that circumscribe what scientists can legitimately direct their attention towards.[78]:6–12 The mainstream view of modern science is that it proceeds by methodological naturalism and does not require philosophical materialism.[79]

Sheldrake questions conservation of energy; he calls it a "standard scientific dogma,"[78]:337 says that perpetual motion devices and inedia should be investigated as possible phenomena,[78]:72–73 and has stated that "the evidence for energy conservation in living organisms is weak."[78]:83 He argues in favour of alternative medicine and psychic phenomena, saying that their recognition as being legitimate is impeded by a "scientific priesthood" with an "authoritarian mentality."[78]:327 Citing his earlier "psychic staring effect" experiments and other reasons, he stated that minds are not confined to brains and remarks that "liberating minds from confinement in heads is like being released from prison."[78]:229 He suggests that DNA is insufficient to explain inheritance, and that inheritance of form and behaviour is mediated through morphic resonance.[78]:157–186 He also promotes morphic resonance in broader fashion as an explanation for other phenomena such as memory.[78]:187–211

Reviews were mixed. Philosopher Mary Midgley writing in The Guardian welcomed it as "a new mind-body paradigm" to address "the unlucky fact that our current form of mechanistic materialism rests on muddled, outdated notions of matter."[80] She also stated that Sheldrake's "analogy between natural regularities and habit" could be found in the writings of C S Peirce, Nietzsche, William James and AN Whitehead.[80] In another review, Deepak Chopra commended Sheldrake for wanting "to end the breach between science and religion."[30] Philosopher Martin Cohen in The Times Higher Educational Supplement wrote that "Sheldrake pokes enough holes in such certainties [of orthodox science] to make this work a valuable contribution, not only to philosophical debates but also to scientific ones, too," although Cohen noted that Sheldrake "goes a bit too far here and there."[81]

Bryan Appleyard writing in The Sunday Times commented that Sheldrake was "at his most incisive" when making a "broad critique of contemporary science" and "scientism," but on Sheldrake's "own scientific theories" Appleyard noted that "morphic resonance is widely derided and narrowly supported. Most of the experimental evidence is contested, though Sheldrake argues there are 'statistically significant' results." Appleyard called it "highly speculative" and was unsure "whether it makes sense or not."[82]

Other reviews were less favourable. New Scientist's deputy editor Graham Lawton characterised Science Set Free as "woolly credulousness" and chided Sheldrake for "uncritically embracing all kinds of fringe ideas."[83] A review in Philosophy Now called the book "disturbingly eccentric," combining "a disorderly collage of scientific fact and opinion with an intrusive yet disjunctive metaphysical programme."[84]


My base science criticism is that i feel it has become kind of a fortress which shields itself from falsification when paradigms are challenged. And then one scientist calls another scientist unscientific.
In my opinion scientist have to incorporate in their techniques of collecting data, the human factor of conscience, which will influence data as its collected.

[Johnz]

This is a difficult subject to discuss without writing A LOT 

I think the principles of many things are being questioned these days under the guise of free thought, freedom of speech, religious freedom etc. While that sounds great, you don't need to dig very deep to see that these movements rarely come from a position of openness or inclusiveness. Like democracy, science is under threat and while many people see that as a good thing I am not sure they really understand what science actually does for them and, more importantly, they don't fully grasp the implications of the alternatives. 

As we say in Germany: Wenn es dem Esel zu wohl ist, geht er auf's Eis tanzen (When the donkey has it too good, he goes dancing on the ice).

I don't think this has ever been more true.

[cthulhu]

I think i see it the same way, science is threatened, but as you said before its also kind of an self inflicted inhouse-problem.
Think about White Coats...
In the book by Sheldrake, he describes the shift from the early science being more holistic to a pure matrialistic way of, and i think this is now "des pudels kern", interpreting the data.
Science tries to collect data that is detached from interpretation, but on one level to me its clear, that there is no such thing. Every person is interpreting data personally and every person has their own personal moral compass to do so. So there has to be a frame, a paradigme on which you have to comply to, to be able to cross check the data and interpret it. And sometimes new discoverys call for a paradigme shift, but then the human factor comes in place and these shifts are not easily coming for many.

And then we have a capitalist, neo-liberal organized society in which money seems to be always the main point and i "believe" that many so called scientific outputs are mainly advertisements for some agenda behind it.

An interesting example is the fact, that a sugar cartell managed to distort perception of the public away from the poisonous effects of our proceeded food, which contains way to much sugar, with a "scientific" campaign that forced the public to think about fat as a big unhealthy problem, just to bury the discussion about sugar.
I will search for examples, i don't have the facts at the moment. But i saw a good documentary about it.

I think i could say it like that, that i have nothing against real science but agsinst the corrupt part of it.

[cthulhu]

...and corrupt science uses bullshit-tactics

[Johnz]

It's actually quite difficult for science to be corrupt (for several reasons). The problem is more so that what you hear in the news is often a poor reflection of the actual science. Sensationalist claims get you noticed (they also get you ripped to shreds in the science world but you don't hear about that and the damage is already done anyway).

Good science communication is an important skill that far too few people practice (both, scientists and the media). In most cases it's actually really difficult for scientists to give the public the black and white answers that they want. It does take some basic understanding of science to spot bullshit and that is my biggest criticism of science. It doesn't try hard enough to engage people. Scientists are often far too caught up in their own world to have an appreciation of the doubts and fears of the rest of the world. It's more ignorance than arrogance.

The other problem is that science gives you credibility which is a form of power. As such, it is just as susceptible to attracting sociopaths and narcissists as any other field that rewards people with too much attention such as artists and politicians. The best scientists are often the ones that nobody knows.

