Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What is "anti-science"?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Anti-science is US schools:

    Republican state lawmakers in four more states, many of them adherents of a theological worldview with no basis in science, are advancing legislation allowing educators to teach “alternative fact”-based pseudoscience if they believe it to be scientific.

    Ars Technica reports on anti-science bills in Alabama, Indiana, Oklahoma and South Dakota (the latter state’s measure has now been defeated) that would protect teachers who “teach the controversy” on global warming or evolution, as long as they believe the course material is scientific — even if it is based on scientifically baseless beliefs.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3...-4-More-States
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
      You want to try and run this by me again, and explain how observing a phenomena predicted by a theory isn't regarded as physical evidence?
      Can't be touched or measured, yet observation is still evidence.

      Granted, all experimentation also requires observation - but physical evidence means you have a physical object that can be interacted with. Try that with a star - yet telescopic observation is most certainly evidence.


      Originally posted by Sea
      You have a talent for putting words in your opponents mouths.
      And you have a habit of using words as if everyone must necessarily know exactly what you mean instead of what you said.


      Originally posted by Sea
      Welcome to science, where there is no such thing as 'proof' I'm afraid.
      Establishment isn't proof - although if it isn't supported factually you just shot science in the foot.

      But we were discussing establishment, not proof. Related, certainly, but not the same animal.

      Originally posted by Sea
      Every idea in science, relativity, nuclear physics, cell biology, etc, are all consensus theories. None of them are 'proven' actually. That's because the word proof is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. There are cranks that do not accept the theories I just mentioned as established, yet I would think you probably accept them, and regard the people that don't as being idiots, and you'd be perfectly justified to say so.
      Eh, true to a point - untrue for evidence however. Still, I accept the premise.

      Of course, I get to regard you as a crank under this definition. You have the exact same issues with law and philosophy.

      Originally posted by Sea

      And why do you accept them? Because you were taught the basics in school, learned a few other details, and accepted the facts. You may not know the experiments behind every idea, or every challenge that was/is argued against them, but you never the less accept them. You know this I'm sure, but are trying to justify this hyperskepticism that leads to everything from creationism to flat-earth beliefs for some odd reason. My guess is to justify your denial of global climate change as established science.
      OOh, leaping to conclusions again.

      I accept them because they make sense. When they don't make conceptual sense, I reject them. Hence, radiocarbon dating I accept, but since my first grade teacher taught us it was impossible to carbon date rocks (and why) I am justified in skepticism of radiometric dating of rocks, at least according to you.

      Yes, I am skeptical. RG finally came up with the only rational explanation of the process I had heard in 15 years of trying to find out. I still don't trust the process but will concede it might have validity. That's not hyper-skepticism - it's wanting to know how the heck you can be certain of original composition.

      On the global warming thing, 'established science' like 'established law' is just a place to hang your hat. Neither should be allowed to stand as if set in stone - because both have a nasty habit of falling when that happens.

      The evidence that I can analyze makes me suspect something it amiss - and that means the institutions you expect me to trust aren't proven trustworthy. That isn't an argument against GW - it is a reason to not accept 'established science' at face value until the confidence level can be reasonably adjusted. Fortunately, I don't have to rely on you for that - or I really would have concluded the whole thing is bunk. But Leo gives it a great deal more respectability - because I CAN trust him. So while I'm not convinced, I'm at least still listening.

      Originally posted by Sea
      Actually, questioning established theories requires that one make counterpoints to current data, as does showing inconsistencies current theory has with said data. As an example, if one wants to question quantum mechanics, it is essential you better explain the wave-particle duality with your theory. It is perfectly reasonable to expect people that question current theory to have theories that better explain the data we have -- that's what Einstein, Newton, and Darwin had to do. This is just how the natural sciences work.
      Nope, conflation of 'questioning' with 'refutation'.
      Last edited by Teallaura; 05-20-2017, 05:59 PM.
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        Can't be touched or measured, yet observation is still evidence.

