MisterE Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 well, i'm not saying that we SHOULD distrust it. but maybe people should be a bit more skeptical of anything they are told in general. ultimately everyone will think (to different degrees) and make up their minds about what is being said. scientists have to (or do they?) put things in silly metaphors to explain them to us half the time, so we have to decide what to make of that. i still think that that aspect is comparable to how with religion you have thousands of priests who all verify what the other priests are saying, and how the masses just don't know. they don't know about religion, and they don't know about science. they think and they put their blind faith in either science, or in religion. that's all i'm saying. i'm not trying to say it doesn't make more sense to go with science, just pointing out that the same ignorance is there with the masses about both, and it could be used in either case to suit an agenda. there isn't just the actual data they get, but how they frame what it means and how they present that, and theres plenty of room for manipulation in that too. i dont doubt that there are plenty of scientists who have their own ideas about how society should be. everyone does, so why wouldn't they? so i think it would only be human of them to maybe present those metaphors/comparisons they are always giving us, in a light that might help steer our emotions towards where they think we should be. but should their feelings about society have more weight than any random person's? same question could be asked of a celebrity when they give their opinions on things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 there isn't just the actual data they get, but how they frame what it means and how they present that, and theres plenty of room for manipulation in that too. i dont doubt that there are plenty of scientists who have their own ideas about how society should be. everyone does, so why wouldn't they? so i think it would only be human of them to maybe present those metaphors/comparisons they are always giving us, in a light that might help steer our emotions towards where they think we should be. but should their feelings about society have more weight than any random person's? same question could be asked of a celebrity when they give their opinions on things. I think a bigger problem is in the media or government manipulating or misrepresenting scientific data for ideological purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 maybe bigger, yeah. but the scientists themselves aren't immune to ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 there's a whole scientific field which deals with this, should have probably copy-pasted the whole article from wiki without any editing whatsoever, but anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 maybe bigger, yeah. but the scientists themselves aren't immune to ideology. Yes true but once again, this is slightly paranoid. It's kinda like never turning your back on your girlfriend because she's not immune to being a cannibal. Unless you are given a reason to think she's a cannibal, there's no reason to err on the side of her being a cannibal. Sometimes scientific discoveries have inherent ideological/philosophical/political implications. Evolution, for instance. It 's just a discovery, there is no ideology behind it (besides the ideology of "I want to find out how the universe works"). Let's say you belong to a cult whose beliefs are predicated on the idea that the sun revolves around the earth: the discovery that the opposite is true will seem like a ideological stance. But it's simply a cold indifferent observation about the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 obligatory xkcd (in place of a long rant I typed up about statistical standards among scientists, politicians and the public that I've decided to spare everyone from) guess I could drop this link here too: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (not quite as dire as it sounds, scroll down to the Corollaries section for some good quick info) edit 2: I don't mean to erode trust in science, but this stuff is very interesting and for once I might actually agree with Mr. E on something, which is most certainly a statistically significant event Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 I also agree that misinterpreting data is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qnio Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 if you really want to, you can read some philosophy of science, specifically this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend. he wrote "against method", "farewell to reason", and "the tyranny of science", among other books (does it ring a bell?). oh and what eugene said about sociology of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redruth Posted April 12, 2013 Author Share Posted April 12, 2013 maybe bigger, yeah. but the scientists themselves aren't immune to ideology. Yes true but once again, this is slightly paranoid. “A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on. A psychotic is the guy who's just found out what's going on.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friendly Foil Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 maybe bigger, yeah. but the scientists themselves aren't immune to ideology. Yes true but once again, this is slightly paranoid. “A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on. A psychotic is the guy who's just found out what's going on.” deep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 maybe bigger, yeah. but the scientists themselves aren't immune to ideology. Yes true but once again, this is slightly paranoid. “A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on. A psychotic is the guy who's just found out what's going on.” derp fitxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redruth Posted April 13, 2013 Author Share Posted April 13, 2013 guess I could drop this link here too: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (not quite as dire as it sounds, scroll down to the Corollaries section for some good quick info) thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivy Zemura yvI oo ii oo Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 ^ nitpicking nothing-to-do-evening comment: it's 'the universal law of gravitation' dude err no nothing every graduates past a scientific theory the "law of gravity" is a theory, not a law science (the process, not the community) is very humble in this way things remain theories and either they are disproved (disproven?) or they remain a theory (this of course confuses people and makes some think that all theories--by virtue of being called 'theories'--are equally valid..."evolution is only a theory, man") You people are all misunderstanding the term Scientific Theory Scientific Theories are fact. Theories aren't just postulations or hypotheses, they are thoroughly proven explanations for a given phenomena and are factual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 ^ nitpicking nothing-to-do-evening comment: it's 'the universal law of gravitation' dude err no nothing every graduates past a scientific theory the "law of gravity" is a theory, not a law science (the