Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cinepro

The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

Recommended Posts

Personally, I don't know what to think.  Seriously.  In science a lot of the predictions of foods/allergies and stuff like that..have changed a thousand times..What causes cancer and what doesn't has been ongoing so much that I can't keep up.  When my children were little, I was told by doctors and other mothers that juice was so good for the baby..juice in a bottle, with early feedings and milk was the best thing to do.  Years later...after  a lot of cavities..found out that juice was the worse thing you could give a kid...and for heaven's sakes..older people stay away from milk! 

 

In spirituality, even in my most comforting and goosebump feelings, I found  out that thee church and things I  believed were continually evolving..or changing without fact or complete understianding,,buat with the evolution of 'The Times",,,PR moves, and the ever existing contest and concept of an ancient past that does match.

 

And after shaking my head...I just follow the gut..and instincts,.

 

Just wanted to add that kindness is me religion.

 

While we were growing up my dad and sister didn't have any cavities in their teeth. My mom and I on the other hand had more than enough. We all ate the same diet so there's more to it than just diet.

 

If you or yours are allergic to it don't eat/drink it. Juice is fine in moderation. Constantly sticking a juice filled bottle or glass in babies/children's mouths isn't good for their teeth or overall health. Milk for adults, in moderation, is fine. If you or yours are allergic to it don't drink it. The best diet is one of a large variety of foods from many sources. Water/milk/juice/even the occasional soft drink are part of a well balanced diet.

 

 Change is good when it brings us closer to God. We believe God has yet to reveal many and important things concerning his kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post

Credibility works around instincts and cultural imperatives and following one's gut and believing what you have found in your personal life to be important for you.  Credibility is about emotions and life experience and what you "grok"  (link provided for the youngsters)

 

In short the problem is not that science is not credible, it's that credibility is not scientific.

Share this post


Link to post

Science says: More evidence came forward that scientific findings can be heavily biased, influenced by money, or otherwise untrustworthy. Medical Xpress reported on a study by Italian investigators who found “Evidence-based medicine is only a restrictive interpretation of clinical medicine” (cf. 9/12/13). Vivian Callier reported for Science Magazine that “A little bias in peer review scores can translate into big money, simulation finds.” One researcher was blown away: “That such a minor bias could change funding outcomes is frankly shocking,” she said, warning about how even subtle bias can alter funding decisions. Meanwhile, a scientist quoted on PhysOrg describes “How storytelling improves science.” Most people view storytelling as the opposite of science. - See more at: http://crev.info/2015/02/science-media-can-mislead/#sthash.gX6xqf2i.dpuf

At the time of the Baltimore case [1993], it was widely argued that research misconduct was insignificantly rare — and irrelevant to the progress of science, which would self-correct. Few senior scientists now believe that. They know that misconduct exists and that, unchecked, it can undermine public regard for science and scientists. — Colin Macilwain, Nature, August 1, 2012 - See more at: http://crev.info/2015/02/science-media-can-mislead/#sthash.BchcqEyT.dpuf

Just testing my quote function, nothing to see here. Moving on.

Edited by strappinglad

Share this post


Link to post

 

...Credibility is about emotions and life experience...

 

I always thought of that word as signifying what can be credited,

or credit reliably applied to.

 

If a scientific table informs me that common table salt is composed

of sodium and chlorine, I may be incredulous in my response --

for surely the combination of two deadly poisons could not possibly

be the "salt" which can "lose its savor," the Holy Bible teaches...

 

But, after attaining my doctorate in inorganic chemistry, I may be

more inclined to accept the "credibility" of that molecular chart,

and to conclude that salt losing its savor is more a symbolic

terminology, than it is factual "teaching." -- Whether or not a

library of ancient texts assembled and canonized by equally

ancient, non-scientific rabbis and bishops can credibly "teach"

any system or set of facts, is another question altogether.

 

UD

Share this post


Link to post

Alvino, on 13 Feb 2015 - 11:28 PM, said:

 

In this first sentence 'science being about' means "what the aims of science are", and that's perfectly fine, but this adds unnecessary confusion. The main objections ill-informed people have against science could very well be prevented if they didn't mean by 'science' the actual body of knowledge the process scientists engage in ends up producing. Precious few people really object to the methods and techniques scientists use (however poor their understanding of these methods might be); they mostly object to the conclusions or treat the whole thing, not as an enterprise, but as a body of knowledge.

 

What I object to is being ridiculed as being ill-informed when I don't agree with the conclusions arrived at in some of the disciplines.

Share this post


Link to post

Alvino, on 13 Feb 2015 - 11:28 PM, said:

 

What I object to is being ridiculed as being ill-informed when I don't agree with the conclusions arrived at in some of the disciplines.

 

ERay,

 

Give it time. Age makes one wary of being fooled...again. We might be gone, but a few decades from now maybe the youthful zeal which is obvious in the dogmatic ideologues will hopefully be ashamed of their present gullibility, and remember us well for our skepticism. I mean really, could someone like our own Mormon Free Thinker maintain such a rigid ideology as to what he holds now for an entire lifetime? I doubt it. 

