Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What don't you believe.

sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:00:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Evolution, age of the Earth and universe, aspects of Einstein's relativity theory. I can give reasons for my doubts if required.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:19:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 6:00:40 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Evolution, age of the Earth and universe, aspects of Einstein's relativity theory. I can give reasons for my doubts if required.

I can probably relate to your doubts on these, so they are probably the same, I am just looking to see how many people respond and why their reasons for not believing something science says are better than other peoples reasons for not believing something science says IE: Why is it alright not to believe something science says while the other guy can't lest ye be labeled a denier and anti science. If science says it, it has to be true. You can't deny what science says. The question for the person not believing what science says is "Why are you not anti science when the other guy is"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:28:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Psychology and sociology are dubious, in my eyes, because of their inability to truly control experiments due to legitimate moral concerns. I don't put as much stock in their conclusions as a results.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 6:41:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 6:19:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:00:40 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Evolution, age of the Earth and universe, aspects of Einstein's relativity theory. I can give reasons for my doubts if required.

I can probably relate to your doubts on these, so they are probably the same, I am just looking to see how many people respond and why their reasons for not believing something science says are better than other peoples reasons for not believing something science says IE: Why is it alright not to believe something science says while the other guy can't lest ye be labeled a denier and anti science. If science says it, it has to be true. You can't deny what science says. The question for the person not believing what science says is "Why are you not anti science when the other : I can probably relate to your doubts on these, so they are probably the same, I am just looking to see how many people respond and why their reasons for not believing something science : I can probably relate to your doubts on these, so they are probably the same, I am just looking to see how many people respond and why their reasons for not believing something science says are better than other peoples reasons for not believing something science says IE: Why is it alright not to believe something science says while the other guy can't lest ye be labeled a denier and anti science. If science says it, it has to be true. You can't deny what science says. The question for the person not believing what science says is "Why are you not anti science when the other : I can probably relate to your doubts on these, so they are probably the same, I am just looking to see how many people respond and why their reasons for not believing something science says a
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 7:31:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 6:41:47 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:19:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/3/2015 6:00:40 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Evolution, age of the Earth and universe, aspects of Einstein's relativity theory. I can give reasons for my doubts if required.

I can probably relate to your doubts on these, so they are probably the same, I am just looking to see how many people respond and why their reasons for not believing something science says are better than other peoples reasons for not believing something science says IE: Why is it alright not to believe something science says while the other guy can't lest ye be labeled a denier and anti science. If science says it, it has to be true. You can't deny what science says. The question for the person not believing what science says is "Why are you not anti science when the other : I can probably relate to your doubts on these, so they are probably the same, I am just looking to see how many people respond and why their reasons for not believing something science : I can probably relate to your doubts on these, so they are probably the same, I am just looking to see how many people respond and why their reasons for not believing something science says are better than other peoples reasons for not believing something science says IE: Why is it alright not to believe something science says while the other guy can't lest ye be labeled a denier and anti science. If science says it, it has to be true. You can't deny what science says. The question for the person not believing what science says is "Why are you not anti science when the other : I can probably relate to your doubts on these, so they are probably the same, I am just looking to see how many people respond and why their reasons for not believing something science says a

?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:01:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

That's the point of science in some respect it is vulnerable to disproof. This is important cause you want a way to know if your wrong, part of progress isn't just being right it's also about correction of wrong.

Compare that to some religious claims which can't be tested and thus can't be proven wrong and some will even boast, hey you can't prove X is false/doesn't exist.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 6:37:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

String theory - Not saying it's an entirely wasted enterprise, only that it's gone way beyond the purview of what should be called science. It's untestable and is a complete mess and is simply over-hyped.

Graphene - Again, unclear if this is overhyped, other materials such as silocene (silicon version of graphene) look much more likely to have practice applications.

Copenhagen Interpretation - It's the primary one taught to entree physics students, and while it is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one, it still garners significant support among scientists... Probably because it is the primary one taught.

