Which Battleground in the War on Science?

[ctc]

Science isn't unlike almost anything else in life.  Money, power, and agenda can and does corrupt it.

[n9531l]

n, when you have predictions, such as those in this piece, that are totally out of touch with reality (and still being made) how credible can your science be?

Actually, those predictions are not related to my science.

Your science?

Isn't that what you asked about?

[Cougar1]

n, when you have predictions, such as those in this piece, that are totally out of touch with reality (and still being made) how credible can your science be?

Actually, those predictions are not related to my science.

Your science?

Isn't that what you asked about?

I'm referring to any "science" that uses anything other than the scientific method to come to conclusions. You said "my science" so I wasn't sure what you were referencing.

[n9531l]

You said "my science" so I wasn't sure what you were referencing.

When you said "your science", I assumed you meant whatever it is that I think science is. Since you have asked, I don't feel bad about giving a somewhat long-winded reply. My science is a method for gaining knowledge. It's sometimes presented in school under the heading of "scientific method". It's a method that is carried out by humans, so it's possible for it to be done well and also for it to be done badly.

Something about my science that people sometimes don't understand is that it is not about Truth. I used a capital T to avoid confusion with other common uses of the word truth. If your friend says "Tell me the truth, Cougar, did you really drink four beers before stepping on the mat?" he is not talking about Truth. By Truth I mean a collection of definitive answers to the major questions many people have about the purpose and significance of human existence. An example of such a question would be, "Does each human being have a soul that survives death?"

If you are looking for understanding and explanations of why things happen as they do in the natural world, my science is a good bet for helping you. But it is not able, nor does it claim to be able, to answer questions about Truth. That's not a problem for me, because personally I think Truth is overrated. But it may be uncomfortable for some people to think they may never learn the Truth. For them, I think there are two main avenues for getting to the Truth, namely philosophy and religion, the choice depending on whether they are more attuned to Truth through introspection or Truth through revelation. I think religion would be the better choice. With over five thousand religions to choose from, the chances are very good of finding one whose version of the Truth is close to what one was hoping it would be. Having so many versions of Truth available is one of my reasons for thinking it's overrated.

Meanwhile I'm satisfied wih foregoing any chance of learning the Truth, and being happy with the chance at gaining knowledge and understanding provided by my science. This is the context in which I read your question when you referred to "your science", but it seems you may have had something different in mind.

[Cougar1]

You said "my science" so I wasn't sure what you were referencing.

When you said "your science", I assumed you meant whatever it is that I think science is. Since you have asked, I don't feel bad about giving a somewhat long-winded reply. My science is a method for gaining knowledge. It's sometimes presented in school under the heading of "scientific method". It's a method that is carried out by humans, so it's possible for it to be done well and also for it to be done badly.

Something about my science that people sometimes don't understand is that it is not about Truth. I used a capital T to avoid confusion with other common uses of the word truth. If your friend says "Tell me the truth, Cougar, did you really drink four beers before stepping on the mat?" he is not talking about Truth. By Truth I mean a collection of definitive answers to the major questions many people have about the purpose and significance of human existence. An example of such a question would be, "Does each human being have a soul that survives death?"

If you are looking for understanding and explanations of why things happen as they do in the natural world, my science is a good bet for helping you. But it is not able, nor does it claim to be able, to answer questions about Truth. That's not a problem for me, because personally I think Truth is overrated. But it may be uncomfortable for some people to think they may never learn the Truth. For them, I think there are two main avenues for getting to the Truth, namely philosophy and religion, the choice depending on whether they are more attuned to Truth through introspection or Truth through revelation. I think religion would be the better choice. With over five thousand religions to choose from, the chances are very good of finding one whose version of the Truth is close to what one was hoping it would be. Having so many versions of Truth available is one of my reasons for thinking it's overrated.

Meanwhile I'm satisfied wih foregoing any chance of learning the Truth, and being happy with the chance at gaining knowledge and understanding provided by my science. This is the context in which I read your question when you referred to "your science", but it seems you may have had something different in mind.

It was a bit confusing but your "long-winded" response is sufficient to clear it up. 

The scientific method is a reasonable approach to understanding anything in the natural world. Obviously, it cannot provide all the answers. In the case of evolutionary theory it cannot be proven and therefore must be understood as theoretical. In the case of climate change it's a bit nebulous as well though the impact of humans should certainly be taken into account and we do have a responsibility to be good stewards of the natural world we live in. It becomes problematic for me when "scientists" insist their theories are right and should be dogmatically worshipped by everyone. Personally, I think the "war on science" is the result of these people. It's a bit like politics. Facts are facts, and they should be able to be agreed upon in a non partisan way when they are presented.

[scmathlete]

I really like taking the "traditional" conclusions from one side in these debates, and using the "traditional" other sides reasons behind it, if for no other reason than for the intellectual exercise, and the bafflement/confusion of the other people.

