"That's Not Science"

A Scientist Who Regularly Engages in Philosophy Without Realizing It

As I've written before, arguably some creation science is science.  But even if it's not, seldom is it heuristically a good move to label something as not science in borderline cases for two reasons: (1) It tends to be an argument stopper.  Instead of considering the evidence for the claims advanced, the debate ends.  (2) If the one claiming that the other side is not doing science is a scientist, the claim is philosophical and generally beyond the expertise of the scientist making the claim.

Consider two similar examples.  Imagine a Christian, instead of engaging with the arguments of a Buddhist or Astrologist saying, "That's not religion.  Religion is Christianity."  Or suppose a Democrat were to say to a Republican advancing an argument against national minimum wage laws: "Get off it.  What you're saying is not politics."

This is not to say that there aren't clear cases where something is or is not science.  Riding a bike ain't science nor is painting.  Though there is a demarcation problem regarding what counts as science, some particular areas of science such as biology, chemistry, and physics are well defined areas of inquiry.

Men Are Stronger Than Women (on average)

Zexy

I posted before on a study which claims that conservatives and progressives are about equally anti-science.

Well, I'm beginning to wonder if that is correct.  It occurred to me that the study about which I posted seems to ignore some obvious propositions about sexuality progressives have a tendency to deny.

Just take the painfully obvious claim of common sense that men are stronger than women on average and ask yourself how many progressives today would think you are a sexist for even thinking about this let alone believing that it's true.   It took me exactly one Google search on the first page to find people at TED actually debating the issue, like this guy at the top of the page:

Study: Conservatives and Liberals About Equally "Anti-Science"

That title is a bit misleading.  It might be better to say that conservatives and liberals are about equally distrustful of scientific claims that they hear reported in the media, according to The Christian Post.  Excerpt:  

Interestingly, liberals, moderates and conservatives were all less trustful of the science that was related to political debates compared to the ideologically neutral science. In other words, conservatives were less trustful of science related to fracking and nuclear power, though not as distrustful as liberals, compared to science related to ideologically-neutral astronomy and geology findings. And liberals were less trustful of science related to climate change and evolution, though not as distrusful as conservatives, compared to the ideologically neutral science.

 Conservatives and liberals were not equally likely to reject the science that was dissonant with their ideology. Conservatives were more likely than liberals to be distrustful. The authors attribute this to media coverage of the debates.

There has been much coverage of the scientific debates over climate change and evolution. By comparison, there has been little coverage of the scientific debates over fracking and nuclear power. Respondents, therefore, would be much more aware of controversies over climate change and evolution than fracking and nuclear power.
The researchers also found higher levels of anger associated with the distrust over climate change and evolution than the distrust over fracking and nuclear power.

"The Dress Isn't Blue or Gold Because Color Doesn't Exist"

I didn't say that.  But Professor of Neuroscience, Beau Lotto, basically says as much:. 

Color is, quite literally, a figment of your imagination, Lotto said. It only exists in your head. Bevil Conway, a neuroscientist who studies color and vision at Wellesley College [where Hillary Clinton went], explained it this way: “Color is this computation that our brains make that enables us to extract meaning from the world.”

“A color only exists in your head,” Lotto said. “There’s such a thing as light. There’s such a thing as energy. There’s no such thing as color.”

So let's get this straight: Color only exists in your head.  It ain't on that thing you're looking at; it's a computation in your head. And there's no such thing as color--that is, color doesn't exist.  It exists in your head and it doesn't exist in your head because there is no such thing as color.  Got that?

That wall you painted blue, the blue was in your head.  You put paint on the wall but not blue paint.  As well, if you have ever seen a brain--presumably what you have seen are colors arranged in a certain brain-shaped pattern.  If you've seen a brain, the brain was in your head.  The brain was a computation in your brain.  (Except that the brain you've seen doesn't exist).

And you thought philosophy was nuts!

[A new liar's paradox? This statement is both blue and false.]