Lee Smolin: How science is like democracy

[melliuzza]

boring lecture

[StoneSentinel]

this guy needs to stand still. holy shit.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

Of course, old people can't have ideas. Ho hum.

[gulllars]

NoFreeSpeechonYT and Jeff0059 has a couple of good points, belief does not make truth no matter the number of believers. But i feel this should also be explicitly stated in inverse as well: Disbelief in something does not make it false, no matter the number of disbelievers.

One can however say that if a supermajority of competent people in a relevant field believes something is true, or the best explanation availible, it's more likely that there's some truth to it, but not guaranteed.

[FeelOfFriction]

This guy is a terrible presenter.

[Ilyenat]

Smolin is a mediocre, slow thinker with a bad memory, below-average imagination, bad ability to focus and investigate details, and with kindergarten ideas - it is always hard to tell whether he is just joking when he talks about his childish ideas or whether he is serious. The guy's a crackpot scientist who continually produces the wrong answers and surrounds himself with untalented people (like Peter Woit) who only say 'yes Mr. Smolin'.

[Ilyenat]

@schadenn No I don't think you understand, Smolin is actually one of Physics' biggest jokes. Unlike most scientists who look for theories that may be right, Smolin takes ideas that are clearly wrong and have been shown to be wrong and tries to push them as truth. Have you ever read one of Smolin's papers? It's all bullshit, everything he says is bullshit. Smolin wants a system of scientists of "good faith" that aren't to be questioned but to be believed at face value. That's not science.

[schadenn]

@Ilyenat Obviously some of what he says is not bullshit if he's been a professor at a few of the top physics schools. I honestly think you just don't understand him. He isn't arguing whether a ball actually hit the ground and we should take votes on it. He's arguing for a consensus on what should be considered a right or wrong concept.

[Ilyenat]

@schadenn Hahaha yea only cause the general consensus is that he's always wrong. He just wants the public to now have a say because he knows that's the only crowd that will listen to his embarrassing research.

[ricomajestic]

@Ilyenat You mean bullshit like String theory is bullshit.

[AlohaBay]

@Ilyenat When does he come up with wrong answers? Are you only saying this because he rejects string theory in favor of other theories? Are you coming up with similar ideas that rival his?

[Ilyenat]

@AlohaBay Listen buddy, Lee Smolin's popular reputation does not reflect his professional reputation. See Leonard Susskind on Smolin or Lubos Motl on Smolin. You people watch a popular "science" video or attend a public "science" lecture and all of a sudden you think you know something about mathematics and physics. If you can show me that Smolin's quantum loop theory agrees with local Newtonian theory and general relativity I will listen. Get studying dumbass.

[AlohaBay]

@Ilyenat Yeah okay...You didn't answer any of my questions, instead you decided to go on a rant of how people are self prescribed experts on physics after reading a book by Brian Greene. What does that have to do with sizing up Lee Smolin? You sir are not in the position to write off an accomplished physicist simply because Leonard Susskind said so. Did you get your PhD in physics lately? Probably not. Your no different from the "experts" you just described. Get a life.

[braddis]

Lee Smolin, what's wrong with you?

I just read a paper you wrote where you say the fundamental consents are not constant... I would not listen to a word he says its all wrong!

[neelaakaasham]

@braddis And whats so terribly wrong in one supposing that the fundamental constants are not constants?

[AnomaLosAnoniMoS]

science is a language and it is not the only one.take counsciousness into account.

[pjo1993]

alnot01, I like the way you said "...synthesis of physics with social and human events..." Not only because yes, that particular notion is really great, but because I myself have noticed that nearly anything a person is deeply familiar with is translatable to completely "unrelated" subjects. I just wanted to say that it's possible for us all to think in that way, and I almost want to say it's essential. Anyway, great video, I love TED talks. I only recently discovered them, but they're awesome.

[alnot01]

Lee Smolin is a great intellectual treasure. And thanks to him, the Perimeter Institute is perhaps the most exciting think tank there is today. He needs to read A N Whitehead, and think about Hegel's dialectic. In Smolin's mind is emerging a great synthesis of physics with social and human events that is awesome to behold.

[Blodhosta]

Wow... Kind of a weird experience to see someone reach conclusions that I largely agree with, but by ways that I largely disagree with.

