Can we trust modern science?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Metiao
I agree that some things that they come out with is a step right out of left field.

For example, I heard somewhere, something about Pluto not being a planet. How can it be a planet for so long and all of a sudden NOT be a planet? I didn't look into it so I don't know if they are actually not considering it a planet anymore, or if some jerk off reporter misunderstood what someone said, and ran with it.

---

As I understand it, the definition of a "planet" was never all that well formalized, and now that other outer-orbit objects have been found, it was decided that a proper definition had to be found. That definition would either have to include several of these other objects, or exclude Pluto, and it was decided to do the latter. So it's not that Pluto has changed, it's just that the scientific term "planet" has now been more rigorously defined... and it doesn't cover this eccentric little ball of rock, sorry Greek god of the underworld.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caer
3) And finally, on the issue of science "pushing an agenda": I think this is a major confusion of who the agenda actually belongs to. Yes, it is true that some who profess themselves to be scientists have an agenda. Yes, scientists all start from beliefs that may color their results in a number of ways. However, when it comes to actually pushing an agenda, most scientists simply are not. More often than not, those with agendas latch onto science and use research results to fit their own purposes.

---

A small tangent:

If you're trying to get something published so you can get a degree, you may not be specifically pushing one side or the other of an argument, but you're pushing the agenda of "I want to get something published so I can get a degree". That, coupled with the fact that you will have started with some kind of theory, may well colour your results (data that's inconsistent with your theory might get conveniently glossed over, while data that supports it gets studied in detail). It'll doubtless be less "pushy" an agenda than "Foo Corp are funding this research, so I better not find things that make them look bad", but it's an agenda all the same.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
If you're trying to get something published so you can get a degree, you may not be specifically pushing one side or the other of an argument, but you're pushing the agenda of "I want to get something published so I can get a degree". That, coupled with the fact that you will have started with some kind of theory, may well colour your results (data that's inconsistent with your theory might get conveniently glossed over, while data that supports it gets studied in detail). It'll doubtless be less "pushy" an agenda than "Foo Corp are funding this research, so I better not find things that make them look bad", but it's an agenda all the same.

---

If you want to count "furthering scientific knowledge" as an agenda, which I suppose it technically is, then yes, my original statement would be wrong. However, I do not count the goal of science as an agenda, and particularly not in the sense that was originally intended.

As far as wanting to get published in order to get a degree, it's somewhat more complicated than that. One can publish while in the process of getting a degree, and this will not automatically confer a degree upon them. In order to obtain the degree one must defend a thesis or dissertation (or both) in front of a committee of faculty. Those faculty are not going to let you pass if your research is clearly flawed, biased, or intentionally distorted. And, a similar process exists for publishing as well. The peer-review process for journal articles means that your proposed article is sent to a number of reviewers, who then decide whether the work meets the standards to be published in that journal. And considering that the publishment rate for some journals is 1 out of every 10 submitted, the standards are fairly rigorous.

The use of theory can indeed color the research, and this problem is sometimes openly discussed among scientists (at least in my field). However, it is also a necessary guiding tool that organizes bodies of research. And, it is a tool which scientists are comfortable with revising. Oftentimes, we are not using our own theories in research, so we are not particularly attached to them. In my field, the theories we use are constantly shifting and being updated and modified as new results are found. Having said that, however, the processes outlined above reduce the chance that someone who just "glossed over the data" will be rewarded for it. The system's not perfect, and I'm not trying to argue that. What I am trying to argue though is that science is not rampant with that sort of behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeblyn
I would suggest people read the above carefully before spending a great deal of time trying to argue this subject with Anthson. As his religious beliefs preclude trust in science, it is a waste of time using anything but the bible to convince him to change his mind.

---

That is an extremely unfair statement!

I've never demanded anyone here use the Bible to convince me of anything unless we were speaking strictly on spiritual matters. My "you can't trust science religiously" comment meant exactly how it read: You can't trust science the way religious people trust their religion. You can't have "faith" in science. ANY scientist worth his salt I'm sure would tell you that. Why would you say something like this about me?

