Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Problem With Science: It's Not Credible

cinepro

By cinepro
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted (edited)

How many times do you have to re-invent the wheel?

 

Are you suggesting that science has everything figured out?  That's it folks, there is nothing more to see here.

 

How many times do you have to reinvent dietary guidelines?

 

We should not always assume that because there is scientific consensus that there are not better scientific models out there working to change scientific consensus, which does not simply come about by publishing a peer reviewed study in a journal.  The fact is, if a peer reviewed study was published in a journal which gave reason to doubt an established theory that has "scientific consensus", it would not be taken seriously by most scientists who read it, while the majority of scientists will never even hear about it.  There are social and personal aspects of theory change that makes scientific consensus a difficult thing to change, even if your data is accurate.  Historical examples demonstrate that scientific consensus was never a matter of pure logic and pure facts (Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

 

All I am suggesting is that perhaps the skeptic is more aligned with the spirit of science than those who use the "97% of scientists agree" argument to discredit a skeptic.  It is people who use "scientific consensus" as evidence of a sound theory who inhibit scientific discovery and revolution.  Scientific evolution comes about very slowly because of people like that.

Edited by pogi
1
3DOP Grand Master

3DOP

Posted
Posted (edited)

3DOP:

 

Galileo had two metal balls and a small telescope. Newton had an apple. Einstein had a chalk board. So as far a physical resources go it doesn't take many. Though the ability to think logically and creatively at the same time is a definite help. ;)

 

I don't believe that the pursuit of science means abandoning friends, family, religion, or our other commitments. In fact I believe those other things give meaning and purpose to the science we do.

 

Being a good scientist means to be always skeptical. However that skepticism rarely means always completely starting over by reinventing the wheel. Generally it is just a refinement of the wheel. :)

 

Hi thesometimesaint (tss)

 

I do not see the obligation to pursue the physical sciences, nor do I see the alternative as obliging me to necessarily believe in every claim of all the physical sciences in 2015. I am, relative to many others on this board, fairly indifferent about the physical sciences. It seldom "grabs me". I am sure it can be interesting to many people and that's great. I don't want it for a profession. I don't want it for a hobby. I don't even want to reflect about it very much. Heh, I am getting bored with defending my indifference! I am not conscious of any guilt at all for any neglect of duty with regards to science. 

 

I have tried to explain why I think it is reasonable for someone like me to have doubts about some modern science and my view seems unacceptable to some of you. I do not try to hinder others from observation and pondering the physical universe. I respect such an activity, especially when contemplated with respect for revealed religion. But even when it isn't with that foundation, it doesn't necessarily affect me, and it might even be true. Until they start expecting me to think, act, change my theology, change my politics, or just plain feel passionately on behalf of THEIR scientific faith, I am content for the scientists and their followers to believe whatever they want. I do not recall having opposed one article of "the creeds of modern science" for a long time. But such indifference doesn't seem to satisfy some of you. I need to prove it wrong, or accept the creed. I will not say that such a creed is abominable, but it isn't something I can accept.

 

I hope this finds you well, tss.

 

Rory

Edited by 3DOP
1
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi thesometimesaint (tss)

 

I do not see the obligation to pursue the physical sciences, nor do I see the alternative as obliging me to necessarily believe in every claim of all the physical sciences in 2015. I am, relative to many others on this board, fairly indifferent about the physical sciences. It seldom "grabs me". I am sure it can be interesting to many people and that's great. I don't want it for a profession. I don't want it for a hobby. I don't even want to reflect about it very much. Heh, I am getting bored with defending my indifference! I am not conscious of any guilt at all for any neglect of duty with regards to science. 

 

I have tried to explain why I think it is reasonable for someone like me to have doubts about some modern science and my view seems unacceptable to some of you. I do not try to hinder others from observation and pondering the physical universe. I respect such an activity, especially when contemplated with respect for revealed religion. But even when it isn't with that foundation, it doesn't necessarily affect me, and it might even be true. Until they start expecting me to think, act, change my theology, change my politics, or just plain feel passionately on behalf of THEIR scientific faith, I am content for the scientists and their followers to believe whatever they want. I do not recall having opposed one article of "the creeds of modern science" for a long time. But such indifference doesn't seem to satisfy some of you. I need to prove it wrong, or accept the creed. I will not say that such a creed is abominable, but it isn't something I can accept.

 

I hope this finds you well, tss.

 

Rory

 

My thought also but expressed much better than I would have. 