        Granted, all experimentation also requires observation - but physical evidence means you have a physical object that can be interacted with. Try that with a star - yet telescopic observation is most certainly evidence.
        Interaction with physical data comes in a variety of ways. Obviously we can't touch stars, but what we can do is use telescopes for spectroscopy, which tells us a stars chemical composition, how hot they are, how massive they are, and even the Doppler effect on them. These techniques are usually taught in first year astronomy courses, and undergrads learn how to carry them out themselves a few years later. I don't know of a single scientist that wouldn't call this physical evidence at all, so you really are out of your depth here in your analysis.

        And you have a habit of using words as if everyone must necessarily know exactly what you mean instead of what you said.
        I was very clear in my argument that it's important to provide physical evidence to overturn scientific theories and establish a new scientific consensus.

        Establishment isn't proof - although if it isn't supported factually you just shot science in the foot.

        But we were discussing establishment, not proof. Related, certainly, but not the same animal.
        Again, there is no such thing as 'proof' in science - that's reserved for mathematics. The best you get in science are theories and paradigms which arise from them. As an example, classical mechanics works just fine in astronomy because you're dealing with such massive bodies, and large scale structure, so general relativity is more important. However, as scales get smaller towards the Planck length quantum mechanics becomes more important in cosmology, so one needs to know it. Still, it's perfectly fine to use classical mechanics even though QM is the underlying theory to the particle world.

        No scientific theory has all the answers. Not evolution, not quantum mechanics, not atomic theory, not cell theory. They are incomplete because nature always has gaps -- which is why I am doubtful of a 'theory of everything'. Is it conceivable there is theory that is overlying evolutionary biology? Of course. However, it's proponents will have to put subject their theory to the same process as every other theory in history, and they will have to accept the criticism of their peers.

        Perhaps the illustration below will be of use.


        Eh, true to a point - untrue for evidence however. Still, I accept the premise.
        Good.

        Of course, I get to regard you as a crank under this definition. You have the exact same issues with law and philosophy.
        Feel free.

        I accept them because they make sense. When they don't make conceptual sense, I reject them. Hence, radiocarbon dating I accept, but since my first grade teacher taught us it was impossible to carbon date rocks (and why) I am justified in skepticism of radiometric dating of rocks, at least according to you.
        You learned about radiometric dating in the first grade?

        Nope, conflation of 'questioning' with 'refutation'.
        But that's not all these kind of people usually do that 'question' these theories. They confuse their inability to understand a theory with a theory being unsupported - which is very different. They two are not the same thing.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
          You learned about radiometric dating in the first grade?
          I don't think she meant first grade in elementary school.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            I accept them because they make sense. When they don't make conceptual sense, I reject them. Hence, radiocarbon dating I accept, but since my first grade teacher taught us it was impossible to carbon date rocks (and why) I am justified in skepticism of radiometric dating of rocks, at least according to you.
            In case it helps: Radiocarbon dating - for organic material in young sedimentary rocks. Radiometric dating (includes radiocarbon dating) dates rocks by study of abundances of radioactive imputiries incorportated in rocks when they are formed.
            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
            “not all there” - you know who you are

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              This is pretty much the case with those who reject evolution and support YEC. Most think that they're merely rejecting a small portion of biology not realizing that evolutionary theory is the G.U.T. (Grand Unifying Theory) of biology. But it isn't just biology that gets tossed aside it is things like astronomy, cosmology and geology that demonstrate that the earth and universe are far more ancient than the YEC model allows for. Physics which provides the means for determining just how ancient the earth and universe are. Genetics and paleontology which reveal the history of evolution are also tossed aside. As are many other scientific disciplines such as but not limited to zoology, botany, biogeography, comparative anatomy, anthropology, embryology, biochemistry...
              YECs reject every science from acarology to zymurgy.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                It happens often today too. During my lifetime at various points I've seen health and dietary recommendations retracted, for example.
                This is a completely separate kettle of fish.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                  Lets be practical, shall we? We cant all be experts and know the technical details of everything, nor will everybody be able to understand science. Using the word 'dogma' to describe established science is poisoning the well. It's also perfectly acceptable to take the words of experts as truths when you don't understand the issue. Obviously there is a fine line between swallowing authority and hyperskepticism - both are dangerous.
                  I agree. Yes, there is a place for trusting what others say. When I said you shouldn't do that, I meant that only in the context of science--that insofar as you are simply accepting a proposition from an authority, you aren't doing science (as typically defined today). Learning a bunch of science facts from an authority is not doing science. But yes, there is more to the intellectual life of human beings than science.

