What are the arguments for scientific polemics?

Discussing with creationist groups, it became clear to me that at the end of most conversations we arrive to the following conclusion:

I can not convince you of my beliefs, and you can not convince me of yours. The most that we can be is polite, friendly and wish good luck, but consensus is quite impossible. And as science is in some way imposed on them, what could we do to be less repulsive to them?

I was thinking about what would be the kinds of arguments that we, the "defenders of science and the oppressed", can have in this discussion with the creationist that they could accept a little better. Then I saw that we are only arguing with the scientific method, scientific evidence, and so on, and we are not advancing much to convince a little more the creationists that science should define some activities such as the curriculum of basic education.

So I drew up the argument that science is the "natural philosophy" which won power in the practical implementation, development and welfare of society. Or it is wide agreeded that science should be generally applied to practical issues of society under the supervision of the state. Because the social welfare state has to implement policies that bring more welfare, and etc, etc.

I initially believe that this argument can be accepted in some degree by the creationist, or a part thereof. I'll test it at these forums over the internet.

Now, even if this argument is accepted initially, to me the power of influence of science must be acceptably implemented in the form of scientific institutions to ensure the credibility of performance of scientists. In my opinion any action, government, or structure that are dominant in society, works in the form of institutions. I find this argument a little more friendly to the conservative people, as institutions generally give the impression of established activity, stable, and in a "democracy society" has to have credibility to function (I do not know if it is true, but the creationist are often labeled as conservative ).

At last, in the current stage of the rights of the citizens, consumer, etc, the institutions with greater credibility and acceptance are those that works well and in addition, also has a well-defined institutional treatment for critical and complaints. That is, even if the complaint is not very well founded, the institution must have a channel to hear that criticism in a more acceptable way to the client.

Further the science is in some way a monopoly, so the creationist must have a channel to complain, because even we want to or not, the science is imposed on them (for their luck) on various subjects.

This is where I think the "defenders of science" (me included) do not know more palatable arguments and provide guidelines for further acceptable discussion to creationism. As I think we are the good guys-makers and advocates of science to humanity with our best scientific method and reasoning, we could provide a better communication channel to deal with the "creationist misconceptions." But we have not done so already! (My opinion)

And finally, here is a merit that we can somehow arrive on if we bring the creationist for a better terms discussion, because we have some advance in the treatment of the scientific controversies, enhancing our credibility. The other merit is that I believe that making clear the status of science in society, its stability as a modern institution and its internal institutional procedures for the reception of criticism, I think that science will acquire a more democratic and less arrogant appearance to the "commom people".

Quais os argumentos em polêmicas científicas?

Discutindo com os grupos religiosos criacionistas, ficou claro para mim que no final da maioria das conversas fica a seguinte conclusão e pergunta:
Eu não posso lhe convencer das minhas convicções, e nem você pode me convencer das suas. O máximo que podemos ser é educados, cordiais e desejar boa sorte, mas consendo é bem difícil. , e como a ciência é em alguma forma imposta a eles, o que poderíamos fazer para sermos menos repugnantes a eles?

Assim eu fiquei pensando em qual seriam os tipos de argumentos que nós, os "defensores da ciência e dos oprimidos", podemos ter nesta discussão com os criacionistas que eles pudessem aceitar um pouco melhor. Aí eu vi que só ficarmos argumentando com o método científico, as evidências científicas, e etc, não está adiantando muito no sentido de convencer um pouco mais criacionistas do poder que a ciência deva ter em algumas atividades como na definição dos currículos da educação básica.

Por isso eu elaborei o argumento de que a ciência é a "filosofia natural" que conquistou o poder dominante na implementação prática, desenvolvimento e bem estar da sociedade. Ou seja é de comum acordo que a ciência deva ser de modo geral aplicada nas questões práticas da sociedade sob a tutela do estado. Pois o estado do bem estar social tem que implementar as políticas que trazem mais bem estar, e etc e tal.

Acredito inicialmente que esse argumento possa ser aceito em algum grau pelos criacionistas, ou por uma parte deles. Vou testar nesses fóruns da vida.

Agora, mesmo que esse argumento seja aceito inicialmente, para mim esse poder de influência da ciência (o cacófonozinho legal) deva ser aceitavelmente implementado em forma de instituições científicas que certifiquem a credibilidade de atuação dos cientistas. Ou seja na minha opinião toda ação, governo, ou estrutura dominante na sociedade existem e atuam em forma de instituições (nem sei se fui redundante aqui). Acho esse argumento um pouco favorável as pessoas mais conservadoras, pois instituições geralmente dão a impressão de atividades estabelecidas, estáveis, e na sociedade "democrática" tem que ter credibilidade para atuar (nem sei se é verdade, mas os criacionistas são geralmente rotulados como conservadores).

Por útimo, no atual estágio dos direitos do cidadão, do consumidor, e sei mais lá o que, as instituições com maior credibilidade e aceitação são as que além de fazerem bem o seu trabalho, também tem um tratamento institucional e bem definido para as críticas e reclamações. Ou seja, mesmo que a reclamação não seja muito procedente, a instituição tem que dispor algum canal para que a crítica seja ouvida de forma mais palatável ao "consumidor mais critico".

Ainda mais a ciência sendo de certa forma um monopólio, os criacionistas tem que ter um canal para reclamarem, pois queremos ou não, a ciência é imposta a eles (e para a sorte deles) em vários assuntos.

