pudge's Journal: "Science"

Over on that bastion of reason, DailyKos (<blink>LAUGH</blink>), someone writes about HIV prevention, and says:

Early in the Bush administration, I was part of small group that met with Margaret Spellings (then the President's Domestic Policy Advisor, before moving on to become Secretary of Education). One of the meeting participants summarized compelling data about the effectiveness of a scientifically sound approach to HIV prevention for sexually active young people. In response, Spellings simply said "Well, you've got your science and we've got our science."

Perhaps nothing better illustrates the Bush administration attitude toward science overall than that statement - the idea that there is some kind of alternative science out there supporting their political viewpoint, a science that is equal to the rigourous, peer reviewed work done by mainstream science.

Show me one actual scientific study that proves abstinence-only HIV education is ineffective, or less effective, than other methods.

Actually, don't waste your time. It is not possible.

These studies are not actual/real science, but what -- until recently, apparently -- real scientists used to decry as pseudoscience. They do not test observable phenomena against a hypothesis with repeatable results, they simply measure human behavior, which we all know changes over time. You cannot have an actual scientific study that shows abstinence-only education is less effective, because changing social norms could change the results for the next time you conduct the study.

This is not real science, but social science, and if nothing better illustrates the Bush administration to science overall than this, then you really have not much of a case against the President, because most real scientists have a similar view of social science.

And frankly, I hate this whole debate. Someone complained to me today saying, 'Congress has passed a law requiring that "abstinence-only" programmes must receive 30% of all US government funding going to support HIV prevention. As a result, the US government is giving tens of millions of dollars every year to Christian groups to teach that the only way to avoid HIV is to not have sex.'

And my response should be the obvious one from all of us: what the hell is the U.S. government doing spending tens (hundreds?) of millions of tax dollars on sex education, which is, according to the Constitution, supposed to be left to the states? Of course, this is only a tiny part of the money the U.S. spends on education: No Child Left Behind is the biggest unconstitutional power grab by the U.S. government in my lifetime.

Oh wait, I am supposed to defend Bush. Um. San Dimas High School Football rules!

Bush and education

[jdavidb]

When Bush ran for governor of Texas, he stated that educational funding was to the states the most important priority in the way that military funding was for the nation. I felt a little bit funny about that at first for some reason which I could not identify, but soon I was saying and believing it. I carried the belief with me right up until Bush's first nomination at the Republican national convention, when I heard him trumpeting educational spending at the national level. At that point, I knew somethi

Re:Bush and education

[WGFELyL5]

he stated that educational funding was to the states the most important priority in the way that military funding was for the nation I don't feel funny about that at all. Do you think that state spending should not focus so much on education? Do you think national spending should focus less on military? Do you think more should be spent on infrastructure than education? Please elaborate.

Re:

[cascadefx]

... and then I voted for Bush... again.

Ba da da! Crash!

Re:

[cascadefx]

My mother-in-law is a fifth grade teacher in a school that performs in the 90% level on all the crappy standardized tests that they are forced to administer. The school corporation has some schools that have consistently scored in the 50% range. Those schools, and the corporation, were put on notice and failed again. Now, as part of the federally mandated No Child Left Behind remediation program, ALL schools in the corporation must now undergo and document their remediation steps.

That's just ludicrous!

Re:

[cascadefx]

s/If seems do away with NCLB/It seems we could do away with NCLB/

She blinded me...

[sulli]

with ""Science""!

Really?

[jamie]

Are you really saying that all social science is pseudoscience? Can you back that position up?

Or were you saying that science whose results you disagree with is pseudoscience?

Either way, I'd like to see you quote someone who actually knows something about science, using the word "pseudoscience," to back you up on this. Thanks.

Re:Really?

[pudge]

Are you really saying that all social science is pseudoscience?

Am I really saying something I did not say?

No, I am not.

Or were you saying that science whose results you disagree with is pseudoscience?

Wow. I never called anything pseudoscience, nor did I ever express any disagreement with the results. In fact, I agree with the results; I deny, however, that the extrapolation of the results is science. In fact, it is not.

I dislike the word pseudoscience, because it does two things it shouldn't: it implies

Re:Really?

[jamie]

These studies are not actual/real science, but what -- until recently, apparently -- real scientists used to decry as pseudoscience. They do not test observable phenomena against a hypothesis with repeatable results, they simply measure human behavior, which we all know changes over time. You cannot have an actual scientific study that shows abstinence-only education is less effective, because changing social norms could change the results for the next time you conduct the study.