[Cheuvin]

the start of this was good but then he started going on about the necessary lack of forces in the outside world and I mean he doesnt mention how much money is involved in science?

[addis11100]

he is a good answer for the pseydo scientist

[JohnJohn27030]

Brilliant man. His book "The Trouble With Physics" is fascinating

[Krumbz2003]

Lee Smolin is in the process of creating one... THE... most important theories since Sciences inception.

CNS Universes. Cosmological Natural Selection Theory.

Where universes reproduce through black holes... mutate... and form new universes. The new universes with the LEAST amount of black holes fail to reproduce and so natural selection is at hand here.

I like it. I really like it.

[Gungfuwarrior]

Me too! Smolin Selection FTW!

[africanchina1]

he's nervous

[Animalll2003lll]

yeah sure, but wtver.

his idea is very interesting. science is indeed like democracy, a bit like wikipedia. what the majority believes is the 'truth'. but in science it's democracy with certain rules: watching and understanding the evidence theories and data. so it's a democracy between those who can judge for these matters. so, interesting.

[ktc0754]

Interesting. I like the 'respect v rebellion' description. It can't be said that science and society do not interact.

[FOUADMKHAN]

fundamental...

[Jeff0059]

The answer is in the wording of your question. Belief in something does not make it a science. I may belive in ghosts, goblins, and Santa Claus but they are only beliefs not science.

[Jeff0059]

Science is not dependant upon consensus. In fact if it were we would all belive that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around us. We could all decide that gravity does not exist but I doubt that gravity would care much and would continue to exist.

[ddball1]

If science is not about consensus, then how do you explain the large numbers of people believing in global warming?

[NoFreeSpeechonYT]

What part of his comment escapes you? Consensus doesn't imply truth. Like religion, just because millions of people believe it, that belief doesn't make it true.

[CounterActPsych]

I like these guys..they are my next door neighbours.

[bijouchatte]

To be fair, Smolin sounds pretty nervous and doesn't sound very convinced of his own argument. There's a whole lot I really respect him for, which is why this talk disappoints me so. I think he could have done better. A lot better.

I do agree there is a scientific community, but I think that the community is far too devoted to a dialectic style of argumentation - more concerned about politics and money rather than a devotion to the truth. We need to declare all out war on this, not compromise.

[sC11nt]

money is truth

[polymath7]

Have you been reading Focoult like a good little postmodernist pseudointellect?

[sC11nt]

i think

i gave you

an Eternal truth

from my money

i will give you N o n e

(what would be apt to disprove

my original equation btw...

and Double prove it at the same time !!

:)

)

[wouldyoulikeit]

youre dumb like a good little postmodernist pseudointellect. Focoults interesting and so is this guy even if you disagree with him. youd be surprised. if the national science foundation doesn't fund your research, your theory can go out the window. they decide what will be studied and what is studied becomes our conception of "the truth"

[leezus83]

@wouldyoulikeit

the question is what is the catalyst of self organisation, it is a mistake to divorce consciousness and human intent/agenda from the socio-political world view of science and the behavior and emergence of matter/energy within the cosmos. he's right about the socio-political+paradigm relation being connected but he's wrong about the notion of democracy. There's millions of people who experience things outside of the paradigm every day, where's their vote?

[polymath7]

The scientific community is "more concerned about money and politics than truth"?

What the fuck are talking about!?

What is your basis for this extravagant and invidious assertion?

[dndn1011]

I think it is called human nature

[quidproquo2004]

are you confusing scientists with science?

[hanibal1642]

This is not a "How science is like democracy in 10 minutes". If you want the answers of your questions you have to leave youtube.

[polymath7]

Uh, where did I even faintlysuggest otherwise?

And just out of curiosity, what's with your screen name? Is the latter half an allusion to the year of Newton's birth?

If so, "hanibal1642" seems to me a rather curious conjuncture.

[bijouchatte]

oh wow. This is a bad talk. Good science has always been about empiricism - guesses based on evidence, and further experiment to prove guesses wrong - to come out with explanations with the least error, always subject to change. Smolin is talking pure Socratic dialectic, everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science. Science seeks explanations and predictions of what we do not understand with the least error, not merely arguing your opinions. Add some Epicurus please.

[luisffoliveira]

What an idiot. This is a disgrace to TED.

