by Anthony Barreiro » Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:55 pm
Chris Peterson wrote:BeautifulUniverse wrote:Isn't it interesting how "objective" astronomers and scientists will project their own fundamental worldviews to how they describe space phenomena? In the above picture, dust and gas (fertile cosmic soil) becomes refined due to natural processes to ignite a star, which then continues its evolution. But the astronomer implies, darkly (without realizing it), that the dust bodies are living beings being killed by the stars they create.
This is how it is in most of astronomy ... from galaxies cannibalizing one another (instead of beautifully merging), black holes consuming voraciously (black despite they are the brightest phenomenon in the universe, and destructive despite that they unify the whole galaxy together), to supernova being stars 'death-throws', instead of just another evolutionary phase ... evolution which creates all life ...
Such astronomers project the idea that death, destruction, and competition are the fundamental principles underlying all of Nature ... ignoring the harmony, cooperation, and inter-dependence that support universal evolution ...
Astronomers are human, too! And these kinds of expressions have a power in written language that makes them good choices in forums like this. Of course, these concepts aren't found in the underlying science. Scientists certainly introduce an element of the subjective into their research, as well. But what distinguishes science from other approaches to knowledge, and shows its tremendous power, is how little of that subjectivity makes it through into the actual knowledge base that is produced.
My two cents:
Scientists generally
aspire to freedom from subjective values, and the scientific method provides means of assessing and critiquing the subjectivity of findings and interpretations. But science is an inherently human enterprise, and scientists are just as subjective and just as driven by personal values as anybody else. To the extent that our subjective values are simply taken for granted (assumed, unquestioned, and unconscious, "just the way it is") they will exert an even greater influence on how we interpret the world, what we consider important, what we choose to investigate vs. what we ignore, etc. than values that we consciously critically examine. The ideological belief that science is value-free is a dangerous fallacy.
And it's not just individual scientists who are value-driven. Starting with what kinds of research will get you a Ph.D. and continuing through every grant application and contract with government, business, or a non-profit organization, the kind of science that gets funded, supported, and publicized is a social process driven by (often competing) social values.
I believe it's important for scientists to be clear with themselves and others about their values, and to do work that is truly aligned with personal and social values that aren't embarrassing to say out loud. Given all the dire human and ecological problems in the world today, do you really want to devote your professional career to developing a crunchier potato chip?
Please forgive me if this is off topic, but these are issues that I think about a lot.
[quote="Chris Peterson"][quote="BeautifulUniverse"]Isn't it interesting how "objective" astronomers and scientists will project their own fundamental worldviews to how they describe space phenomena? In the above picture, dust and gas (fertile cosmic soil) becomes refined due to natural processes to ignite a star, which then continues its evolution. But the astronomer implies, darkly (without realizing it), that the dust bodies are living beings being killed by the stars they create.
This is how it is in most of astronomy ... from galaxies cannibalizing one another (instead of beautifully merging), black holes consuming voraciously (black despite they are the brightest phenomenon in the universe, and destructive despite that they unify the whole galaxy together), to supernova being stars 'death-throws', instead of just another evolutionary phase ... evolution which creates all life ...
Such astronomers project the idea that death, destruction, and competition are the fundamental principles underlying all of Nature ... ignoring the harmony, cooperation, and inter-dependence that support universal evolution ...[/quote]
Astronomers are human, too! And these kinds of expressions have a power in written language that makes them good choices in forums like this. Of course, these concepts aren't found in the underlying science. Scientists certainly introduce an element of the subjective into their research, as well. But what distinguishes science from other approaches to knowledge, and shows its tremendous power, is how little of that subjectivity makes it through into the actual knowledge base that is produced.[/quote]
My two cents:
Scientists generally [i]aspire[/i] to freedom from subjective values, and the scientific method provides means of assessing and critiquing the subjectivity of findings and interpretations. But science is an inherently human enterprise, and scientists are just as subjective and just as driven by personal values as anybody else. To the extent that our subjective values are simply taken for granted (assumed, unquestioned, and unconscious, "just the way it is") they will exert an even greater influence on how we interpret the world, what we consider important, what we choose to investigate vs. what we ignore, etc. than values that we consciously critically examine. The ideological belief that science is value-free is a dangerous fallacy.
And it's not just individual scientists who are value-driven. Starting with what kinds of research will get you a Ph.D. and continuing through every grant application and contract with government, business, or a non-profit organization, the kind of science that gets funded, supported, and publicized is a social process driven by (often competing) social values.
I believe it's important for scientists to be clear with themselves and others about their values, and to do work that is truly aligned with personal and social values that aren't embarrassing to say out loud. Given all the dire human and ecological problems in the world today, do you really want to devote your professional career to developing a crunchier potato chip?
Please forgive me if this is off topic, but these are issues that I think about a lot.