NationStates Jolt Archive

Evolution is a myth...

Climate change is made up....

Losing biodiversity isn't a real problem...

What is it about "recent" scientific findings that is so hard to take?

Is our knowledge base increasing too rapidly for people to take in? Can people realistically be expected to understand the issues that effect them?

Do people distrust scientific method itself?

Why is it that people trust the science that goes into their DVD players but not science with relation to the natural world?

Do you believe scientific method is a good way to gain information about the world we live in?

*sniggers*
because science has proven itself to be wrong. :p

Where is the "I don't distrust science" option?

Of course it's an excellent way...it's the only way to really figure out how physical things work.

I think the problem is when science gets involved in places that it shouldn't, and when other fields get involved in science when they shouldn't. There are some pretty clear lines as to what science can do and what other fields can do, but they unfortunately get blurred from time to time.

Fundamentalism and scientism are both serious threats to the objective pursuit of knowledge in whatever field that knowledge is sought.

I really have no opinion, one way or the other.

Climate change is made up.... This one,some of the uncertainty was actually kicked off in the early nineties by a tobacco company looking to cast doubt on the validity of scientific research on the dangers of smoking. As a subtle approach, they decided to fund various groups specifically to cast doubt on various theories such as the dangers of smoking, and the then global warming etc. I'll see if I can find a link when I'm not drunk...

Where is the "I don't distrust science" option?

Well if you don't distrust science then you don't need to answer the poll ;)

I already feel like I know how you think because I also don't have a great deal of distrust in science.. being at the end of my PhD in Molecular Biology and all ...

I am just interested in the reasons that people do distrust it?

EDIT1:But I can't change the title of the original topic...

EDIT2:Well at least I thought I couldn't.. changed it now

Well if you don't distrust science then you don't need to answer the poll ;)

I already feel like I know how you think because I also don't have a great deal of distrust in science.. being at the end of my PhD in Molecular Biology and all ...

I am just interested in the reasons that people do distrust it?

then why does your thread title ask "Do people distrust science?"

Where is the "I don't distrust science" option?

That's what I was wondering. I put "other." I want to be a scientist someday.

Well if you don't distrust science then you don't need to answer the poll ;)

Your thread title is completely misleading, and this way you will have no way of knowing how small or large a minority that distrusts science is, or even if it is a minority or majority at all.

Evolution is a myth...

Climate change is made up....

Losing biodiversity isn't a real problem...

What is it about "recent" scientific findings that is so hard to take?

Is our knowledge base increasing too rapidly for people to take in? Can people realistically be expected to understand the issues that effect them?

Do people distrust scientific method itself?

Why is it that people trust the science that goes into their DVD players but not science with relation to the natural world?

Do you believe scientific method is a good way to gain information about the world we live in?

Goddamn it. Why do you people insist on making my religion look bad? :headbang:

Of course it's an excellent way...it's the only way to really figure out how physical things work.

I think the problem is when science gets involved in places that it shouldn't, and when other fields get involved in science when they shouldn't. There are some pretty clear lines as to what science can do and what other fields can do, but they unfortunately get blurred from time to time.

Fundamentalism and scientism are both serious threats to the objective pursuit of knowledge in whatever field that knowledge is sought.

I assume you are reffering to religious issues here...

I am just interested in the deliniation between the science behind something like a DVD player that everyone seems to accept.. as opposed to the science behind evolutionary theory... or climate change that seems less well accepted.

I am wondering where the deliniation in peoples minds is between science providing a working model for predicting how a device like a DVD player should function. And the science that provides a way for predicting how the natural world works....

Goddamn it. Why do you people insist on making my religion look bad? :headbang:

I assure you, your religion doesn't need anyone's help with that.

Goddamn it. Why do you people insist on making my religion look bad? :headbang:

I am not sure what you mean??

Are you saying that scientific method is somehow a religion?

Or that its some kind of battle between scientific method and religion?

I wasn't insiting on making anyone look bad.. just wondering why some predictions made by scientific method are accepted by the public without really any question and others are not.. even though the science behind them is about equally as solid?