[zephir9]

For example, mainstream science decided before years, Aether doesn't exist, because its motion should be observable by using of light. But the analogy of light waves in vacuum are waves at wave surface and by using of such waves surface can be never observed, because is serving as a space for them.

So, Smolin is right and the science still depends on intersubjective opinion, i.e. democracy - not the facts. Simply because facts are rarelly considered by science, only interpretations of facts.

[superfisto]

Wow. Some of you guys are being pretty harsh. I liked this talk.

Then again, maybe I was more receptive because I've read a few of Smolin's books.

[winny87]

i liked what he got into at the end - the way human and biological and physical systems tend to mirror each other - but it could have been a bit more organized as a whole.

[neveruse513]

Science is not a democracy, it's a meritocracy.

Well, maybe it's a democracy in the US, but it's not right.

[mtheoryrules]

Yeah I did not get that either, "there is no scientific method" then how exactly is the "next generation decide who is right and who is wrong".

He could have made the analogy about the process by explianing peer review, but what gets reviewed must follow the dictates of methodical and systematic science in terms of data and evidence used to support a theory.

Sadly science is too much of a democracy in the US. In some places "Intelligent design" is passed off as science.

[skaterdude1229]

lawsdd mioks lwes deof seaugf markf !!

[lukostello]

since science and society are directly related and that science has been going the same general direction then we can assume that society is going the same direction and since the direction of science is predictable then so is society for this reason i believe that is why both science and society are developing so fast It is because each knows the direction in which to take therefore are able to skip ahead and come to conclusions much more easy.

[tantzer]

Definitely the weakest TED talk ever. Flimsy and superficial argument.

[farubino]

agreed tantzer. this is an awful argument. it reminds me of the pastafarian inverse correlation between pirates and global warming. unfortunately i am noticing an increasing number of anti-scientific talks on the ted channel.

[tantzer]

Speaking of shaking hands with the devil, some diplomats have even stooped to negotiating with American presidents. I suppose if talking to mass murderers can save lives, one ought to do it.

[jjmm112]

shite.

[stratvic]

Political democracy is an unnatural relationship of distant and unrelated majorities over minorities. Democracy is not about truth it is about power over based on popularity at best and a mob at worst.

Majorities do not make wrongs right, false true, or immoral acts moral. Political democracy is an affront to pluralism and an attempt at sameness quashing diversity.

[ssnatcherss]

Hence the recent, unconstitutional ban on gay marriage. Democracy only works well when the rights of minorities are protected from the power-hungry majority.

[stratvic]

Does it work well given those conditions? It still relies on majority as its best and only means of deciding the best answer. Every new idea was first understood and accepted by a minority. Because democracy is not the best means of reaching the best answer can it ever work well for making decisions? If it's not useful for that end what use is it?

[ssnatcherss]

I don't know. I can't think of a better system than a democracy in which the rights of minorities are actually protected by law, but I'm no political philosopher. What do you think?

[stratvic]

Pluralism based on voluntarism combined with the non-aggression principle and property rights is my best alternative so far:)

[DSBrekus]

Depends on your definition of works if the majority of people want something to become law, it will, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

The important thing is that peoples minds can change, especially generation to generation, just like science changes always.

In the end I have some hope for democracy, i'm sure it will be slow with many set-backs but in the end society tends towards a positive direction.

sorry for the oddly long speach xD

[ssnatcherss]

I agree. New generations are great for losing old dogmas.

[freesoul2005]

Really hate the introductory theme music....ear piercing BS

[Truthiness231]

I thought everyone knew about the Newtonian Theory: he might not have even put god in, were he not afraid of being taken and killed by the church for heresy. I'm sure he was well aware of what happened to Aristotle...

[slessorpr]

Specially since Newton was the Lucasian Professor of Maths at Trinity College, when RC was the official religion and Newton secretly, a fervent Protestant. If he'd been found out one possibility was he may have been burned. History might have been very different. See 'Newton - The Dark Heretic' at 'Online Documentaries 4 U'. Great free doco about Newtons secret life, only recently released, after over 4,000 manuscript pages of his work were re-discovered.

[asmhaxor]

Science will never go away! Never!

[semiliteratedgod]

stfu annoying douchebag

[balancex3]

i didnt know that about newton.

