By taking out the "strict empirical standards" and "healthy skeptical perspective," they made it toothless. The new definition lists observation, hypothesis testing, etc.—the process of science—but carefully removed is any hint of avoiding bias, i.e., how to do the process right.
Imagine someone wants to make a "scientific" claim about the cheesetasticness of Acme brand cheesy poofs based on the new definition of science. They observe the cheesy poofs. They test a hypothesis, which is "Cheesy poofs are 50% more cheesetastic." They measure cheesiness on a 1-10 point Cheese-o-matic Scale. They run an experiment with Acme-employed taste testers. They argue logically and build a Grand Unified Theory of Cheesiness. Without "strict empirical standards and a healthy skeptical perspective," nothing prevents them from claiming that this charade is "science."
Cheesy poofs aside, I can't help but think that there's a political motivation to this, behind this beyond the whole Intelligent Design thing. What if the populace demands justification for politicians' claims? That can lead to nothing but trouble. This pesky "evidence" thing really puts a wrench in their attempts to tell the populace what's vitally necessary, who's hiding weapons of mass destruction from whom, what the law really says, etc. This "healthy skeptical perspective" sounds frighteningly unpatriotic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
a-dodecahedron.livejournal.com at 08:37pm on 09/11/2005![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Imagine someone wants to make a "scientific" claim about the cheesetasticness of Acme brand cheesy poofs based on the new definition of science. They observe the cheesy poofs. They test a hypothesis, which is "Cheesy poofs are 50% more cheesetastic." They measure cheesiness on a 1-10 point Cheese-o-matic Scale. They run an experiment with Acme-employed taste testers. They argue logically and build a Grand Unified Theory of Cheesiness. Without "strict empirical standards and a healthy skeptical perspective," nothing prevents them from claiming that this charade is "science."
Cheesy poofs aside, I can't help but think that there's a political motivation to this, behind this beyond the whole Intelligent Design thing. What if the populace demands justification for politicians' claims? That can lead to nothing but trouble. This pesky "evidence" thing really puts a wrench in their attempts to tell the populace what's vitally necessary, who's hiding weapons of mass destruction from whom, what the law really says, etc. This "healthy skeptical perspective" sounds frighteningly unpatriotic.