And all the best science is useless if people don't accept it. As somebody who works in marine conservation I am in a perpetual state of despair. And I do a lot of thinking about what science can do to help. This statement really resonates with me because it hits the nail on the head:

“I used to think that the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”

—James Gustave Speth, US advisor on climate change

[cthulhu]

..damn, in the train writing, lost connection and everything is gone..
will only repeat one question until i get back my pc and can write without swearing constantly to my fckn mobile keyboard

What do you think about medicine and the placebo effekt, scientifically speaking?

[Johnz]

What do you think about medicine and the placebo effekt, scientifically speaking?

The placebo effect is super interesting and I've done a bit of reading on it. From what I understand it's strongest on pain management and certain mental conditions such as some forms of depression. You may have heard of the knee surgery study where people who had placebo surgery (so no surgery at all) did just as well as those who had the actual surgery in terms of pain relief. It even works when you are told that you're getting a placebo (but not quite as well).

You can check it out here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020712075415.htm

There is a whole research field dedicated to the placebo effect. This article sums up the scientific perspective quite well:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

Basically, giving yourself attention in a positive, caring way is good thing. I guess it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out but most of us are probably guilty of neglecting our own real needs to often.

[cthulhu]

I read about a case in which a patient who was treated with a heavy medication, but was unknowingly in the placebo control group, tried to kill himself with an overdose. He got into panic and called the ambulance and they found him almost dying, with severe symptoms showing of poisoning. in the hospital they found out, that the pills he had taken were placebos.

So we have a well known scientific fact, the placebo effect, but the implications of it are not being transfered to science itself. I think the placebo shows that mind is over matter. So the constitution of the mindset is influencing, well: everything. The perception and also the body itself. So the person which thinks that it is poisoned is in such a mindset, that the thought of poisoning manifests in the body and other persons who encounter that person, will see the effects of that thinking and so a false reality (the person is not poisoned) becomes a reality.

I think that modern science has failed yet to overcome several dogmas that are present. In the wonderful book The Science Delusion (Science Set Free) which i wrote abvout already, the author writes about ten dogmas modern science has. he says:

Here are ten central doctrines, that most white coats (well, i translated that loosely here;-) adopt unaudited:

1. Everything is of mechanical nature. Dogs for example are not living organisms with their own objectives, but only complex mechanisms. Humans are also Machines, as Richard Dawkins‘ said in a living expression even „lumbering Robots“ Their brains are like gentically programmed computers.

2. Matter has basically no awareness. It has no inwardness, no subjectivity, no „opinion“. Also human awareness is pure illusion played by materialistic events in the brain.

3. The entirety of all matter and energy is always the same (the big bang, with that all matter and energy suddenly appeared, being the only exception)

4. The laws of nature are once and for all set. They are today, as they were from the beginning, and as they will be forever.

5. Nature has no purpose, evolution is without direction or objective.

6. Biological inheritance is exclusively of material nature, mediated by the genetic material, the DNA, and other material structures.

7. The mind, our thinking and feeling, is in the brain and is nothing more than brain activity. If we look at a tree, the picture we see is not out there where it seems to be, but it is inside, in the brain.

8. Memory is stored as material traces in the brain and will be erased with death.

9. Unexplainable phenomena like telepathie are pure imagination.

10. Mechanical medicine is the only effective medicine.


What i so like about that book, is that the author then writes:

Everyone of these ten doctrines, in terms of a radical skepticism, i want to turn into a question.
 
New horizons open up when a questionless accepted assumption is no longer seen as a self-evident truth, but is made to an approach of exploratory questioning. So the assumption that nature is machine like or mechanic turns into the question: "is nature mechanic?" Or the assumption matter has no awareness turns into the question: "is matter without awareness?"

I think those questions that arise, were always there and that should undeline my thoughts, that science has taken a direction over many decades, in which those question haven't been transfered into science to let science be transfomed as a whole.

Back to the placebo, i just found this, very much the direction i was trying to express:

Implications of the Placebo Effect
https://scienceterms.net/psychology/placebo-effect/

Many researchers have asserted that the placebo effect is entirely psychological.  Put another way, this means that it only effects our perceptions and has no real effect on physiology.  Kaptchuk has said,

Placebos may make you feel better, but they will not cure you. They have been shown to be most effective for conditions like pain management, stress-related insomnia, and cancer treatment side effects like fatigue and nausea.

However, recent studies have shown that this is not true.  The placebo effect can measurably influence blood test results, heart rate, and blood pressure.  The implications of this are profound.  They point to psychological effects that can produce tangible physiological changes within the body.  In fact, if these results are explored more fully and harnessed, they could literally change the face of medicine.
[..]
When we take the implications of the placebo effect to their logical conclusion, some really interesting things come to light.  For the last hundred years or more, the dominant paradigm has been one of scientific materialism.  An unspoken assumption in this paradigm is the presence and unerring truth of the objective world.  Subjective factors were seen as errors, artifacts which must be factored out in order to get a clear view of the “true” effects of a drug or an experiment.  However, it may be that this assumption has been unwarranted.
[..]
We once thought that personal factors were just noise in experimental results.  If the current studies on the placebo effect are accurate, then it means that they are so much more than that.  It means that subjective, internal factors have a definitive influence upon external events.  The division between the objective and subjective is blurred.  We must come to accept that psychological events shape objective reality.  What we believe makes things happen, at least within our body.


I do think that science needs spirituality again.
That scientists have to become more spiritual themselves to produce better science.
I think that a shaman is also a scientist.