[leawardseif]

The spirit of the age or communal agreement may influence the form of a hypothesis, but I dont think the truth of that hypothesis is a matter of public mandate; therefore I dont believe that science is like democracy.

[fuunguus]

democracy is build upon the freedom to say what you mean. so is science...

[jdrizd2]

Outside intelligence has such an all encompassing development of the human belief system? I think not! You can easily refute a number of ideas of any of these so called scientists. They all live in an era that developed there personal attitudes which they may have injected into the science. Maybe that is what he is trying to say. It just took him to long to say it for you tube!

[abhishikt]

He is showing mythology... or does he really know where the non-existing God lives

[jdrizd2]

Moreover, it sounds like a nervous eulogy to democracy because there is no one man one vote majority rules in any form of democracy in any political system anywhere in the world as far as I know.

[jdrizd2]

science and democracy are not alike because science is based on discovery. So is law but that is not fundamental democracy. They are actually counterpoints because the average development of science is exponential whereas the the evolution of democracy has been next to nothing since its initial idea. This is a fact because science is exact and has been around for less to the extent of democracy which is a philosophic idea. His definition is sheer semantic.

[slessorpr]

Mr Smolin talk sounds like he got a whole lot of popular buzzwords and poorly understood ideas mixed 'em up and then tried to speak as though he knew what they all meant. I freely admit I am ignorant, which is the only way one can begin to learn. I get the impression that Mr Smolin thinks he knows what he's on about. I'm glad someone does. Abstract concepts like 'science' and 'democracy' are very easy to say but near impossible to define. Can someone please explain to me what he is saying?

[andreravn]

He's saying there are analogues between the science community and democracies, and then continues to point them out. Did you watch the entire video?

[marsCubed]

The only democracy in science is the way the  instruments vote.

[SuperiorMind]

Misleading consequential impression. "darwinism" "democracy"? - I detect words that don't belong here.

Science is simply the best process we have for approximating real knowledge as closely as possible. The development of hypothesis/ideaz might be somewhat democratic - but that's about it. What is the real objective of this I'm wondering?

[hamsterpoop]

shitty editing...

[ubuibiok]

Comprehension is based upon retention.

To improve your retention of foreign thoughts you may need to conduct repetitive strain injury processes to your Brain.

Too expand a perspective that is focused on a detail inside a subset that will impede the purpose of the subsets, listen to video 3 or more times and then come back to it in a few days and try again.

Exercise this group of words....Taliban, Atomic Warheads, Pakistani, US Military and Afghanistan.

[marsCubed]

I like turtles.

[criggster]

From reading the comments, I'm glad that people are seeing through this veil of pseudointellectualism. Although I like some of Smolin's ideas, he's not a scientist and shouldn't be treated as one.

I've come to expect better from TED than this nonsense.

[isegoria1]

Stupid - Science does not work like a democracy. This guys is fine waste of education dollars and time. Science is not about belief, it is about empirical evidence, circumventing this process makes it religion.

[garvess]

You are obviously not up on your Popper.

[sorealitty]

one would like to think so, but unfortunately, "science" is becoming a new religion

[mlpoulter]

But policy in a democracy should be based on empirical evidence as well, no? Smolin at no point advocates circumventing evidence. It really seems like there's a misunderstanding here.

[Blackliam]

this is the complete opposite of what my philosophy of science teacher told me...

he said there is no democracy in science, that opinion has no bearing on science, and that following strict lines of logic gets to you the truth, much like what Einstein did. I think that makes perfect sense

this guy is bullshit

this guy sucks

[LeftOfToday]

I didn't get the impression that he was completely disregarding scientific method or that he was claiming Newton's ideas don't work without God, simply that Newton's views involved a God. In the end, this talk was supposed to be about how science relates to democracy, but I would agree that he could have presented it better.

For what it's worth, I'm sure if the great scientists of our past had Youtube pages, their comments would look something like the comments here, too =)

[kurtilein3]

leftoftoday: even if he claimed that newtons theories merely involved a god, it would still be a lie. its a misrepresentation of science.

and there are so many statements about science, and statements of scientific facts in this talk that are clearly wrong. he is mixing pseudoscience with science, or to make it even more clear: he is mixing science with pure bullshit and nonsense. and sells it as pure science.

this is intellectually dishonest, and i dont like it.