 

It does,  at times, boggle m mind that they can not see level  of religious like faith involved in some areas.  But hey to each his own.

Edited by ERayR
MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am only skeptical. 

 

Many here are challenging the consensus without doing scientific research.

It is okay to be skeptical, but doubt your doubts too. We don't have to be 100% certain to be worried, we should take it seriously, not ignore it. 

 

 

 I do not see any reason for trusting that the consensus is correct. There are many reasons why the academic community can wish to retain an unwarranted establishment of a status quo.

 

You are not involved in a scientific research, but you are quick to judge the scientists that are involved. 

CFR 

 

 

It is filled with examples of false consensus. 

 

but many of them were just assumptions. For example, many scientists assumed that our known universe was static, it was simply an assumption. Common decency and CO2 caused climate change have strong evidence to back them up according to the scientific researchers. That is a big difference, they are highly unlikely to be wrong. 

 

Study the modern history of science, today most ideas that challenge the consensus are wrong. 

Bigfoot, 9/11 pseudoscience, anti-vaccine science, Creationism.  

 

 

There are many reasons why the academic community can wish to retain an unwarranted establishment of a status quo. I have mentioned one or two that were not convincing to you. Allow me to try another.

 

What about retired climate scientists? What about independent scientific organizations? What about scientific organizations from China, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico? All of them agree. Your conspiracy theory argument doesn't work for many reasons. 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Are you suggesting that science has everything figured out?  That's it folks, there is nothing more to see here.

 

How many times do you have to reinvent dietary guidelines?

 

We should not always assume that because there is scientific consensus that there are not better scientific models out there working to change scientific consensus, which does not simply come about by publishing a peer reviewed study in a journal.  The fact is, if a peer reviewed study was published in a journal which gave reason to doubt an established theory that has "scientific consensus", it would not be taken seriously by most scientists who read it, while the majority of scientists will never even hear about it.  There are social and personal aspects of theory change that makes scientific consensus a difficult thing to change, even if your data is accurate.  Historical examples demonstrate that scientific consensus was never a matter of pure logic and pure facts (Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

 

All I am suggesting is that perhaps the skeptic is more aligned with the spirit of science than those who use the "97% of scientists agree" argument to discredit a skeptic.  It is people who use "scientific consensus" as evidence of a sound theory who inhibit scientific discovery and revolution.  Scientific evolution comes about very slowly because of people like that.

 

Heaven No. What we know is but a tiny thimbles' worth of knowledge in the vast oceans of our ignorance.

 

Science really isn't a popularity contest. A Theory is just the best explanation(model) we have so far as to how something works. It is never the final answer. If you or anyone disagrees with any theory it is open to you to falsify it. All science asks is that you show your work. That is what Peer Review is all about.

 

OK lets get down to bass tacks. Say you're not feeling well and you go to 100 doctors and 97 of them do culture tests and tell you that you have the Flu, and give you some medicine to help you feel better while you recover. However 3 of them do no tests of any kind then tell you it is just your imagination and that the other 97 are lying to you. Who do you believe?

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

OK lets get down to bass tacks. Say you're not feeling well and you go to 100 doctors and 97 of them do culture tests and tell you that you have the Flu, and give you some medicine to help you feel better while you recover. However 3 of them do no tests of any kind then tell you it is just your imagination and that the other 97 are lying to you. Who do you believe?

 

A poor analogy.

1
MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted (edited)

All I am suggesting is that perhaps the skeptic is more aligned with the spirit of science than those who use the "97% of scientists agree" argument to discredit a skeptic.  

 

but you don't have to be 100% certain to be worried, you do not have to be 100% certain to take them seriously. 

It is okay to be a skeptic, but doubt your doubts too. 

 

 

 Scientific evolution comes about very slowly because of people like that.

 

Scientific evolution comes about very slowly because there are not enough scientific researchers. 

We need a bigger army of scientists. . 

 

We should not always assume that because there is scientific consensus that there are not better scientific models out there working to change scientific consensus

 

The consensus could be wrong, but common decency and CO2 caused climate change theories have survived scientific scrutiny for many years.   For now, they are the best available science, that is why we should take them seriously. 

The evidence does not come from models.  

 

Bytheway, the claim that dinosaurs lived could be wrong too

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
3DOP Grand Master

3DOP

Posted
Posted

Mormon Free Thinker

Many here are challenging the consensus without doing scientific research.

It is okay to be skeptical, but doubt your doubts too. We don't have to be 100% certain to be worried, we should take it seriously, not ignore it. 