This is not real science,

Re:

[pudge]

You said that any study measuring human behavior, any work in social science, is not science.

I am using shorthand. It would take a long time to explain it precisely; perhaps an entire volume. If it helps, ignore the broad statement, and focus on the example before us, which is clearly not scientific, since it is not possible to scientifically conclude that abstinence-only education is less effective than other types. No such hypothesis, test, or results fit the scientific method, as should be obvious to

Re:

[jamie]

No, you're still very, very wrong.

Re:

[mgessner]

No, you're still very, very wrong.

Re:

[pudge]

Actually, and in fact, no, I am not in the least bit wrong, about any of it. Nice try though.

Re:

[jamie]

Heh, I just found something that reminds me of your dismissal of the social sciences. Here's another expert on science explaining to us which branches of science are actual science, and which -- since they disagree with her -- are pseudoscience:

Most of the "scientists" favoring Darwinism, you know, they're barely even scientists. They're biologists. They're not physicists. They're not chemists.

Apparently Coulter [dailyhowler.com] even made the air-quotes with her fingers around the word "scientists." Awesome.

Which fit

Re:

[pudge]

Heh, I just found something that reminds me of your dismissal of the social sciences.

I am really confused. You found something that reminds you of something I never did? How does that even work? I don't get it at all.

Apparently you did not actually read my posts, where I specifically said that I do not like the term pseudoscience because it is dismissive.

So, straw man fallacy.

And then by attempting (and failing) to link me to Coulter, you commit the genetic fallacy (a type of ad hominem).

Got any others?

Re:

[jamie]

Heh, I just found something that reminds me of your dismissal of the social sciences.

I am really confused. You found something that reminds you of something I never did? How does that even work? I don't get it at all.

From your journal entry:

[These studies] do not test observable phenomena against a hypothesis with repeatable results, they simply measure human behavior, which we all know changes over time. You cannot have an actual scientific study that shows abstinence-only education is less effect

Re:

[pudge]

And how is this dismissive?

If I call a soccer ball not a football, is that dismissive of the football? I don't think so, and I explicitly stated I do not think less of what some people call "pseudoscience." I was simply separating it from "real science," as I -- and many other scientists, and philosophers of science -- think is warranted.

You're the one who has the problem, thinking that just because something is not science, it is therefore lesser, since all I did was say "this is not science," and yo

Re:

[pudge]

I should clarify one more thing: perhaps you simply thought my tone was dismissive. It was, but not of social sciences. I was being dismissive toward attempts at putting a study about relative effectiveness of sex education techniques on the same level as scientific studies about, to quote the original article, "global warming, stem cell research, health consequences of abortion, environmental toxins, HPV vaccination, or countless other issues."

Now, some of these issues have both a pure science and a soci

Re:

[jamie]

You wrote "not real science, but social science." That's like calling a soccer ball "not a real ball." Which is dismissive.

Of course this little linguistic tiff is trivial compared to the profound ignorance you exhibit regarding the social sciences. I don't feel like arguing with you about that, though. If you and Ann Coulter ever meet my sister, who's getting her doctorate, you can take turns explaining to her why her research in psychology and neurobiology isn't real science :)

Re:

[pudge]

You wrote "not real science, but social science." That's like calling a soccer ball "not a real ball." Which is dismissive.

In your mind. Not in mine. Which means, of course, since I am the one who wrote it, that you are, by definition, wrong. (I know linguists and communication theorists who would agree with me.)

Of course this little linguistic tiff is trivial compared to the profound ignorance you exhibit regarding the social sciences.

No such ignorance existed, nor was demonstrated; that you think so sh

Everyday science

[jamie]

Indeed, philosophy, to me, is far superior -- in usefulness, in importance -- to science. It's not lesser, it is simply not science.

I'm pulling that quote out from a nested discussion because I want to ask you whether you consider what you do every day for a living to be science.

In my view, the methods of programming are very similar to the scientific method. Debugging seems to me more like the traditional core of the scientific method than most other tasks that people do for a living: we make observatio

Re:

[pudge]

I'm pulling that quote out from a nested discussion because I want to ask you whether you consider what you do every day for a living to be science.

Some of it yes, some of it no. There is very little science behind deciding where to put text on a page, what font to use, and so on. There's a lot of science in determining what Perl functions do what, and so on. The actual programming part is, yes, very much "science."

So it's interesting that you describe philosophy as more "useful" than science. I could se