Why I renounce the term 'science'.

Please do not call me a 'scientist'.

I am an epistemic researcher, period.

My "dogma" is rational-epistemic confrontation, with all its limits, given the extremely irrational nature of human beings (a nature that I find increasingly evident precisely within the scientific environment).

At this point, I renounce the term 'science', which I now regard as the average expression of a collection of fideistic desires (often manifested through childish or even violent attitudes) that are perceived as being in the service of the broad social reality that science itself represents. Often, the most dubious dynamics of this social system operate through academia and related superstructures, shrouded in and protected by a convincing aura of formal credibility (the cathedrals of the scientific religion).

Thus, whether for profit or for ideology, one witnesses a demagogic trade in reassuring hyper-simplifications, beginning with the foundational one of every highly successful faith: the clear identification of THE enemy (THE evil).

And, of course, who is the only enemy? That reality which does not recognize the primacy of scientistic faith (the heretics). Science is truth, objectivity, incontestability; or, according to more sugar-coated and pseudo-rational versions, it is THE best method of knowledge. This sacred law must hold in all domains of knowledge, without distinctions of merit, context, or situation; and, of course, adherence to the scientific law must occur according to the modalities defined by the specific preacher, always ready to invoke the concept of the "scientific community" when needed (the Holy Spirit of science).

Thus, epistemically insane ideas with fascistic tendencies, such as "allowing only graduates to speak about certain topics", begin to take hold.

Such delusions confuse a mere formal credential with competence (yet another desire) and ignore all the other components necessary for inference, such as honesty, transparency, integrity, neutrality, and collaboration (a phenomenon of cognitive subordination). Unfortunately, it is precisely this operational dimension that represents one of the most serious, and at the same time most neglected, problems of the scientific system.

That said, I will always offer my support and my collaboration to those who resist the temptation to let themselves be swallowed by this metastasizing tumor. In practical terms, I will continue to work and to study, both to defend myself from storytellers of fairy tales and to be of help to those who are mainly driven by a sincere desire for "knowledge" and for "magnanimity" (one of the few desires that I consider ethically tolerable in this context).

Note: Nothing in this position should be read as a declaration of science’s uselessness. I am convinced that every perspective contains some degree of contextual utility. What I am pointing to are the internal paradoxes of a social system that publicly self-identifies as rational, yet repeatedly displays highly dogmatic attributes.

References

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-020-02937-0

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2515245918771329

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22268131/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38124510/

https://philarchive.org/archive/NGUECA

https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12068





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to Interpret (Frequentist) Statistical Estimates in Medical Research

Image
[This is the English translation of an article originally published on SIAF Community, the Italian scientific platform for forensic and insurance medicine] Statistical methods are used in medical research to estimate the effects of treatments or health conditions in populations. For example, when testing the effectiveness of a new treatment that has shown very positive results in preclinical animal studies, researchers draw from the target clinical population a small group of patients - called a statistical sample . The ideal goal is to administer the treatment to the patients in the sample to estimate its effectiveness in the entire population. The process by which the effect observed in the sample is “transported” to the wider population is called inference . However, even when the best inferential methods available are used, a perfect transport is factually impossible . The reasons range from the many uncertainties involved in conducting a clinical study to the variability of cond...
Read more

Reification: “The data speak for themselves” only if we confuse mathematics with reality

Image
[This is the English translation of an  article  originally published on SIAF Community, the Italian scientific platform for forensic and insurance medicine] Suppose we flip a coin and ask what the probability of getting heads is. Our experience and what we learned in school suggest that the answer is 50%, since there is one “favorable” case (heads) out of two possible outcomes (heads or tails). This is a very common form of reification : confusing a theoretical abstraction - in this case, the probabilistic model that assigns a 50% chance to heads - with an empirical property of the real world, as if that 50% were an intrinsic characteristic of the coin or of the physical act of flipping it. Contrary to what one might think, this almost automatic answer already assumes a very specific statistical model, based on at least two main assumptions about the process that generates the outcomes (where an outcome is obtaining 'heads' or 'tails'). Assumption of the competent man...
Read more

On the various definitions of P-value

Reading one of the many wonderful insights by Professor Andrew Gelman on the Columbia University blog (see https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2023/04/14/4-different-meanings-of-p-value-and-how-my-thinking-has-changed ), I have developed a series of thoughts that I believe - based on my current knowledge and abilities - might be potentially useful. Original comments, part 1 Andrew Gelman: << Definition 1. p-value(y) = Pr(T(y_rep) >= T(y) | H), where H is a “hypothesis,” a generative probability model, y is the observed data, y_rep are future data under the model, and T is a “test statistic,” some pre-specified specified function of data. [...] >> April 14, 2023 9:14 AM Christian Hennig: << By the way, on misinterpretation that bugs me and seems to come up often is the idea that there is a “true” unobserved p-value potentially different from the observed one in case the model doesn’t hold. Not so. The p-value measures the relation between the data and a specifie...
Read more