Caer, where exactly do we disagree? I mean you're basically saying I don't understand the scientific method and all that and then you're explaining how science works (pretty much the same way I did, just with greater elaboration), but ... where is it we disagree? I think you missed my overall point: that science cannot be taken as absolute solid fact because it has so many times in the past proven its own self grossly incorrect. This argument has its own application in the global warming thread in that I'm just not ready to endure a communist agenda all for the sake of saving the planet based on science's current trend of thinking.

Just as there is a Godwin's law. I think there should be an "Anthson's law" or an "Aristotle's law" which is how long a thread can go on before someone accuses the other side of having a communist agenda.

In the case of the green movement, I find the accusation really inappropriate. I know what a communist agenda is because I'm a communist. The green agenda has nothing to do with communism. If you people actually read some marxist works you might realize how silly you sound.

Now you might hate the green movement, but accusing it of being one thing that you hate, when it's a different thing all together (which you also might hate) detracts from your argument

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson
This argument has its own application in the global warming thread in that I'm just not ready to endure a communist agenda...

---

Thank God the disbelievers of this science hokus-pokus have no agenda.

Quote:

---

...all for the sake of saving the planet based on science's current trend of thinking.

---

What a pack of insidious arseholes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
Just as there is a Godwin's law. I think there should be an "Anthson's law" or an "Aristotle's law" which is how long a thread can go on before someone accuses the other side of having a communist agenda.

---

Snicker. I like that idea.

Okay. In that case, can we - just like when Godwin's is invoked - declare this thread dead, please? I doubt it's going to get anywhere, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson
Caer, where exactly do we disagree? I mean you're basically saying I don't understand the scientific method and all that and then you're explaining how science works (pretty much the same way I did, just with greater elaboration), but ... where is it we disagree? I think you missed my overall point: that science cannot be taken as absolute solid fact because it has so many times in the past proven its own self grossly incorrect. This argument has its own application in the global warming thread in that I'm just not ready to endure a communist agenda all for the sake of saving the planet based on science's current trend of thinking.

---

I'm very unclear how it's a communist agenda to want to lessen human impact on the world. As logical, thinking beings, we should KNOW that humans have a severe impact on the earth even if we don't know EXACTLY and to the last decimal point how much we're impacting it. It's better to be safe than sorry. If caring about the planet we live on makes someone a communist, then paint me red.

Science is constantly revising itself. That's the whole point of the entire branch of study. It constantly evolves as we postulate, discover, and study the world around us. Science isn't about belief. It's an entire process, and it's a process I find trustworthy BECAUSE it constantly questions itself. It is DESIGNED to constantly question its hypotheses. We even question the LAWS of science.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson

My "you can't trust science religiously" comment meant exactly how it read: You can't trust science the way religious people trust their religion. You can't have "faith" in science. ANY scientist worth his salt I'm sure would tell you that.

---

This is why I'm having a horrible problem with your post. Why do you keep trying to draw parallels between science and religion? There is NOTHING about religion in science. Religion deals with the matter of soul, spirit, and faith. That's what religion is good at and what it should be for. Religion needs to quit dabbling in science because history proves that religion TOTALLY SUCKS at science and has no business even trying to be a part of it. Galileo was ex-communicated and put under house arrest for being RIGHT when religion was WRONG, and he was prohibited from doing what he loved because of religion. He was Christian, and his religion completely betrayed his trust. Darwin, a devout Christian who believed that God was a necessary part of the evolution of man, has had his name likened to the devil by modern Christians when he is a TINY and CORRECT part of the theory of evolution. (All he's really responsible for is the "survival of the fittest" concept which was proposed by an economist first.)

You're right. Science isn't about faith. That's why religion shouldn't be butting into the field of science when it's not a morality or faith issue.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e1...ityfarkhv8.jpg


Been dying to break that out.