 

3DOP

Skepticism, or a suspicion that some so-called science is quackery, or failing to believe, is not equivalent to "challenging the consensus".

 

It seems to me that I am talking about sciences in general while you have a special field of interest. Climate change is not in my range of interests and there is nothing significant that I say about it for or against.    

 

MormonFreethinker, quoting me and asking for references


"I do not see any reason for trusting that the consensus is correct. There are many reasons why the academic community can wish to retain an unwarranted establishment of a status quo." (3DOP)

 

You are not involved in a scientific research, but you are quick to judge the scientists that are involved. 

CFR 

 

3DOP

I understand scientists to be human. That is a fact not rash judgment. As for your request for a CFR, I prefaced my statement, thus: "I do not see any reason..." It was only a subjective statement of my own interior conviction at the time which I am willing to affirm now as being my state of mind at the time it was written.

 

Mormon Free Thinker

but many of them were just assumptions. For example, many scientists assumed that our known universe was static, it was simply an assumption. Common decency and CO2 caused climate change have strong evidence to back them up according to the scientific researchers. That is a big difference, they are highly unlikely to be wrong. 

 

3DOP

Here you are speaking of my affirmation that scientific history has a record where the consensus has been false. You point out that this is because they were based on false assumptions. Of course. That doesn't improve the record. 

 

But it appears more and more that you just want us to agree with you about one thing.

 

Mormon Free Thinker

Study the modern history of science, today most ideas that challenge the consensus are wrong. 

Bigfoot, 9/11 pseudoscience, anti-vaccine science, Creationism.  

 

3DOP

I don't care about that stuff either. I will not study it. I steadfastly and adamantly refuse to study that stuff from either side. It is terribly boring to me. Your continual admonitions to study things about which I have no curiosity will be ineffective. Will you study what I am interested in? Probably not. The difference between us is that it is okay with me if you have different interests.

 

MormonFreeThinker

What about retired climate scientists? What about independent scientific organizations? What about scientific organizations from China, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico? All of them agree. Your conspiracy theory argument doesn't work for many reasons.

 

3DOP

I don't propose an argument against what I perceive to be as your hobbyhorse. I don't have a conspiracy theory about your hobbyhorse. I have given my personal opinions about why I do not necessarily accept scientific consensus in general. Neither do I necessarily reject scientific consensus in general.



Mormon Free Thinker

Bytheway, the claim that dinosaurs lived could be wrong too

 

3DOP

I am not committed to a belief about dinos. The Catholic Church has never said a word in any articles of faith about the subject. I tend to think they are a hoax, but I really don't care. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear Free Thinker,

 

I think I have tried on this thread to be forthcoming about doubts I have that seem intolerable to you. I seldom persuade anyone of the reasonableness of my opinions. So don't be too disappointed at your failure with me. I hope I haven't provoked you by calling your subject of interest a hobbyhorse. I mean no disrespect. But I simply have to insist that I can not share your passion for natural science, and you are frankly overzealous about it if you think anyone else is so obliged.

 

I truly wish you well.

 

3DOP

pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted

Heaven No. What we know is but a tiny thimbles' worth of knowledge in the vast oceans of our ignorance.

 

We are in agreement here.

 

Science really isn't a popularity contest.

 

It is more than you think.  Read Kuhn.

http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

 

Science really isn't a popularity contest. A Theory is just the best explanation(model) we have so far as to how something works. It is never the final answer. If you or anyone disagrees with any theory it is open to you to falsify it. All science asks is that you show your work. That is what Peer Review is all about.

 

Peer reviewed journal articles are a dime a dozen, there is an endless sea of them.  Good ones that go up against popular scientific opinion don't always get noticed.  That's where the popularity contest comes into play.  It can be very difficult to even get scientists to read and consider them because they are a threat to the current paradigm which generates a lot of careers and a lot of money.  

 

OK lets get down to bass tacks. Say you're not feeling well and you go to 100 doctors and 97 of them do culture tests and tell you that you have the Flu, and give you some medicine to help you feel better while you recover. However 3 of them do no tests of any kind then tell you it is just your imagination and that the other 97 are lying to you. Who do you believe?

 

Poor analogy indeed.  You are implying that all scientists who find and study the anomalies in a popular theory don't do research.  Well, lets look at history and see who those "3" doctors are who challenge the popular theories and research of the time: Astronomy was revolutionized by Galielo and Copernicus, and man was divested from the center of the universe. Physics was revolutionized by Newton. In biology we have your Darwin. We have Alfred Wegener with plate tectonics and continental drift.