                  But my main point was that questioning things is not anti-science, but is a part of science.

                  Ummm, no, they are absolutely not engaging in scientific inquiry. Frankly, if someone believes the Earth is flat then there is something seriously off about them mentally. It is literally the most ridiclous thing I could think of a grown adult saying, and I would have absolutely no interest in debunking such nonsense - it's a waste of time. You should consider suggesting professional help these friends of yours, as they're is something wrong with them.
                  That's super harsh. I personally have benefited from my discussions with them. It even prompted me to do some experiments of my own, for fun, to measure the curvature and size of the earth. Despite various errors I've seen them make, one think I appreciate is how they've validly pointed out unstated assumptions made in most of the first arguments that people make to try to quickly debunk the flat-earthers. Usually assumptions that I, and others making the arguments, didn't even realize we were making. I found I benefited from the challenge of building up an argument without any prior assumptions.

                  But again, the main point was that they definitely are not anti-science.

                  Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                  There are cranks that do not accept the theories I just mentioned as established, yet I would think you probably accept them, and regard the people that don't as being idiots, and you'd be perfectly justified to say so.
                  Again, crazy harsh. In order to (scientifically) accept them, you need to understand them well, have seen the evidence for them, and been persuaded by the evidence. Anyone who has not achieved that, regarding these theories you mention, are idiots, according to you? That would include nearly everyone. However, even if they are all idiots, that doesn't make them anti-science.

                  Actually, questioning established theories requires that one make counterpoints to current data, as does showing inconsistencies current theory has with said data. As an example, if one wants to question quantum mechanics, it is essential you better explain the wave-particle duality with your theory. It is perfectly reasonable to expect people that question current theory to have theories that better explain the data we have -- that's what Einstein, Newton, and Darwin had to do. This is just how the natural sciences work.
                  What you say may be true of someone who has mastered the current mainstream theory and the current data, and who wants to establish as mainstream a paradigm shift on the level of an Einstein/Newton/Darwin. It is certainly not true of, say, someone who has just heard some of the claims/conclusions of quantum mechanics for the first time, claims that are pretty weird and surprising when you first hear of them. For such a person, it would not be unreasonable or unscientific for them to be questioning and want to see some (extraordinary?) evidence for those extraordinary claims. Or to think up alternative hypotheses that fit within their current understanding of things. Questioning is a necessary, scientific thing. It's not anti-science. Neither is failure, or inability, to establish a new theory anti-science. They are different things.
                  Last edited by Joel; 05-22-2017, 01:57 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                    Anti-science is US schools:

                    Republican state lawmakers in four more states, many of them adherents of a theological worldview with no basis in science, are advancing legislation allowing educators to teach “alternative fact”-based pseudoscience if they believe it to be scientific.

                    Ars Technica reports on anti-science bills in Alabama, Indiana, Oklahoma and South Dakota (the latter state’s measure has now been defeated) that would protect teachers who “teach the controversy” on global warming or evolution, as long as they believe the course material is scientific — even if it is based on scientifically baseless beliefs.