Edited by 3DOP

Share this post


Link to post

ERay,

 

Give it time. Age makes one wary of being fooled...again. We might be gone, but a few decades from now maybe the youthful zeal which is obvious in the dogmatic ideologues will hopefully be ashamed of their present gullibility, and remember us well for our skepticism. I mean really, could someone like our own Mormon Free Thinker maintain such a rigid ideology as to what he holds now for an entire lifetime? I doubt it. 

 

I certainly hope not, for his sake.

Share this post


Link to post

ERay,

 

Give it time. Age makes one wary of being fooled...again. We might be gone, but a few decades from now maybe the youthful zeal which is obvious in the dogmatic ideologues will hopefully be ashamed of their present gullibility, and remember us well for our skepticism. I mean really, could someone like our own Mormon Free Thinker maintain such a rigid ideology as to what he holds now for an entire lifetime? I doubt it. 

 

You guys are not skeptical at all, you simply ignored the evidence and what I said in post 48. 

 

 

You guys sound like him 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post

I always thought of that word as signifying what can be credited,

or credit reliably applied to.

 

If a scientific table informs me that common table salt is composed

of sodium and chlorine, I may be incredulous in my response --

for surely the combination of two deadly poisons could not possibly

be the "salt" which can "lose its savor," the Holy Bible teaches...

 

But, after attaining my doctorate in inorganic chemistry, I may be

more inclined to accept the "credibility" of that molecular chart,

and to conclude that salt losing its savor is more a symbolic

terminology, than it is factual "teaching." -- Whether or not a

library of ancient texts assembled and canonized by equally

ancient, non-scientific rabbis and bishops can credibly "teach"

any system or set of facts, is another question altogether.

 

UD

Oh heck I'll concede that one every day and twice on Sundays as long as you concede there are no facts, just interpretations. ;)

 

Put in the raw data and out come interpretations now "confirmed" and etched in stone.  One might even call it "organizing worlds from matter unorganized", which is what human gods with a little g and Gods with a big G do for a living.

 

Same process- just that the rabbis and scientists are talking about different things.  The scientists are figuring out how to make golden calves in the middle of the desert while Moses is busy writing commandments.

Share this post


Link to post

Recently seen. I'm not a scientist but...Plot idea 97% of the worlds scientists contrive an environmental crises, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.

I'm sure glad that those billion-dollar  oil companies had our best interests at heart.   :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post

...

 

Same process- just that the rabbis and scientists are talking about different things.

...

 

And I'm never quite sure which bunch I'd choose to rule over me,

if a tyranny were the only governmental possibility --

 

Basically a choice between "The Handmaid's Tale" and

"Brave New World."

 

UD

 

I'm afraid I'd probably end up opting for "Adventures of Robin Hood"

Share this post


Link to post

You guys are not skeptical at all, you simply ignored the evidence and what I said in post 48. 

 

 

You guys sound like him 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure glad that those billion-dollar  oil companies had our best interests at heart.   :crazy:

 

I am gullible according to 3DOP for taking worldwide scientific organizations seriously, including Scientific organizations from China, Russia, and Venezuela, all concluded that CO2 is responsible 

 

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

 

 

mfbukowski, 

 

They do not like science 

 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes people on both sides of this debate confuse correlation with causation.

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes people on both sides of this debate confuse correlation with causation.

 

Perhaps so.

 

But, if I really wish to learn how to raise a pig, or pan gold

from a stream, or build a better mouse-trap, which method

should I attempt to employ?

 

On one hand, there is the scientific method and the compiled

discoveries of hundreds of thousands of dedicated teachers,

researchers, technicians, giving their explanations of things.

 

On the other hand, there is prayer, worship, sacrifice, ritual,

scriptures, and presumed "authorities."

 

If I truly wish to understand the world around me, and what

makes it "tick," I suppose I'd choose option number one.

 

If I wish to explore who I am and possibilities for my connection

to that vast world and its multitude of creatures, I may take a

chance and try option number two.

 

But I'm sure as heck not going to open up a Bible to provide

myself with answers regarding the pig, the gold and the trap.

 

UD

Edited by Uncle Dale

Share this post


Link to post

There are no facts, just interpretations of data. Welcome to being an adult.

A statement of fact stating that there are no facts...perhaps you (and Nietzche) need to clarify

Edited by SmileyMcGee

Share this post


Link to post

A statement of fact stating that there are no facts...perhaps you (and Nietzche) need to clarify

Well I don't know that it is my job to teach a Nietzsche class.

 

It is itself an interpretation and not a statement of "fact".  Facts correspond to some reality outside of themselves, interpretations are just that- interpretations of linguistic meanings.

 

The assertion is basically that it is impossible to get "outside" of language to find some "reality" to which language corresponds, so all we can hope for is an imperfect understanding of what someone else says or our own understanding and interpretaton of our own personal experience.

 

Maybe this will help.

 

 

If you actually want to get into it, we can.

 

Explain to me what a "fact" is and how you know it is a "fact"

Share this post


Link to post

...

