Do you believe the scientific community in 2020?

190 posts / 0 new
Last post
ZoomieFan
ZoomieFan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 11 hours ago
Joined: 08/19/2016 - 05:25
Posts: 541
Location: Netherlands & Indiana

Tumbleweed48 wrote:
Peer reviewed science is the only thing I have any faith in.

All else is conjecture, wishful thinking or deception.


Your view is based on indoctrination. Deception.

Peer previewed is often deception too.
Lots of corruption, lots of bought/controlled reviews. Stepping outside the controlled boundaries gets a scientist marginalized.
No, I’m talking about ‘facebook scientists’.

Chargers: 1xBasen BD01 5/5, 1x Gyrfalcon All-88, LiitoKala: 3x100 4/5, 2x202 4/5, 1x402 3/5., MiBoxer C4-12 3/5.
Flashlights: DQG Tiny III 26650 5/5, FiTorch MR35 3/5, Haikelite SC26 HD 3/5, Lumintop Tool AA/AAA 4/5, Nitecore LA10, Sofirn C01 BLF 3200k/5600k, Zebralight H600Fc 3/5.
Powerbanks: EasyAcc 26800 mAh 3/5, Xtar PB2 4/5, Xtar PB2S 5/5
Waiting for: (DQG Tiny) 21700 EDCs.

allcool
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 06/20/2016 - 10:30
Posts: 188
Location: Miami

Some might remember a few years ago, a congressional hearing with high level NOAA officials testifying that the official books were cooked on a regular basis…

So, with buoy temps changed/cooked in the NOAA charts/studies, the same studies/charts that scientist use all over the world to form their theories, are these theories and studies that used the cooked books valid..?

Or are scientific studies only as accurate as the ‘facts’ they use…?

Does money corrupt science or further it….

https://www.foxnews.com/science/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-...

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 11 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16549
Location: Amsterdam

allcool wrote:
Some might remember a few years ago, a congressional hearing with high level NOAA officials testifying that the official books were cooked on a regular basis…

So, with buoy temps changed/cooked in the NOAA charts/studies, the same studies/charts that scientist use all over the world to form their theories, are these theories and studies that used the cooked books valid..?

Or are scientific studies only as accurate as the ‘facts’ they use…?

Does money corrupt science or further it….

https://www.foxnews.com/science/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-...


Conspiracy-thinking is something that happens in your own mind, unlike science it does not tell much about reality, instead it is in the way of reality.
Scientist
Scientist's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 30 min ago
Joined: 07/24/2017 - 13:33
Posts: 241
Location: Out standing in my field NY

What’s frustrating to me is: why is this even a question?

iamlucky13
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 8 min ago
Joined: 06/22/2018 - 09:18
Posts: 664
Location: USA
hank wrote:
Yep. One of my science teachers told me that in 30 years, everything I’d learned in college would be dated or wrong. And that all that I’d have left to rely on was the habit of looking for answers. True that.

Many of the things I learned in college date back hundreds of years. They are still accurate enough to keep you alive while hurtling through the air at 500+ mph.

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 1626
Location: United States , Pa.

Scientist wrote:
What’s frustrating to me is: why is this even a question?

It’s the times we live in. Distort and confuse. Sadly it works. Oh yeah, lie also.
Oli
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 08/03/2018 - 21:03
Posts: 97
Location: United States

Scientist wrote:
What’s frustrating to me is: why is this even a question?
I initially had the same thought and asked myself “what’s the alternative”. And then I realized that many people have alternatives. Add to that the fact that science is constantly evolving. People seek answers to questions. Science is hard. Understanding science is hard. Then you have the pointy hats. I may have said too much.
Kindle
Kindle's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
Joined: 04/22/2011 - 10:24
Posts: 765
Location: USA
Scientist wrote:
What’s frustrating to me is: why is this even a question?

Look at some of the replies in this thread, sadly your answer can be found there.

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 11 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 10678
Location: nyc

allcool wrote:
Some might remember a few years ago, a congressional hearing with high level NOAA officials testifying that the official books were cooked on a regular basis…

So, with buoy temps changed/cooked in the NOAA charts/studies, the same studies/charts that scientist use all over the world to form their theories, are these theories and studies that used the cooked books valid..?

Or are scientific studies only as accurate as the ‘facts’ they use…?

Does money corrupt science or further it….

https://www.foxnews.com/science/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-...

All I know is that many different weather sources/models can’t accurately predict the weather even 2-3 days out, so how in Hell can they accurately predict what’ll happen 10/50/100/1000 years out?

