If science can't be questioned

[task0778]

then it isn't science anymore. It's propaganda. - Aaron Rodgers, QB of Green Bay Packers (who I despise)

The man has a point though. Throughout human history we have always questioned just about everything, and most often found ourselves wrong about so many things. Science is never settled, it merely perseveres until new evidence services that proves or at least offers a counter balancing theory. And so it is with climate change, Keynesian economics, and the COVID vaccines, among other ideas and truths that my not turn out to be true. Too often greed, politics, and personal issues get in the way of finding the truth and publicizing it, and we should always be aware that whatever the current settled science is today about anything may turn out to be wrong tomorrow, and that is why it might be foolish to spend trillions of dollars on a given issue and then find out all that money was wasted.

 

[Votto]

The dirty little secret is, pretty much every major scientific breakthrough was met with political backlash within the scientific or political systems.

Just take a look at Galileo and the Catholic church. Or the priest who came up with the Big Bang theory Einstein said was garbage and later had to recant.

Being unable to question, whether you are a person of science or religion, or in any other facet of life, is the death of us all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

then it isn't science anymore. It's propaganda. - Aaron Rodgers, QB of Green Bay Packers (who I despise)

The man has a point though. Throughout human history we have always questioned just about everything, and most often found ourselves wrong about so many things. Science is never settled, it merely perseveres until new evidence services that proves or at least offers a counter balancing theory. And so it is with climate change, Keynesian economics, and the COVID vaccines, among other ideas and truths that my not turn out to be true. Too often greed, politics, and personal issues get in the way of finding the truth and publicizing it, and we should always be aware that whatever the current settled science is today about anything may turn out to be wrong tomorrow, and that is why it might be foolish to spend trillions of dollars on a given issue and then find out all that money was wasted.

Science is made to be questioned. Science, itself, is "questioning".

But if a question is asked, it is either meant to be answered or meant to be nothing but doubt. Doubt is not skepticism.

Question away. But try to realize when you have gotten your answer and move on.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Science always questions itself.

You can say science is wrong, but you'd best have a better theory of what's happening.

 

[Donald H]

then it isn't science anymore. It's propaganda. - Aaron Rodgers, QB of Green Bay Packers (who I despise)

The man has a point though. Throughout human history we have always questioned just about everything, and most often found ourselves wrong about so many things. Science is never settled, it merely perseveres until new evidence services that proves or at least offers a counter balancing theory. And so it is with climate change, Keynesian economics, and the COVID vaccines, among other ideas and truths that my not turn out to be true. Too often greed, politics, and personal issues get in the way of finding the truth and publicizing it, and we should always be aware that whatever the current settled science is today about anything may turn out to be wrong tomorrow, and that is why it might be foolish to spend trillions of dollars on a given issue and then find out all that money was wasted.

Did you say 'services' when you meant 'surfaces'?
If you're going to challenge science then wouldn't be appropriate to make some specific challenge and then be responsible for owning it?

This reminds of how Christians so often refuse to either 'own' or 'disown' the words in their bibles. Let's see if your topic can rise to the challenge against science? Or alternatively, prove to be a less than serious challenge that's only based on an idle inference with nothing specific.

I'll only say that in my opinion it's a worthwhile topic which could be expanded upon.

 

[Donald H]

The dirty little secret is, pretty much every major scientific breakthrough was met with political backlash within the scientific or political systems.

Where would you get such an exaggerated and irrational claim?
Can we try to keep this topic on track for serious discussion?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science that doesn't invite scrutiny is not science.

And I clearly said it is invited. Damn son, you are too rabid to follow simple English sentences.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

And I clearly said it is invited. Damn son, you are too rabid to follow simple English sentences.

I misread and responded inaccurately and deleted my post, and your apology is ....................... well, nevermind, dickbreath.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I misread and responded inaccurately and deleted my post, and your apology is ....................... well, nevermind, dickbreath.

Moving on...

Please.do question science. That is how you learn about science.

 

[JohnDB]

then it isn't science anymore. It's propaganda. - Aaron Rodgers, QB of Green Bay Packers (who I despise)

The man has a point though. Throughout human history we have always questioned just about everything, and most often found ourselves wrong about so many things. Science is never settled, it merely perseveres until new evidence services that proves or at least offers a counter balancing theory. And so it is with climate change, Keynesian economics, and the COVID vaccines, among other ideas and truths that my not turn out to be true. Too often greed, politics, and personal issues get in the way of finding the truth and publicizing it, and we should always be aware that whatever the current settled science is today about anything may turn out to be wrong tomorrow, and that is why it might be foolish to spend trillions of dollars on a given issue and then find out all that money was wasted.

