Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

thenewatlantis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 413 posts

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#151

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

joshuahughes wrote: post #55
gomox wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science and religion are belief systems and therefore share some commonalities but the radical difference is that science is based on testable hypothesis, whereas religion is just religion. To say they are "absolutely equivalent" is a massive stretch.

Worth pointing out that there was an important caveat that the GP included... "Science... BASED ON TRUST AND WITHOUT PERSONAL VERIFICATION is absolutely equivalent to religion."

People don't trust science at random just because a book says trust science.

They trust science because they drive in a car, can video chat across the world, can play games with their friends on a screen, have devices that cook for them, automatically clean for them, etc.

You don't need to verify quantum theory to understand that you have a computer in front of you.

That's not blind faith.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#152

Post by nradov »

solarengineer wrote: post #107
nradov wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it disappointing to see so many Americans panicking over the disease when medical science tells us the infection fatality rate is likely under 0.35%. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-... Our current pandemic response is mostly a faith-based policy based on irrational fears rather than a science-based policy based on objective reality.

Why do people obsess over the fatality rate to dismiss the pandemic, but ignore the long term impairment of many of those who survive? Second, why not learn from the Far East and adopt a mask wearing, social distancing culture and prepare and lockdown?

How many is many? What does the science tell us about the percentage of recovered patients who suffer long-term impairment?

Pandemic control measures such as mask wearing and social distancing can be helpful to "flatten the curve" on a temporary basis but are obviously not sustainable and won't be sufficient to eradicate the virus. SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic and will be with us essentially forever, even after a vaccine is developed. People need to think about what can work over longer time frames while objectively weighing both costs and benefits.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#153

Post by helen___keller »

Out_of_Characte wrote: post #126
simonklitj wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the common lingo is that gender is what you identify as, and sex is what you biologically are (subject to change through sex-change operations).

Exect that "Gender" in relationship to any animal or conversation is used interchangeably with sex. While Gender-identity is the new age belief that your "Gender-identity" or gender for short, is a preference you can change (With or without sex change operations depending on your political view). The obfuscation of the word itself is a problem in discussions. I find it distastefull how people can 'identify as' male/f…

> then wether or not you personally identify as certain characteristics should be a moot point

I quite agree, but the it's indisputable that these characteristics are enshrined in our culture and power structures every step of the way.

Gendered bathrooms, gendered application forms, gendered names, gendered clothing, and so on. If you "personally identify as certain characteristics" it's literally impossible for that to be a "moot point" because of how society is structured.

Which bathroom do you walk into? Will you be fired for wearing a dress when your boss sees you as a man? If you change your name to a feminine one, will people ignore it and continue to call you a masculine name? If get a new job and try to hide that you were "once a man", can you actually or will they force you to put your biological sex on the application form? If you are forced to put your biological sex on the application form, what if your new workplace outs you as "a man" to your coworkers despite you having a feminine name, a feminine appearance, and using the women's bathroom? When coworkers find out you are biologically a man but using the women's bathroom, will they ostracize you, call the police, or exact violence on you because you don't fit in their worldview of acceptable behavior?

These are real questions that matter to real people and you can't wave it away as "a moot point". Answering these questions, and more, is the entry point to gender studies.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#154

Post by hannofcart »

paganel wrote: post #118
nradov wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it disappointing to see so many Americans panicking over the disease when medical science tells us the infection fatality rate is likely under 0.35%. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-... Our current pandemic response is mostly a faith-based policy based on irrational fears rather than a science-based policy based on objective reality.

Not sure about the United States but in my parts of the world (Eastern Europe) it has also transformed into a social- and political-differentiating issue, i.e. people of a certain social status and of certain political views tend to over-emphasise the seriousness of the virus and to paint the other side in all sorts of unflattering colours because, supposedly, this latter side doesn't take the virus as serious as the…

It sounds like me that you are taking exception to the abundance of caution displayed by public health officials which resulted in this agonizing economic downturn.

However, in the face of incomplete information, isn't erring on the side of caution the right way to proceed? If they had underplayed this, and had the mortality rate really been 3-4%, then you would have both millions dead AND economic devastation.

The scientific consensus is by definition a dynamic thing, ever changing in the face of increasing evidence. And thankfully so.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#155

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

feralimal wrote: post #58
Retric wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has anyone here ever used an electron microscope? I am not a scientist, but yes. It’s not that hard to directly access most scientific tools. Verification takes effort, but random verification should reasonably give you confidence and can be a fun project on it’s own. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVbdbVhzcM4 PS: One of the most famous experiments off all time is replicated whenever you can something. https://en.…

You've used an electron microscope? They've been around since 1933 you know - we should all have ready access by now, no? If you look at a video, do you believe its true? Take a look at this one, to see the problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFLs6nufCj4 You really cannot trust what is presented on a screen. There really is no equivalent to personally testing science or any thesis personally. You will be illumi…

That is an example of an experiment. If that experiment reveals some truth then it should be repeatable. If it isn't repeatable it isn't going to be considered always true and has no particular value. Videos like this are made all the time for marketing, media, entertainment purposes. Anti-science propagandists make videos like this all the time - but they aren't accepted because they aren't typically repeatable or filled with flaws.

