Can we trust modern science?

[anthson]

I really have not attempted to bring religion into this discussion! I used one word: religiously. As in ... "she jogs every morning religiously" or "he listens to Rush Limbaugh religiously." Grabelyn took a pot-shot at me, mentioned the Bible, made an inaccurate and totally unfair assessment of my beliefs, and suddenly I'm the one guilty of trying to make this a religious discussion.

[Maelgrim]

I for one was waiting to read "now if you read the bible, it'll prove that........" in the original post.
Thankfully, that didn't happen.

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.

Hi ad hominem, nice to meet you! How are you today? Me? Oh, I'm fine, just a little disappointed to see such peurile personal attacks in a thread which started out so relatively openly.

Back on topic.

Can 'science' be trusted? Yes. for precisely the reason Dalaena underlined below.

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.

So if it is then 'scientific' to question published results, why all the hate when people come back with 'this is inconclusive/flawed/fails to account for variable X'?

The science can be trusted. The marketing which then comes along and says 'THIS ARE FACT N00BZ! STFU!' cannot.

It is the science which says that smoking cigarettes for 6 months caused no measurable disease or deterioration of the mouth, nose, throat, or associated organs within the test group.

It is the marketing which says that smoking is harmless.

It is the marketing which is the problem.

I think we can all agree on that.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Maelgrim
Hi ad hominem, nice to meet you! How are you today? Me? Oh, I'm fine, just a little disappointed to see such peurile personal attacks in a thread which started out so relatively openly.

So you take an ad hominem argument and treat it as if it's a person (aka anthropomorphize it). Does that make it an ad hominem ad hominem?[/facetious]

Back on topic.

Can 'science' be trusted? Yes. for precisely the reason Dalaena underlined below.

And, for precisely that same reason, new scientific discoveries CANNOT be trusted. "Science" as a concept may be trustworthy, but something that was only published yesterday hasn't had much peer review yet, so it shouldn't be afforded the same consideration that, to use the canonical example, the Law of Gravity is.

It is the marketing which is the problem.

I think we can all agree on that.

I think we can. Well, not just Marketing (they're the problem with a lot of things), but also sensation-loving journalists, agenda-pushing politicians, and a score of other people/groups who will take a hard fact, republish it out of context, and use it to their own benefit. But that's nothing unusual. Mike Muuss invents a Ping program to diagnose network failures, and other people use it to find vulnerable systems to attack. Does that mean that you can't trust network applications writing? You can't mistrust something just because it can be twisted away from its original purpose... in fact, probably *everything* can be twisted like that.

Science, by its nature as a self-correcting and peer-reviewed "entity", is trustworthy in the same way that Wikipedia is trustworthy. In fact, a Wiki is probably the most appropriate representation of collective scientific knowledge (with the slight difference that it takes some effort to publish in a respected journal, whereas a wiki tends to be more anarchic) - someone publishes, someone else corrects or adds detail, the corrections are themselves peer-reviewed, etcetera. "Current scientific knowledge", if there were a single book in which it could all be found, would be as reliable as the current state of any wiki, except for the vandalism.

[Dalaena]

Originally posted by Maelgrim

So if it is then 'scientific' to question published results, why all the hate when people come back with 'this is inconclusive/flawed/fails to account for variable X'?

Because the discussion is NEVER about the facts outside the scientific community. It's broad, sweeping statements about science that are, honestly, nothing more than opinions backed by little fact. Here's a scientific question that's fit for scientific discussion:

In most lifeforms, replication or reproduction comes with a certain maturity of the organism. If is true, then progensis involves more than simple neotony. Where can we actually find examples where this phenomenon results in a viable species rather than one that simply goes extinct because it's unable to reproduce?

Even simpler discussions rarely occur. It's mostly people finding incorrect facts on the internet and pasting them for those who know the science to attack or to explain. Most explanations, though completely reasonable and educational, are ignored because the people involved in the discussion aren't interested in really getting answers. They're only asking the "scientific question" in the first place in hopes that there's no one around who can actually explain the science. More often than not, there IS no one around who can fully explain the science because scientists are busy having scientific discourse or teaching science to people who WANT to learn.

I'll paste you the most often seen attempts at a scientific discussion by such people. Most of the times, it's not even posted as a question. It's posted as a fact when it is a completely wrong statement.

"I'll tell you the most wrong thing that science tries to teach you. How in the world did man evolve from monkeys like the theory of evolution says? Only an idiot would believe that."

I'll tell you why this isn't even an attempt at a scientific discussion.

1) The stated science is wrong. The theory of evolution does not state ANYTHING like "man are descended from monkeys".

2) You're already starting off with stating this is wrong without supporting evidence. It's simply OPINION that this is wrong.

3) You've already stated your conclusion, again, without supporting scientific facts.

Surely you can see the difference between science trying to disprove theories within its field than someone with no scientific background simply running in with an opinion backed up by a book written by man or a "I read it on the internet". Honestly, you don't even need a scientific background if you can simply ask the right questions and actually be a part of the discourse.

For example, I'm not a physicists. I don't know enough physics to truly delve into quantum mechanics, but I can question the infinite worlds theory. Something just seems a little off about that theory, but if I were to question it, I would definitely be reading the answers to the people I pose my questions to.

[Graeblyn]

Originally posted by anthson
I really have not attempted to bring religion into this discussion! I used one word: religiously. As in ... "she jogs every morning religiously" or "he listens to Rush Limbaugh religiously." Grabelyn took a pot-shot at me, mentioned the Bible, made an inaccurate and totally unfair assessment of my beliefs, and suddenly I'm the one guilty of trying to make this a religious discussion.

I apologize. I am bringing baggage to this discussion from how past threads like this one have developed with your participation, and that baggage has led me to misinterpret your usage of RELIGIOUSLY. It was not intended to be an attack on you personally, but I honestly thought my post reflected your own statements in the past (i.e. that all of your values and beliefs are rooted firmly in your interpretation of God's Will as interpreted through scripture).

That is a perfectly respectable point of view, and one that can even be debated in a perfectly respectable and productive way. Indeed, the Christian community does this all the time, both within and between its sects. I would have been interested in your response to the various Christian perspectives that reconcile more easily with science when compared with the point of views you have expressed regarding various science related issues. However, clearly, based on your followup posts, such a discussion is not what you had in mind at all, and I again apologize that my remarks have been taken as an attack on you. That was not at all my intent. .

I do not want to derail this thread, but I felt this public note was better than a PM to Anthson, as at least one other person seems to have found offense with what I posted.

[Savaric]

I only read a couple replies and I don't want to get into this thread. I just want to state that the scientific community is not some kind of centralized ganglion that moves in one direction. Scientists are quite nasty in the scientific arena. One scientist will propose a new theory or some new discovery and another will try to tear it down. They are not united. Scientists don't just question the phenomena of our universe. They also question each other.

I also just wanna add that because of the above, science is even -more- credible. You'll just have to think about it.

[anthson]

Originally posted by Graeblyn
However, clearly, based on your followup posts, such a discussion is not what you had in mind at all, and I again apologize that my remarks have been taken as an attack on you. That was not at all my intent.

People get understandably sensitive because I've been a big jerk on topics like this in the past. I'm still a big jerk, I'm just a recovering big jerk. Don't get me wrong, I was always right, I just have a knack for going about things the most terrible way possible thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt and I understand how, given my past methods of conveying a point, folks can be sensitive.

[Rosuav]

*signs Anthson up to the newsgroup alt.jerks.recovery*