Most people only read information that agrees with their ideology...after all...being open-minded to new information and challenges to our current beliefs is something to avoid. So when people accept information, without verifying the information, and allow this information to rule their lives, is this brainwashing? There's an old saying that says 'we can only know what we know'...but why won't more people seek to learn more about what we don't know?
Knock-knock...is anyone home? YES! Science IS NOT static! Science is constantly open-mined to new discoveries...
Pretty much correct. Science is a method of inquiry. It isn't the answer to anything. Answers come from the inquiries. Nothing about science has changed. There are people who put belief above inquiry but that isn't the fault of science. There are those who ignore the answers provided through the scientific method for their own purposes but that isn't the fault of science either. There are scientists who do battle with each other to win others over to their interpretations of observations but that isn't the fault of science. Science has always been a method of inquiry and still is. Nothing has changed. There is no anti-science. There are simply other methods to address inquiry. At least the scientific method has proven itself to be a useful and successful method of inquiry. It is at the basis of all the technology we enjoy today.
but that is how it works...publish a hypothesis and then defend it. If it withstands vigorous /debate then it's accepted...other published studies will either challenge or support the hypothesis that's also why they go to conferences to exchange ideas, argue and explain their pov's
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how exactly people went about "revering" science back in the good old days. Seems to me a better question is: which of those deficiencies would impel someone to draw a comparison between an idea testable by anyone and pronouncements made by scientists in general, many of which are not testable at all? Unless what they read is written by scientists, in which case reverence is paramount. Have I got that about right?
agreed the denial of science is ideologically driven by politicians accepting corporate donations. Science was never an issue as long as it didn't threaten corporate wealth. Initially it was a resistance to environmental sciences concern with a polluted ecosystem now it's climate change. The political right has shaped the issue into battle against evil money grubbing scientists instead of corporate freedom to make a profit at the expense of the planet. i don't get that mind set either, deniers seem to cling to what they were taught in grade school 50 yrs ago as gospel, that science must stand still and not adjust to new information...with that attitude it's a wonder how humanity ever advanced from it's hunter gatherer beginnings.
it was called a respect for knowledge and those who seek it. so if it's above your pay grade to understand it must be BS, correct?
It isn't there limited "Knowledge" it is limited "Evidence", for a proper scientific study to be done there has to be Evidence that is not circumstantial. (eye witness accounts of UFOs and Paranormal are all circumstantial) Look at this diagram, scientists don't research UFOs because there isn't enough evidence, which means any honest scientist wouldn't even be able to get past "Constructing a Hypothesis"
Something took place on July 20, 1969, in which most people were in awe at the scientific accomplishments that day...while others could only think conspiracy theory. Those with this conspiracy theory have ZERO proof of such allegations. I would say those were some pretty good old days when science was revered. Scientists are allowed to make pronouncements that are not testable?? How many scientists have commented about dark matter and dark energy? Like I said...people need to understand the information they are absorbing and treat it appropriately...even from scientists...even from a president...
I suppose we can place some blame on politics and corporations but it requires willing recipients to accept BS. Those willing to live their lives based on political and corporate BS should probably be exterminated. Regarding human advancement, I suggest we have just about reached our full potential as a collective culture. We prove every single day we are now incapable of solving problems. Sure we have smart people here and there but they are greatly outnumbered by idiots...so idiots rule...
So the way you figure it, the only alternative to reverence of science is the mindless rejection thereof. Have I got that right? So how exactly did people go about revering science circa 7/20/69? Like anyone else, they're allowed to make any damn fool pronouncement they want, so I don't know what the hell your point is.
I would argue that a lot of this is a failure of science communication (and deliberate distortion) more than a failure of science. The tobacco industry misled people about the scientific consensus on smoking for many decades after it had already been decided. Something very similar has happened with climate science. A lot of people still think there was a global cooling consensus back in the 70's, and that global warming just came out of nowhere in the 80's. The public is in terrible need of a book or a documentary detailing the full 100+ year history of climate science, because this is something that the average citizen knows nothing about, and for whatever reason nobody is really telling this story. (A link below gives a rough summary.) A lot of thinking on nutrition has changed. Yet even where the scientific method runs into issues, it's frustrating to see people embrace unscientific methods as some kind of a solution. The mob will hang a scientist for being wrong once, but will follow a charlatan who is wrong 50% of the time. There always seems to be a double-standard where scientists are concerned. You can have a good methodology and be wrong, just like you can have a correct opinion with absolutely terrible methodology. However, it is still better to make decisions based on facts and careful thought. Personally, I think a lot of the calorie comparisons are hair-splitting. Surely it doesn't matter *that* much whether my calories are mostly fat or carbs, as long as it's not more than I can burn. That basic thermodynamic equation has remained pretty constant over time. Still, the metabolism is a complex system, so it's not surprising that this argument rages on. As far as I know though, nobody is really claiming there's a blanket consensus on this subject. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/climate-science-history
YOU aren't qualified to understand the evidence unless you're an expert in the subject at hand. What you describe is called crackpottery. Science has peer review for a reason - peers are qualified to test the evidence. You and I are not. All that you and I can do is learn what the experts say. Sure, we can learn and try to understand the science, but to think one can properly interpret and reject the evidence without the proper training, is the definition of crackpottery. That's why scientists have to study for 8-16 years to do what they do. In some fields, you can have up to 8 years of post-doctoral studies! THEN you get to start your real career. Nor does one report or one study mean ANYTHING. "Accepted science" is a consensus among experts that evolves over time. The number one reason that people go off the deep end is that they don't understand how to interpret the media, and how it reports science. It takes decades to get answers, not weeks or months. As far as the reference in another post to carbs or fats, this gets complicated. But one lecturer suggested that people with a family history of heart disease should go low fat, and those with histories of cancer should go low carb. Ketogenic diets are apparently "anti-cancer". Interestingly, up until about 5000 years ago, we ate mostly ketogenic diets. Except for times when fruits and and vegetables were available, diets in many parts of the world were mainly fat and protein. So ketosis, not glycolysis, may be our natural metabolic state!