We trust the process because the process bears fruit - computers, cars, power, electricity, cell phones, cures of disease, antibiotics, etc. We experience all of these things daily. Now black holes and hawking radiation? Perhaps these things are a bit harder and require leaps of faith - but that is reality in a specialized modern society.

You trust the car mechanic to know what's wrong, although sometimes you encounter a fraud who will lie to make more money. That doesn't make all mechanics bad.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#156

Post by free_rms »

merpnderp wrote: post #73
xvilka wrote: post #18

> There's always the risk that the West might internally reject the scientific revolution This risk is real. Just see how many American citizens rejecting medical science in times of pandemic.

But was it medical science when the CDC advised people, very strongly, to not wear masks or that the virus coming out of Wuhan was of no concern to everyday Americans? How are people supposed to believe in capital 'S' science when our scientific institutions make claims based on their guts instead of just admitting they don't know (which is the only acceptable scientific answer when you can't back up a claim with rep…

There's two items at issue: science as a set of methodologies for understanding nature, and "Science" as a cultural totem.

As a set of methodologies, science is inherently skepticism, test, verify, etc. Nothing wrong with being wrong, it just means you gather more data and learn.

As a cultural totem, annoying liberals will say "science says" when they're clearly innumerate, and dumb conservatives will say "I don't trust them experts" when they clearly don't know better. The CDC making a mistake is a political misstep, rather than a step on the way to better understanding.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#157

Post by PeterStuer »

Diving straight to the core:

"With the rise of the Ash’arites, the ethos in the Islamic world was increasingly opposed to original scholarship and any scientific inquiry that did not directly aid in religious regulation of private and public life. While the Mu’tazilites had contended that the Koran was created and so God’s purpose for man must be interpreted through reason, the Ash’arites believed the Koran to be coeval with God — and therefore unchallengeable. At the heart of Ash’ari metaphysics is the idea of occasionalism, a doctrine that denies natural causality."

"According to the occasionalist view, tomorrow coldness might follow fire, and satiety might follow lack of food. God wills every single atomic event and God’s will is not bound up with reason. This amounts to a denial of the coherence and comprehensibility of the natural world."

Pretty sure the article was posted to HN to draw parallels to today's rise of constructivism and the decline of positivism as a philosophical reference frame in the West.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#158

Post by reincarnate0x14 »

nradov wrote: post #135
reincarnate0x14 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The panic was never over the case or infection fatality rates. The panic is because of asymptomatic spreaders. If a strain of influenza suddenly spiked to higher fatality rates, less drastic measures could contain it because it's usually obvious when you are contagious with influenza. Also, as someone who had SARS-COV-2 and didn't die, it was fucking awful and I fully blame the complete failure of US leadership for t…

That is not scientifically accurate. A significant fraction of influenza cases are also asymptomatic, and they are capable of spreading the disease to others. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586318/ You could have already killed someone without even knowing it by transmitting the flu to them. There's no way to know for sure. US federal and state handling of the pandemic has been mostly terrible. But eve…

Funny how places like Taiwan reacted far earlier and have near zero fatalities then.

I sometime forget to not bother commenting on overly politicized things on HN. Your own links show 20% potential asymptomatic influenza infections, which is only a tiny bit different from the estimated 80-95% on SARS-COV-2.

Downvote away though.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#159

Post by ozborn »

nradov wrote: post #76
xvilka wrote: post #18

> There's always the risk that the West might internally reject the scientific revolution This risk is real. Just see how many American citizens rejecting medical science in times of pandemic.

Yes it disappointing to see so many Americans panicking over the disease when medical science tells us the infection fatality rate is likely under 0.35%. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-... Our current pandemic response is mostly a faith-based policy based on irrational fears rather than a science-based policy based on objective reality.

The link you cite is a very rough estimate of CFR as described in the paper. CFR varies tremendously based on the underlying demographics of the population and the treatment available - it's unclear why you focus on this metric. COVID-19 in the United States and other countries as well will be (if it isn't already) the 3rd leading cause of death. This is something that many people will change their behavior around, whether that is "panicking" or not is unclear from your original post.

However, if folks are willing to wear seat belts (although in the vast majority of trips they are useless) for a less likely cause of death, many will put on masks, avoided crowded indoor spaces and practice better hygiene for the 3rd leading cause of death. This will occur whether legally mandated or not.

Re: Why the Arabic world turned away from science (2011)

#160

Post by ecopoesis »

nradov wrote: post #76
xvilka wrote: post #18

> There's always the risk that the West might internally reject the scientific revolution This risk is real. Just see how many American citizens rejecting medical science in times of pandemic.

Yes it disappointing to see so many Americans panicking over the disease when medical science tells us the infection fatality rate is likely under 0.35%. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-... Our current pandemic response is mostly a faith-based policy based on irrational fears rather than a science-based policy based on objective reality.

Imagine being so callous to think that the preventable deaths of 1,148,700 of your fellow Americans is okay.
Post reply on HN