Where is the "I don't distrust science" option?

Add another vote to this column. Sorry to coin someone else's phrase, but science is an "inconvenient truth" truth to some people.

I assure you, your religion doesn't need anyone's help with that.

:confused:
What's wrong with Pastafarianism?

Your thread title is completely misleading, and this way you will have no way of knowing how small or large a minority that distrusts science is, or even if it is a minority or majority at all.

Its an internet poll on a forum... the results are always going to be misleading. Its more an interest thing .. trying to see how other people think.

I find that internet forums, for all their failings, are great ways to come across viewpoints that you don't find in your immediate group of friends/family and associates.

My Mother is a Biology professor.. my wife is a Biology PhD student.. my Father was a Physicist before working for IBM in the 60s. My friends .. while not being scientist themselves (on the whole) are fairly accepting of current scientific theory.. so I rarely get to talk to people that really have a deep seeded distrust of science... I thought I might get some ideas by posting a poll..

Your thread title is completely misleading, and this way you will have no way of knowing how small or large a minority that distrusts science is, or even if it is a minority or majority at all.

Yeah didn't realise I could still change it.. changed it now.. Sorry about that...

Its an internet poll on a forum... the results are always going to be misleading. Its more an interest thing .. trying to see how other people think.

Duh, but a misleading thread title is just poor etiquette.

Yeah didn't realise I could still change it.. changed it now.. Sorry about that...

nope, didn't change, ask the mods to change it. ;)

:confused:
What's wrong with Pastafarianism?

Carbs.

Carbs.

His Noodly Appendage removes excess carbs. ;)

His Noodly Appendage removes excess carbs. ;)

His noodly appendage would be concentrated carbs! Oh, the nefarious evil...

I assume you are reffering to religious issues here...

Religious/ethical/moral primarily. Science concerns itself with what is, as opposed to what ought to be.

I am just interested in the deliniation between the science behind something like a DVD player that everyone seems to accept.. as opposed to the science behind evolutionary theory... or climate change that seems less well accepted.

It's illogical to think like that; now, you can dispute certain scientific fields (like I do with evolutionary psychology) depending on the evidence, but things like evolution that have extensive empirical, experimental, and predictive evidence are not to be dismissed so easily.

I am wondering where the deliniation in peoples minds is between science providing a working model for predicting how a device like a DVD player should function. And the science that provides a way for predicting how the natural world works....

I draw the line at is-ought. I reject scientific arguments for ought, and accept only scientific arguments for is.

One time, I was performing x-ray spectroscopy on an energetic single crystal sample to determine how quasi-hydrostatic pressure would effect lattice formation during phase change, and when I read the printout, it said "Nachos at the movies are a high quality, inexpensive way to add extra enjoyment to your modern cinema experience."

So now, I don't trust science.

One time, I was performing x-ray spectroscopy on an energetic single crystal sample to determine how quasi-hydrostatic pressure would effect lattice formation during phase change, and when I read the printout, it said "Nachos at the movies are a high quality, inexpensive way to add extra enjoyment to your modern cinema experience."

So now, I don't trust science.

yep... those theatre nachos suck.

I draw the line at is-ought. I reject scientific arguments for ought, and accept only scientific arguments for is.

Isn't all science about "ought?

It goes something like given the body of evidence we have for the way things have happened in past similar situations we can say that something "ought" to act in a similar way....

You can never say using scientific method that it "is" going to perform a certain way.. only that it ought to...

His noodly appendage would be concentrated carbs! Oh, the nefarious evil...

*burns Fass at the stake*

Isn't all science about "ought?

No, I mean "ought" in a moral sense, or in the sense of drawing conclusions unsupported by evidence. Again, it's a criticism primarily directed at evolutionary psychology.

*burns Fass at the stake*

*was already flaming, so your action has no effect*

yep... those theatre nachos suck.

Totally.