Real science is about correlation between two facts. Not the crap that has been published ad nauseam everywhere lately.

And correlation is not causation.

There are studies that fully demonstrate a hard and fast link with Geese migrations and Birth rates. The earlier the migrations start the higher the birth rates. But we also know that geese migrating has nothing to do with births of human babies. However colder weather and lack of geese feed, which causes the migrations is also a reason why people stay inside more to keep warm... leading to more physical intimacy and more births.

But today we have people talking all about the geese migrating and claiming that this is the cause of babies.

 

[task0778]

Question away. But try to realize when you have gotten your answer and move on.

What if the answer you got is not the truth? Or the whole truth? Are we to accept an answer without questioning it? I think we need to be very careful about accepting an answer that is convenient to our politics/worldview or dismissing an answer because it is antithetical. These days we seem to have a problem in both instances, and not without some reason considering how much everything gets politicized.

 

[task0778]

Science always questions itself.

You can say science is wrong, but you'd best have a better theory of what's happening.

Not necessarily.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What if the answer you got is not the truth?

How would you know? It would only be purported as "truth" or "fact" if the evidence was overwhelming.

Scientists generally don't speak this way, save for the well established facts. And when they don't, it means there is more science to do.

So, you do more science. Or watch as others do, and you monitor the results.

Do you have a better way? If so, the world is listening.

 

[task0778]

Did you say 'services' when you meant 'surfaces'?
If you're going to challenge science then wouldn't be appropriate to make some specific challenge and then be responsible for owning it?

This reminds of how Christians so often refuse to either 'own' or 'disown' the words in their bibles. Let's see if your topic can rise to the challenge against science? Or alternatively, prove to be a less than serious challenge that's only based on an idle inference with nothing specific.

I'll only say that in my opinion it's a worthwhile topic which could be expanded upon.

Yeah, I meant to say surfaces. My bad.

This reminds of how Christians so often refuse to either 'own' or 'disown' the words in their bibles. Let's see if your topic can rise to the challenge against science? Or alternatively, prove to be a less than serious challenge that's only based on an idle inference with nothing specific.

Sorry, this went over my head and I didn't understand your point. I wasn't specifically challenging someone's claim on anything to be settled science, but IMHO too many times we hear somebody talking about 'settled science' when referring to whatever agenda they have that they support, and then it turns out the science wasn't really settled. The first one that pops to my mind is the claim some 10-15 years ago that 97% consensus of scientists saying that global warming is significantly due to anthropogenic causes. It turned out to be bullshit, but a lot of people bought it as fact.

 

[Votto]

Where would you get such an exaggerated and irrational claim?
Can we try to keep this topic on track for serious discussion?

Look at history.

Cecilia Payne discovered that stars are made largely of the two lightest chemical elements – hydrogen and helium. She made her discovery while in graduate school. At first nobody believed it – scientists were convinced that the sun’s composition was similar to the earth’s. Her thesis, which was 100% correct, was torn apart because she dared attack the general beliefs of her day regarding stars, and she was a woman. Women were looked down on at that time when it came to science. They even made her recant her thesis in shame. LOL.

Or how about Alfred Wegener who came up with the tectonic plate theory? The scientific community lambasted him and ridiculed him. Because of this abuse, Wegener could not get a professorship at any German university. Fortunately, the University of Graz in Austria was more tolerant of controversy, and in 1924 it appointed him professor of meteorology and geophysics.

In 1926 Wegener was invited to an international symposium in New York called to discuss his theory. Though he found some supporters, many speakers were sarcastic to the point of insult. Wegener said little. He just sat smoking his pipe and listening. His attitude seems to have mirrored that of Galileo who, forced to recant Copernicus' theory that the Earth moves around the sun, is said to have murmured, "Nevertheless, it moves!"

Just watch the documentary Expelled that shows the bias against those who question any aspect of evolution.



Yea, people suck.

​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Look at history.

