Confirmation bias anyone?

[ellapenella]

NO but this was a NEW study The wording was technically correct. It was not a study of new science.

Yes, you're correct in that. You know what? It's beautiful how our bodies work. Everything we need , is already within us.

It's so amazing. In that , I think dr.s need to focus more on and less on pushing the meds for whoever , $ .

[Emma_Acid]

Even if you do a study properly, the result can still lead you down an erroneous path.

But the point is: science works. Science is a human endeavour, so will be open to human fallibility. The mistakes are weeded out in the end, and the mistakes need to be made. Science without mistakes is utterly pointless.

Every once in a while we'll get the same posts here, people complaining that because there have been things done wrong in the name of science, that suddenly the entire scientific method is wrong.

The root cause of this (as it has been here in the past) is that some people are just annoyed that the scientific method is too rigorous to accept whatever pseudo-scientific nonsense they wish were true.

[White Crane Feather]

But the point is: science works. Science is a human endeavour, so will be open to human fallibility. The mistakes are weeded out in the end, and the mistakes need to be made. Science without mistakes is utterly pointless.

Every once in a while we'll get the same posts here, people complaining that because there have been things done wrong in the name of science, that suddenly the entire scientific method is wrong.

The root cause of this (as it has been here in the past) is that some people are just annoyed that the scientific method is too rigorous to accept whatever pseudo-scientific nonsense they wish were true.

None if that is the point. It may or may not get wedded out in the end... There are simple facts that basing things purely on empiricism gives a completely wrong answer. Either because of limited information or the simple fact that science attempts to describe reality and two description may fit perfectly though vastly different.

[Emma_Acid]

None if that is the point. It may or may not get wedded out in the end... There are simple facts that basing things purely on empiricism gives a completely wrong answer. Either because of limited information or the simple fact that science attempts to describe reality and two description may fit perfectly though vastly different.

*sigh*

Science has to be based on empiricism. You have to set a standard by which everything is measured against. You can't start adding in pseudo-scientific fluffiness and expect anything useful to be spat out at the other end. And the second part of your comment makes no sense.

[Cassea]

There has been a turn in the way Science is regarded by laypeople over the years. They have put it up as an alternative to Creationism and a lot of people just knee jerk react to the authority of science without recognizing that it is flawed. Any time an industry relies on grants and funding to get things done, there is going to be corruption. Pretending that science has all the answers is just ignorance. Anything run by people is open to the possibility of corruption, manipulation and flat out dishonesty. Anyone who says otherwise is just deluding themselves.

[Rlyeh]

There has been a turn in the way Science is regarded by laypeople over the years. They have put it up as an alternative to Creationism and a lot of people just knee jerk react to the authority of science without recognizing that it is flawed.

And that flaw being?

Any time an industry relies on grants and funding to get things done, there is going to be corruption. Pretending that science has all the answers is just ignorance. Anything run by people is open to the possibility of corruption, manipulation and flat out dishonesty. Anyone who says otherwise is just deluding themselves.

People who accuse science of pretending to have all the answers are usually the ignorant ones.

[aquatus1]

And that flaw being?

Science has a terrible PR department.

[Cassea]

And that flaw being?

People who accuse science of pretending to have all the answers are usually the ignorant ones.

That flaw being that non scientists tend to lump every discipline of science under the same umbrella of authority instead of recognizing that some science is in the early stages of research. There are some very solid areas of science. Then there are those areas that are little more than feeling your way around in the dark. Any true scientist will acknowledged this. But when you get morons trying to sell science as the answer to everything, they are hyper sensitive to any criticism, even though criticism is part of how science works.

[Rlyeh]

That flaw being that non scientists tend to lump every discipline of science under the same umbrella of authority instead of recognizing that some science is in the early stages of research. There are some very solid areas of science.

So science is flawed because of something science doesn't actually do. Okay.

Then there are those areas that are little more than feeling your way around in the dark. Any true scientist will acknowledged this. But when you get morons trying to sell science as the answer to everything, they are hyper sensitive to any criticism, even though criticism is part of how science works.

Science does tend to find answers better than other alternative methods of research .

[+Paranoid Android]

People who accuse science of pretending to have all the answers are usually the ignorant ones.

Thing I think is being pointed out is that some "science folk" are the ones claiming that they have the answers! I put the term in inverted commas to distinguish those who simply "use" science, compared to those who "put their faith in" science. Some people use science as a faith-based proposition, as if science can give all the answers, even if it has not currently done so.

In this sense I don't think it's unfair to say that some people have indeed elevated science to a faith based idea, though the general idea of science would not adhere to the same definition.

Agree/disagree, I'd be interested to hear views

[Cassea]

Absolutely. You get science fans touting the superiority of science across the board and dismissing flaws in methods, corruption and financial incentives. Not to mention evidence over the years of deliberate fraud and lies. Just because science is supposed to operate a certain way doesn't mean it does.

[Leonardo]

None if that is the point. It may or may not get wedded out in the end... There are simple facts that basing things purely on empiricism gives a completely wrong answer.

No, it won't. You might choose to believe the answer empiricism provides is wrong, but that is only because you have a particular world-view which isn't authoritative on what is "right".

