Scientific Ignorance

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by Gooch_Goblin69, Sep 23, 2010.

  1. I'm disturbed by the level of scientific ignorance visible in these forums.

    People claim science is a religion, no it's not. It's a method. Tell me one thing that is worng with the process of scientific method.

    YES, I realize that people can have junk science when the "tests" they preform don't accualy measure what they are proported to be measuring. You have to insure an experiment is valid before doing it or the results are useless.

    Please people who know nothing of science come to this thread and learn something.
     
  2. It's truly unfortunate and almost saddening that the religious persist on claiming their knowledge (which was 'given' to them thousands of years ago) is more precise than the knowledge we have now. What I love about science is that, like us, it evolves. The picture is continually getting more clear. I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime, but it will be a great day when the picture is no longer fuzzy - where science can accurately depict every natural phenomenon.

    :smoking:
     
  3. Agreed. The ignorance is astonishing. And what's more frustrating is not how little people understand science, but how strong their opinions can be on a particular matter when their background in the area is nothing. For example, look at Palin try to instill some policy based on her "scientific expertise":

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCXqKEs68Xk]YouTube - Palin hits fruit fly research but it has helped autism[/ame]

    The idea that someone can make scientific policy based on nothing more than what they remember from their freshman high school biology class (best case scenario for Palin) is, to put it mildly, extremely disturbing.
     
  4. I always been a big fan of science. To me personally I think we should be spending a lot more money then what we are on scientific study. We're so close to so many scientific break troughs, that will send are nation/world in a new industrial revolution but just lacking the funding.
     
  5. have you guys seen the creationist bullshit on youtube? its the most painful shit to hear knowing that people who actually live on this planet really believe some of the things they do
     
  6. Still, this is by far better than other places, IMHO...

    I bet I could pick at least 2 other forums and repost your post and the first 3 responses would be "You eat cock science boy!"

    Here there is at least tolerance...

    -Loki
     
  7. I haven't dredged the forums here very deeply, but I'm not sure I've seen anyone outright make that claim -with the exception of myself, in recent past. That was only to make a point of perception; and even then, I never claimed that (science == religion), but just that the mainstream opinion, blind acceptance, and parroting of science fact by the layperson is indeed indicative of an emerging mass religion. One that has laid it's foundation within the safety of commonly accepted 'truth' -Just like most if not all other mass religions at their time of origin.

    But I ask you this... Why does one have to think that there is anything 'wrong' with the scientific method in order to make the comparison between science and religion? To assume that the person making the association believes the scientific method 'wrong' is to assume that the person making the association believes religion is 'wrong' as well. Or perhaps you're just expressing your own distaste for the term religion by making the negative association yourself?
     
  8. Sad to say it, but the majority of the world is ignorant towards a lot of things that should be accepted as fact. However, Intelligent Design is a possibility. Why is it so hard to believe that we were created? I am no fan of abiotic genesis, but I see both it and a Creator as being possible, simultaneously. Religion and Science both have their flaws, science has the chance to look better because it is constantly evolving. But "laws" have been broken and will be broken because as of now it is not flawless. Religion has its kinks too, plenty, but some people need something to live for other than the biologist's belief. Do I think religious people cock block science? Hell yeah! But I think people who solely believe in science undermine religions. There could be some truth to those stories, and there is plenty of truth to science. Educate yourself in all things, no human is omniscient, but try to learn for the sake of learning.
     
  9. Why is it hard to believe we weren't? Religons don't hold up to any scientific scrutiny. Why put any faith in something that is so riddled with error?

    ID is definitely a possibility though... but it bugs me when people say the universe's complexity mandates ID. Because by that logic, our creator would be, by definition, more complex and hence need its own creator... and so on... I just want to go all Darwin on those people... :mad:

    -Loki
     


  10. The method itself doesn't evolve. I think the problems people have is when the scientists makes a jump from empirically validated information, to speculation about what that stuff means about the inobservable. Statistics aren't truths w/ capital "T's".
    The problem with wanting the picture to not be fuzzy, is that the method of science is as sound as it can be. If you look at what science CAN actually describe, then it can't be any clearer. It only looks fuzzy when we try and view the totally of reality through a singular lens which can't accommodate things necessarily outside it's scope. (like the problem of first cause).
    I'm not saying that religion offers a satisfactory solution to that problem, but I AM saying that science, being what it is, has nothing to actually say about it at all. So any "scientific" statements addressing philosophical problems are for the most part fallacious.
     
  11. Also, if you wanna be a true skeptic, then you have to acknowledge that all scientific statements, inasmuch as they are quantifiable, (and they'd better be), are reliant on an identity theory. You can't have a mathematical proof without an unproven axiom.

    Because of that, a true skeptic has to point out that for every instance of identity, (or every "x=x" or other statement derived from it), there is an instance where that identity is postulated, and not extrapolated from the empirical.

    Science and mathematics start off as metaphysics, and build descriptions according to axioms.

    Since there's no such things as two wholly identical physical objects, the philosophical problem is evident.
    You can have a 99.9% identity, but no two objects can share an identical property of location. No two objects in the same place at the same time.
    Now the positivist might say, "oh well 99.9% is as good as 100%", but that's ignoring the problem. 99.9% is actually not 100%, and thus possibility makes certainty unattainable. Even in math if viewed through the lens of one seeking philosophical certainty.
     
  12. I answered that in my post. For me though, I've just seen a lot of shit that prevents me from doubting religion. There are just some things science can't and doesn't explain.




    FTR Darwin was Christian first then agnostic, but never athiest.
     
  13. You make my brain all warm and fuzzy... do you have a sister?

    -Loki
     
  14. Maybe he just didn't live long enough?

    -Loki
     


  15. I do but she's almost 40 and doesn't smoke weed. Real serious type.
     


  16. At :35 she says, "you've heard about the bridges" talking about earmarks.
    Is she talking about this bridge?
    Gravina Island Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You've gotta be kidding me.
     
  17. Yeah but science originally did what religious people do when they decided to accept improvable axioms. They're never going to get rid of the x=x thing, which doesn't correspond to the physical observable world, (which is all science can accurately talk about).

    Now that doesn't mean that science isn't a better way to gain knowledge than religion, as science has to be falsifiable and can incorporate new information.

    But what it does mean, is that science, by virtue of wanting to hold a higher epistemic standard, has relegated itself solely to the description of observable physical phenomena, and in doing so is unable to accurately address questions that still remain.
     
  18. Those are the layperson views of the debate.

    Everyone knows that cartoon misses the point.

    Good stuff though.
     

Share This Page