For instance, I like to take a fundamentalist christian argument to show why evolution has to exist.   I also like to take the conclusion that global warming is manmade, and use it as an argument against recycling, reducing, and reusing (and all that jazz). I also like to take the stance that global warming isn't man made, but naturally occurring, and then make a case for why we need to reduce, reuse, recycle (and all that jazz too).

I also am perfectly willing to accept the fact that I am a societal oddball.

I don't really have arguments for all of those topics however, and didn't even realize that some of them were actually debated.

How old were you when you realized you're a serial killer?

 I can't be a serial killer until I actually carry out more than one/two murders, right?

However,  I think it was around my second week of teaching high school that I realized that I'd never be able to do what other people's thought made me want to do to them, and I'd just have to patiently get my point across in very different ways.

[n9531l]

In the case of evolutionary theory it cannot be proven and therefore must be understood as theoretical.

Which simply means evolutionary theory is like every other scientific theory.

It becomes problematic for me when "scientists" insist their theories are right and should be dogmatically worshipped by everyone.

I read a lot of scientific material and can't remember the last time I encountered a case fitting that description. Most likely it's because in their training most scientists have had it drummed into their heads so firmly that all scientific theories are inherently tentative.

[Cougar1]

In the case of evolutionary theory it cannot be proven and therefore must be understood as theoretical.

Which simply means evolutionary theory is like every other scientific theory.

It becomes problematic for me when "scientists" insist their theories are right and should be dogmatically worshipped by everyone.

I read a lot of scientific material and can't remember the last time I encountered a case fitting that description. Most likely it's because in their training most scientists have had it drummed into their heads so firmly that all scientific theories are inherently tentative.

My experience with public education is that evolutionary theory is taught as fact. The precise manner of which evolution took place may be a matter of disagreement, but not the theory itself. Anyone who takes issue with the fact is considered foolish. The same seems toby applied to the global warming discussion. If you don't accept the fact of global warming you are a climate change denier, and thus a fool. It may be quite different in scientific journals, etc.

[n9531l]

Those who teach evolutionary theory as fact are doing their students a major disservice, but I don't doubt it's happening. I've been convinced for years that our schools are doing a poor job of teaching how science works.

The case of global warming is somewhat different, since it's not a theory but an observation, the reporting of a series of measurements. The associated theory that human activity has played a significant part in the measured warming is what someone could reasonably take issue with. Those who claim global warming is a hoax in which a worldwide conspiracy has enabled the perpetrators to alter several centuries' worth of temperature records probably have too much time on their hands.

[Cougar1]

Those who teach evolutionary theory as fact are doing their students a major disservice, but I don't doubt it's happening. I've been convinced for years that our schools are doing a poor job of teaching how science works.

The case of global warming is somewhat different, since it's not a theory but an observation, the reporting of a series of measurements. The associated theory that human activity has played a significant part in the measured warming is what someone could reasonably take issue with. Those who claim global warming is a hoax in which a worldwide conspiracy has enabled the perpetrators to alter several centuries' worth of temperature records probably have too much time on their hands.

I have no problem with that n. It's the scare tactics and skewing of data, along with demonizing those who are not in lock step agreement, that I have a problem with. I am all for responsible stewardship of our natural world but not absurd over reactions.

[ViseGrip]

Those who teach evolutionary theory as fact are doing their students a major disservice, but I don't doubt it's happening. I've been convinced for years that our schools are doing a poor job of teaching how science works.

The case of global warming is somewhat different, since it's not a theory but an observation, the reporting of a series of measurements. The associated theory that human activity has played a significant part in the measured warming is what someone could reasonably take issue with. Those who claim global warming is a hoax in which a worldwide conspiracy has enabled the perpetrators to alter several centuries' worth of temperature records probably have too much time on their hands.

I agree with you on teaching evolutionary theory as fact, but I doubt its being done anywhere but in private Christian schools.

While I dont believe there is a conspiracy, but that does not mean it hasnt happened or that there isnt conflicting data that they sometimes ignore justifying it by telling themselves it will just confuse the public.   

[scmathlete]

I've been purposely throwing away recyclables in the regular trash, driving an SUV around the block by myself for no discernible purpose, and burning almost anything in my backyard for years in hopes that the oceans would rise enough to give me beachfront property for years with no noticeable improvement whatsoever in getting the atlantic any closer to my house.
In fact, it takes our family just as long to get to the darn beach as it did when I was just a little tyke.

At some point, I'm going to believe that I was lied to all through middle and high school, and all of my hard work has been for nothing. 

[n9531l]

But have you decided how many millions of people you're willing to be drowned in order to get you some beachfront property?

[ctc]

But have you decided how many millions of people you're willing to be drowned in order to get you some beachfront property?

Are they immovable objects?

[n9531l]

But have you decided how many millions of people you're willing to be drowned in order to get you some beachfront property?

Are they immovable objects?

Where's that old thinking cap when you need it? Individually no, but as a group of hundreds of millions, yes, in practical terms. Don't forget the earth's oceans are connected. If scmathlete succeeds in getting the Atlantic coast moved near his home, the same movement will occur at every ocean coastline in the world. And he wants a quick result.