It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientific McDonaldization

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
You guys are not talking about science. You are talking about "lay science". Since lay science first became a genre many have not earned their knowledge scientifically but rather by reading superficial works describing science. It can be easy to assume just from reading a few boosk that when scientest use conventional thinking that they are just following the crowd and not because it just so happens that convential thinking happens to work really well.

Everytime some other theory arises that offers some solution to a known problem everyone gets bent out of shape when it is largely ignored. Well take into consideration the scope of the convential thinking. Are you educated in the convential solution and all the problems it solves? Dose the new solution explain the new problem away and cover everything solved by the convential solution? Do you understand the convential solution enough to be aware of any holes that the new solution does not fill? or have you just read a bit about it on wikipedia or in a book?

For those of us who are not scientest, our knowledge comes from lay science books that we have read or stuff we read on the internet. Our knowledge is not the same. It is not tested. It is limited to the material we have covered, material that was sufficiently interesting to make a book or website for those without techinical mastery over the subject. Lay science is a bit like fast food in that way but real science is not.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by garritynet]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 




Occam's razor is more along the lines of "Do not add causality without evidence" which will keep things simple but can be easily mis interpeted if you think of it as "The simplest reason is often the correct one". It has nothing against complexity only against adding it without evidence.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by raj9721

Originally posted by masonicon
Are you sure Today's Sciences are over-rationalized A.K.A. McDonaldized? (anything can be irrational if it gets Over-rationalized)

[edit on 3-3-2010 by masonicon]


Soon we will pop a pill for breakfast.

Then pop a pill to keep our teeth and gums healthy and white.

Then pop a pill that will grow a shirt and pants flush right to our bodies, within minutes!

Then pop a pill that will allow us to fly to work.

Then pop a pill to log into our computer (which is shaped like a...pill!)

Then pop a pill to turn invisible so we can sneak into the meeting we were late for.

Then pop a pill to teleport back home after work.

Then pop a pill to go to sleep...

I mean pop a pill for all the pills you popped, then pop a pill to go to sleep...


And you're going to blame the scientific method for that and NOT drug companies advising pills for everything?

This can makes humans extremly obese and have atrophied digestion systems



posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
[Removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]

reply to post by masonicon
 


That has nothing to do with what I said.

 
Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 20/3/2010 by ArMaP]



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join