Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Render

People reject science because...

236 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Farmer77

All 100 of the companies in the link below have scientists who allowed these shampoos and conditioners to be produced under their oversight. Are they ignorant of the health risks of the chemicals they are giving the public? Are they just indifferent? Did they interpret the data which suggests the chemicals are harmful differently than others?

Whatever the reasoning this article is a great example of why people are losing their papist like faith in science.

http://www.naturalne..._products.html#

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

All 100 of the companies in the link below have scientists who allowed these shampoos and conditioners to be produced under their oversight. Are they ignorant of the health risks of the chemicals they are giving the public? Are they just indifferent? Did they interpret the data which suggests the chemicals are harmful differently than others?

Whatever the reasoning this article is a great example of why people are losing their papist like faith in science.

http://www.naturalne..._products.html#

Are you ignorant of group 2B carcinogens showing limited evidence of possible cancer connections? And that coffee is included in that list?

http://monographs.ia...sGroupOrder.pdf

http://www.iarc.fr/e...dfs/pr208_E.pdf

http://monographs.ia...ation/index.php

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I think Farmer77 knows full well he is stacking the deck and not telling the entire story, but I appreciate you bringing it out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

I think Farmer77 knows full well he is stacking the deck and not telling the entire story, but I appreciate you bringing it out.

NaturalNews is a CT / anti-science / quackery propaganda site.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Whther because of, or despite, it's reliance on evidence to arrive at reasoned conclusions, science has a convention of consensus. Therefore, change to scientific orthodoxy (the consensus) has to overcome a great deal of inertia to become the new orthodoxy. This difficulty in replacing one orthodoxy with another lends itself to accusations of a "conspiracy of science" to reject new ideas or hypotheses, but only by those who do not appreciate the methodology behind scientific progress.

This is not new, and is certainly no more prevalent today than it was 50, 150, or 500 years ago. It is only the easy access to information in modern society that grants the impression science is now "under seige". The reality is, it always has been.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

I'm not really sure about that. For me it has to do with a number of things, one of them being the difference scientists themself speak about. For instance Scientist A says chocolate is bad for you and in the next moment Scientist B says its good for you.

Are you sure that's a scientist saying that - or a marketeer or journalist grossing misreading a scientific press release?

When groups of scientists go against each others oppinions in ways like public media etc, it can easily confuse people and no one knows what to beleive anymore.

Science has nothing to do with belief, and everything to do with proving itself wrong.

They have a set mind on how things are/work yet when evidence shows up that could dis-proof their view it gets swept under the rock.

Here is a brilliant example of why people don't like science - because they misunderstand it to the same level you do.

I'm sure some facts are correct, but its just not worth the hassle around it.

Staggering.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

I'm not really sure about that. For me it has to do with a number of things, one of them being the difference scientists themself speak about. For instance Scientist A says chocolate is bad for you and in the next moment Scientist B says its good for you. I know its an easy minded example but it counts for other things aswell.

When groups of scientists go against each others oppinions in ways like public media etc, it can easily confuse people and no one knows what to beleive anymore. Apart from the fact that in some science so much stuff is simply overlooked or not taken into concideration. I found that science to some people is kind of like a religion. They have a set mind on how things are/work yet when evidence shows up that could dis-proof their view it gets swept under the rock.

Those are the kind of things that turn me off of science. I'm sure some facts are correct, but its just not worth the hassle around it.

This is really about how the media presents research papers and not about the actual science. A study on one aspect of chocolate says it is good for that aspect and a different study on a different aspect could show that chocolate is bad. That does not mean that one scientist said chocolate was bad and one said it was good. Science is never a religion to anyone who understands it and I believe it is a misrepresentation of how people feel based on bias. Science is a system for understanding the natural world and there is no hassle around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

Vaccinations aren't science.

My BS is in SCIENCE.

I know what TRUE science is.

Vaccinations USE science to make a lot of money at the expense of others.

It a type of science, as is thermo nuclear combustion.

So what.

This article does nothing more than to try to claim people who do not buy their lies about vaccines, Gmos and their other poisons, aren't intelligent enough to understand.

Nice try, but FAIL.

Most of us understand science just fine, it's why we know and understand to NOT USE THEM OR BE FORCE TO TAKE THEM.

A BS in science doesn't even cover molecular immunology and doesn't teach you how to properly analyze research papers. Thank you for admitting you have no idea about this subject at last.

Edited by FurthurBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

People reject science for a couple of reasons.

First, scientists have historically done a p*** poor job of promoting understanding of their work.

Second. It's easy to cast doubt on science with just a couple of unsubstantiated claims. eg, "vaccines cause autism", "how do you get something from nothing?", "If the world's heating up, why have we just had the worst winter in x years?", etc....

To rebut each of these statements involves getting people to understand the complex data sets that lead scientists to their conclusions. Say any of the above statements and people will listen and understand it. Try to give a full response and you'll lose the majority after the first couple of sentences.

I agree and this is clearly apparent by three posts on this one page. They do not even have a basic understanding of what science is or how it works. They rely on the media to tell them and most science reporters are not qualified.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

That however would be against human nature,assuming there was data which didn't fit the intended goal of course. Unless i guess if those fellow scientists were funded by the same people funding you it'd be ok.

