America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

For kicks, I go to a science forum and make fun of the members that don't know anything about Grilling and Football...........

Addicting Info? Are you serious? You actually posted an "article" from that site with a straight face? That site makes Fox News look completely unbiased.

The flip side of the "war on science" is the war on people who question science.

????
Are we supposed to coddle the stupid?

Here's my problem, Victor. A theory is just that, a theory. It may be based on observations and repeated experiments, but it is still a form of conjecture. If it could be proven, it would be a fact, not a theory. Yet when someone questions a scientific theory, they are immediately branded as ignorant or backwards by the scientific community, as illustrated by your replies in this thread. Some scientists feel that their theories should be accepted, unquestioned, by the masses as fact, when even they know that their theories can't be proven as such. Talk about egos.

Now it's your turn to call me stupid. Have fun.

You are obviously a hopeless socialist.

But here's the problem. Generally, the individuals questioning a theory aren't doing so with equal evidence.

And in the words of Macs and his extra teeth Galileo Figaro

Then you argue about the specific bastardization of the process. If the process isn't followed or is tainted in any given situation your problem isn't really with the scientific method but in reality it's lack of appropriate application.

I never said science was dumb, but thank you for continuing to prove my point by calling me dumb YET AGAIN. This type of insulting, condescending attitude is what makes people refer to your type as "elitist liberals".

A few points. Skepticism about certain theories or factions of the scientific community does not equal "distrust in science". It also does not equal distrust in the scientific method itself. The very nature of science is skepticism and the willingness to challenge "accepted" truths. So I ask again: When did questioning science (specifically certain scientific theories) become stupid or ignorant?

I've noticed that a lot of people, especially those on the left side of the political spectrum, have this starry-eyed view of scientists. They have this idea that scientists are these benevolent, infallible people, and this is simply not true. "Peer reviewed" science held that the Piltdown Man skull was genuine for almost half a century, until other scientists were able to prove it was a hoax. Peer reviewed science told us that Vioxx was safe. Peer reviewed science told us that trans fats were perfectly healthy to consume. There are plenty of scientists working for the fossil fuel industry, big pharma, the military industrial complex, etc. Scientists are just people. No more or less perfect or incorruptible than anyone else.

Just a guess, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking that this post is related to the ongoing debate in this forum about global warming/climate change/whatever it's being called this week. For what it's worth, I don't disbelieve that human activity is having a negative effect on the environment. Of course human activity has an effect on the climate. But I believe that the data is being exaggerated/manipulated to serve corporate/political interests and agendas. I am skeptical of anything involving governments, multinational corporations, billions of dollars, and potentially global legislation.

First, read my statement: ""Science" as an entity is simply a method of establishing theories based on repeated experiments and observations. To question that is ... well... kind of dumb"

I didn't call you dumb, unless you personally fit in the category of "questioning the method of establishing theories based on repeated experiments and observations". You have to tell me if you fit in that category or not, I'm not a mindreader. -- You did call me dumb, in your little roundabout way. You are slyly denying it, but that's how you roll. This isn't the first time I've read your posts.

Second. You make more assumptions. While I may be condescending and elitist, I hardly fit in the liberal mold. To call anyone who favors using a scientific method for societal policy decisions an "elitist liberal", simply because they favor science, is frightening. It again re-establishes the problem with the graph.


You are the one who is conflating them. First you say "skepticism about certain theories" then you say "questioning science". This is NOT the same thing. You can question a theory. But you USE SCIENCE to disprove it. -- Isn't that what I said? You don't question science. To question science itself is to simply throw up your hands and say "hey, I'm heading back to the dark ages, have fun guys". When a theory is disproven, it isn't because some yahoo decided to "question science". It's because other scientists, or individuals with an understanding of experimental methodologies, found evidence significant enough to overturn currently accepted theories. -- Quit screwing around. You knew what I meant when I said 'questioning science'. And in case you (or anyone else) didn't know, I put 'specifically certain scientific theories' in parentheses. Like I said, distrust in certain theories or factions of the *scientific community* does not equal a distrust in science. Nobody is denying that the earth revolves around the sun, or the theory of gravity.

You're simply questioning an entire system because individual cogs are fallible? -- No, I'm not. Quitting putting words in my internet mouth. You sound like potts. Unless you yourself are willing to spend a decade dedicating your time to acquiring specific deep knowledge on a topic, you have a pretty simple binary choice. You either trust that the majority of the scientists publishing studies on a specific topic are honest and interested in furthering actual knowledge on that topic, and follow what they have published. Or you can assume that the majority of the scientists are all lying, but lying in the same way, because they actively want to falsify the general knowledge. If you believe the second, then you have to apply the same criteria to whatever minority of scientists you are choosing to believe (ie, how can you possibly believe that the majority was actively working against you, but this particular minority isn't). Ultimately, unless you can dig into the information yourself, you're screwed. -- I trust that the majority of scientists who studied Vioxx and declared it safe are lying, inhuman wackos. I trust that the majority of scientists working on bioweapons are sick f**ks.


This had noting to do with any global warming debate. I would have said it did if it did. I only care about global warming within the context of it being all sorts of fun to watch the cognitive dissonance in the far right arguments.