Image courtesy of Ken Bosma from Green Valley, Arizona, under Creative Commons license. Therefore we did not know what science was, nor how it worked (in a philosophical, historical and sociological sense), until real science was currently effectively-sophisticated towards destruction. And of course all this is not a thought experiment – it is a easy statement of truth: real science is really hard.
When individuals assume actual science is developing, and when they think they perceive from output volume that actual science is expanding, this creates vast possibilities for dishonesty, hype and spin. Also, if you click on a link in 1 of my Hub Pages, I have a lot of science fair display boards that children sent me. Another reason is that the continuous evolution of the IT environment that keeps personal computer science graduates employed. Behavioural economics, and behavioural science much more typically, has become an increasingly salient aspect of modern policy debates. It is a lot less apparent that actual science benefited from subdivision of each of these into two or 3 (e.g. Physics into Theoretical and Applied, Chemistry into Organic and Inorganic Biology into Zoology and Botany). Recently, I got a whiff of all that is wrong about the way the conservative academic community closes its collective mind to new ideas.
No, this write-up most undoubtedly does not make a strong case for Sarewitz’s prescription that we all do applied science whilst becoming held accountable to non-scientists. Even science fiction, with all its hype in the … Read More