Not including the shady people (ALOT) you of course have the perpetual struggle with confirmation bias which albeit unintentional still must be taken into consideration when measuring the weight of a study.

When you get an advanced degree in a scientific discipline they do a lot to teach you how to recognize and overcome your own confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

Unless one's paycheck depends on one not finding it. Then the risk of exposure becomes a worry for future days, hell the media makes it seem like most scientific studies have competing or at least contradicting studies done immediately or relatively soon after the original anyways. People will convince themselves that anything is worth doing when faced with the choice between the promise of a nice career within the company or hitting unemployment.

This isn't an indictment on the scientific community as a whole but lets be honest, the people in EVERY career field that advance the farthest are the ones who are willing to bend their principles the most. Why should science be any different?

So, all us lowly scientists are just lying for money. I am always so pleased that people feel this way about me when they don't know me or understand at all what I do for a living.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

All 100 of the companies in the link below have scientists who allowed these shampoos and conditioners to be produced under their oversight. Are they ignorant of the health risks of the chemicals they are giving the public? Are they just indifferent? Did they interpret the data which suggests the chemicals are harmful differently than others?

Whatever the reasoning this article is a great example of why people are losing their papist like faith in science.

http://www.naturalne..._products.html#

Don't take anything natural news says as science or anything other than lies. Then you will not be confused like this.

Edited by FurthurBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikko-kun

So, all us lowly scientists are just lying for money. I am always so pleased that people feel this way about me when they don't know me or understand at all what I do for a living.

And I suppose you know all the world's scientists and know none of them are a bit corrupted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S2F

And I suppose you know all the world's scientists and know none of them are a bit corrupted?

It is possible that there are some, however scientific methodologies are designed to be self correcting. If a particular scientist or group is wrong it will be found out eventually. As soon as anyone tries to use the 'corrupt' data for their own research in fact. That is why scientists go to great lengths to ensure as well as possible that their findings are correct and document and record their experiment in minute detail from start to finish. You'd be hard pressed to find a better example of transparency than scientific review in my opinion.

Edited by Slave2Fate
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpiritWriter

People have to make educated decisions. If they decide not to take a certain vaccine after doing their research, they have done their own science and have come to their own conclusion. Never trust it just because its been scientifically tested etc, do your own reasoning. Science isn't the problem. Assuredly science is very helpful, but that doesn't mean that all food, drugs or vaccinations etc. are good for you or are being pushed in your direction with your best interest in mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

It is possible that there are some, however scientific methodologies are designed to be self correcting. If a particular scientist or group is wrong it will be found out eventually. As soon as anyone tries to use the 'corrupt' data for their own research in fact. That is why scientists go to great lengths to ensure as well as possible that their findings are correct and document and record their experiment in minute detail from start to finish. You'd be hard pressed to find a better example of transparency than scientific review in my opinion.

Yes it will eventually but after how much harm done, money spent hell maybe even legislation enacted as a result of the misbehavior?

My point isn't that we should completely reject science, that would be absurd, but that science like all other professions is run by human beings and money. The severe impact it has or can have on our lives means we should be MORE on guard against anything the scientific community produces, not less.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Bad Voodoo

People rejects science because of...corruption and surpression.

Edited by Big Bad Voodoo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol

I agree and this is clearly apparent by three posts on this one page. They do not even have a basic understanding of what science is or how it works. They rely on the media to tell them and most science reporters are not qualified.

And the way science is reported in the media also contributes to this - even in scientifically minded publications.

We often see threads started on here that are linked to such articles. They usually take the form "Scientists find............".

This is one example: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=255602

I'm not offering any opinion on the accuracy of the research. But, the way it's presented could lead readers to believe this is the last word on the subject. Any qualifiers are buried deeper in the text. When in reality it's merely another piece of research that adds to a body of knowledge. One piece of work does not make a theory.

Too often the media will report on these things with a fanfare headline (remember the cold fusion debacle). But when real science gets to work on it, it will buried if mentioned at all.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

People rejects science because of...corruption and surpression.

And most of all ignorance.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Bad Voodoo

And most of all ignorance.

I tend to ignore corrupted data aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The studies that showed coffee (it turned out it was the caffeine of all things) is good for your liver and helps prevent fatty liver was all paid for by coffee interests. Good for them; now we know something we didn't before that is helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

I tend to ignore corrupted data aswell.

Ignorance means lack of knowledge.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

I tend to ignore corrupted data aswell.

I'm impressed that you know "corrupted data" when you see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Bad Voodoo

I'm impressed that you know "corrupted data" when you see it.

In given time, you learn which study is agenda by whom. Also some studies from some institutes are prooven to be fake yet many consider them to be science. But to me they are-lysenkoism. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

And I suppose you know all the world's scientists and know none of them are a bit corrupted?

I know a lot of scientists and none of them are corrupt. If they were it would be found out because other scientists try to replicate their work. Not to mention a scientist being corrupt is not an excuse to claim all scientists are corrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.