Guest viewing is limited

Does Science Prove Things? – The Null Hypothesis

JudoJosh said:
They have to be known. No one hides them. You get caught and your career is over and then you are a PhD flipping burgers at McDonalds.

I know you fall into the whole conspiracy theories and have trust issues with orgnizations, but in science funding source as well as author afflitations are always disclosed.
Click to expand...

What about manipulation or hiding of data? Havent there been large lawsuits in the US against big pharma? There are all sorts of other instances in other sectors for example climate change research here in the UK.
 
saggy321 said:
What about manipulation or hiding of data? Havent there been large lawsuits in the US against big pharma? There are all sorts of other instances in other sectors for example climate change research here in the UK.
Click to expand...

no to mention a contaminated batch of vaccine a few years back, it was discovered that the company making the vaccine did not follow protocal in an attempt to increase profits....the punishment it turns out was being awarded a huge government contract, for guess what??? that's right, vaccines...and some on here question those of us who mistrust science and government!!!!


just google 'contaminated vaccines' and see why i mistrust science and the government so much!!!
 
saggy321 said:
What about manipulation or hiding of data? Havent there been large lawsuits in the US against big pharma? There are all sorts of other instances in other sectors for example climate change research here in the UK.
Click to expand...

Hiding data is pretty rare occurrence. Although, manipulating data is something that happens.

The thing is, science isn't perfect and it has its flaws, but it is by far the best way to figure out the world around else.
 
JudoJosh said:
Hiding data is pretty rare occurrence. Although, manipulating data is something that happens.

The thing is, science isn't perfect and it has its flaws, but it is by far the best way to figure out the world around else.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm just its a cool tool but its only as objective as the individual applying it.
 
I find the statement that one "mistrusts science" curious, in the context being discussed here at least.

I mean, I often hear Creationists say they "mistrust science", but this is (usually) because of fundamental issues pertaining to the methodology of science. I'm guessing, then, that when folks ITT say they mistrust science they actually mean they mistrust those that practise science. A semantic distinction, perhaps, but certainly not a trivial one.
 
Jiigzz said:
But essentially a FACT means that something is always true, for instance 1+1 will always equal 2.

A theory can never become a law but can become the accepted hypothesis based on available data. i.e. you can reach a logical conclusion but this does not mean that A can be proven to equal B.
Click to expand...

Interesting points here.

A 'law' can certainly be expressed as a mathematical equation, but obviously not all mathematical equations are 'laws'.

Intuition may suggest that a 'law' is something which governs the behaviour of objects in certain contexts (where 'behaviour' and 'object' is meant to be very general in its meaning). Further, I think there is a certain appeal to the concept of 'laws' as being somehow prescriptive of interactions in our universe (if X does Y then Z, because of the law of such-and-such); but I think this is dangerous territory as it can easily imply some sort of 'essentialism' or theistic pre-meditation to events (God made it so, he wrote/designed the laws that objects obey...you can see how these concepts can easily lead to one another).

As tempting as law-prescription is, I think it can be resisted by accepting that laws are mere descriptions of events; that is, universal descriptions that seem to be applicable (for us, in terms of our understanding the world) in any relevant context/environment. There is no special law-type 'essence' making objects do what they do; X dosnt do Y because there is some law compelling such a thing. Rather, the law is nothing more than a human extrapolation that we assume is 'good' throughout the universe (or at least our local neck of the woods).

And as per usual, any law is only as good or as useful as the successful predictions it enables us to make based on a very finite (limited) set of observations.
 
NewAgeMayan said:
I find the statement that one "mistrusts science" curious, in the context being discussed here at least.

