Good scientists always question science. That’s a given, isn’t it? The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was written in the early 1960s, not in pre-enlightenment times. It gives a thorough explanation of how and why scientific consensus sometimes goes astray, and it’s probably still one of the most assigned books in universities in the US. There’s really no excuse in this day and age for an educated person to assume that science is always right. It is right much of the time, of course, but not all of the time, and many of the reasons why it goes astray are well known, studied, and taught at this point.
Not really. Science has to make sense to me. I don't beleive it on . . . 'faith' I feel that the human animal is a logical Animal I think of science like I do the Bible. There is nothing another man can do with them . . that I myself cannot. Those who are scientist devote more time to it . . .not unlike preachers and the bible but at then end I will take their information and process it for myself I guess in the end . . .saying you just take the consensus is not much different than taking the preacher man's word for it . .without reading the Bible. It is not about Creationism . . it is about how do we believe what we believe. This is almost as much a . . I-BELEIVE-WHAT-I-AM-TOLD as the religious folx. Whether it is the Bible, Torah, Science or the neighborhood gossip I think it should all be processed for self. Rocket River
I don't *think* it is, but RR has consistently had this "don't trust those scientists" posts, if not outright threads. I'm not sure what happened. And what's odd is that there aren't any of his strawmen: people who always blindly follow the consensus to the point where they won't even consider that it might be thrown out by further research in the future. It's all subject to update, by a agreed-upon process, and that's the beauty of it really. And yes to the idea that the modern concept of science didn't really exist in the flat earth days. (And the only people doing anything *like* modern science, the Egyptians, already knew the earth was round and had accurately found its radius, which is really cool.)
Take this thread for instance: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=183565 or rather a Story in it. Basically folx were signing a petition because someone 'sounded like' they knew what they were talking about. No one questioned it. That is a problem. No one self examined it. Rocket River
That story speaks to the ignorance of people regarding science, and consequently would not support your position.
What is my position? What position have I take in this thread? My position as it pertains to myself is .. . I question everything and process it for my self? Now. . you are ASSUMING a position for me? YOUR position is to Trust Concensus among scientist. the quote - represents other people that seem to trust the knowledge of others over their own as well. [in this case random people with impressive sounding hypothesis] It absolutely supports the ideal that some will Believe based only on Concensus or Group Thought [in this case perceived concensus] you seem to be attempt to ascribe an agenda or a 'position' when the reality is I just wanted to see what people thought. How their minds worked in terms of Science. I could ask the same thing of Religious folx? do you interpret the bible based on what the preacher said? what the concensus of Christians beleive or What you read in the bible yourself the general meaning would be about the same just the point of reference would be different Rocket River
I guess if someone doesn’t have a science degree, or a good background in science some other way, then it is understandable that they might not have a lot of confidence when it comes to questioning science. I think that may be something that those of us who do have a good science education can sometimes forget. I’m sure I’m guilty of doing that, and I’ll take that as challenge to do a better job of explaining the issues and being more patient while people grapple with them in the future.
That has nothing to do with whether or not people trust a scientific consensus. You're confusing (purposefully?) two different issues.
The scientific community becomes invested in certain theories for certain reasons. Politics of various sorts also plays a roll. Here’s a brief outline of the book I mentioned. http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html Within a few paragraphs you’ll get a pretty good idea of some of the key problems that help lead things off course, and how they eventually get corrected. The whole summary is well worth reading, however. Note that the idea here is not that science can’t ever be trusted. It usually can be trusted. It’s just that a certain inertia can develop at times that takes things off course for a while until a correction/shift happens to put things back on course. Have a look at the link and if you have any questions I’d be happy to try to answer them.
We need better definitions before we can discuss. Science, in one sense, by definition is a system of knowledge relating to physical phenomena. It's hard to categorize something being "science" just b/c it appears "logical" to you.
This is an equally big problem for using "common sense". Without science, there'd be a lot of people using their common sense to come to the conclusion that the earth is flat. Without a basic education, thinking the earth is flat would probably be my "common sense" position. Also, so as not to confuse things, I wouldn't call the common sense position the "logical" one. Both positions (the consensus position and the common sense position) are equally capable of using logic, where the positions differ are their premises/assumptions (what they assume is common sense).
