On the bright side, once they get back to the discovery of electronics they’d be able to sort out the whole electron flow vs conventional flow nonsense. 😀

(Though I’m not sure how well that would fit in with black magic)

The students at Reading University are next up for the WillShortlyGetAShockWhenTheyJoinTheRealWorld awards with their alternate universe branding of Jeremy Paxman as a Sexist and Mysoginist for asking about their team mascot on University Challenge:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/jeremy-paxman-in-bizarre-sexism-row-over-comment-on-university-challenge-about-knitted-doll-a3391911.html

rusty90 – Member

We use Newton’s principles rather than Leibniz’s because they consistently work

OK, I was looking at it from the “science must fall” approach of coming up with something different and better. You could certainly come up with something different and worse.

(Monadology is interesting from a philosophical point of view though)

And as for science being a Western thing – best not let any Muslims or Chinese hear that

THIS

A real failure to understand if they wish to talk about “western science”

Terrible description of Newton as well

Science never stops if you have a better explanation of “newtonian gravity” that fits all observed data and makes predictions then lets hear it

Science basically finds truths – smoking causes cancer is not a white conspiracy to oppress black people its just a fact.

I thought she was taking the piss initially and it was a debate where someone had to defend the indefensible – a sort of evening with ninfan type of thing.

Interesting ideas in here. After all, the idea of ‘scientific knowledge’ is sometimes problematic. Science and mathematics are not built on truths, rather they are models built on our understanding of the world and sometimes the model is not appropriate. Given that many models are built on a western understanding, it is plausible that starting in a different place, you would arrive at at a different conclusion

Science isn’t built on truths, but maths is?

Science and mathematics are not built on truths, rather they are models built on our understanding of the world and sometimes the model is not appropriate.

the science methodology is basically experiment and record – what is flawed in that model?
As for maths its built on self evident axioms and given what we understand base don it you would be pretty brave to say its axioms were flawed- Nod to Godel or anyone on here who has read and understood it

it is plausible that starting in a different place, you would arrive at at a different conclusion

you will but i thought we were trying to get to “truth” not work out another method to be wrong

they’ve just had enough of experts telling them what to think.

[china] got a completely backwards leader in the middle ages who reversed a lot of the scientific progress they had made

Arabia… was an early seat of scientific inquiry and learning but got wiped out by fundamentalism.

the science methodology is basically experiment and record – what is flawed in that model?

I think the argument is for different resulting models to explain what you’ve observed? In principle you could have different models describing the same thing, so someone else might come up with a different predictive model to explain what they see that perhaps allows some other things to be considered that ‘Western’ models don’t.

a sort of evening with ninfan type of thing

😆

The thing is – we outside Africa started off with the same beliefs as anyone else. But we applied the scientific method, and ended up where we are. People tried all sorts of crazy nonsense in the early days, but then by applying the scientific method we sorted out the rubbish from the facts and verifiable theories.

Science and mathematics are not built on truths, rather they are models built on our understanding of the world and sometimes the model is not appropriate. Given that many models are built on a western understanding, it is plausible that starting in a different place, you would arrive at at a different conclusion

Like what? Like gravitational force follows an inverse cube law not inverse square? Are these African scientists going to repeat our experiements and come up with different results? They might do different experiements and discover new things, sure – but that will be *in addition* to Western science not instead of it.

If these people in that village really can use magic to call lightening strikes down on people they don’t like, then there is science to be done. Western science does not prohibit or exclude anything; but the laws and models we curently have do. If something happens to break these models then great – we’ll go back to the drawing board. This has happened many times over the centuries (Einstein, Schroedinger, Bohr etc etc).

I think some people are getting science and philosophy confused. Philosophy benefits greatly from cross-cultural input, and generally loves it afaik.

Oh and another thing – tons of science is being done by Chinese and Japanese people and indeed people from all over the world. Not really ‘Western’ any more.

Hopefully the students in that school will have the sense to not be taken in by these daft ideas and waste their time rediscovering old stuff, and will instead make imaginative and creative use of the science that’s already known about, as well as discovering new science going beyond what is already known.

Makes me a bit angry, but my angriness scale has recently had to be realigned.

I think some people are getting science and philosophy confused. Philosophy benefits greatly from cross-cultural input, and generally loves it afaik.

Oh and another thing – tons of science is being done by Chinese and Japanese people and indeed people from all over the world. Not really ‘Western’ any moreNail and head

Guys, we have our own nutters on here as well…..see the lymies thread….its just that these lot are black….so yall noticed.

Yeah and some smartarse Indian guy derived the number zero, get rid of that cos it’s inherent in the white western system.

Yeah get rid and revert back to the original er… Roman numerals.. er…

its just that these lot are black….so yall noticed.

?

However they would almost certainly end up at the same place I feel.

