[sciborg2]

This is a bit different than my objections to scientism. I just find the whole worshiping of science and scientists to be disgusting and honestly kind of pathetic.

This just seems like a pastime for hipsters, as I personally have two STEM degrees and I find this kind of thing to be really insipid. If you like science open a text book, don't join a Facebook group.

[Wilshire]

This opinion really surprises me. How is the popularization of science a bad thing?

To me, you just sound like a hipster , saying "I liked science before it was cool". Are you also one of those who thinks shows like "bill nye the science guy" or more recently "mythbusters" are equally abhorrent?

The fact is, hard science isn't glamours, but it can be exciting if you are doing work that interests you. I think if there is a cultural shift to science/scientists being the new movie stars, or is romanticized, it can only be beneficial. If being smart was cool, imagine how the entire education paradigm would shift.

Why do you want to "put down" those who have a passing interest in the subject? Many people like classical music, but can't play an instrument. Or watch sports but can't run to the bathroom without being out of breath. I see no reason that anyone should think, hey, I can do science, I am the only one that deserves to enjoy it. Having some degrees and working in a technical career, or academia, or whatever, is just one way to partake in the experience. Not everyone consumes what interests them the same way, but that doesn't make them less deserving of the enjoyment.

Would you prefer academics/science to be shrouded in some kind of elitism (more than it already is)? Sure it would make some people feel better, those who made it within the sciencey world, but really that kind of defeats the purpose. Science should be for the masses, and as far as I can tell, the more interest there is, the better.

Kids don't grow up wanting to be football stars because they train hard every day. They train hard because they see the glamor, the excitement, and want to be a part of it. Expecting people to get excited about science should be no different. You seem to suggest that if you don't enjoy reading textbooks, you don't deserve to partake in the experience at all, and I think that is fundamentally incorrect.

[sciborg2]

I'm not talking about inspiring children though.

How do adults know science is "cool", or that they "fucking love" science, from watching a video on Youtube or looking at a well produced photograph?

Should a person claim to "fucking love" history because they see a painting of George Washington?

[Wilshire]

Yes. Thats what I'm saying.

I guarantee you enjoy something that you yourself do not actively participate in, and if not, then I guess you win.

But for everyone else, I feel this is not a reasonable stance. Like I mentioned, sports is an obvious example of people going crazy over something that they cannot partake in. Or listening to the radio. Do you take radio talkshow classes, or have a studio? Do you DJ at a club? Unlikely, but if you use the radio, its no different than what you describe.

[Wilshire]

I would say I "fucking love" R Scott Bakker's books, but I don't write. Should I not be allowed to consume the media then, because I am not a producer?

I use the internet and enjoy it, but I can't write code nor do I try to learn how. Should I then stop using the internet because I don't consume it in its most base form?

For that matter, I can't read or write in binary, I guess then I shouldnt be using a computer since I don't attempt to become a master computer programer.

EDIT
"Opening a textbook" really isn't much better than "like"ing a facebook group or watching a youtube video, if you really think about it. In the end, you are simply taking work that someone else did, and consuming it via some media platform.

By that logic, then, the only people who should really enjoy anything are those who produce it on their own. By your own standards, you group yourself in with those you hate, or so it seems to me

[sciborg2]

I think there's a distinct difference between appreciating the production of art, which is meant to be enjoyed aesthetically, and claiming to enjoy an academic subject because you see some cool photo or video. In fact if one's appreciation of Science is occurring at such a superficial level what they really appreciate is artistic depiction.

Since most of the sciences heavily involve mathematics, as a math major I could make a "I Fucking Love Math" site and just utilize the same high resolution visual media science popularization sites do. But I suspect no one would take this very seriously and might even find it a little desperate.

My deeper objection is the general innumeracy and lack of philosophical understanding that goes along with this supposed excitement about Science. One would hope a genuine love of science would encourage pursuit of mathematics and philosophy of science but it seems to me many people think being on the "right side" of climate change, intelligent design, and so on is "proof" of their scientific acumen.

Of course whether science is beautiful at all is also a big question. It seems to me anyone who hasn't wondered about what Benjamin Cain calls the suggestion of undeadness or Rosenberg's Atheist Guide to Reality probably hasn't thought through the implications of the world's steady disenchantment.

Perhaps IFLS should change its name to "I Have An Ill-Considered, Immature Infatuation With Science"? 

[Wilshire]

My deeper objection is the general innumeracy and lack of philosophical understanding that goes along with this supposed excitement about Science.

So then you agree with what I said. Yeah you win with Science here because of your diplomas. However, in every other pastime you enjoy that you do not enjoy this kind of deeper involvement, a diploma or some other kind of in-depth training, you are exactly the same as what you dislike here. This kind of hippocratic assessment, the propping up of self at the expense of others, makes me want to puke far more than liking a cool video. But I guess I've got my opinions and you've got yours.

[sciborg2]

My deeper objection is the general innumeracy and lack of philosophical understanding that goes along with this supposed excitement about Science.

So then you agree with what I said. Yeah you win with Science here because of your diplomas. However, in every other pastime you enjoy that you do not enjoy this kind of deeper involvement, a diploma or some other kind of in-depth training, you are exactly the same as what you dislike here. This kind of hippocratic assessment, the propping up of self at the expense of others, makes me want to puke far more than liking a cool video. But I guess I've got my opinions and you've got yours.

If you think anyone wins at Science, you haven't been paying attention to Bakker at all.

And nowhere did I say having STEM degrees makes someone better than others. If anything my position is stating the opposite, that simple association with Science is not something any more worthy of celebration than association with any other field.

eta:

Think of it this way - if someone had pictures of math proofs & formulas written in beautiful calligraphy, and claimed to love Math without any understanding of what the writing actually meant or said, would you take this claim of love as genuine?

[Wilshire]

Think of it this way - if someone had pictures of math proofs & formulas written in beautiful calligraphy, and claimed to love Math without any understanding of what the writing actually meant or said, would you take this claim of love as genuine?

No, but I don't think the parallel is as strong as you would like. All math is is formulas. Science, basically, is math applied. Science, in essence, is just pretty math. Some of it can be spruced up and made prettier than others, but in the end it seems like the same to me.

And no, I don't follow Bakker at all. I just read the fantasy. Which brings up again what I said before, do I then not deserve to read and enjoy the books because I engage only on the topical level? I don't think so, but I think that this is what you believe, and I doubt we'll rectify that.

[sciborg2]

Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with liking artistic photos and videos. In fact the whole scientist rockstar idea is terrible, and showboaters of the New Atheist movement should recall STEM is meant to to be the humble roadies and stagehands that offer technology and medicine to continue the human narrative which is the province of the mythmakers - artists, musicians, writers, and so on.

As for following Bakker, there are far more interesting philosophers who've got actual experience as tenured academics -> Feser, Nagel, Braude, Chalmers, McGinn, Fodor, Ross, Searle, Lycan, Ambrosio...

[Srancy]

I hated technology before it was mainstream.

[sciborg2]

I hated technology before it was mainstream.

Awesome.

[Phallus Pendulus]

Sci is correct and has won the debate.

[Wilshire]

Sci is correct and has won the debate.

Damnit. I'll have to try harder next time.

[sciborg2]

Sci is correct and has won the debate.

I thought I was just fulfilling my role as contrarian in expressing my opinion...