PA,

Some people use science as a faith-based proposition, as if science can give all the answers, even if it has not currently done so.

Science can provide all the answers for the questions science is designed to answer. That it hasn't yet is our fault - not the fault of "science".

Edited April 4, 2014 by Leonardo

[White Crane Feather]

No, it won't. You might choose to believe the answer empiricism provides is wrong, but that is only because you have a particular world-view which isn't authoritative on what is "right".

PA,

Science can provide all the answers for the questions science is designed to answer. That it hasn't yet is our fault - not the fault of "science".

Umm no... My world view has nothing to with it. I can give some very clear cut examples of how "scientific" understanding would be light years different under certain real circumstances. That makes current "understandings" extremely and super highly suspect.

[Leonardo]

Umm no... My world view has nothing to with it. I can give some very clear cut examples of how "scientific" understanding would be light years different under certain real circumstances. That makes current "understandings" extremely and super highly suspect.

And your "clear-cut examples" are examples of things which are empirical? Concrete things - not abstracts?

Because providing examples of things which science is not designed to explain would be a fallacious argument.

[Mr Walker]

Science (the scientific method) is really a way of thinking and operating.It works quite effectively, especially in a modern era of easy and rapid communication which enables peer reviews and testing of results, but is dependent on the data available to it. Put in flawed or incomplete data and, as one can see in recent instances, you get flawed results. But also cassea is right, science can be used to prove what people want it to prove, using selective methodology and data. It is open to self interest, the demands of sponsors and people/govts who fund it. Science depends as much on the human nature of the people using it as any human procedure does.

[XenoFish]

You have real science which seeks to discover how stuff works. Then you have marketing science. Which some big money group want to sell a new drug (or whatever) and pays some scientist to write a report/study that says it works.

[aquatus1]

It is true that there are those who take science on faith, which does completely defeat the point of science. That said, there are also those who take science based on skepticism, and there is nothing wrong with that when properly done. None of us have the time to become experts at everything. Skepticism gives us the ability to assign a certain level of probability in regards to accuracy of a given theory, and allows us to ascertain whether or not to give it conditional acceptance as "true". There is nothing wrong with this, even though it is functionally little different than taking things on faith. The only real difference is that skeptics are more easily parted from their favorite theories. Not much more easily, but relative to those taking things on faith, it is much easier.

As to whether or not science can find all the answers to for questions science is designed to answer, that is a both "yes" and "no". By definition, science limits the sorts of things it can be applied to (the Prerequisites of Scientific Methodology). In that respect, yes, science can answer all the questions that fit those prerequisites. The part that confuses some people is that "We don't know yet" is a perfectly acceptable answer in the realm of science. If you have taken your data as far as it can go, if you can support everything you have claimed, and if your predictions are self-consistent with your proposal, there is nothing wrong with missing an essential piece of the puzzle. You are not required to have the puzzle 100% solved. You do get credit for putting some of the pieces together and for figuring out what the final picture could be.

But again, it does have to be self-consistent. If one is going to argue that a phenomena, one which primae facie fits all the prerequisites, but in property fails to follow up, that is not consistent. You cannot beg for special exemption. If a ghost can be seen, then by definition it is affecting the physical world, and is subject to all the rules we know about the physical world. That means that the ghost should be capable of being seen by anyone, unless there is a specific reason why it should not have been seen. Even if we do not know what that reason is, if we can draw some sort of correlation that brings us just that much closer to the cause, it might still be acceptable science. If we note that only the people who happened to be wearing mismatching socks that day reported seeing the ghost, we still wouldn't have any clue why that would affect it or whether or not it actually did affect it, but at least it would be one more bit of data that might, someday, prove to be useful. Or not. The bad part if when those pseudoskeptics, faith-based science fans, true believers, and militant Forteans, decide to take these bits of data accepted as conditionally true and hold them up as firm evidence of a tangential conclusion. It is difficult to hold "science" responsible for that; abuse by those outside the system is difficult to control by those inside the system.

Similarly, accusations of corruption, politics, bias, those are all well and good, when applied to individual cases. One doesn't get to paint the entire field with a broad brush just because it fits ones agenda, particularly when the accusations are hardly something unique to the given field. It is ridiculous to dismiss an entire bank of knowledge based on nothing more than the suspicion that it might not be 100% correct or that more information about it could be discovered in the future. That's the sort of thinking that kept people living in caves for millenia till a brave young soul decided to attach the sharp rock his ancestors had invented to a stick.

[Mr Walker]

Call me sceptical but I suspect that if politics/governments or large corporations saw a profit in proving the existence of the human soul It would be conclusively proven by now.

And STILL some people wouldn't believe the findings.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Mr Walker

[aquatus1]

That's not "skeptical".

[Mr Walker]

That's not "skeptical".