As long as they’re not really thick. I can see a problem with that for the fallists…

i never mock anyone unless they are black and here, though i have only mentioned their views, I do it just because of their skin colour 🙄

Its a great point except its made by a white person* who I then mocked for the stupidity of their argument

Perhaps its just stupid arguments I/we dont like?

* deduction /guess may be wrong but i seem to recall you saying something about the problems you had with your wife’s visa but may be wrong.

Guys, we have our own nutters on here as well…..see the lymies thread….its just that these lot are black….so yall noticed.

Errr.. no.

I noticed it because it got a bit of attention on social media and YouTube (a lot of which was from black people distancing themselves from it!)

In the past I have also noticed and commented on flat earthers and creationists, the vast majority of whom (in the videos/posts I’ve discussed) have been white westerners.

The ScienceMustFall is part of this anti-white, anti-colonial Pan-African Nationalism, where people who are not very bright try to tell smarter people that anything western needs to be rejected and after “de- colonization” African ways needs to be the dominant driver.

They should all move to Zimbabwe, their Dear Leader will probably welcome them with open arms, and hand them all farms previously in white ownership.
Maybe they could do a better job of running them than the flunkies who were gifted them, they could try developing non-western scientific principles of agriculture to solve their ever-worsening food crisis.
If not they can starve like the rest of the benighted country.
Think of it as evolution in action.
Oh, sorry, that’s a western-centric scientific concept…

All science must be prepared to fall.

There is no space for dogmatism in science, if a better model or explanation can be developed then any true scientist would recognise this and adopt it. While it’s good to work stuff out from first principles sometimes, simply ignoring or forgetting a theory or model because of its origin is just plain dumb, that way lies dogmatic religious beliefs.

Perhaps its just stupid arguments I/we dont like?

We’ve come to the wrong place Junki!

😆

The irony in this thread is amazing – lots of people accusing the woman in the video of misunderstanding science while misunderstanding her perspective… although it isn’t articulated in a way that people without an understanding of post-colonialism and feminist approaches can grasp.

To me it seems the argument is not that scientific principles are wrong, but rather that the history of science is a history of the West to the exclusion of other (scientific) knowledges. Someone mentioned Arabic and Chinese versions of science and mathematics which pre-date European versions. This is the kind of thing the woman is referring to. Arabic and Chinese science have been disregarded in the dominant history of science – most people couldn’t name a single Arabic or Chinese scientist from history, but could name Western ones.

If the woman in the video is calling for new histories of science to be written which include other sources of knowledge then that is great, e.g. people who recognised what gravity was before Newton, but didn’t codify it in the same way he did. It’s like people who claim Columbus discovered the Americas – he did’t: plenty of people already knew they existed because the lived there. It was just new knowledge to Europeans who had to change their maps.

These are deeply philosophical questions and it is reductive to ignore them or dismiss them as funny or insane.

Perhaps, like us, they’ve just had enough of experts telling them what to think.

Post-truth politics science.

One of the things I truly hate about the world today is how, to some people, intelligence is seen as a threat, or something to be scorned. People feign ignorance of topics in case others think they’re too nerdy, as if that’s a bad thing. All these Brussels bureaucrats, conniving sneaks, they must be up to something.

No one trusts clever people these days. Perhaps because throughout history thus far, the clever people have carved out a nice little niche for themselves, and are often better off. So it’s sort of understandable – but it’s also a terrible thing. At this rate, society will regress and we’ll be back in the dark ages before the turn of the century.

Reason goes out the window and stupid stuff happens. Islamic extremism, Trump, Brexit.

I don’t think these quacks are worth worrying about, though.

Apparently the Flat Earth society is very proud of having members at all four corners of the globe

As has just been pointed out by my science correspondent, that assumes the flat earth has 4 corners. Is it a quadrilateral?

Arabic and Chinese science have been disregarded

Our entire numeric system is based on Hindu-Arabic numerals!

If the woman in the video is calling for new histories of science to be written which include other sources of knowledge then that is great

It would be… but I don’t think that is what she is calling for at all, given that her triumphant example was that western science was blinkered because it couldn’t explain how people are able to direct lightning strikes using black magic.

As has just been pointed out by my science correspondent, that assumes the flat earth has 4 corners. Is it a quadrilateral?

Most Flat Earthers I’ve encountered actually believe the earth is a disc shape, North Pole in the centre and the South Pole forming an impassible ice wall along the outside edge.

One of the things I truly hate about the world today is how, to some people, intelligence is seen as a threat, or something to be scorned

I don’t think it’s particularly a new thing. Ivory towers have never been popular with those who do not live in them. That’s basically all it is. Read Frankenstein.

So how does plate tectonics work on a flat earth, or are they all creationists as well?

Yeah a lot of them are creationists because part of the driver for flat earth comes from literal interpretations of bible passages (the “firmament” and all that).

I think tectonic plates are accepted by some, but clearly they’d have to be very different shapes.

