"Scienceyness"
I read this a couple days ago. It's an opinion piece about this idea of "scienceyness," a term the author, Ben Thomas, coined himself.
He strikes me as one of those intellectual types who suffer the delusion that their opinions are facts.
I find some of his ascertations and statements questionable, like “And while overblown science headlines are still a major aspect of the problem …”
That is his opinion, and nothing else. He doesn’t provide any examples to back his claim.
He also claims that scienceyness is a “disease.” If it is, it’s one I’ve never heard about. What this is, is yet another opinion.
It’s also curious when Thomas says that “scienceyness” was based on the word “truthiness” i.e., “an intuitive feeling that an idea just ‘feels right,’ even if there’s no concrete evidence for that idea.”
The irony being that Thomas’s theory suffers the same failing. To Thomas, it feels right, but he provides no evidence.
His “History of Harm” section offers insight into how he misrepresents information.
He cites the European Union, Human Brain Project, as an example of the harm of scienceyness:
“Bloggers and Facebook posters got whipped into such a frenzy that they shared the story, and re-shared it, and discussed it at length, as if the project’s final goal was already within sight.”
First, that statement is nothing but an opinion.
He follows it up with, “A year later, hundreds of researchers were threatening to boycott the project, its funding got cut, and the entire concept of big neuroscience projects took a big blow in the public eye. Many researchers outright refused to join the project, pointing out that its goals were hugely ambitious and also pretty vague. The project lost a huge amount of credibility — and a huge amount of grant funding — because people got overly excited about a story they hadn’t bothered to check out.”
It’s true that researchers boycotted and funding was cut, but it wasn’t because “people got overly excited about a story they hadn’t bothered to check out.”
The link that Thomas himself provided says the following,
1 – “Many researchers refused to join on the grounds that it was far too premature to attempt a simulation of the entire human brain in a computer.”
2- “ … some claim the project is taking the wrong approach, wastes money and risks a backlash against neuroscience if it fails to deliver.”
3. “Accusations of mismanagement.”
This was all within the science community. There was not a single word about science “fandom” being responsible.
So not only does Ben Thomas not provide evidence to back his claims, when he does, it’s wrong.
I’ve said this before, that once you know what to look for; it’s fairly easy to detect bias, ignorance, prejudice, and propaganda.
Learn to spot assumptions. Look for reliable data and references to back up claims.
Beware of sites that claim to have “The Truth.” Most of the time, it’s not.
Beware of posts that denigrate whole groups of people, like liberals or conservatives. That’s what Nazi’s do.
Learn to recognize hate in its subtler forms, and don’t be afraid to stand up to it.
He strikes me as one of those intellectual types who suffer the delusion that their opinions are facts.
I find some of his ascertations and statements questionable, like “And while overblown science headlines are still a major aspect of the problem …”
That is his opinion, and nothing else. He doesn’t provide any examples to back his claim.
He also claims that scienceyness is a “disease.” If it is, it’s one I’ve never heard about. What this is, is yet another opinion.
It’s also curious when Thomas says that “scienceyness” was based on the word “truthiness” i.e., “an intuitive feeling that an idea just ‘feels right,’ even if there’s no concrete evidence for that idea.”
The irony being that Thomas’s theory suffers the same failing. To Thomas, it feels right, but he provides no evidence.
His “History of Harm” section offers insight into how he misrepresents information.
He cites the European Union, Human Brain Project, as an example of the harm of scienceyness:
“Bloggers and Facebook posters got whipped into such a frenzy that they shared the story, and re-shared it, and discussed it at length, as if the project’s final goal was already within sight.”
First, that statement is nothing but an opinion.
He follows it up with, “A year later, hundreds of researchers were threatening to boycott the project, its funding got cut, and the entire concept of big neuroscience projects took a big blow in the public eye. Many researchers outright refused to join the project, pointing out that its goals were hugely ambitious and also pretty vague. The project lost a huge amount of credibility — and a huge amount of grant funding — because people got overly excited about a story they hadn’t bothered to check out.”
It’s true that researchers boycotted and funding was cut, but it wasn’t because “people got overly excited about a story they hadn’t bothered to check out.”
The link that Thomas himself provided says the following,
1 – “Many researchers refused to join on the grounds that it was far too premature to attempt a simulation of the entire human brain in a computer.”
2- “ … some claim the project is taking the wrong approach, wastes money and risks a backlash against neuroscience if it fails to deliver.”
3. “Accusations of mismanagement.”
This was all within the science community. There was not a single word about science “fandom” being responsible.
So not only does Ben Thomas not provide evidence to back his claims, when he does, it’s wrong.
I’ve said this before, that once you know what to look for; it’s fairly easy to detect bias, ignorance, prejudice, and propaganda.
Learn to spot assumptions. Look for reliable data and references to back up claims.
Beware of sites that claim to have “The Truth.” Most of the time, it’s not.
Beware of posts that denigrate whole groups of people, like liberals or conservatives. That’s what Nazi’s do.
Learn to recognize hate in its subtler forms, and don’t be afraid to stand up to it.