Yea I wondered if that was the best word. I have a skeptical suspicion that science provides the best results in areas where it is best funded

.For example medical science has advanced a lot in recent years because it is funded both by governments andb y big corporations. The governments see aging populations who want extended life and better health, and the corporations see a huge profit from govt and private sources. The other area is, of course, defence where a similar public support and huge govt funding pushes everything form stealth technology to work on artificial intelligences mind reading and things like wok on mental trauma and physical prosthetic linkages of a cyborg nature. Similarly where govt and private interests coincide in an issue like climate change and alternative energies, huge advances can be made quickly. In my state on some days all our power supply comes from wind energy, and the average is approaching 30% of supply.Also a significant minority of homes and business have solar cells which make them a profit after supplying all their energy needs for free. This has all happened in the last 15 years. Some of my friends and realtives make several thousand dollars a year selling excess supply from their solar panels back into the grid.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Mr Walker

[+Liquid Gardens]

It is true that there are those who take science on faith, which does completely defeat the point of science.

I think I know what you're getting at here but something seems almost oxymoronic about the phrase 'take science on faith', as science more than almost anything I'd guess has the most non-faith-related evidence to support it, almost by definition. Are these people who do this really very numerous? What would be an example or hypothetical statement or claim of someone taking something scientific on faith? Point taken that no one can be an expert on everything, but if for instance my doctor explains that whatever symptoms I have are the result of some cause or disease that I don't understand, I don't take on faith (at least if we're using it in the same sense as religious faith) that he is correct; even if I was almost entirely ignorant of the disease he diagnoses me with and don't look into it, I still have a massive amount of evidence concerning how expertise works in the world, the training doctors go through, that he likely wouldn't be in business if he was usually inaccurate in his diagnoses, etc. I don't call that taking it on faith, I call it taking it on a rational evaluation of the odds.

I know you're not arguing this but I don't really find arguments along the lines of 'but science has been wrong too' or 'experts screw up all the time' to really be that relevant, I know no one who claims otherwise, and that uncertainty and unreliability is a baseline for pretty much all human endeavors. Other than in a general usage, the statements 'neutrons exist' and 'Jesus rose from the dead' don't seem to involve the same amount, or possibly even type, of taking something on 'faith' (for those of us who have no knowledge of what the actual evidence is that demonstrates that neutrons exist).

[Frank Merton]

I dunno how it would be possible to take science on faith. One might take the announcement of something or other that some scientist has found but that one does not understand "on faith" meaning one shrugs one's shoulders and thinks it probably is true because the scientist is the expert, and if it involves a finding that doing or eating something is good or bad for you, it may even alter your behavior (although in this case probably not until there is scientific consensus).

Science doesn't have a Pope who can speak on dogma.

[aquatus1]

Yea I wondered if that was the best word. I have a skeptical suspicion that science provides the best results in areas where it is best funded

Well, the sentence by itself is pretty much self-evident, so really the only qualifier would have to be if you are suspicious the motivation is purely self-interest, in which case the word would be "cynical". But then we go into the whole point about science being a tool like any other and never having been a charity to begin with. The amount of people who do science for the sheer sake of doing science are minimal.

[aquatus1]

Are these people who do this really very numerous?

They are, I fear, the vast majority of those who consider themselves rational, well-grounded, people.

What would be an example or hypothetical statement or claim of someone taking something scientific on faith?

Pretty much the entire beauty/weight loss industry.

Point taken that no one can be an expert on everything, but if for instance my doctor explains that whatever symptoms I have are the result of some cause or disease that I don't understand, I don't take on faith (at least if we're using it in the same sense as religious faith) that he is correct; even if I was almost entirely ignorant of the disease he diagnoses me with and don't look into it, I still have a massive amount of evidence concerning how expertise works in the world, the training doctors go through, that he likely wouldn't be in business if he was usually inaccurate in his diagnoses, etc. I don't call that taking it on faith, I call it taking it on a rational evaluation of the odds.

Correct. That is the proper role of skepticism. To take you to a point where you can be reasonably sure that your doctor knows what he is talking about. Some people take it too far, and try to become doctors themselves, to the point that instead of asking questions to clarify what isn't known, they assume they have learned something accurate (usually from the internet) and use that knowledge to "test" their doctor. These are the people that don't know how to attach conditional acceptance. They either believe, or don't.

I know you're not arguing this but I don't really find arguments along the lines of 'but science has been wrong too' or 'experts screw up all the time' to really be that relevant, I know no one who claims otherwise, and that uncertainty and unreliability is a baseline for pretty much all human endeavors. Other than in a general usage, the statements 'neutrons exist' and 'Jesus rose from the dead' don't seem to involve the same amount, or possibly even type, of taking something on 'faith' (for those of us who have no knowledge of what the actual evidence is that demonstrates that neutrons exist).

Oh, it's definitely not the same type of faith. Faith in the non-scientific comes in the form of postulates. Faith the scientific comes in the forms of axioms. Postulates are mere statements from authority. Axioms are observations that have never been shown to be incorrect.

[aquatus1]

I dunno how it would be possible to take science on faith. One might take the announcement of something or other that some scientist has found but that one does not understand "on faith" meaning one shrugs one's shoulders and thinks it probably is true because the scientist is the expert, and if it involves a finding that doing or eating something is good or bad for you, it may even alter your behavior (although in this case probably not until there is scientific consensus).

Science doesn't have a Pope who can speak on dogma.

I'm...not completely sure I understood what you are saying.