Like what? Like gravitational force follows an inverse cube law not inverse square? Are these African scientists going to repeat our experiements and come up with different results? They might do different experiements and discover new things, sure – but that will be *in addition* to Western science not instead of i

Like “heavier than air fkying machines are impossible” or “if excessive cigarette smoking makes a contribution to cancer, then it is a minor one”

If the woman in the video is calling for new histories of science to be written which include other sources of knowledge then that is great

It would be… but I don’t think that is what she is calling for at all, given that her triumphant example was that western science was blinkered because it couldn’t explain how people are able to direct lightning strikes using black magic.[/quote]

As is so often the case*, there’s probably a semi-sensible point sloshing around somewhere, but one video of an idiot idioting is enough to discredit it. There are some odd and regressive post-modern ideas about the scientific method not really being what it claims to be, as well as some sensible stuff about the history of scientific endeavour being rather white (and male). As a rule of thumb, if you take an idea that originates in post-modern humanities scholarship and add words like “decolonisation” to it, it does not become any more intuitively correct… 🙂

*But definitely not including flat-earthers

As a couple of people have said it is a bad example of a principle/ methodology that is used in social science. That is applying a critical theory to examine and possibly reframe an existing norm. In this case a sort of constructivism nativism mash up. It is the social science/philosophy approach for testing, challenging and developing new theories. The point of this perspective in this case is that cultural norms take eg scientific research down a particular route. This has some elements of truth, particularly when not dealing with fundamental science such as theoretical physics. Medical science is massively driven by economic factors for example. Also, as others have said, science moves forward with lots of dead ends and reworking if understanding as boundaries are pushed back. Newton is one of my very few heros both for the genius and beauty of his theories and the fact he went a bit bonkers in the end – but if mankind had just gone “well that explains everything, perfect model of clockwork universe lots leave it at that” we would have missed out on a lot of very interesting stuff where Newtonian models dont work.

The problem with using critical theory as challenge, is where it is used imo incorrectly/out of context or dogmatically. To challenge the direction of scientific research as culturally biased is fine. To say that all scientific research is wrong because of it is nonsense and arrogant. A very clever academic friend of mine works from a feminist constructivist view, and believes that all reality is a social construct. And, so she tells me, thinks that science is so constructed based on the perceptions of those that accept that form of truth. I’m still not sure whether she really believes it or whether it’s a thought exercise or she’s just winding me up!

Btw my first degree is in engineering/material science and post graduate in social science.

believes that all reality is a social construct. And, so she tells me, thinks that science is so constructed based on the perceptions of those that accept that form of truth.

Which explains why everything floated about before Newton discovered gravity? 😀

The counter to her view is that science still demonstrably applies to people that don’t “accept that form of truth”

She is Canadian and when we were drunk at a social I did ask her whether flying home required an act of collective belief to keep the plane in the air! To be fair she thought that was funny, and I think it is more a mindset of constantly challenging received thinking than anything else. It’s also a good basis for challenging things that pretty much everyone, and lots still do believe are fact but are social constructs like religion and free market liberal economics

as well as some sensible stuff about the history of scientific endeavour being rather white (and male)

I dont think any of us would deny this…then again its an observable truth so perhaps its still “western bias” 😉

believes that all reality is a social construct.

In a philosophy class whilst debating this point i suggested i hit them repeatedly with a chair until they decided it was in fact a real solid object that actually existed rather than a social construct. Again i struggle to get why folk could believe such a false thing – as Graham notes gravity existed before we named it or understood it.

I do understand how we can do this for the intellectual exercise but it is manifestly false- that is also not to say our “social constructs/prejudices dont sometime interfere with our ability to perceive reality but there is an objective reality – in the area of science if less so, if at all, in ethics/moral philosophy

Top notch STW this. Someone posts a ‘look at the idiot’ thread and we end up having a fascinating little chat about philosophy.

I wonder, can we rank threads by the number of isms cited per page?

In a philosophy class whilst debating this point i suggested i hit them repeatedly with a chair until they decided it was in fact a real solid object that actually existed rather than a social construct. Again i struggle to get why folk could believe such a false thing

Wouldn’t the pain and physical damage to the person also be argued away as a social construct too though?

i hit them repeatedly with a chair

Brilliantly, there is on a website devoted entirely to information resources about the rhinoceros, a densely-argued essay about what Wittgenstein meant by refusing to accept that you could say with certainty that there was no rhinoceros in the room, even when Bertrand Russell had checked under all the chairs.

🙂

Like “heavier than air fkying machines are impossible” or “if excessive cigarette smoking makes a contribution to cancer, then it is a minor one”

I’m not sure what your point is here? Aren’t both of these examples of how things are revised when shown to be wrong, rather than of the flaws and close-mindedness of science?

In a philosophy class whilst debating this point i suggested i hit them repeatedly with a chair until they decided it was in fact a real solid object that actually existed rather than a social construct.

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it — “I refute it thus.”
James Boswell, Life of Johnson