Yes, but if you can't find any such unsupported assumptions, and yet the consensus of the scientific community has a different view, do you stick to your guns or go with what they are saying?
I don't know. I can't think of any examples from my experience that would meet that set of criteria. If that situation arises, I'll let you know.
It's a combination of what I take in from reports and the "scientific community" as well as my own logic and critical thinking skills - I am sure my perception of reality plays a role in it as well. So it's all three.
The degree of trust should depend upon the time and effort you spend on your own to research things. I would take any press release dressed up as an informative news article with a grain of salt. It's stripped bare of context or the conclusions driving the discovery, and it summarizes too much. Without much follow up, a person would give an implicit act of faith that the study's finding is true. It'd be like hearing gossip or rumors enough times to assume that it is true. Which is ironic given that the nature of scientists themselves should be to challenge and question everything. There is consensus, but I'd be surprised if there was a field without debate and change within a publicly known consensus. It's a very subtle disconnect when information strays from the holder and down to the end users. The simplest most possible way to explain a subject might be too complex for the lowest common denominator who's either too dumb or too apathetic to care. This would be where you get mobs who feel it's right/wrong, and they stand behind authorities they trust to know better to defend/oppose. Science (and religion...by extension of the OP's intent) is a tool. In the end, it might not be the science/numbers you're trusting but rather who is smoother to advocate what you think should be right.
Not sure I get the thread, but I do get what the thread needs: <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2IlHgbOWj4o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2IlHgbOWj4o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I don't either. There is only one legitimate answer to the question. Any answer other than the consensus of the scientific community implicitly states that you do not trust science.
Actually, the consensus of the scientific community does go astray at certain times for certain reasons. This phenomenon was discussed in the famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which also popularized the terms paradigm and paradigm shift. Many people here have probably even read this book, but for those who haven’t here’s a quick summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions see also: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html
This is wrong. Science is not a religion. The awesome thing about science is when someone proves the "consensus" is wrong, it is accepted and not banished as a heretic.
Not sure how you think what I said is wrong. When the consensus of science changes, so should you. The consensus of science is always the correct answer. The consensus of science is never static.
As others have said. . . blind allegiance to the Concensus of Science can be a bit of a problem. Look at the failed sciences of Eugenics and Phrenology. At those times . . . you would have walked lock step in the belief which would require a strong and vigorous resistance to anyone challenging it? It is not as simple as . . . Whatever the most White Coats say. I think alot of people need it to make sense to them. I think alot of people need it to align with their preconceived notions. I don't think alot of people will admit to the last one. . but make no doubt . .they are out there. Rocket River
Ok . . you are kind of in a Logical loops 1. Any answer other than the consensus of the scientific community implicitly states that you do not trust science. then you said 2. The consensus of science is never static. QUESTION: Let's say Concensus of Science says the EARTH IS FLAT. by your 1st assertion . . . it must be accepted Anyone who does not beleive that . .. obviously does not trust science someone says the Earth is round they obviously don't trust sceince. . . . NOW an inference on my part I'll admit. . . . You would NOT have alot of faith in something someone who does not have faith in Science Then they don't trust science so their opinion maybe considered 'less than' and may not be accepted . . . further it maybe belittled. I guess my point is. .. by simply saying . . The Consensus of Science You reduce Science down to a popularity contest Rocket River
If I meet someone who does not trust science, unless it conforms to their preconceived notions, or their own "experience," I would certainly think less of them from an intellectual standpoint. It would not eliminate them from being a friend, but it would sure tell me alot.
so . . .in that time frame. . . [The Earth is Flat time frame] You would have INDEED dismissed the notion of the Earth is Round based on the consensus of the 'scientific' community of the time? I just wanted to be clear on that Rocket River
That's why I think "The Enlightenment" was such a good name for it. So RR, are you saying that you would go with your own intuition and observation over established science? Is this some cleverly disguised creationism thread?