process, not the community) is very humble in this way things remain theories and either they are disproved (disproven?) or they remain a theory (this of course confuses people and makes some think that all theories--by virtue of being called 'theories'--are equally valid..."evolution is only a theory, man") You people are all misunderstanding the term Scientific Theory Scientific Theories are fact. Theories aren't just postulations or hypotheses, they are thoroughly proven explanations for a given phenomena and are factual. It sounds like you're trying to contradict something that no-one said. edit: please refer to where I said Scientific Theory is the highest status Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Sounds familiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Okay I found this re: Law vs Theory at some random website: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm "A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened. As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Okay so I think the general declaration part of a scientific principle is a law but the actual nitty gritty descriptive part of it (e.g. the actual equation) is a theory...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qnio Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 ^ nitpicking nothing-to-do-evening comment: it's 'the universal law of gravitation' dude err no nothing every graduates past a scientific theory the "law of gravity" is a theory, not a law science (the process, not the community) is very humble in this way things remain theories and either they are disproved (disproven?) or they remain a theory (this of course confuses people and makes some think that all theories--by virtue of being called 'theories'--are equally valid..."evolution is only a theory, man") You people are all misunderstanding the term Scientific Theory Scientific Theories are fact. Theories aren't just postulations or hypotheses, they are thoroughly proven explanations for a given phenomena and are factual. it's much more complicated than that. a theory offers a model, a simplification if you wish, of certain phenomena in 'reality' in logical terms, preferably in mathematical form. theories are constructed around verified hypothesis. a theory stands 'true' until the core hypothesis on which the theory is based are tested and proved wrong. in that sense, a theory--even if proven repeatedly over time--is very much like an hypothesis. the term 'fact' is a bit tricky. imo what stands for 'fact' is built around consensus on the methodology employed to measure 'reality'. simply put, 'facts' are a product of scientific research which is based on a determined methodology. this varies from discipline to discipline (physics, biology, social sciences, psychology). 'facts' are not an exact copy of 'reality'. that doesn't denies the statement you made about theories being empirically based. that's true. but the issue is around how science works to produce empirical data, as i said before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoodie Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 maybe bigger, yeah. but the scientists themselves aren't immune to ideology. Yes true but once again, this is slightly paranoid. “A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on. A psychotic is the guy who's just found out what's going on.” wow, this is so incredibly offensive to people suffering from mental illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 if you really want to, you can read some philosophy of science, specifically this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend. he wrote "against method", "farewell to reason", and "the tyranny of science", among other books (does it ring a bell?). oh and what eugene said about sociology of science. good tip, I've been meaning to read at least a little Feyerabend for a while. don't know much about the guy but have been directed to him a few times now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 maybe bigger, yeah. but the scientists themselves aren't immune to ideology. Yes true but once again, this is slightly paranoid. It's kinda like never turning your back on your girlfriend because she's not immune to being a cannibal. Unless you are given a reason to think she's a cannibal, there's no reason to err on the side of her being a cannibal. Sometimes scientific discoveries have inherent ideological/philosophical/political implications. Evolution, for instance. It 's just a discovery, there is no ideology behind it (besides the ideology of "I want to find out how the universe works"). Let's say you belong to a cult whose beliefs are predicated on the idea that the sun revolves around the earth: the discovery that the opposite is true will seem like a ideological stance. But it's simply a cold indifferent observation about the universe. but i never said we should turn our back on science. i'm just saying that people should accept and be aware of the fact that it is within the realm of possibility that 'science' could be used to further some agenda which may go against their interests, just as has happened with religion. it has happened with 'science' also. then some people might point out that 'ok but eugenics wasn't actually science, it was bad science or psuedoscience'. that's a dumb argument though because it would necessarily be bad/psuedo science for what i'm talking about to happen. it's like trying to separate scientists from science itself. scientists may lie, and they may massage data, and they may do things to further some personal agenda, and it has happened. that's all i'm saying. it should be at least acknowledged as a possibility. for some people to act like it is out of the realm of possibility for that to happen, i see as problematic. i'm not saying to be paranoid of science in general. paranoia implies that you already suspect they are up to something. i'm saying be skeptical of things more, in general. especially if is given to you with a bunch of colorful, poetic metaphors that give you some kind of emotional response, when as you pointed out, the real science itself is a cold observation of the universe. it's funny that that is then taken and twisted into some colorful metaphor to play on emotions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 I hear ya, E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 heh, whatevs duder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 heh, whatevs duder no I mean I'm agreeing with you We should be skeptical of everything, of course. The tragedy of it all is that we don't have the time or resources to personally investigate every piece of information we encounter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 heh, whatevs duder no I mean I'm agreeing with you We should be skeptical of everything, of course. The tragedy of it all is that we don't have the time or resources to personally investigate every piece of information we encounter. Indeed, which is why I think Science > Politics > Religion in terms of reliability of information. Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Politics is the art or science of influencing people on a civic, or individual level, when there are more than 2 people involved. Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.