Science

[ATM]

... Scientists do not try to shut down discussion or debate with "the science is settled", shut up. Scientists do not use the argument that 97%* of us are in consensus, don't you want to be one of the cool kids?

Interestingly enough, those guilty of this (and their apologists) are the most likely to be found proclaiming "Science!" and appealing to authority or popularity as they continue to do it. Those who might otherwise be considered scientists are stepping outside of and neglecting that role when they do so.

The scientists may be in it for truth, or they may be in it for a political agenda. The elites are the ones looking to profit explicitly, or at least knock our freedom down a notch or two, so they recruit the scientists. Follow the money...

Yep, no shortage of academics willing to rubber stamp a conclusion if it benefits them in any way.

 

[jamil]

Even on other topics, beliefs that necessitated life changing policies, should have required the highest of standards. Instead they killed off certain liberties and whole families declaring a sequence of perpetual wars when there was plenty of cause for skepticism.

We should always remain skeptical of our beliefs, there is never a point they should become immune from examination or scrutiny, is there?

I would generally agree with all of this, but with one caveat. Effective examination should also consider the the quality and biases with evidence. I can be skeptical of, say, a government report on the facts surrounding two planes flying into two sky scrapers, without having to believe every wild claim of conspiracies. But let's not further sully this topic with that one. We can discuss those points in the other thread if you like.

 

[ATM]

I would generally agree with all of this, but with one caveat. Effective examination should also consider the the quality and biases with evidence. I can be skeptical of, say, a government report on the facts surrounding two planes flying into two sky scrapers, without having to believe every wild claim of conspiracies. But let's not further sully this topic with that one. We can discuss those points in the other thread if you like.

Obviously you can't, because you project that very thing upon others. You imagine wild claims even where they are proven absent yet adopt other wild claims without even scrutinizing their basis.


There is never a point when our beliefs should become immune from examination or scrutiny, is there?

 

[jamil]

Obviously you can't, because you project that very thing upon others. You imagine wild claims even where they are proven absent yet adopt other wild claims without even scrutinizing their basis.


There is never a point when our beliefs should become immune from examination or scrutiny, is there?

Again.

We can discuss those points in the other thread if you like.

 

[ATM]

Again.

It was a rather generalized question ...again.

 

[Libertarian01]

...There is never a point when our beliefs should become immune from examination or scrutiny, is there?

I believe this is true, but we also need to accept the facts at hand on any subject barring new data.

For example, in science a generally understood concept is Newtons Second Law of Motion, wherein we have F = ma (Force = mass * acceleration). Is this the absolute truth, a constant throughout the entire universe? We don't know, and maybe never will. However, barring new and verifiable information I believe it is fair to say that this should be accepted as a truth until someone proves it otherwise.

This doesn't mean we don't continue to study the laws of motion, but the act of questioning itself doesn't mean we throw out the law either or stop building and engineering based upon it.

The same goes for real life. In a murder case, for example, presume that there are witnesses, video recording of the act prior during and after, DNA evidence, a confession, motive etc. Also, the lack of any reasonable evidence showing the accused persons innocence. All the "proof" a DA would love to have. At trial the defendant is found guilty and judgement is passed. After conviction it is possible to find new evidence, but barring such findings I don't think it would be reasonable to question the defendants guilt. Sure, someone could do it, and maybe should, but at some point our denial of the defendants guilt crosses a line from honest truth seeking to irrational denial.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Doug

 

[ATM]

Of course. For laws to stand, they must pass the rigors of increasing scrutiny and testing required to depose of alternative hypotheses, and then theories, such that they arose from among many possibilities to stand alone. It doesn't make them truth, but it is our most plausible claim approaching truth in the absence of rivals, which new information may bring back to the table for a renewed round of scrutiny and testing.

This is not how sociopolitical "science" selects its winners from among a field of hypotheses and then just claims it settled and unquestionable. Not by a long shot.

 

[oldpink]

A perfect example of someone who has stopped thinking vs. an inquisitive mind.

Science is not perfect, as humans are not perfect. But if we are going to advance as a species, it ain't going to be from the efforts of the doomsday cult that's greatest mission is to get me up early on Sunday to overdress and apologize for being human.

Someone has (Sky)daddy issues.