And yet, a 390 m diameter advanced beam source costing $467 million dollars combined with state of the art detector plates and high-end custom analysis software package still tried to tell me otherwise.

I'm telling you, trust science at your peril.

*was already flaming, so your action has no effect*
I love you.... *gets pregnant* now you have to stay!

I love you.... *gets pregnant* now you have to stay!

Dammit! My want of a child, my only weakness...

Dammit! My want of a child, my only weakness...

Don't worry.

The creation of haploid gamete cells through meiosis and the subsequent formation of a zygote is a scientific model of a phenomon, which is complete bullshit.

If a large white bird with an oblong beek has not come to your house, you are not pregnant.

Don't worry.

The creation of haploid gamete cells through meiosis and the subsequent formation of a zygote is science, which is complete bullshit.

If a large white bird with an oblong beek has not come to your house, you are not pregnant.

Not only do I not have a uterus, I don't have a chimney either.

Oh, cruel world...

Not only do I not have a uterus, I don't have a chimney either.

Oh, cruel world...

Again, you're falling for this "science" horseshit, again. A uterus is not necessary for pregnancy, and storks can operate a doorbell just like anybody else.

Don't worry.

The creation of haploid gamete cells through meiosis and the subsequent formation of a zygote is a scientific model of a phenomon, which is complete bullshit.

If a large white bird with an oblong beek has not come to your house, you are not pregnant.

Beak.

*was already flaming, so your action has no effect*
*sighs, uses waterboarding*

Again, you're falling for this "science" horseshit, again. A uterus is not necessary for pregnancy, and storks can operate a doorbell just like anybody else.

But do they operate keycard + code apartment building entrances?

Evolution is a myth...

Climate change is made up....

Losing biodiversity isn't a real problem...

What is it about "recent" scientific findings that is so hard to take?

Is our knowledge base increasing too rapidly for people to take in? Can people realistically be expected to understand the issues that effect them?

Do people distrust scientific method itself?

Why is it that people trust the science that goes into their DVD players but not science with relation to the natural world?

Do you believe scientific method is a good way to gain information about the world we live in?
Do you believe that what we know about science is constantly changing? While agree that evolution occured, I also believe that current theory is probably not entirely correct. New discoveries are made all the time, we can't rely on all scientfic information.

*sighs, uses waterboarding*

Oooh, a stiff piece of lubricated wood? Now you're talking...

Again, you're falling for this "science" horseshit, again. A uterus is not necessary for pregnancy, and storks can operate a doorbell just like anybody else.
Agreed. Chimneys are for Santa.
But do they operate keycard + code apartment building entrances?
The storks have bricks. *nod*

Again, you're falling for this "science" horseshit, again. A uterus is not necessary for pregnancy, and storks can operate a doorbell just like anybody else.

??? I thought babies were found under cabbage leaves and in rice paddies...

Beak.



You are correct, my bad.

Agreed. Chimneys are for Santa.

http://i14.tinypic.com/2rzb69x.jpg

The storks have bricks. *nod*

We've plexiglass...

??? I thought babies were found under cabbage leaves and in rice paddies...

That's where rural Lithuanian and Filipino babies are found, respectively.

http://i14.tinypic.com/2rzb69x.jpg
Heathens.


We've plexiglass...
That stuff breaks if you throw hard enough... and the storks can divebomb the windows...

Heathens.

What do you expect? They're Dutch-Scandinavian storks...

That stuff breaks if you throw hard enough... and the storks can divebomb the windows...

The windows are plexiglass, too, and you'll see that storks lack the mass and terminal velocity to break through them.

Other: I don't distrust it.

I distrust religion.

Science is wrong. Modern day religion is wrong. The only thing right is me ,the almighty. I am the only true God, and you all should worship me as such.

That's what I was wondering. I put "other." I want to be a scientist someday.

Run away.

Why is it that people trust the science that goes into their DVD players but not science with relation to the natural world?

My opinion on this particular matter is that people don't have any idea why their DVD players work, and the first explanation available is that of science, and when they see if the science if correct, the DVD player responds just exactly like science said. Now, if it said in some holy text somewhere what DVD players do, people might find that explanation first and believe it.

