aquatus1 Posted April 8, 2011 #76 Share Posted April 8, 2011 And as long as you have faith in materialism scientific methodology works just fine. As long as you have faith in the process you can sleep at night ( metaphorical only I'm not implying that you loose sleep). Unless you are willing to go out and reproduce all the experiments yourself from biology to particle physics you are takeing it all on faith, because you were taught that all these people did it the right way. How is that not exactly like religiouse indoctrination. I will tell you exactly how it is most definitely NOT religious indoctrination. First and foremost, as I told you earlier, as long as you keep on thinking in terms of faith, you will never understand. Scientific methodology has nothing to do with faith. Faith isn't the be-all-and-end-all of thought. What you call faith is nothing more than probability. I do not believe the sun will rise in the East tomorrow because of faith; I believe it will because the probability of it not doing so is infinitesimally small. I do not have faith that the Pythagorean Theorem will always give me the solution for a right triangle. I believe it won't because, in all the thousands times and ways that it has been used, it has never failed to do so. You talk about having faith in scientific methodology. That is similar to saying that you must have faith in the cookbook you are using to bake a cake. It is nonsensical. Faith is not going to make the recipe work, nor is it going to cause the recipe to fail. Either it works, or it does not. Whether you believe it will or won't will not affect it one way or the other. Similarly, the faith one has in the process of scientific methodology and in the process of peer review is that, the vast majority of the time, it will validate correctly, and any errors or falsehood in the process will shortly be brought to light. That is why you can read a study in a peer reviewed journal and be able to accept it as valid until proven otherwise. Because the process of peer review consists of experts in the field, reviewing, replicating, and repeating the process described by the person submitting the study. You don't have to yourself, however, should you choose to, you certainly can. Indeed, the people in the particular field that it is relevant to will do just that. They will do it because a peer reviewed study is new data in their field, and will need to be integrated. It isn't just a matter of casual interest; if you do not integrate new data, you will be left behind in your field. In religious indoctrination, you do not get to repeat the experiments. Indeed, there are no experiments to repeat. Nor do you have a group of experts who you know have indeed repeated the experiments themselves, and have validated the conclusion to be objectively correct. Additionally, you do not have an entire academic field that uses that same information on a daily basis, who is going to most certainly incorporate your new data, and on top of it, notice immediately that the data is not working as advertised. You seem to think that academic research is people writing up papers with smart things and reading them to other people people, who nod wisely and mutter their assent, at the end of which the paper is carefully slid into a protective jacket and set inside a safe, away from prying eyes. Nonsense, of course. If your paper is going to be peer reviewed, it is because the committee has decided that your findings are new information, and merit dissemination into the field. That means this is data of immediate relevance to people working in that field. The peer review committee has a vested interest in making sure the data is as validated as it can be before publishing, because the reputation of their academic journal is on the line, and reputation is everything in academia. Once the data is published, literally hundreds of thousands of people who actively work in or are studying the field will read the report. That is a lot of eyes on the data. They aren't just idly flipping through the pages. They need to determine if they have to change their business practices, if their current experiments will be affected, if they know of something that would invalidate the study. There is no way to hide anything; all the data has to be released, so that people know exactly how you got to your conclusion. After all, lives often depend on it. You have faith in the methodology, the people that perform it, the past experiments that are fundamental to uphold it all. Unless you your self have started from square one to identify say the dopeler efect. I'm not saying it's wrong, but you seem to think that your trust in the whole shibang is not faith. It is. Until you have a personal experience with the reality of the experiments themselves, you are trusting, people, and an istitution that is not above human fallacies of competativness, comercialism, egoism, and guruism. The guy the first proposed more than 7 dimentions in string theory comes to mind. He could not even get graduate students to work with him because it was not until the gurus finally got on board....., hawking and the rest, and he barely got credit for it. Also the over medication of America based on..... Yup the scientific institution is also another example. Do you seriously think that the smartest minds on the planet haven't already figured that out? Again, you have that idea of a bunch of eggheads saying and aggreing with each other all day long, and the data going nowhere. It doesn't work that way. Why are you thinking that scientific methodology doesn't address human fallacies? That is practically its sole reason for existence. The purpose of peer review is not to personally prove something to you as an individual. You can, and many do, choose to not believe the data that is published is correct. Remember that the purpose of peer review is simply to validate it, not to make sure it is correct. People regularly argue over competing theories. You are talking about human foibles. Of course they exist. But they are no more relevant here than they are anywhere else. The simple fact of the matter is that the process of scientific methodology and peer review is specifically designed for the sole purpose of reducing the effects of this human behaviour. Read that again. That is the key point here. Everyone, even the believers, have their own methodology, but the only methodology that can trace the majority of its growth and rules to its dedication to eliminating the human tendency to win is scientific methodology. You are just complaining that these foibles exist. Scientific methodology passed that 500 years ago and continues to evolve to deal with it. We also know that probably everything we know now will probably have to be scrapped in two hundred years if things continue the way they have been for the last 2. But yet so many take everything as fact now. It's going to be a tough sell to me that faith is not rampent in the institution. Not that it's not effective in certain ways, but the materialist paradime is dangerously close to a church. Economics, egos, meams, and government control the direction of scientific progress, and the fixation on materialism blinds the original Nobel atempt at discovery. Unlikely. But you are heavily invested in faith, and you are transferring that same ideology to everything else you see. Until you can remove those blinders, you will not be able to understand scientific methodology, or the need for objectivity. You are complaining that this is a system based on faith, but you are ignoring that the purpose and practice of this system is based on mistrust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now