And yet this is the same kinda game played by the religious experts for such a long time. If science plays this game you get a new caste of high priests, claiming as you did, that only the high priests can understand it, and you must depend upon them to tell you the truth, or in this case facts. Given the historical tentative nature of science, one should not get too infactuated with any consensus, for in the past a consensus could and has been proven to be WRONG. I would say that if an educated person cannot understand evidence, that only the authorities can, well, it looks like an old game has returned. I have heard scientists actually voice this. Not the ego driven ones, mind you. Yes, even scientists, being human beings, allow their egos to manifest. It is also more or less a fact that new ideas in science have generally come from the really young scientists, coming up with in in grad school and that as scientists get older they do not yield such new ideas which create new paradigms. How old were the founders of QM? I once heard a scientist say that this is due to the fact that young people are not burdened by scientific tradition, and have no theory in which they came up with, and must therefore defend, since their notiriety is many times based upon them coming up with a theory. Human nature infects science as much as any other field. So not sure I can agree completely with your post. I think I have listened to too many scientists talk of this over the years, many years. And not sure how you can claim such and such poster is not qualified to understand evidence. A helluva assumption on your part.
My point is you have little use for scientists and nothing will change your mind. Yes...mindless rejection of science is a problem. A majority of people respected the science discipline...this is not true today. Pronouncements don't need to be 'damned fool' and 99.9% are not...but you can think so...
you would think, since you've been here for a while, that you would know this is a public debate forum, and anyone is free to quote your posts and respond to them?
There are rare cases where a brilliant person overturns or revolutionizes an existing field. But the burden is on them to show, not just tell us of their insight. Show that you are the next Ramanujan by publishing your math. Or patent a novel approach to a technique like Kary Mullis. I think a lot of people fantasize about being the next Isaac Newton, but if you were you would probably know it. We all would know it, because there would be abundant evidence of your genius by the time you were 18 years old. If you’re just some guy with a blog, and you have never seen any evidence in your life that you are the next Newton, then you probably aren’t. To fixate just on those young prodigies is a very narrow view of science anyway. A lot of good work is done by middle-age researchers. Take Okazaki, who discovered how leading and lagging strands of DNA are simultaneously replicated. In a nutshell, yes, you can challenge the experts. But you must accept the tremendous burden of proof that comes with that. If you are challenging a consensus, but you can’t even give a quick summary of where the consensus came from, you have no credibility. If your papers get torn to shreds in peer review, you have no credibility. For many so-called “science skeptics” the gap between them and the true visionaries is painfully obvious.
What makes the parallel salient in the present context is that just as no causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer has been demonstrated, neither has such a relationship between anthropogenic CO2 and alleged global warming. How you managed to extract this from anything I said is of course a complete mystery; but again, you are entitled to make any damn fool pronouncement you like. Guess I can hardly be surprised that you're deliberately missing the point. This is called backpedaling. If that's the case, rest assured some calling themselves scientists are culpable in no small part.
All of you supposed Climate “skeptics” take a look at this yguy who is telling us about the safety of smoking. This is how you sound when you claim to know the secret truth about climate science.
Tobacco use has been proven to cause cancer in laboratory animals as well as humans and not just the smokers, non smokers too as second hand smoke is deadly. The carcinogen effect is not just from the combustion effect, as chewing or smokeless Tobacco is even more likely to cause all manner of cancers of the mouth and throat and digestive system. At least 500,000 people die each year to Tobacco related causes.
You have me confused with someone else. Then clearly and concisely describing the causal mechanism won't be a problem, so ante up already.
That is well proved, chewing Tobacco, ie, the juices, and prolonged contact, the nicotine, the enzymes and other chemicals present in the juices combined with saliva, and consumption of said juices is directly correlated to the mutation effects that produce cancerous cells, there are many baseball players that died of cancer and their testimony and nedical records are sufficient evidence. Finally after attending many autopsies of heavy smokers and seeing the vast damage smoking and chewing Tobacco does to internal organs is bad enough. In 1972 my mothers uncle died from smoking cigarettes, he had his complete vocal apparatus removed, and could only speak with a vibrator, he continued to smoke anyway sealing his doom. After so many decades of research, the hazzards of Tobacco are well established by the C.D.C. and A.M.A.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53010/ Now stop making crackpot claims. There is something called "Google", that allows you to search for information about a given topic. Ask a friend to show you how to use it sometime.