                    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/3...-4-More-States
                    In my experience, I have found that one of the best ways to investigate and come to deeply understand something is to mentally wrestle with conflicting ideas/arguments. Including in science. Even in interacting with flat earthers. Thus I'm persuaded that teaching a "controversy", if done right, is an excellent way to teach. I certainly think it is far superior to teaching facts from an authority, for the goal of developing a real understanding. It also provides additional motivation/interest. It has many of the same benefits as John Stuart Mill enumerated as the benefits of freedom of speech and inquiry. That's not anti-science.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Joel View Post
                      But again, the main point was that they definitely are not anti-science.
                      Part of being pro-science as i understand it is accepting when the evidence tells you that you're wrong. What definition are you using?
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                        This is a completely separate kettle of fish.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          Part of being pro-science as i understand it is accepting when the evidence tells you that you're wrong. What definition are you using?
                          The flat earthers I've closely interacted with do concede points where they see clear evidence. As I said before, "They are eager to make observations and experiments to test both their own hypotheses and the claims of others. They just usually happen to not have much resources." They tend to not accept being told about the existence of evidence, and insist on seeing the evidence for themselves by making the experiment themselves. The problem is a lack of resources. My point was that skepticism is not necessarily anti-scince.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Joel View Post
                            But my main point was that questioning things is not anti-science, but is a part of science.
                            Questioning and denial are not the same thing. These people deny the basics of reality itself - worse than YEC proponents. I mean, if you don't think matter is made up of atoms, or you believe the Earth is flat, then there really is something seriously wrong with you.
                            That's super harsh. I personally have benefited from my discussions with them. It even prompted me to do some experiments of my own, for fun, to measure the curvature and size of the earth. Despite various errors I've seen them make, one think I appreciate is how they've validly pointed out unstated assumptions made in most of the first arguments that people make to try to quickly debunk the flat-earthers. Usually assumptions that I, and others making the arguments, didn't even realize we were making. I found I benefited from the challenge of building up an argument without any prior assumptions.
                            I don't feel it's harsh it all. It's stating the reality of what you're talking about. People that think the Earth is flat are simply out of their damn minds. Do you draw the line anywhere at all in what you consider to be irrational? Do even think such a thing is possible? It sure sounds like you don't think any ideas are too ridiclous for consideration, nor is there a line between rational and irrational in your world at all. I'm sorry, these friends of yours ARE irrational, and they are not doing science; what they are engaging in is denial, pure and simple. There is just no other way to put it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                              Questioning and denial are not the same thing. These people deny the basics of reality itself - worse than YEC proponents. I mean, if you don't think matter is made up of atoms, or you believe the Earth is flat, then there really is something seriously wrong with you.
                              I really don't think lack of belief is unscientific.

                              I don't feel it's harsh it all. It's stating the reality of what you're talking about. People that think the Earth is flat are simply out of their damn minds. Do you draw the line anywhere at all in what you consider to be irrational? Do even think such a thing is possible? It sure sounds like you don't think any ideas are too ridiclous for consideration, nor is there a line between rational and irrational in your world at all. I'm sorry, these friends of yours ARE irrational, and they are not doing science; what they are engaging in is denial, pure and simple. There is just no other way to put it.
                              Of course there is irrationality. But I don't think ideas themselves are rational or irrational. Rationality is a mental process, not the idea upon which you reason. Accepting or rejecting any given proposition is not what makes you rational or irrational. A person could accept all the same ideas you accept, but base that acceptance on authority, apart from rational judgement of the ideas. (I'm not saying trusting an authority is necessarily irrational. But even there surely rationality has to do with your mental processes of reason in coming to justify that trust.)

                              I'm not sure why any idea per se would be too ridiculous for consideration. Any false idea would need to be shown why it cannot be true. Perhaps in a given case you can do it quickly, reasoning based on what you already know. But you've still considered it, in the sense of applying reason to the question. If we don't do even that, then, in the words of John Stuart Mill...

                              "...we do not understand the grounds of our [own] opinion....He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that….Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess....So essential is this discipline to a real understanding...that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil's advocate can conjure up."
                              --On Liberty, 1859.

                              If, as I said, my friends "are eager to make observations and experiments to test both their own hypotheses and the claims of others," and do correct their thinking when they see clear evidence for themselves, then how are they not being scientific? Just because in that process they haven't yet reached truths that you know? It seems like you are either engaging in intellectual snobbery, or you are mistaking science and reason for the acceptance of an established set of propositions (a kind of dogmatism).

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                                They tend to not accept being told about the existence of evidence, and insist on seeing the evidence for themselves by making the experiment themselves. The problem is a lack of resources.
                                No, the problem isn't a lack of resources. It's refusal to accept evidence. By your standards, every physicist would have to rebuild their own personal LHC before they'd accept the evidence that the Higgs boson exists. That's not how science works.

                                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                                My point was that skepticism is not necessarily anti-scince.
                                Yeah, it really is when it gets to the point of "i refuse to believe anything done by anyone."
                                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X