Cecilia Payne discovered that stars are made largely of the two lightest chemical elements – hydrogen and helium. She made her discovery while in graduate school. At first nobody believed it – scientists were convinced that the sun’s composition was similar to the earth’s. Her thesis, which was 100% correct, was torn apart because she dared attack the general beliefs of her day regarding stars, and she was a woman. Women were looked down on at that time when it came to science. They even made her recant her thesis in shame. LOL.

Or how about Alfred Wegener who came up with the tectonic plate theory? The scientific community lambasted him and ridiculed him. Because of this abuse, Wegener could not get a professorship at any German university. Fortunately, the University of Graz in Austria was more tolerant of controversy, and in 1924 it appointed him professor of meteorology and geophysics.

In 1926 Wegener was invited to an international symposium in New York called to discuss his theory. Though he found some supporters, many speakers were sarcastic to the point of insult. Wegener said little. He just sat smoking his pipe and listening. His attitude seems to have mirrored that of Galileo who, forced to recant Copernicus' theory that the Earth moves around the sun, is said to have murmured, "Nevertheless, it moves!"

Just watch the documentary Expelled that shows the bias against those who question any aspect of evolution.



Yea, people suck.

​

And what happened? The evidence won out. Because they didn't have sound evidentiary ground to oppose these findings.

Today's scientific community is not so patriarchal or strident. These days, the way to get famous is to overturn part of a strong theory, or to solidify a new theory.

With the free flow of information, science happens both more quickly and is more thorough.

Watch the field of cosmology. On an almost daily basis, a study is published that supports a new theory or upends part of an existing theory. It is commonplace, as the pace of science has greatly accelerated.

 

[Donald H]

Yeah, I meant to say surfaces. My bad.

This reminds of how Christians so often refuse to either 'own' or 'disown' the words in their bibles. Let's see if your topic can rise to the challenge against science? Or alternatively, prove to be a less than serious challenge that's only based on an idle inference with nothing specific.

Sorry, this went over my head and I didn't understand your point. I wasn't specifically challenging someone's claim on anything to be settled science, but IMHO too many times we hear somebody talking about 'settled science' when referring to whatever agenda they have that they support, and then it turns out the science wasn't really settled. The first one that pops to my mind is the claim some 10-15 years ago that 97% consensus of scientists saying that global warming is significantly due to anthropogenic causes. It turned out to be bullshit, but a lot of people bought it as fact.

No, it didn't turn out to be bulls--t. Some specific claim related to global warning or climate change may have be found to be untrue, but you aren't willing to go there. What can anyone conclude from your unspecific suggestion?

We're right back to where we started, hearing nothing specific other than just another generic claim that AGW isn't real. Go put your 'expert' hat on, or call on one of the pseudo-experts to do it for you. Then own it and maybe we can pursue the question further?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

then it isn't science anymore. It's propaganda. - Aaron Rodgers, QB of Green Bay Packers (who I despise)

The man has a point though. Throughout human history we have always questioned just about everything, and most often found ourselves wrong about so many things. Science is never settled, it merely perseveres until new evidence services that proves or at least offers a counter balancing theory. And so it is with climate change, Keynesian economics, and the COVID vaccines, among other ideas and truths that my not turn out to be true. Too often greed, politics, and personal issues get in the way of finding the truth and publicizing it, and we should always be aware that whatever the current settled science is today about anything may turn out to be wrong tomorrow, and that is why it might be foolish to spend trillions of dollars on a given issue and then find out all that money was wasted.

 

[Calypso Jones]

What gets touted as "science" is really POLITICS meant to divide the liberals from Conservatives so that the elite can steal, reign and conquer. If people only knew how much of "science" was really speculation, assumptions, theory and expectations...

 

[task0778]

What gets touted as "science" is really POLITICS meant to divide the liberals from Conservatives so that the elite can steal, reign and conquer. If people only knew how much of "science" was really speculation, assumptions, theory and expectations...

I dare to think that in many fields of science honest people are working to discover whatever is true based on unfiltered observations and experiments without regard to politics. But it seems that in too many cases once there is serious money to be made and political advantage to be gained, human nature takes over and objectivity goes out the window. Science and scientists were once held in high regard and trusted; maybe it was always thus and we naively believed what we were told to be the truth, but these days trust in so many institutions is dwindling as we hear so-called scientists tell us one thing and then walk it back not long after. Questioning theories and hypotheses is a good thing, but questioning motivation and integrity is a sad thing to see.