The smallest little tweak to even a single parameter has a huge butterfly effect the farther out you let it play out. So of course you can shop around to pick the model whose prediction fits what you want to predict. Yet “scientific models predict…” blah blah blah, the end of life as we know it. Sick

 

As of Monday, today was supposed to be rainy, but the sun’s shining quite brightly.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

how crazy is this
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 09/14/2011 - 13:24
Posts: 178
Location: Minneapolis

Deputy Dog wrote:
I guess my question is where does real science stop and philosophy start? I don’t trust the peer review process.

Example: Why should we expect the future to be like the past?

There are countless examples of why we should expect the future to be like the past. That does not mean that the future will always be like the past. However, the last time I clicked the button switch on my flashlight it turned off. I expect it will come on when I click it again. The science behind that is solid. I expect that it will get dark later tonight like it did last night. Again solid science behind why we should expect the future to be like the past.

robertsig wrote:

Yes, we can determine a person’s sex at birth, unless you are part of the 1% who have a genetic issue like hermaphrodite.  Gender may be a social construct, but sex is not.

From the point of view of database design the 1% are actual people. A simple binary choice does not cover that actual reality of a baby’s sex. Gender is something different.

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 8679
Location: Berkeley, California
Quote:
Uniformitarianism

As a philosophy it made sense of geology. But you need a long observational baseline to get it right, as there are occasional dramatic events like asteroid/comet strikes, or Mt. Saint Helens type eruptions, or the several recent undersea earthquakes followed by tsunamis. Taking those into account as part of the long slow pattern of changes over time, it works to expect the future to be like the past. If your window on the past is the last week or two, then maybe not.

See also punk eek.

Watermanchris
Online
Last seen: 2 min 7 sec ago
Joined: 08/06/2019 - 09:12
Posts: 317
Location: Deerfield Beach, FL

Deputy Dog wrote:
I guess my question is where does real science stop and philosophy start? I don’t trust the peer review process.

Example: Why should we expect the future to be like the past?


Agreed wholeheartedly.
lampliter
lampliter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 4 hours ago
Joined: 07/31/2017 - 16:06
Posts: 195
Location: Paradise

Only the un-manipulated ones.

"The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do." ~ Galileo Galilei

Deputy Dog
Deputy Dog's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 09/15/2017 - 07:53
Posts: 345
Location: behind you

How crazy is this

Quote:

Quote:
Deputy Dog wrote: I guess my question is where does real science stop and philosophy start? I don’t trust the peer review process.
Example: Why should we expect the future to be like the past?

There are countless examples of why we should expect the future to be like the past. That does not mean that the future will always be like the past. However, the last time I clicked the button switch on my flashlight it turned off. I expect it will come on when I click it again. The science behind that is solid. I expect that it will get dark later tonight like it did last night. Again solid science behind why we should expect the future to be like the past.

You’re giving examples of how it’s been in the past. So, if you’re saying that because it always has been, aren’t you really begging the question? So I ask again why should we expect the FUTURE to be like the past?

Hoosh
Hoosh's picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 08/17/2015 - 21:15
Posts: 89

Three years ago, this thread/question wouldn’t have been asked – and, incidentally, wasn’t – but now that so much of the population lives a reality based upon “alternative facts,” silliness such as this exists.

What a shame.

CRX
CRX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 40 min ago
Joined: 04/02/2013 - 15:27
Posts: 4047
Location: Scotland

Can I come and live in the dimension where all science is performed to the utmost best of honest human endeavour no matter the results, where it is always completely transparent, the data procured and findings released in a manner that is never skewed, hidden or adjusted, without any agenda, bias or pre-determined goal set.
Where governments, politicians, organisations, corporations and companies have absolute integrity and put the truth before all else, even profits and personal goals?
It sounds really nice there and I promise I will be good too Innocent

Watermanchris
Online
Last seen: 2 min 7 sec ago
Joined: 08/06/2019 - 09:12
Posts: 317
Location: Deerfield Beach, FL

CRX wrote:
Can I come and live in the dimension where all science is performed to the utmost best of honest human endeavour no matter the results, where it is always completely transparent, the data procured and findings released in a manner that is never skewed, hidden or adjusted, without any agenda, bias or pre-determined goal set.
Where governments, politicians, organisations, corporations and companies have absolute integrity and put the truth before all else, even profits and personal goals?
It sounds really nice there and I promise I will be good too Innocent
Big Smile let me in too!
Deputy Dog
Deputy Dog's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 09/15/2017 - 07:53
Posts: 345
Location: behind you

hank

I think you’re making my point.

