Without scientist Kseniia Petrova’s expertise, no one can fully unlock the data’s potential, putting crucial advancements in early cancer detection at risk.
If and when we find a better method than the scientific method, I’ll start getting concerned with “Scientism.” Until then, I’ll keep on cheering on our best and greatest doing the hard work of making new medicine and technology for the public.
I find Scientism concerning because I am a scientist who is quite concerned by the gap between actual science, and how people use science-shaped rhetoric. An example of this is how in the UK, during COVID, the government repeatedly claimed they were “following the science”, despite many of their policies being completely contrary to what the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) had recommended.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the scientific method — I wouldn’t be a scientist otherwise. But writing news headlines about the achievements of scientists exists beyond science. Being opposed to Scientism isn’t being opposed to the scientific method. Rather, it’s more like acknowledging that science isn’t a universal tool for solving all ills. Personally, being against Scientism also means being against the weird way we put science, and scientists on a pedestal. I understand the sentiment (and hell, I’m probably a scientist in part because a younger me was chasing that pedestal), but I think it’s probably harmful long term — both to society and to science
I see what you mean. Science is a fantastic tool but when leaders just wave it around with vague claims that “experts have done studies that agreed with me.” . . . It always spells trouble.
A facet of Scientism, as I understand it, is a sort of hero worship of “Great” scientists. Part of this is because it’s easier for us to build a narrative of history if we focus on key figure, but that’s antithetical to how science actually works. It neglects the importance of the wider scientific “ecosystem”, which includes mechanisms of peer review, academic teaching and learning etc.
I’ve known people who were pretty prominent academics, who got some of their best ideas from random places, like hanging out in a bar with academics from outside their field. But a good idea on its own matters very little: science, in practice, works on a foundation of trust and community, and basically any research has an entire team of people behind it.
I have no doubt that the scientist mentioned in the headline is exceptional at her job, but by presenting her as the scientist who is working on this presents an inaccurate perspective of how these things actually work. I see why the headline chose to present her as more essential than she likely is, but as it seems to for the person you’re replying to, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Quality replies are much appreciated! I think that narrative, as you put it, is generally a good thing as it helps us to remember information and make sense of the world. I work in research so I didn’t think twice about the distinction between the and a scientists. Not so sure that scientism is in my top 10
problems list, but it it is still good to be aware of such biases.
Oooffff… Full support to this person but scientism is part of the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
It’s always satisfying when someone I have tagged later confirms that tag.
If and when we find a better method than the scientific method, I’ll start getting concerned with “Scientism.” Until then, I’ll keep on cheering on our best and greatest doing the hard work of making new medicine and technology for the public.
I find Scientism concerning because I am a scientist who is quite concerned by the gap between actual science, and how people use science-shaped rhetoric. An example of this is how in the UK, during COVID, the government repeatedly claimed they were “following the science”, despite many of their policies being completely contrary to what the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) had recommended.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the scientific method — I wouldn’t be a scientist otherwise. But writing news headlines about the achievements of scientists exists beyond science. Being opposed to Scientism isn’t being opposed to the scientific method. Rather, it’s more like acknowledging that science isn’t a universal tool for solving all ills. Personally, being against Scientism also means being against the weird way we put science, and scientists on a pedestal. I understand the sentiment (and hell, I’m probably a scientist in part because a younger me was chasing that pedestal), but I think it’s probably harmful long term — both to society and to science
Edit: fixed grammar
I see what you mean. Science is a fantastic tool but when leaders just wave it around with vague claims that “experts have done studies that agreed with me.” . . . It always spells trouble.
Yo I think I found Ted Kaczynski’s account
I’m confused by this. Can you explain?
How so?
Yeah made up stories by dusty old men are much better for understanding the truth of the world
Thanks for making me aware of scientism. I am a little unsure how it applies here through.
A facet of Scientism, as I understand it, is a sort of hero worship of “Great” scientists. Part of this is because it’s easier for us to build a narrative of history if we focus on key figure, but that’s antithetical to how science actually works. It neglects the importance of the wider scientific “ecosystem”, which includes mechanisms of peer review, academic teaching and learning etc.
I’ve known people who were pretty prominent academics, who got some of their best ideas from random places, like hanging out in a bar with academics from outside their field. But a good idea on its own matters very little: science, in practice, works on a foundation of trust and community, and basically any research has an entire team of people behind it.
I have no doubt that the scientist mentioned in the headline is exceptional at her job, but by presenting her as the scientist who is working on this presents an inaccurate perspective of how these things actually work. I see why the headline chose to present her as more essential than she likely is, but as it seems to for the person you’re replying to, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Quality replies are much appreciated! I think that narrative, as you put it, is generally a good thing as it helps us to remember information and make sense of the world. I work in research so I didn’t think twice about the distinction between the and a scientists. Not so sure that scientism is in my top 10 problems list, but it it is still good to be aware of such biases.