 

One published article in a journal is not going to revolutionize science.  There is a human element that is often not considered that is required for sound science to prevail.  Not all scientists are revolutionaries, even though they may be right while the popular opinion is wrong.

1
MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted (edited)

Poor analogy indeed.  You are implying that all scientists who find and study the anomalies in a popular theory don't do research.  Well, lets look at history and see who those "3" doctors are who challenge the popular theories and research of the time: Astronomy was revolutionized by Galielo and Copernicus, and man was divested from the center of the universe. Physics was revolutionized by Newton. In biology we have your Darwin. We have Alfred Wegener with plate tectonics and continental drift.

 

What about Steven E Jones? He thinks his research is good science. 

Carl Sagan said, "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

 

It is a good analogy, the 97 did do their research, and the other 3 have theories that don't survive scientific scrutiny.  

 

A scientific theory that has survived years of scientific scrutiny must be taken seriously.  

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted

What I am referring to is the OP about science's credibility. I think that is the topic.

 

A scientific theory that has survived years of scientific scrutiny and is endorsed by many scientific organizations around the world is very credible. 

mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted

A scientific theory that has survived years of scientific scrutiny and is endorsed by many scientific organizations around the world is very credible. 

Yes, Kuhn makes that point as well.  There is often significant resistance to changing paradigms.  "Credibility" works for a while.  I suggest you read that link that was given earlier to the Kuhn piece.

 

It is not a short or easy read, but you will understand his position better if you read it, and will be able to argue your position better if indeed your position does not change.

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

It is true that some scientists exaggerate, but that has nothing to do with theories that have survived years of scientific scrutiny. Your article is completely irrelevant to what I am saying.

 

 

. 

 

Well your posts often seem completely irrelevant.

MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted (edited)

 There is often significant resistance to changing paradigms.  

 

It is called skepticism, they don't jump to new conclusions quickly. For example, the new claim the neutrinos are faster than light is wrong. 

 

 "Credibility" works for a while. 

 

Scientists didn't like the Big Bang theory, but the evidence forced them to accept it. 

A theory that survives scientific scrutiny for many years must be taken seriously. Of course, no scientific theory is 100% certain. 

Science is not like fundamentalists that are 100% certain of what they are saying. 

 

It is not a short or easy read, but you will understand his position better if you read it, and will be able to argue your position better if indeed your position does not change.

 

 Sure, I will read it when I have the time. 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted (edited)

The Atomic Theory.

The Theory of Gravity.

The Germ Theory of Disease.

The Theory of Evolution

 

Please provide reference that these need a paradigm shift in science.

 

My point is simply to show that perhaps those who use the "97% of scientists agree" statements as evidence of a theories accuracy has no historical leg to stand on.  There may be a good and valid reason why 97% of scientists agree, but the reason is not always based in pure science and logic, you also have to consider sociology and human nature. 

 

Do a google search for "challenges to the theory of gravity" and you will find mountains of stuff to nibble on.  How good is it?  I don't know, haven't read it and don't care to.  But who knows, there may be a seed of a new paradigm somewhere in there. 

 

Convergent genotypes in different species throws a huge wrench into the theory of evolution as presently constituted, but you guys (as predicted by Kuhn) dismiss the evidence because 97% of scientists believe in something else. 

Edited by pogi
2
MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted

My point is simply to show that perhaps those who use the "97% of scientists agree" statements as evidence of a theories accuracy has no historical leg to stand on.  There may be a good and valid reason why 97% of scientists agree, but the reason is not always based in pure science and logic, you also have to consider sociology and human nature. 

 

but history tells us that many agreements were just assumptions. We do not care about assumptions, we care about scientific theories that survive years of scientific scrutiny. We care that the 97% are telling us that the evidences are strong, we do not care about their personal beliefs or assumptions. 

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

A scientific theory that has survived years of scientific scrutiny and is endorsed by many scientific organizations around the world is very credible.

Well, thats a stretch for sure. Darwinian evolution is just one of those very stretch ideas. Just because its accepted dont make it credible.

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

The Atomic Theory.

The Theory of Gravity.

The Germ Theory of Disease.

The Theory of Evolution

 

Please provide reference that these need a paradigm shift in science.

What reference would suffice? You only acknowledge references that agree with you anyway.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...