Comments on: Three degrees of separation: church – state – science? http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/three-degrees-of-separation/ "The extra-ordinary lies within the curve of normality" Thu, 10 Jan 2019 23:23:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2 By: Rense Nieuwenhuis http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/three-degrees-of-separation/comment-page-1/#comment-1274 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:39:21 +0000 http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/archive/three-degrees-of-separation/#comment-1274 I think that I didn’t express myself all that clearly. I wrote that I tend to agree with the separation between state and science, while adding “to a large extent”. I agree that I wrote this in a by-sentence, but I meant it seriously.

Additionally, what I wrote on separation between state and science was focussed more on state deciding on what is science, not what science is important. That is, I think, an important distinction.

Obviously, I agree that the right discussion should be on “how much control”. To that, I would like to say that science should have more freedom than in the present-day situation.

]]> By: inti Suarez http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/three-degrees-of-separation/comment-page-1/#comment-1273 Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:29:54 +0000 http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/archive/three-degrees-of-separation/#comment-1273 Feyerabend was (or is?) a nice provocation against stuffy scientificism… but beyond that… it’s hard to take him seriously, if you are a practicing scientist, that is. Things like voodoo are beyond the reach of science, because they deny the “experiment-thing”: by definition voodoo or religious experiences are not repeatable, or person-independent. Feyerabend tried to define science based on results, and then of course, anything has produced aproximations to truth, so anything goes. But science is better defined as a method.

Now, about separations… so you would like to get a blank check as scientist? get your pay and your lab equipment, but no indication whatsoever on what is desirable (and what is not) for you to research? I consider such extreme a bit… too extreme. Think in experiments on people. Should scientist have the right to do them? And it does not happen like that anywhere, anyway. As scientist you ask your budget for research from society. We research on social cohesion (in sociology) or about global warming (in ecology) because those are relevant societal issues. Do you really think that the investment that society does paying universities must not be accounted for? I think it should be. Scientists are part of the society. NOw, how much control, that is a important question. But no control at all seems to me wrong.

]]>