Do you trust the Scientists?

[Fjool]

I "trust" science. Science doesnt "need" to be trusted, it is fact with or without human interpretation.

As much as I agree with you here, it does sound exactly like religious dogma

[DePooperit]

I "trust" science. Science doesnt "need" to be trusted, it is fact with or without human interpretation.

 

Science is not fact. In real science, everything is regarded as a theory - which means that it is held as long as it is supported by evidence, and discarded or modifed as soon as evidence contradicts it. The idea that science is per se 'fact' is the first step away from the scientific attitude and method.

 

"In fact, the tentativeness of science is counter-intuitively one of its greatest virtues: for progress toward truth and away from error would never be possible without change, and change would never be possible without perpetual doubt and skepticism."

 

From

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html

 

Anyway, the topic head was 'do you trust scientists', not 'science' which is quite a different thing.

[Fjool]

I can see what you mean, DePoop'; but I think where McD is coming from, the scientific principle is a means to understand the fundamental truth that lies behind these things. Even if we are incapable of solving them, the secrets that science strives to unlock are, from this perspective, most conveniently labelled the 'truth'.

 

One thing is certain: Scientists are considerably less trustworthy than the scientific principle itself.

 

People are driven by many things; not all of them are science.

[Para Handy]

I would be dead if it was not for science so yes except for Global Warming I would not trust any one on this subject any more. To may people with there own objective on that one.

[sheepshagger]

I can see what you mean, DePoop'; but I think where McD is coming from, the scientific principle is a means to understand the fundamental truth that lies behind these things. Even if we are incapable of solving them, the secrets that science strives to unlock are, from this perspective, most conveniently labelled the 'truth'.

 

One thing is certain: Scientists are considerably less trustworthy than the scientific principle itself.

People are driven by many things; not all of them are science.

 

my god du is agreed we me

Check out me posts its got to hurt

[DamnSaxon]

I would be dead if it was not for science so yes except for Global Warming

Actually, much the same goes for me on those points ... I had polio in the 1956 epidemic, and was saved for posterity by the still quite new NHS. It has a lot to answer for

As for global warming ... I don't deny that the globe is warming. I don't deny that carbon dioxide (etc) levels are higher now than at any time in our history.

But - I've never yet seen one peer-reviewed paper which proves to my satisfaction that the current warming is due to our noxious emissions. Has anyone?

[KOYAANISQATSI]

I suspect that most people find little reason to question the scientific Establishment. Most of us just assume that the expert knows what he’s talking about and that he has no reason to deceive us. But few who are removed from the leading edge of science know that beneath the noble exterior of many institutions lie many tendencies toward political maneuvering and manipulation, often with highly destructive consequences. This state of things should not surprise us. Money, reputations, limited fields of view, and the momentum of earlier beliefs have always had the power to corrupt free inquiry and to subtly dissuade individuals from challenging institutionalized ideas.

 

But the more severe problem today is unique to the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and it is inseparably tied to the centralized funding of scientific investigations. There are those who believe that science is not just mistaken on some interesting theoretical possibilities, but irredeemably wrong on the most fundamental questions science can ask. But to whom should we listen in order to sort all of this out? If the critics are correct, billions of tax dollars have been misdirected and/or completely wasted chasing chimeras. Your response might be, “OK…but who the heck are you?†The answer is, I’m a layperson who has followed discovery with a particular interest in the work of independent researchers who are skeptical of the current scientific consensus. But the term “skeptic†has been so debased and misused over the years that some interpret the word to mean an opposition to anything unconventional (i.e. “skepticism†of the paranormal, UFO’s, conspiracies, etc.). In reality, the word “skeptic,†has the precise opposite meaning. As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, it means “One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.â€

 

In science today, the “generally accepted conclusions†are routinely presented as inarguable “factsâ€. From the Big Bang to the evolution of planets, from the nature of comets to highly speculative and hidden phenomena such as black holes, dark matter, and dark energy, the big cosmological picture is presented with such confidence that media in this country have almost never questioned it. But the picture may be much less clear than we have been led to believe. Far removed from the spotlight of scientific media, critics have suggested that a single, fundamental error has infected the theoretical sciences.

 

This error is the notion that the Universe is electrically neutral — that electricity does not “do anything†in space. It is a perverse stance given the overwhelming importance of electricity in our lives and space probes’ discovery of electrical phenomena everywhere they have gone.

 

“Today, nothing is more important to the future and credibility of science than liberation from the gravity-driven universe of prior theory. A mistaken supposition has not only prevented intelligent and sincere investigators from seeing what would otherwise be obvious, it has bred indifference to possibilities that could have inspired the sciences for decades."

[KOYAANISQATSI]

An interesting article; up to the point of confirming the Big Bang...

 

The Neuroscience of Screwing Up

 

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat/all/1

 

A squirt of blood to the anterior cingulate cortex, a collar of tissue located in the center of the brain. The ACC is typically associated with the perception of errors and contradictions — neuroscientists often refer to it as part of the “Oh sh*t!†circuit.

 

But there’s another region of the brain that can be activated as we go about editing reality. It’s called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, or DLPFC. It’s located just behind the forehead and is one of the last brain areas to develop in young adults. It plays a crucial role in suppressing so-called unwanted representations, getting rid of those thoughts that don’t square with our preconceptions. For scientists, it’s a problem.

 

The DLPFC is constantly censoring the world, erasing facts from our experience. If the ACC is the “Oh sh*t!†circuit, the DLPFC is the Delete key. When the ACC and DLPFC “turn on together, people aren’t just noticing that something doesn’t look right,†Dunbar says. “They’re also inhibiting that information.â€

 

What turned out to be so important, of course, was the unexpected result, the experimental error that felt like a failure. The answer had been there all along — it was just obscured by the imperfect theory, rendered invisible by our small-minded brain.

 

Bob Dylan, in other words, was right: There’s no success quite like failure.

[Gibber]

I "trust" science. Science doesnt "need" to be trusted, it is fact with or without human interpretation.

 

Science is based on seeing a cause lead to an effect many times and making a general rule that accounts for it eg A leads to B. Oddly there isn't any logical reason why A leads to B again in the future.

 

Even animals use this basic principle, when you bang a tin of winalot the dog uses science to predict he is again getting fed just like we can predict the rate a body falls or how much fuel is needed to get to the moon.

 

If anyone can discover what a "cause" actually is then that would be quite an achievement, until then science, strictly speaking, is based on intuition. Seems to be working so far though but science may not actually mean anything without human interpretation, like that thing about the sound of a tree that falls in the forest with nobody to hear it.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Even animals use this basic principle, when you bang a tin of winalot the dog uses science to predict he is again getting fed

 

Indeed, I use this to get the cat in often and am not surprised at all, how often it finds itself duped into being brought inside on sheer faith that it will get fed; only to find it has been the victim of a cunning ruse and that no food is in fact on offer.

 

I find science can often be used in this way, to fool the feeble minded, who rely on faith alone about who they think they can always trust.