Because I don’t expect that in the future the interaction of a switch or the effects of the earths rotation will change. Certainly given enough time the future may indeed be different. However, even though at some point in the future the earth may indeed stop turning, the past does indeed tell us that it is very much likely, and indeed reasonable, to expect it to remain rotating for the foreseeable future. What possible reasoning would inform one to believe otherwise?
In science one can test theories to determine if it can be proven or validated as fact. Philosophy uses arguments of principles rather than testing to explain things. Scientific fact can and will change as our body of knowledge/techniques expands (physics is a good example) but that’s a good thing rather than holding onto false ideas and beliefs. In philosophy it’s just a matter of opinion and not subject to testing or experimentation so it’s not worth much in my opinion.
I don’t understand the distrust of peer review. While clearly research and experimentation can be falsified peer review is the mechanism for determining if a study was falsified or incorrectly done. So what’s bad about that?
The comment that we should expect to the future to be like the past I think referred to “I expect that it will get dark later tonight like it did last night.”. I doubt that anybody would expect things to be different with regards to that.
The earth is flat, isn’t it?
I read it on the internet; must be true.
Why indeed. The level of scientific illiteracy exhibited in this thread is disheartening and alarming.
But there is little point in berating ignorance. Some of the frustrating questions may be asked earnestly, and those might be well-served by answers. Maybe that would deserve its own thread, though even this thread might already be in the BLF Rules grey zone.
Agreed. It is an example of the application of “soft” sciences (sociology psychology) applied to a population to achieve a result — in this case the distrust of science in order to promote a different set of interests.
Newton and gravity are taught and largely understood. Whitaker and Baxter ought to be.
Even Aristotle knew that the earth wasn’t flat. It truly amazes and depresses me that some people today believe that the earth is flat. :person_facepalming:
Not only that, but apparently that belief is increasing lately. One can only hope that finding is due to an unrepresentative sample.
The beauty and strength of science is that none of those points matter. After all if they did, it would suggest that money, power, biases, agenda could somehow alter truth and reality.
Did “Nazi science” during WW2 with its clear agenda change the underlying reality of say eugenics, biology, rocket science, etc?
Lies and illusions are hard to maintain. Science is a self-regulating process of discovering what is true, i.e. consistent with reality. Frankly we don’t know of any other way of reliably understanding reality.
We can hope that but my impression is that education in the US is being increasing dumb’ed down and politicized with the goal of educating students no longer the primary consideration 
Now I’m going to be depressed all day.
Many people don't wholly trust science because it has one monumental flaw. If it can't explain, document and verify something, more often than not, that thing does not exist in their minds and then they ridicule people and even perform well documented smear campaigns against those who have experienced something that cannot be easily verified. It's a fatal blow that continues to turn many away. They can be quite arrogant at times too, not accepting that not everything has to be explained by science to be real.
First, that’s patently untrue. Science exists because we don’t know things, otherwise there would be no point.
The fundamental question is about “ways of knowing”. Science is the only reliable way we have found because it is based on logic, rigour, and repeatability. Other methods typically use assertions and logical fallacies, to which humans are very prone. The scientific method tries to get away from those problems. And the “proof” is in the pudding of the descriptive and predictive power of the models produced.
I am truly sorry about that.
I was referring as to how the scientific community at large can and do act at times like schoolyard bullies when it suites them.
To prove your point and make your conjecture possibly valid, you should have followed your statement about “scientific bullies” with something like this…
“As an example….”
Otherwise, this is just another example of the many posts in this thread throwing words out that are honestly, upon even a cursory examination, just bunk.
Even if that’s true, it doesn’t invalidate the science. Humans behaving as humans do doesn’t suddenly become worse or better if they also happen to be scientists.
Also, it can be incredibly frustrating to deal with hard-headed ingnorance to which the response can sometimes be ridicule, other times, streamrolling, etc. Scientists come in all flavors of personality, political, economic, religious, dietary, …. preferences and inclinations. But again, none of this has any effect on the validity or reliability of the science.
Philosophy broadly means thinking about things. Science/math etc are simply subsets of philosophy in that they deal with a narrower set of “things”. Math deals with logic that can be expressed by a certain language. Physics deals with virtually everything in the universe. Chemistry and everything else is stamp collecting. 
But seriously, chemistry is a more qualitative offshoot of quantum physics because the calculations get too complicated. Biology is sort of a subset of specific kinds of chemistry. And so on… plus lots of links between the different domains. But all relate to thinking about and understanding their domains. So, while I get that philosophy can have some mumbo-jumbo, the common derision towards it is largely undeserved.
As for why to expect the future to be like the past, it’s an interesting question. First I assume you mean the future vs past functional behavior of the universe. The short answer is we don’t know for certain, but we do with a high probability and confidence. The fact is everyone including you makes this assumption on a daily and ongoing basis, consciously or not. Science formalizes it a bit. Some points on why it’s a reasonable assumption:
- consistent observations in support: we keep observing the same patterns of behavior
- lack of observations to the contrary: we have never managed to find the behaviors changing in place or time without some other cause
- utility: if the future is like the past and we learn past patterns, we have some useful knowledge going into the future, otherwise we remain ignorant. If the future is unlike the past, we wasted our time, but also, we have bigger problems!
- currently the most sensible position to hold: why should we expect the future to be different from the past?
So, the answer is because it works and has demonstrated benefits.
It’s common for people to be uncomfortable with uncertainty. But accuracy usually requires it. You can have certainty… if you don’t mind being wrong.
We don’t know for certain if the physics of the universe will remain consistent. But it’s also pointless not to assume it.
I haven’t yet figured out what your point is. I don’t see how the definition of uniformitarianism makes it.
If your point is that shit happens, this is true. Pick a short enough time span and there will always be some unprecedented event happening during it.
Your criticism applies to some scientists, maybe, but not to science. The whole idea behind science is to reduce bias as much as possible. All the criticism of science in this thread is criticism of people tainting the scientific method with bias due to various motives other than seeking the truth. The fact that people corrupt science to their own ends doesn’t make the scientific method any less effective at eliminating bias and illuminating reality - if it is not corrupted and is done properly.
The same smear campaigns are often directed at scientists by those who are pushing agendas based on non-scientific methods of defining reality. This has been going on for centuries- so the arrogance can go both ways. In our government in the USA now the government scientists are often forbidden from even using certain words and phrases that come from science in their reports.
As for it being a “monumental flaw” of science that it does not accept something as true unless it can be verified through the scientific method: that is not a flaw, it is the essence of the usefulness and value of science. Sure, things that aren’t capable of being tested through the scientific method can be real, such as your real psychological feeling about a person or object. But can you argue that the gravitational constant or the speed of light is real, or that you’ve calculated them accurately, without testing using science? No, you can’t. You’re talking about different types of reality, which require different types of evidence for us to believe in them. When it comes to defining and proving what is real in the natural world and what is not, science has no peer.
Thanks! :+1:
I don’t think you’ll find any of these organized consensus statements amount to “bullying”