Limits of Science, and Moral Choices

[wuapinmon]

You honor me.

[SoonerCoug]

He didn't say he was ignoring science but in fact he is differentiating between true science and agenda driven science.

The biggest problem with science is science education in America. Because people don't understand how science works, they start believing in conspiracies.

[tooblue]

The biggest problem with science is science education in America. Because people don't understand how science works, they start believing in conspiracies.

I agree that we have a real problem with our education system in North America. It's an issue of trust. Science has to prove itself trustworthy and that's very hard to do because there is so much science out there with an agenda. True science though doesn't have an agenda. The onus is on scientists to rid their work of agendas in order to stem the tide of conspiracy fueled ignorance and gain peoples trust.

[SoonerCoug]

Science has to prove itself trustworthy and that's very hard to do because there is so much science out there with an agenda.

BS.

[tooblue]

BS.

It's not bs ... should I just have 'faith' that you don't have an agenda and trust your experimentation? What exactly did you do to earn such implicit trust -- get a degree. whoop-di-freaking-do! I could get the same degree -- heck, if I have enough money I could buy my way to one couldn't I?

[UtahDan]

I agree that we have a real problem with our education system in North America. It's an issue of trust. Science has to prove itself trustworthy and that's very hard to do because there is so much science out there with an agenda. True science though doesn't have an agenda. The onus is on scientists to rid their work of agendas in order to stem the tide of conspiracy fueled ignorance and gain peoples trust.

This is actually interesting. If I really thought I couldn't trust anything that was purveyed to me by someone with an agenda (so everything) I would only trust my own experiences and thoughts, things I arrived at on my own. I would begin to see my self as the only real source of truth because it is the only source I could trust. I would be skeptical and ultimately reject facts and arguments that conflict with anything I had come to on my own. I would probably also be very sensitive to people criticizing my ultimate source of truth (me). It would be a fight for me not to be paranoid and my guess is that people would frequently not be able to follow my reasoning.

Interesting thought exercise.

[SoonerCoug]

I could get the same degree -- heck, if I have enough money I could buy my way to one couldn't I?

Go for it. It might change the way you see the world.

[woot]

This is actually interesting. If I really thought I couldn't trust anything that was purveyed to me by someone with an agenda (so everything) I would only trust my own experiences and thoughts, things I arrived at on my own. I would begin to see my self as the only real source of truth because it is the only source I could trust. I would be skeptical and ultimately reject facts and arguments that conflict with anything I had come to on my own. I would probably also be very sensitive to people criticizing my ultimate source of truth (me). It would be a fight for me not to be paranoid and my guess is that people would frequently not be able to follow my reasoning.

Interesting thought exercise.

[tooblue]

This is actually interesting. If I really thought I couldn't trust anything that was purveyed to me by someone with an agenda (so everything) I would only trust my own experiences and thoughts, things I arrived at on my own. I would begin to see my self as the only real source of truth because it is the only source I could trust. I would be skeptical and ultimately reject facts and arguments that conflict with anything I had come to on my own. I would probably also be very sensitive to people criticizing my ultimate source of truth (me). It would be a fight for me not to be paranoid and my guess is that people would frequently not be able to follow my reasoning.

Interesting thought exercise.

The weakest aspects of your premise is the assumption that that there is no genuine desire to trust someone or something and that there may be such a thing as implicit trust. What if there is a genuine desire and what if trust of any kind must be earned save in circumstances of dire need such as a child in infancy?

If there is a genuine desire then one can safely engage in true science through self experiential means and embrace a setting where fellow participants have proven themselves worthy of trust. What's more the trust can never be assumed as implicit, it must always be earned through demonstration that the environment is open to multiple methods of expression and thinking and that there is an absolute refusal to pedestal one methodology of looking at issues over another.

An equally interesting thought exercise don't you think?

[tooblue]

Go for it. It might change the way you see the world.

Quid pro quo -- are you willing to get a degree in Fine Arts ... it would definitely change the way you see the world.

[CardiacCoug]

In short, if you, for example, believe that evolution (or any other theory or “law”) is scientifically proven once and for all, I’d suggest that you are gravely mistaken about the nature and limits of science, and I’d advise you to familiarize yourself as to what experts in that field have commented on about the subject. I’d also suggest that it is a lapse of judgment to base moral choices primarily on whichever scientific wind blows or suits his fancy (or “god” of his choosing).

This statement is a great example of the type of anti-intellectual and anti-scientific attitude under which religious fanaticism thrives.

You don't understand anything about biology if you think organic evolution is an issue that can be contested in any way other than from the perspective of an anti-intellectual religious fanatic.

[tooblue]

This statement is a great example of the type of anti-intellectual and anti-scientific attitude under which religious fanaticism thrives.

You don't understand anything about biology if you think organic evolution is an issue that is debatable from any point of view other than from that of an anti-intellectual religious fanatic.

We've been down this road before -- are we talking about laws or theories? Just curious.

[UtahDan]

The weakest aspects of your premise is the assumption that that there is no genuine desire to trust someone or something and that there may be such a thing as implicit trust. What if there is a genuine desire and what if trust of any kind must be earned save in circumstances of dire need such as a child in infancy?

If there is a genuine desire then one can safely engage in true science through self experiential means and embrace a setting where fellow participants have proven themselves worthy of trust. What's more the trust can never be assumed as implicit, it must always be earned through demonstration that the environment is open to multiple methods of expression and thinking and that there is an absolute refusal to pedestal one methodology of looking at issues over another.

An equally interesting thought exercise don't you think?

I don't really follow because I don't know what trust has to do with it. Either it can be verified and reproduced or it can't. Either explanations can survive scrutiny at some level or they cannot. Why must I trust anyone? This is science we are talking about, not religion, right?

[SoonerCoug]

Quid pro quo -- are you willing to get a degree in Fine Arts ... it would definitely change the way you see the world.

I think I have enough degrees already, but among them is a bachelors in Russian, and I am a pianist.

[tooblue]

I don't really follow because I don't know what trust has to do with it. Either it can be verified and reproduced or it can't. Either explanations can survive scrutiny at some level or they cannot. Why must I trust anyone? This is science we are talking about, not religion, right?

Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe". At least the first part of the definition of religion seems directly relevant to science doesn't it?

Can we agree that a type of faith is required in science to even ask the questions of cause, nature and purpose? A scientist must have faith in one's faculties and senses to discover evidences that support a theory and potentially confirm a hypothesis as a scientific law.

Trust plays and essential role in all of this. A scientist can have faith in his faculties and senses because previous experience has demonstrated their efficacy and worth in discovering evidences. Such a demonstration need not be implicit when it can so easily be shared earning the trust of someone genuinely in search of true science.