That makes no sense whatsoever.

"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.

However, feel free to question individual theories, the scientific method has entire ways of going about doing it. You can go and gather data and become a scientist yourself, establish competing theories using valid scientific methods.

Or is that too much work? You'd rather just say science is dumb?

victor809 wrote:

That is a complete cop-out. Mainly because the minute someone actually SHOWS evidence to the contrary, it is either quashed by the apparatus that already exists that protects the current view, or it is dismissed out of hand.

You do it all of the time Victor. It's a nice tactic...for the feebleminded.

jpotts wrote:

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".

borndead1 wrote:

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.

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.

dpnewell wrote:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.

Wikipedia wrote:

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.

victor809 wrote:

I see a pattern.....

ZRX1200 wrote:

If you ignore science and God I think you are a fool

ZRX1200 wrote:

Nice dodge(s). You should go into politics.

On a lighter note, I bet your wife never wins an argument with you. And for that, sir, I give you a tip of the cap.

borndead1 wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Well, the religious Right does have the Creation Museum near Petersburg, Kentucky that presents man living with dinosaurs.

And in typical fashion if flys in the face of all known fact.

You just have to respect that level of ignorance - because it is dangerous . . . .

Brewha wrote:

Well, the religious Right does have the Creation Museum near Petersburg, Kentucky that presents man living with dinosaurs.

Brewha wrote:

Where is the 'Destruction Museum'..?? do they have Zombies..?? 😕

DrafterX wrote: