Which Battleground in the War on Science?

[Cougar1]

What "war on science" are you referring to n?

[n9531l]

What "war on science" are you referring to n?

The one you can read about here (March 2015 issue). It includes some interesting ideas about what's behind the historically fairly recent growth of public skepticism in scientific findings, including the way the Internet has made it possible for people to become their own experts and live in a "filter bubble" that lets in only the information they already agree with.

[n9531l]

Actually, I was careful to choose topics with a strong consensus among scientists.

I wouldn't say "strong consensus" either

Of course you wouldn't.

[ctc]

The "war on science" is a war within and is self destructive.  It has ever bit of dishonesty as does the political arena.  There is so very often an agenda.

https://explorable.com/science-fraud

[lkwdsteve]

Am I ahead of the curve, or behind the curve, when my thoughts on science are about child psychology, pharma, gender neutrality, and alt-eugenics?

[n9531l]

The "war on science" is a war within and is self destructive.

But think how nice it would be if science were not self destructive. We could probably have some great things like telephones and electric lighting, and maybe even computers, some day. That self destruction was a real pity.

[ctc]

The "war on science" is a war within and is self destructive.

But think how nice it would be if science were not self destructive. We could probably have some great things like telephones and electric lighting, and maybe even computers, some day. That self destruction was a real pity.

Not all areas of science and certainly the question of global warming, evolution, age of the Earth, moon landings are fake, Florine in drinking water, vaccine dangers,and effects of GMO's on health has nothing to do with technological advancements in science.

[ViseGrip]

What "war on science" are you referring to n?

The one you can read about here (March 2015 issue). It includes some interesting ideas about what's behind the historically fairly recent growth of public skepticism in scientific findings, including the way the Internet has made it possible for people to become their own experts and live in a "filter bubble" that lets in only the information they already agree with.

"Science" has its own culpability in this phenomena.  All too often we have seen scientists skew or falsify data to achieve an objective, then when caught complain about  "war on science". Likewise when "science" says we need to "end the debate" it calls into question its impartiality.

[mspart]

First coffee is good for you.  Then coffee is bad for you.  Then it is good for you.  Then it is bad for you.  etc

I think people lose confidence when science makes what appears to be absolute statements when they are changed in a few years time.  Some of your examples are examples of this.  Here are the choices in the poll that we were given:

    Climate change is a hoax. - I don't know how many think it is a hoax but I'm sure many many people do not think it is a serious thing.  It has been so oversold and powerfully so with other scientists contradicting, cheating on data, bullying etc.  But nobody proposes going back to the stone ages.  They just want to tax and spend. 

    Evolution never happened.   I think there is no one that does not believe in natural selection within a species (microevolution).  Perhaps I am wrong on that.   With regards to origins of life and transformation of single cell animals to multicell organisms with specialized cells and organs (macroevolution)  is a bit more of a stretch to think of as happening by pure chance. 

    The moon landings were all faked. - I grew up in Huntsville, Al where the space program was centered (rocket technology anyway) so there is not really a question in my mind.  I have never met anyone who denied the moon landings but have seen internet musings on this.  They are not very convincing to me.

    Vaccinations can lead to autism. - I do not throw this out but am not sure of it.  Back in the day we got a few vaccinations.  Nowadays there are many more with many given in one shot.  I can see where a small child could not handle all of it at once, but better able to handle it over a longer period of time.  I personally know one family who claims this happened to their child and they are not the type to make this stuff up.  So I don't know if it leads to autism, but I think there is reason to think that spacing out the vaccinations would probably be a better solution. 

    Genetically modified food is evil. - All of our food has been genetically altered if you believe in evolution.  Man induced alteration is another matter and one I think is basically benign but I can see where some could be concerned about it. 

Those are my thoughts on the various choices. 

mspart

[n9531l]

I think people lose confidence when science makes what appears to be absolute statements when they are changed in a few years time.

I think such statements are rarely made by the scientists themselves, since they know so well that scientific theories are inherently tentative. It's another matter for the magazine popularizers and Internet bloggers, who are prone to gee-whiz pronouncements.

By the way, I've never come across a scientific theory of evolution which suggested that macroevolution happened by pure chance.

[ctc]

I think people lose confidence when science makes what appears to be absolute statements when they are changed in a few years time.

By the way, I've never come across a scientific theory of evolution which suggested that macroevolution happened by pure chance.

And you never came across an example showing that macroevolution actually happened.  That link is "missing".

[ViseGrip]

I think people lose confidence when science makes what appears to be absolute statements when they are changed in a few years time.

I think such statements are rarely made by the scientists themselves, since they know so well that scientific theories are inherently tentative. It's another matter for the magazine popularizers and Internet bloggers, who are prone to gee-whiz pronouncements.

By the way, I've never come across a scientific theory of evolution which suggested that macroevolution happened by pure chance.

Im not so sure its all that rare when it comes to climate forecasting, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

And just because I have a healthy skepticism of some of the past and present climate projections does not mean I dont believe in evolution, because I certainly do.

[mspart]

I think people lose confidence when science makes what appears to be absolute statements when they are changed in a few years time.

I think such statements are rarely made by the scientists themselves, since they know so well that scientific theories are inherently tentative. It's another matter for the magazine popularizers and Internet bloggers, who are prone to gee-whiz pronouncements.

By the way, I've never come across a scientific theory of evolution which suggested that macroevolution happened by pure chance.

I'll grant you the first point.  On the second regarding scientific theory, iIf you have some time, could you please elaborate?

mspart

[n9531l]

By the way, I've never come across a scientific theory of evolution which suggested that macroevolution happened by pure chance.

On the second regarding scientific theory, if you have some time, could you please elaborate?

How much time and effort are you willing to put into understanding the answer? There must be at least a hundred modern college biology textbooks which elaborate on that point in a way that is better presented than what I could say or you could find on the Internet. A week at the library should be enough to give you a pretty good understanding of the current thinking of biologists.

[mspart]

By the way, I've never come across a scientific theory of evolution which suggested that macroevolution happened by pure chance.

On the second regarding scientific theory, if you have some time, could you please elaborate?

How much time and effort are you willing to put into understanding the answer? There must be at least a hundred modern college biology textbooks which elaborate on that point in a way that is better presented than what I could say or you could find on the Internet. A week at the library should be enough to give you a pretty good understanding of the current thinking of biologists.

I'm not sure those that would be answering your poll would be well versed on the current thinking of biologists.  What is generally discussed is Big Bang, primordial soup, life emerging, then diverging into different species and complexities of organisms.  Notwithstanding the current thinking of biologists, this is what is the general conversation is when discussing evolution. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution  does a decent job of describing this.

mspart