I mean, I often hear Creationists say they "mistrust science", but this is (usually) because of fundamental issues pertaining to the methodology of science. I'm guessing, then, that when folks ITT say they mistrust science they actually mean they mistrust those that practise science. A semantic distinction, perhaps, but certainly not a trivial one.
Click to expand...
When the say this mistrust science I think what they are really saying is they mistrust the result. And this mistrust is typically rooted in the conclusion conflicting with a preconceived belief. i.e. We are decedent's of Adam and Eve so evolution must be false. It is an emotional objection, not a objective one. But they trust science. Most people do. I mean how many people belive airplanes fly because of magic? It's the conclusion they have the issue with so they use the excuse of science being unreliable to justify their unreasonable stance
 
NewAgeMayan, I would say laws are more predictive then descriptive. Theories are more descriptive then predictive. This is the key difference IMO.
 
JudoJosh said:
I mean how many people belive airplanes fly because of magic?
Click to expand...

Indeed, thats a good point.

JudoJosh said:
NewAgeMayan, I would say laws are more predictive then descriptive. Theories are more descriptive then predictive. This is the key difference IMO.
Click to expand...

Sure, no disagreement from me with that. I mean, in this context 'prediction' and 'description' can sit comfortably together opposing the idea of 'prescription'; as long as we are not saying laws prescribe behaviours (X will do this because of such-and-such law) then we seem to be in total agreement.

Dont get me wrong, though, I do understand the usefulness of talking about laws as if they were prescriptive. But we often talk about inanimate objects as if they had minds, but we wouldnt concluide ffrom this that they actually do.
 
JudoJosh said:
When the say this mistrust science I think what they are really saying is they mistrust the result. And this mistrust is typically rooted in the conclusion conflicting with a preconceived belief. i.e. We are decedent's of Adam and Eve so evolution must be false. It is an emotional objection, not a objective one. But they trust science. Most people do. I mean how many people belive airplanes fly because of magic? It's the conclusion they have the issue with so they use the excuse of science being unreliable to justify their unreasonable stance
Click to expand...

Nope. Its really rather simple. Science is merely a tool and a rather good one. But its application is only as objective as those applying it. It is an objective objection based upon independant evidence of its misapplication.
 
JudoJosh said:
When the say this mistrust science I think what they are really saying is they mistrust the result. And this mistrust is typically rooted in the conclusion conflicting with a preconceived belief. i.e. We are decedent's of Adam and Eve so evolution must be false. It is an emotional objection, not a objective one. But they trust science. Most people do. I mean how many people belive airplanes fly because of magic? It's the conclusion they have the issue with so they use the excuse of science being unreliable to justify their unreasonable stance
Click to expand...

Nope. Its really rather simple. Science is merely a tool and a rather good one. But its application is only as objective as those applying it. It is an objective objection based upon independant evidence of its misapplication.
 
JudoJosh said:
When the say this mistrust science I think what they are really saying is they mistrust the result. And this mistrust is typically rooted in the conclusion conflicting with a preconceived belief. i.e. We are decedent's of Adam and Eve so evolution must be false. It is an emotional objection, not a objective one. But they trust science. Most people do. I mean how many people belive airplanes fly because of magic? It's the conclusion they have the issue with so they use the excuse of science being unreliable to justify their unreasonable stance
Click to expand...

you are right, we are decendent's of adam and eve....given simple instructions to follow they were corrupted!!!
 
NewAgeMayan said:
...by 'instructions' and 'corrupted' you mean 'genetic code' and 'stochastic mutation', amirite?
Click to expand...

dude...it was the science guy who referenced adam and eve 1st, lol.

but leave it to a science guy to overstate the obvious!!!
 
Dma378 said:
...and hence the real culprit for the mistrust of science rears it's head.
Click to expand...

you are right in a sense, religion tells us how prone mankind is to temptation....and corruption!!!
 
Before this devolves into a science v religion thread, why don't you guys go check out the follow up thread on this topic and lemme know what you think. I think people like thebigt will appreciate it. The position kinda refutes the "it hasn't been tested" response the "science" crowd uses
 
Agree. And I will respectfully tap out of this conversation before it gets too deep. I realize this thread was not meant to go that direction and disrespecting anyone's beliefs and losing respect by members would be stupid.
 
Here is the link again - Invalid Link Removed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top