In relation to the natural world, a DVD player is a part of the natural world, is it not? Humans (parts of the natural world) rearrange some things and make a DVD player from them. Let's look at the creation of certain landforms that were created by glaciers. The glaciers came along and busted up those rocks and made a land formation from them (the same could be said about bulldozers, which are caused by humans). Science observed those things happening. A scientific model could show ways in which visual media players have progressed and that progress is possible in the future. Another scientific model shows evolution of species. It is parallel. Science would probably observe that visual media players have 'evolved' by becoming more efficient, much like species. Better ways of presenting the visual media, ways that use less energy. One would say that species adapt to their environments over time, becoming more efficient in what they do.

And when scientists observe things that go against their current theory, they figure out why those things happened and adjust the theory to include those behaviours. As far as human ethics (religion) are concerned, I'm sure you've heard of something called psychology. Science encompasses all! :confused:

What is it about "recent" scientific findings that is so hard to take?
Someone already has thought about that:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

I don't distrust science in the least. Can't say I feel the same about the various news sources though(everybodies got their own little bias, not to mention the need to sell papers/magazines, grab ratings or get people to click a link, all while trying to offend the fewest possible number of people... By the time I read it, there's not a lot left to turst).

I am just interested in the deliniation between the science behind something like a DVD player that everyone seems to accept.. as opposed to the science behind evolutionary theory... or climate change that seems less well accepted.

I am wondering where the deliniation in peoples minds is between science providing a working model for predicting how a device like a DVD player should function. And the science that provides a way for predicting how the natural world works....


The existence of DVD players doesn't challenge peoples pre-existing ideas/beliefs. Evolution, biotechnology and the suggestion that square sandwiches taste the same as triangular ones does.

What is it about "recent" scientific findings that is so hard to take?
Is our knowledge base increasing too rapidly for people to take in? Can people realistically be expected to understand the issues that effect them?
Do people distrust scientific method itself?
Why is it that people trust the science that goes into their DVD players but not science with relation to the natural world?
Do you believe scientific method is a good way to gain information about the world we live in?

1.Yes, the knowledge is quite vast, and most people don't have the basic knowledge one needs to understand science. Most people have problems with second-degree polynomials...

2.Also, people trust non-science because an "it's magic" or "it's god" answer is easier.

3.Scientific method is the ONLY reliable method humanity has found. I suggest everyone to read Galileo Galilei's "Il saggiatore" (The Assayer (transl?) ) and "Dialogo sui due massimi sistemi" (Dialogue concerning the chief systems (transl?) ).

Evolution is a myth...

Climate change is made up....

Losing biodiversity isn't a real problem...

What is it about "recent" scientific findings that is so hard to take?

Yes, because ecologists interpreting the climate statistics differently are in the same column as anti-evolution nutcases.

Riiiight.

I'm sure you've heard of something called psychology

Psychology is not a science.

Run away.

Why?:confused:

I don't distrust science at all.

I distrust the sadly growing number of tools who believe science and religion can't co-exist.

"Science without religion is lame and religion without sciene is blind"-Albert Einstien.

I distrust most things (and people)

I believe thta science is generally reliable, since it was researched and tested many times by people a lot smarter than me. However, it is not the be-all and end-all. Science is a human institution and therefore as flawed as we are. Humans do not know everything. Allah does. If the two come into conflict, I'll tend to go with the omnipotent one.

I don't distrust science at all.

I distrust the sadly growing number of tools who believe science and religion can't co-exist.

"Science without religion is lame and religion without sciene is blind"-Albert Einstien.

I remember seeing a great picture somewhere to respond to that quote. It's Einstein writing something along the lines of "Stop saying I believed in God! Don't you know who I am? I'm Ein-fucking-stein!". I lol'd.

I agree with some of the folks on here.
I don't /distrust/ science, but like a favorite lyric of mine...

"And what about science?
they find proof and let you make your own decisions"