Quote:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity, is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our* present-day *scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.12 It refers to invariance in the metaphysical principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of cause and effect throughout space-time,3 but has also been used to describe spatiotemporal invariance of physical laws.4 *Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method,5 some consider that uniformitarianism should be a required first principle in scientific research.6 *+Other scientists disagree and consider that nature is not absolutely uniform, even though it does exhibit certain regularities+.78

I’m not asking about the present, but the future. It’s not really a scientific question, or is it?

how crazy is this
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 09/14/2011 - 13:24
Posts: 178
Location: Minneapolis
Deputy Dog wrote:
How crazy is this
Quote:
Quote:
Deputy Dog wrote: I guess my question is where does real science stop and philosophy start? I don’t trust the peer review process. Example: Why should we expect the future to be like the past?
There are countless examples of why we should expect the future to be like the past. That does not mean that the future will always be like the past. However, the last time I clicked the button switch on my flashlight it turned off. I expect it will come on when I click it again. The science behind that is solid. I expect that it will get dark later tonight like it did last night. Again solid science behind why we should expect the future to be like the past.

You’re giving examples of how it’s been in the past. So, if you’re saying that because it always has been, aren’t you really begging the question? So I ask again why should we expect the FUTURE to be like the past?

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?

SIGShooter
SIGShooter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 9 sec ago
Joined: 07/14/2013 - 02:10
Posts: 1912
Location: northern california

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.

9mm/40cal/45cal bullets and large/small pistol primers available for sale in San Francisco Bay area

MtnDon
MtnDon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 08/27/2015 - 18:25
Posts: 2796
Location: Canuk in NM

The earth is flat, isn’t it?

I read it on the internet; must be true.

phouton
Online
Last seen: 9 min 22 sec ago
Joined: 10/23/2019 - 19:06
Posts: 286
Kindle wrote:
Scientist wrote:
What’s frustrating to me is: why is this even a question?

Look at some of the replies in this thread, sadly your answer can be found there.

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.

how crazy is this
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 09/14/2011 - 13:24
Posts: 178
Location: Minneapolis

Hoosh wrote:
Three years ago, this thread/question wouldn’t have been asked – and, incidentally, wasn’t – but now that so much of the population lives a reality based upon “alternative facts,” silliness such as this exists.

What a shame.

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.

SIGShooter
SIGShooter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 9 sec ago
Joined: 07/14/2013 - 02:10
Posts: 1912
Location: northern california

MtnDon wrote:
The earth is flat, isn’t it?

I read it on the internet; must be true.

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. Facepalm

9mm/40cal/45cal bullets and large/small pistol primers available for sale in San Francisco Bay area

phouton
Online
Last seen: 9 min 22 sec ago
Joined: 10/23/2019 - 19:06
Posts: 286

SIGShooter wrote:
MtnDon wrote:
The earth is flat, isn’t it?

I read it on the internet; must be true.

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. Facepalm

Not only that, but apparently that belief is increasing lately. One can only hope that finding is due to an unrepresentative sample.
phouton
Online
Last seen: 9 min 22 sec ago
Joined: 10/23/2019 - 19:06
Posts: 286

CRX wrote:
Can I come and live in the dimension where all science is performed to the utmost best of honest human endeavour no matter the results, where it is always completely transparent, the data procured and findings released in a manner that is never skewed, hidden or adjusted, without any agenda, bias or pre-determined goal set.
Where governments, politicians, organisations, corporations and companies have absolute integrity and put the truth before all else, even profits and personal goals?
It sounds really nice there and I promise I will be good too Innocent

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.

SIGShooter
SIGShooter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 9 sec ago
Joined: 07/14/2013 - 02:10
Posts: 1912
Location: northern california

phouton wrote:
SIGShooter wrote:
MtnDon wrote:
The earth is flat, isn’t it?

I read it on the internet; must be true.

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. Facepalm

Not only that, but apparently that belief is increasing lately. One can only hope that finding is due to an unrepresentative sample.
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 Sad

Now I’m going to be depressed all day.

9mm/40cal/45cal bullets and large/small pistol primers available for sale in San Francisco Bay area

klrman
klrman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 29 min ago
Joined: 11/07/2016 - 22:44
Posts: 2486
Location: Canada

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.

phouton
Online
Last seen: 9 min 22 sec ago
Joined: 10/23/2019 - 19:06
Posts: 286

klrman wrote:

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. 


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.

MtnDon
MtnDon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 08/27/2015 - 18:25
Posts: 2796
Location: Canuk in NM

SIGShooter wrote:

Now I’m going to be depressed all day.

I am truly sorry about that.

Pages