Joined: Sep 2011 Posts: 229 Location: Central Florida
Thanks: 166 Thanked: 114 times in 80 posts
Re: Thanks, Science!
I’m not sure exactly what Ant is referring to, but there is the tendency for some to “dogmatically” believe in science or some face thereof. Scientists are often as dogmatic about their own theories or established “laws” as are religious fanatics, sometimes fighting for years in defense of things that eventually turn out to be false. It is this dogmatic attitude displayed by some (certainly not all) researchers that gives fuel to the religionists, who often point to these uncertainties and contradictions in science as proof that their own theories should be given equal time. Of course, this is a specious argument, since even the most zealous of scientists will eventually be proven wrong if such is the case, whereas the religionists, who have been proven wrong time and time again, never alter their theories in accordance with actual empirical evidence. Still, I do believe it is accurate to say that some scientists can be dogmatic in their protection of established or personal theories, sometimes to the detriment of scientific advancement.
Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 3564 Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321 Thanked: 1152 times in 844 posts
Re: Thanks, Science!
Scientists are just people. That's why we need peer review.
There will always be the temptation to falsify data, or withold results which don't tell the story you are pushing. Tobacco companies, pharmacudicals, pestacides, food packaging companies, all of them are pushing for profitability, not the truth.
the process of science has no such bias. That's how we can tell for certain whether somebody HAS invented a more effective treatment for psychosis, or whether or not they really have invented a perpetual motion machine.
The very premise of peer review is that claims from scientists are never to be "believed". They are to be understood. And verified. And improved. That's why when new discoveries come out which challenge the old ways of doing things they are raked over the coals and inspected for any tiny crack in the methods which brought those results.
Because we aren't interested in accepting ideas for the sake of newness, or based on the authority of somebody's doctorate or education. Is what they said true? Can it be verified and confirmed?
That is the whole point. And where dogma is introduced, the path to truth has been abandoned.
_________________ In the absence of God, I found Man. -Guillermo Del Torro
Have you tried that? Looking for answers? Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!