 

[Tanfodude]

Dude, they get a percentage of the grant for their very own. It doesn't just pay for the expenses related the research. The bigger the grant, the more they make personally. It's definitely enough motive for unethical people to keep committing fraud.

Well, anything that involves money, that's expected. What I'm saying is, we shouldn't just conclude that every scientists are in just for profits, just like not every gun owner is a thug. Looking at science history, most were wrong and some discoveries are by accident. Some received so much backlash but later was honored because they were right. Back then those people need resources for their research and experiments, that has not changed. The difference now is politics is involved.

 

[Libertarian01]

Of course. For laws to stand, they must pass the rigors of increasing scrutiny and testing required to depose of alternative hypotheses, and then theories, such that they arose from among many possibilities to stand alone. It doesn't make them truth, but it is our most plausible claim approaching truth in the absence of rivals, which new information may bring back to the table for a renewed round of scrutiny and testing.

This is not how sociopolitical "science" selects its winners from among a field of hypotheses and then just claims it settled and unquestionable. Not by a long shot.

With the first paragraph I agree 100%. Maybe there is no true truth. Perhaps that is the only true truth in the universe, is that there is no absolute truth.

With the second paragraph I also agree, to a point. I guess my concern is that we cannot debate certain policy decisions forever. At some point we need to make decisions with the best that we have now, today and stick to it until a better idea comes along. Failing to accept that "better(?) idea" is where human ego and/or pride and/or resistance to change interferes.

Regards,

Doug

 

[ATM]

With the first paragraph I agree 100%. Maybe there is no true truth. Perhaps that is the only true truth in the universe, is that there is no absolute truth.

With the second paragraph I also agree, to a point. I guess my concern is that we cannot debate certain policy decisions forever. At some point we need to make decisions with the best that we have now, today and stick to it until a better idea comes along. Failing to accept that "better(?) idea" is where human ego and/or pride and/or resistance to change interferes.

Regards,

Doug

Decisions would still be made, modified and refined at various points along the continuing scientific path of scrutinizing and testing among hypotheses to narrow the field to theories and so on. Decisions are not modified or refined much after they simply pick their winner out of the available hypotheses, proclaiming it now settled and unquestionable.

The scientific process doesn't have to stop to make a decision, but it might be stopped to justify a favored decision or cement one fairly firmly in place.

 

[2A_Tom]

I think that all of you who believe that it is your fault should pay for carbon credits for your lawn mowers, cars, furnaces passing gas, the gasses produced by your garbage ans poop.

As for me and my house we will let you.

 

[Libertarian01]

Decisions would still be made, modified and refined at various points along the continuing scientific path of scrutinizing and testing among hypotheses to narrow the field to theories and so on. Decisions are not modified or refined much after they simply pick their winner out of the available hypotheses, proclaiming it now settled and unquestionable.

The scientific process doesn't have to stop to make a decision, but it might be stopped to justify a favored decision or cement one fairly firmly in place.

We have consensus. So endeth the lesson, for now...

Doug

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Former Obama Official Says Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy

Science doesn't lie but those that use it to shape opinion and policy certainly do.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

With the first paragraph I agree 100%. Maybe there is no true truth. Perhaps that is the only true truth in the universe, is that there is no absolute truth.

You realize the logic problem with this position, right?

 

[HoughMade]

So did everyone get an opportunity to protest for their favorite climate change, trans-gender, LGBTQ, or other liberal cause at the laughably named "March for Science" this past weekend?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So did everyone get an opportunity to protest for their favorite climate change, trans-gender, LGBTQ, or other liberal cause at the laughably named "March for Science" this past weekend?

Yes. I did get the opportunity. But I did not exercise it.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So did everyone get an opportunity to protest for their favorite climate change, trans-gender, LGBTQ, or other liberal cause at the laughably named "March for Science" this past weekend?

This past weekend? Shouldn't it have been "April for Science"? Stupid scientists... can't even get the month right.

 

[ATM]

We have consensus. So endeth the lesson, for now...

Doug

I'll try to find something somewhere else to disagree with.

...Science doesn't lie but those that use it to shape opinion and policy certainly do.

Dang, then I ran right into this.


Agreed!

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

There is never a point when our beliefs should become immune from examination or scrutiny, is there?

It's like being seen naked. You don't think it should never be done, but you're pretty uncomfortable if you don't have a level of trust with whomever is doing it.