In an ideal world, we'd have time to question, examine and do our own experiments on everything we read, but wouldn't you agree that there are practical limits to how much you can question? Personally, I take a scientific theory that is the accepted consensus position as the best available description of whatever it is trying to describe atm, and base my actions/behaviour on that till a new theory replaces it as the new consensus position. If I do come across a scenario where my life experiences contradict a theory then sure, I'd question the theory, maybe become the author of a new theory, but the odds of that are 0.00000000000000000000000000001%.
Greek and Roman "scientists" stated the Earth was round. Late antiquity/early medieval scholars thought the Earth was round (images of Christ around 500 or so how him holding a round globe). The masses were just confused about it and eventually led to the idea that the Earth was round but all the land was at the top and so people could fall off, etc. But that was never based on anything close to science. Further, your examples of phrenology (and physiognomy) are way off base because even at the time (18th and 19th centuries) they were considered pseudo-sciences and not a part of any scientific consensus. Just because a decent amount of lay-people believed it doesn't mean it was science. Eugenics was also not a science. It was more of a social movement that was based on racism tinged with misapplied Darwinian theory and genetics. Again, this was never an accepted scientific practice or even considered a scientific theory or position. All your thread is proving is that you need to learn more about science...and history. Not trying to be rude, I just don't like when people are so carefree and cavalier about either or both.
Since you think that everyone should process all the science in everything for themselves, would you care to give me an opinion on the following paper, just released today: Large-scale coherent orientations of quasar polarisation vectors: interpretation in terms of axion-like particles It's a discussion on nearly massless axion-like particles as a solution to observed redshift-dependent coherent orientations of quasar polarisation vectors over cosmological distances. Perhaps the scientific consensus is that this is the correct solution, but surely you would rather go to graduate school for five years to gain the expertise necessary to judge the scientific merits of this paper than just trust the consensus. My point is that average people, the people this thread is supposed to be about, lack the expertise to judge most science for themselves. An average person's idea of what is or is not logical is irrelevant when trying to understand complex systems that are outside of everyday experience. This is where we need to start trusting the experts.
This is all the more reason why people should trust the consensus. This demonstrates quite clearly that most people are not capable - either because of lack of training or lack of intelligence - to judge scientific results for themselves.
RocketRiver, Am I right that, if you have a point, that it's about the "faith" most people bring to science being almost the same "faith" that a different group of people bring to religion? I hear you to a point, but really, here's why I think you can't lump science and religion together as "just two different ways of believing in the world." Religion gives people intensely spiritual experiences and a kind of guidebook for acting, thinking and interacting. (Sorry, I know that's just one version, but it's general enough.) Science actually doesn't want to give people any kind of certain experience, and it's not a guidebook for acting and thinking and interacting. It's just about knowledge of the universe and world around you. When religion makes a prediction, most people don't take it *too* seriously. We'll see if revelations comes down, but most Christians don't take that too seriously. That's no knock on religion -- predictions are it's least important elements, to most of us. When science makes a prediction, it's a real test of some idea, and if the test fails, the idea is *changed*. When some nerd watched a star wobble and said "I predict on this day at this time that you will see a little planet move in front of the star," people watched and hey, there was a little planet that moved in front of the star. So religion isn't supposed to do things like: * play with electric charges in a jar one century, then revolutionize the way humans light and power their homes the next century. * figure out how genetic traits are inherited * cure major diseases * find that half of the stars in our galaxy actually have planets moving around them. I mean, the proof is in the pudding. You can not trust scientists if you want, and call labcoats another form of religious garb, but you'll keep using light switches, computers, cars, flat panel screens, and new medical techniques, and some of us will say you are not being very consistent.
they're all the same. It's in their blood, they can't help it. All those scientists, they're all alike. They say they're working for us, but what they really want to do is rule the world.
Do not need science for this determination and will use your criteria as stated above: my observation from this thread is that you are not necessarily an individual whose intellectual conclusions are based upon rational thought and valid science.