[LeftOfToday]

If I got anything from his talk it was to remember that nothing in the world is black and white. A view is a view is a view. We wouldn't get the answers of tomorrow without questioning the answers of today, so I can appreciate that, while I can see a lot of people dismiss his ideas very quickly, he does seem to be looking at things in ways others didn't think to or don't dare. Or simply don't like because it questions their beliefs.

It is definitely causing a discussion and that can't be bad!

[Truthiness231]

I couldn't disagree more. There is reality, and then there is everything else. For example, energy will always equate to mass multiplied by the square of time. The hypotenuse of a right triangle will always equal the root of the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Quite simple; black and white; clear-cut.

[musicalaviator]

Democratic Science! I'm Musicalaviator and I stand for the Hypotenuse of a right angle triangle equalling the sum of all the sides divided by 3. instead of the other way. Viva le Entirely wrong math!

[LeftOfToday]

haha And semantics are semantics are... My bad =) Not everything, not nothing... That would be too black and white of me to say =D

[mlpoulter]

It's not a misrepresentation of the history of science to say that Newton's understanding of the universe (NB not the true understanding, nor the mathematics of Newtonian mechanics) involved a God. Commenters are getting really worked up about a simple fact that shouldn't surprise them if they know any history.

[kurtilein3]

another thing that i dont like about the video:

when he gives an overview over the progress in cosmology, he does not point out where science starts and where mythology ends. he doesnt differentiate between early myths, and the first scientific theories. he doesnt point out that at one point in time the scientific method (and it does exist, and does work) came along, and the way we derive knowledge fundamentally changed. everything that came earlier just isnt science.

[Aaberg123]

Yes, lets all come to the consensus that Intelligent Design is real, disregarding the scientific method... yeah... that's science for you. What a load of BS.

[RhinoAts51]

I don't want to pretend to be a super intellectual or anything, but I really think there is more to this than recent comments have given it credit for. Maybe its because im stoned, but everything he said fell into place for me perfectly, then reading the comments I was surprised. I think its a matter of perspective, to me the science side of it has only one perspective, but the political side could have many, and I think hes got the right one.

[Truthiness231]

I guess I'm not as high as you ^.^

Science is the interpretation of reality, and there is only one reality, so there is only one side to science.

Until a second separate reality is found, I do believe that's the end of that...

[RhinoAts51]

That is what I side on the science side. But the political or world view side can have a few different interpretations as to rather or not it fits, but in his perspective, it is fitting and it sounds to me like an amazing accomplishment to link the two how he had.

[kurtilein3]

rhinoats51:

the problem is that he made some serious mistakes. i guess we all agree on at least 80% of what he says.

but when he claims that the scientific method does not exist, or that the newtonian udnerstanding of the universe somehow included or required god, people will get mad at him. he is misrepresenting science in such a way that people that really care about science, and want people to understand what science REALLY is, cannot tolerate it and have to attack this talk.

[SpoolDonkey]

those are the main things that pissed me off, but mainly its the fact that its 12 minutes of talking without saying anything.

apart from ''the young have ideas and elders the power'' i cant see anything in the video apart from white noise.

[RhinoAts51]

He did not get to elaborate fully, hes trying to sum up humanity's lifetime in 20 minutes, yes these presentations have time guidelines. Same applies to your latest comment.

You can't attack this or that which he did not point out given that he had only 20 minutes to explain such a massive concept. I am interested enough to read or watch the rest of his work.

[jazatube]

...Its alright for you to want to give him another chance. Just compare his 20 minutes of babbling to 20 minutes of a Stephen Hawking -a real scientist- lecture.

[SpoolDonkey]

well. i'm watching it again now, i watched it first about 2 hours ago, and i could not believe what crap he was saying.

i was not stoned earlier, but i am now. some nice hydroponics. and he is making a lot more sense, maybe thats a clue at how he came up with this.

i think he would have been much better off if he had just said at the start ''these are just some random thoughts i had''

[TheThomaswastaken]

I'm glad he started with "there is no scientific method", it let me know that I could not trust what he had to say after that point. It allowed me view his statements on their own merits, rather than on the trust I have built up with TED. I think he stretches all of these connections so far as to be ridiculous.

[stlyes]

Take this shit off Youtube this video embarrassing to the Tedtalks hall of fame.