 

Explain to me what a "fact" is and how you know it is a "fact"

 

 

Suppose I tried this experiment out, in some accommodating 

English-as-a-second-language class, where non-verbal

demonstrations were a familiar teaching method.

 

I slowly and deliberately place two apples on a table... with

a pause between the two actions, accompanied by an

exaggerated quizzical smile.

 

At the end of that short process, I pull down three charts

positioned atop my white-board. The first has a big picture

of ONE apple -- the next, a big picture of THREE apples --

the final picture thus displayed has but two of the fruit.

At this point, heavy black "X" marks appear, almost

obliterating the first two pictures. The third picture is

left undamaged.

 

I then repeat my little show, using a variety of different

objects and quantities -- but with the same respective

"bad answer" / "good answer" charts.

 

Have I communicated a generalized fact?

 

UD

Share this post


Link to post

Suppose I tried this experiment out, in some accommodating 

English-as-a-second-language class, where non-verbal

demonstrations were a familiar teaching method.

 

I slowly and deliberately place two apples on a table... with

a pause between the two actions, accompanied by an

exaggerated quizzical smile.

 

At the end of that short process, I pull down three charts

positioned atop my white-board. The first has a big picture

of ONE apple -- the next, a big picture of THREE apples --

the final picture thus displayed has but two of the fruit.

At this point, heavy black "X" marks appear, almost

obliterating the first two pictures. The third picture is

left undamaged.

 

I then repeat my little show, using a variety of different

objects and quantities -- but with the same respective

"bad answer" / "good answer" charts.

 

Have I communicated a generalized fact?

 

UD

Heck if I know.  I don't know what that is.

 

Perhaps it is a tautology, dunno.  As you question shows, it is a question of definitions, do YOU want to call it a "generalized fact"?

 

What is a "generalized fact" as opposed to a not generalized fact?

Share this post


Link to post

Can pictures be true or false?

 

Can apples be true or false?

 

Can facts be true or false?  How?

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

 

Vagueness or circularity

Either the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers some accompanying theory of the world, or he or she does not.

If no theory of the world is offered, the argument is so vague as to be useless or even unintelligible: truth would then be supposed to be correspondence to some undefined, unknown or ineffable world. It is difficult to see how a candidate truth could be more certain than the world we are to judge its degree of correspondence against.

On the other hand, immediately the defender of the correspondence theory of truth offers a theory of the world, he or she is operating in some specific ontological or scientific theory, which stands in need of justification. But the only way to support the truth of this theory of the world that is allowed by the correspondence theory of truth is correspondence to the real world. Hence the argument is circular.[8]

Even wikipedia gets it mostly right   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth#Vagueness_or_circularity

Share this post


Link to post

Can pictures be true or false?

 

Can apples be true or false?

 

Can facts be true or false?  How?

 

No, but 1+1=2 can be voted upon for "true" or "false"

and I'm fairly sure that veracity would win the election.

 

But I can't use those symbols to teach my class, (or my

set of pet chimps, or whomever) -- because mathematics

itself is an interpretation of some aspect of nature -- in

a sense, math is a language.

 

Might have to resort to Aversion Therapy -- that worked

well in Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange."

 

UD

Share this post


Link to post

No, but 1+1=2 can be voted upon for "true" or "false"

and I'm fairly sure that veracity would win the election.

 

But I can't use those symbols to teach my class, (or my

set of pet chimps, or whomever) -- because mathematics

itself is an interpretation of some aspect of nature -- in

a sense, math is a language.

 

Might have to resort to Aversion Therapy -- that worked

well in Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange."

 

UD

I have no argument with any of this.

 

And in fact that is one of my favorite movies which has proven to practically be prophetic.  But we are showing our age.

 

Like Rorty says, we know what "true" or "false" means, we just can't define it clearly

 

Here's more but I have been told repeatedly that no one here understands this article.  Sigh.  I can't help that

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

If necessary, just go with this much of it

 

 

Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there.

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

Suppose I tried this experiment out, in some accommodating 

English-as-a-second-language class, where non-verbal

demonstrations were a familiar teaching method.

 

I slowly and deliberately place two apples on a table... with

a pause between the two actions, accompanied by an

exaggerated quizzical smile.

 

At the end of that short process, I pull down three charts

positioned atop my white-board. The first has a big picture

of ONE apple -- the next, a big picture of THREE apples --

the final picture thus displayed has but two of the fruit.

At this point, heavy black "X" marks appear, almost

obliterating the first two pictures. The third picture is

left undamaged.

 

I then repeat my little show, using a variety of different

objects and quantities -- but with the same respective

"bad answer" / "good answer" charts.

 

Have I communicated a generalized fact?

 

UD

One thing I can tell you is that I would want my money back because that doesn't teach much English

Share this post


Link to post

One thing I can tell you is that I would want my money back because that doesn't teach much English

 

 

It is said that a seeker after truth once asked a Zen monk

to teach him Buddhism.

 

The monk replied -- "Your first mistake is in assuming that

you do not already know... and your second mistake lies

in assuming that there is such a thing as Buddhism."

 

 

UD

Yeah -- that and five bucks will get you the cheapest drink

on the menu at Starbucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...