Aí é que eu acho que os "defensores da ciência" não terem argumentos mais palatáveis e nem sabem oferecer diretrizes de discussão mais aceitáveis aos criacionistas. Como eu acho que é possível que nós os mocinhos bem-feitores da humanidade defensores da ciência com o nosso melhor método científico e argumentativo possamos fornecer um canal de comunicação aos "equivocados criacionistas". Mas não fizemos isso ainda!!!

E por fim, um mérito aqui é que se nós conseguirmos de alguma forma trazer os criacionistas para uma discussão mais palatável, é ponto para nós, pois nós conseguimos um tipo de avanço nas polêmicas científicas, aumentando a nossa credibilidade. O outro mérito é que acredito que deixando claro o status da ciência na sociedade, a sua estabilidade como uma instituição moderna e os seus próprios procedimentos institucionais para o acolhimento dos "rebeldes", acho que a ciência vai adquirir uma imagem mais democrática e menos "arrogante".

Agora acho que conseguir escrever onde eu quero chegar nessa história de polêmicas científicas,
Gilberto de Paiva

What I Think

(sorry all for my bad english)
Since I started to read some forums on controversial issues of science I coud not stop reading and having ideas, so as I'm spending my time with it, I decided to create this blog to practice my ability to write and "leave for posterity".
.
Come to the point. Science dominated the actions of governments in all countries, but there are groups working to concepts outside the natural science standards to be also recognized by governments. Among them we can mention the "alternative medicines" (acupuncture, homeopathy, etc.) or the question of teaching the theory of evolution by religious groups, generating heated controversy. I reflect a little on the subject and decided to write my findings to see if they can help to establish better foundations for dialogue.
.
MY PROPOSAL
.
Science has great power in society. For example, power to guide the content of the education of children and young people, power to establish what is a technical procedure and what is quackery, etc. That power was taken over by the huge credibility of its results and benefits to humanity in the past, present and future.
.
The scientific decisions are set by the scientific institutions (agencies and scientific societies, universities, public agencies, etc), also with it's code ethics refocus the credibility of science (with some drift and bias, but in the end it seems that everything is right). In a democratic society, the power of science can be questioned by all, religious groups, or groups that advocate alternative medicines, etc, may try to influence the science, since science exercises power over them. So, how to establish guidelines for the discussion toward some agreement?
.
A good answer I found is the institutional argument, where the science is viewed as an institution that has the power in society because of its credibility, and has the priority decisions on scientific questions (along with other established institutions like the judiciary, legislative, etc. within the competence of each institution). And to maintain its credibility and therefore its acceptance in a democratic society, the institution of science must accept to discuss with sectors of society not directly related to science, such as religious groups, providing resources and guidelines agreed for the performance of these groups in scientific issues.
.
PRACTICAL EXAMPLE - Evolution x Intelligent Design
.
To those who defend the science standards (which include me), I think we must keep in mind arguments who takes into account the democratization of scientific debate, where what is established is the will of the majority, but within the institutional avenues for discussion. The science got it's power dueto it's great credibility with the majority, so it should soon have the means to the majority to question it, including groups outside the scientific community. So I think the defense of science "standard" should be focused on the institutional activity of science.
.
I explain it all. For example, in the controverse request of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in science classes, it is clear that the DI is not accepted as a scientific theory by scientific institutions (in the sense of being an established scientific model, it's only a hypothesis). Once the DI should not be taught in science classes (perhaps only as a quote from the debates of not established cientific theories in the society, as is was with lamarckism). So we have made clear that the science as an institution does not consider the DI as scientific.
.
The reasons for the hypothesis that DI is not comparable to the Theory of Evolution (TE) is that the TE has a broad deployment and activities for practical and theoretical biology, such as study of the mutability of pathogenic microorganisms. But DI (as far I know) is only a hypothesis without "strong" basis, generating no scientific activity or practice developments. That is, the TE is a useful model for scientific institution generating benefits for humanity, whihe DI has nothing like this (so the DI is a hypothesis and not a model that runs a range of explanations of phenomena in nature). That is, we showed the arguments of why DI is not accepted by the science as an institution (see that I do not look into the details of the evidences evolution or DI).
.
But we must always be open to questions, not only because it is part of the scientific method, but mainly because the institution of science can only exercise his power in a democratic society if it allows the non-scientific sectors of society also question it. So I think the institution of science should clear the mechanisms by which non-scientific sectors can question the science, as I say below.
.
For those who questions the science standard, I think that to modify a scientific model or to include a new one, you has to pass the "institutional track" above. That is, in the example case of DI, try to develop the DI hypothesis to see if it can be accepted by a representative number of scientists.
.
If the proponents of ID can not arrive be accepted by the scientific community (ie the science as an institution) and still want the DI as an alternative theory of the TE to be taught in sciences classroom, I think you would have to work to develop an "other science, "which produce practical results and benefits to humanity, where the DI gain credibility with society, and if the credibility and the benefits are similar to the "standard science" perhaps you have some credibility to try to dispute the power of science in basic education. Sounds utopian, perhaps (I do not even believe in DI), but see that homeopathy and acupuncture are not accepted by the scientific community, but are working (in one form or another) to try to be accepted.
.
It is almost like this. Comments are welcome.
Gilberto de Paiva