[TheConnorFamily]

what a huge pile of crap. does this guy have brain damage?

[leglemonmoney]

Worthless!

[SpoolDonkey]

this is the biggest piece of shit i have seen in a long time.

after the woman that MIR scanned a cow to decide what stakes should look like and this shit i am 1 bullshit video away from un-subscribing to TED.

i thought TED was a serious thing, obviously i was wrong.

TED... stop uploading worthless crap like this.

[misjudgeme]

TED has done worse. I mean, they let Billy fucking Graham do his thing for half an hour.

[joelramirezramirez]

what intrests me is a graph showing the constant motion of the world in the universe.including axis,solar,galactic,and universal rotations at the same time.when i think of future or past events. it includes a twirling swirling relation to a spacific time and space.i.e. its hard to think of lets say the american revolution as sevral hundred rotations of the earth. to invision the earth in that lenear time involves the universe and all its movements as it pertains to the earth as a whole.

[CognosSquare]

He makes interesting observations. There is correlation and maybe causation.

How we humans frame our existence does have a an impact. It lends perspective and connectedness.

Physics certainly changes this frame.

[kurtilein3]

what a huge pile of nonsense.

im studying physics at university, i know about the newtonian understanding of the universe, and GOD IS NOT PART of it.

unfortunately i have to say that the speaker makes so many mistakes that i conclude that this video is not good enough to be educational.

another mistake: he claimed that there is no scientific method. and then he explains it, giving it a different name. but the sentence ``there is no scientific method´´ sticks, and it is wrong.

[quelist]

This video is full of postmodern deconstructive junk. TED talks are usually better than this.

There is a scientific method and the scientific method does work.

[mlpoulter]

He's talking about understanding of the universe *as Newton himself expounded it*, and that definitely did include God (we was a theologian after all). I'm sure Smolin would agree with you that God isn't necessary to Newton's framework, but he's making a *historical* point. You seem to be mistaken about what Smolin's trying to say, hence your negative review.

[kurtilein3]

mlpoulter:

he is spreading misconceptions about science. i dont care about what he is trying to do. he is effectively spreading lies and misconceptions that will make it more difficult for the people that buy into it to really understand the issues.

even if he is unaware of it, this is a bad talk. and its not just the newton-thing, there are numerous other mistakes and errors and misrepresentations in this talk as well. it even gets worse towards the end of the video.

[oPseudonym]

This talk makes no sense to me. Judging by the comments, it makes no sense to anyone else either.

[jalgjalg]

LAKATOS RULES...

and Smolin sucks Kuhn's cock ;-)

This is confused rambling of an excellent physicist trying to be a philosopher or sociologist of science.

I don't think it's a coincidence that socalled "social epistemologists" like eg Fuller can be found rambling theorizing "pluralistic" notions on science in the context of the Dover trail... defending Intelligent Design "in the name of science" and a misguided sense of democracy.

Last death spasms of postmodernism, i hope...

[adolthitler]

Science as democracy does not mean scientists vote on ideas. It means every scientist shares his idea with the others and every scientist can voice an opinion on the idea. Every scientist can decide to repeat the experiment to check its truth.

Don't get caught up on silly words. Technically its not a democracy, he was speaking poetically, that it was democratic.

[Efferts]

According to science, those perceptions MUST be backed with investigation & proof- reason it's objective. We ask multiple "what if" questions to deduce & reach the truth or at least the closest reality.

Thusly, science isn't subjective, at least not the findings.

[featheredmusic]

very nice

[WarVideo]

What a bunch of bullshit, firs of all read any modern high school science text book and they all say that there is no particular method to do science. AND THATS EXACTLY WHATS WRONG WITH SCIENCE TODAY. And of course, this talk has to attack Aristotle.

[KittyGotSued]

I just don't agree, Science doesn't work like this "the majority is right" Darwin was in minority for example.

And he was right.

[addmoreice]

evolution is STILL in the minority in america...and it is still right.

I love it when people fall into the majority fallacy like the creationists use a lot.

my standard response?

"majority vote doesn't prove truth, look up lemmings"

[Efferts]

"The minority"? Doesn't it count that it's taught in nearly all schools or has things changed?

[misjudgeme]

No. Google "Creationism Trumps Evolution:" the naturalistic form is accepted by only a small fraction of the American population.

