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
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
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostYou 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?
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 SeaYou have a talent for putting words in your opponents mouths.
Originally posted by SeaWelcome to science, where there is no such thing as 'proof' I'm afraid.
But we were discussing establishment, not proof. Related, certainly, but not the same animal.
Originally posted by SeaEvery 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.
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.
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 SeaActually, 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.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
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostCan'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.
And you have a habit of using words as if everyone must necessarily know exactly what you mean instead of what you said.
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.
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.
Of course, I get to regard you as a crank under this definition. You have the exact same issues with law and philosophy.
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.
Nope, conflation of 'questioning' with 'refutation'.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThis 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...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
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostLets 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.
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.
But again, the main point was that they definitely are not anti-science.
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostThere 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.
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.Last edited by Joel; 05-22-2017, 01:57 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostBut again, the main point was that they definitely are not anti-science."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostPart of being pro-science as i understand it is accepting when the evidence tells you that you're wrong. What definition are you using?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostBut my main point was that questioning things is not anti-science, but is a part of science.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostQuestioning 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 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.
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...
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
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostThey 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.
Originally posted by Joel View PostMy point was that skepticism is not necessarily anti-scince."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
Comment