[Efferts]

So was the idea that the sun rotated around us or that George Lopez is funny. W/o hard proof it wouldn't matter what quantity of ppl accepted. Apparently, convenience is priority.

[misjudgeme]

If you already know that evidence is important and consensus doesn't make reality, then why did you ask the question in the first place?

[srudlak]

science like democracy? adventurous theory...

[bushfingers]

Sounds a little like Hegel. But of course Hegel lived before Hitler and Stalin.

This talk was rather disappointing.

[SpoolDonkey]

well.. this should be interesting ''science is like democracy''

i would say its more like canibalism. you throw your idea in to the academic arena and hope no one eats it alive.

[addmoreice]

whats that famous qoute?

scientists like critiscim because if your idea survives the ruthless hail of stones it is most likely to be true, scientists dislike creationists because of there practice of lobbing marshmallows.

[Efferts]

Right.

There's zero room for critical thinking or interpretation in religions/creationism. Im not comfortable with that.

[musicalaviator]

lol. Attempting (or actually succeeding in) disproving an idea/hypothesis is actually part of the process of proving the same correct. Kind of proving that a certain process works by repeatedly showing that it doesn't not work.

[Zeldovich]

Anyone who knows anything about science knows that there's no such thing as "proof."

[leawardseif]

And anyone who knows next to nothing about philosophy knows theres no such thing as proof when it is in scare quotes

[SpFiota]

Not necessarily true. If you discover something that every other scientist thinks is outrageous they'll swarm you, discredit your work and dismiss it... until the old gear moves out and fresh, new minds move in to rediscover your work.

[sankibez]

Agreed!

[addmoreice]

true. but again. it's the matter of degree. true is true no matter what any majority says about it. science may be made up of humans with human foibles BUT the principles those humans attempt to hold up (or should anyways) forces it to not be a democracy but instead base results on truth. thats one of the reasons it works. you don't prove your idea true...you prove other peoples ideas false. thats the kind of lateral thinking that makes it work.

[musicalaviator]

Disproving a new idea is actually part of the process of proving that it may be correct. "It Doesn't Not Work" is as close as we can get to certainty sometimes.

[CRAPCANNONS]

Isn't science more like a Republic?

Isn't science arriving at universally tested and improvable laws, rather than submitting to the whim of the majority opinion of the mob (aka Democracy)?

If everyone were now to agree that the world is flat, that would be Democracy as well - a tyranny of the majority.

His thinking lacks precision.

It seems like everyone, both Right and Left, is trying to work towards forgetting that we live in a Republic.

[Gridfire]

I keep seeing this idea about republics not being democracies. A republic simply means that there is no hereditary monarch to rule over everyone and make the rules. The USA is a Democratic Republic, Britain is a constitutional Monarchy (although we're closer to the republican form seeing as our Queen is just a figurehead and the commons does all the legislation). Science is a MERITOCRACY, look it up. It boils down to: You do the good, real, empirical, scientific work, you get the kudos.

[X340N3]

Beat me to the punch. Democracies sucks.

[rochet75]

asians lolz

[addmoreice]

I fully agree IdleGod. he makes a good point that we argue and eventually setle on a theory that matches reality as we know it. politics on the other hand drifts TOWARDS legal freedoms and protections but is strongly biased by the emotional, and political goals of vocal minorities. like religion. science on the other hand is forced to select the theory that matches reality because we have an objective reality and a (science) culture that forces us to see it.

[IdleGod]

Exactly. There are some parts of science that are subjective, though. And in those cases, it is partially democratic, but not wholly. Its like "feminist science". It only really applies to subjective realms, like psychology. But even then, there ultimately are hard limits, which isn't subject to a democratic process. It can help move science in the right direction as a starting point, but never makes a final say.

[Efferts]

I prefer that than owning a conclusion then "making up" facts to support that. At least w/science, we're free & expected to investigate & critique.

[maurieer]

addmoreice,

Well stated and absolutely agree.

[amulware]

That is one great talk.

A lot to think about.

[IdleGod]

Science isn't democracy. In the pure sciences, there is no subjectivity. Democracy is subjective, science isn't. Inherently, science isn't democratic. If it was, creationists would easily outweigh evolutionary scientists.

[Paomnnehal]

I think he was talking about how science has developed relative to social thinking.