Moore's Law - It will not continue for long (a decade or two at most)

RNA World Hypothesis - I see metabolic pathways as necessary, and thermodynamically driven. RNA can follow a metabolic pathway, but probably not vice versa
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 7:06:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Science doesn't get things wrong. Scientists are wrong when it comes to interpreting the data. Thankfully, science is self correcting which means the scientific process corrects the mistakes scientists make when interpreting data.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 5:40:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 7:31:43 PM, sadolite wrote:

?

An error occurred in my previous response. What I said was that one can disagree with what 'science' says and not be anti-science. You are anti-science if you disbelieve in the scientific method.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 5:59:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 7:06:06 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Science doesn't get things wrong. Scientists are wrong when it comes to interpreting the data. Thankfully, science is self correcting which means the scientific process corrects the mistakes scientists make when interpreting data.

Sounds like double speak to me.
Lets see if we agree, or not.
We know the saying 'garbage in - garbage out'.
Sometimes the scientists feed garbage in, and when they interpret the other end, they do the absolute best they can, are 100% accurate, but are flat out wrong, in describing reality, because they were absolutely wrong when they put the data in.

They make bad decisions (assumptions) about describing reality, so get the interpretation wrong.
Are on the same page?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 7:15:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"one can disagree with what 'science' says and not be anti-science." HMM thats news to me. I will have to remember that next time someone gets all bent out of shape when I say I don't believe what science says because the methods they are using seem extremely devoid of the scientific method in my opinion.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 7:42:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Actually, scientists get things wrong a lot. But they also get things right a lot.

Science is wrong more that it is right based on what? If it's based on scientists realizing they were wrong, because they finally got it right, then your statement fails. If it's based on you knowing what's right more than the scientists involved in particular studies, then you would have to provide proof of that. If it's based on internet say-so, then the statement can hardly be taken seriously.

There are scientific claims that I fail to understand. Doubting those claims due to ignorance is foolish. The scientific method has proven to be successfully effective. It doesn't need to be approached with doubt, just with caution.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 3:46:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 7:42:34 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Actually, scientists get things wrong a lot. But they also get things right a lot.

Science is wrong more that it is right based on what? If it's based on scientists realizing they were wrong, because they finally got it right, then your statement fails. If it's based on you knowing what's right more than the scientists involved in particular studies, then you would have to provide proof of that. If it's based on internet say-so, then the statement can hardly be taken seriously.

There are scientific claims that I fail to understand. Doubting those claims due to ignorance is foolish. The scientific method has proven to be successfully effective. It doesn't need to be approached with doubt, just with caution.

What is science saying today that you don't believe is the OP
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 4:09:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 3:46:11 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/4/2015 7:42:34 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Actually, scientists get things wrong a lot. But they also get things right a lot.

Science is wrong more that it is right based on what? If it's based on scientists realizing they were wrong, because they finally got it right, then your statement fails. If it's based on you knowing what's right more than the scientists involved in particular studies, then you would have to provide proof of that. If it's based on internet say-so, then the statement can hardly be taken seriously.

There are scientific claims that I fail to understand. Doubting those claims due to ignorance is foolish. The scientific method has proven to be successfully effective. It doesn't need to be approached with doubt, just with caution.

What is science saying today that you don't believe is the OP

Science doesn't say anything, it just is. Scientists present their findings based on observation, study, evaluation, etc. Those findings are peer reviewed and accepted or challenged.

There are presently no scientific inquiries that I "don't believe", but there are a few theories that I don't understand well enough to completely accept.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 8:25:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 5:59:57 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/4/2015 7:06:06 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Science doesn't get things wrong. Scientists are wrong when it comes to interpreting the data. Thankfully, science is self correcting which means the scientific process corrects the mistakes scientists make when interpreting data.

Sounds like double speak to me.
Lets see if we agree, or not.
We know the saying 'garbage in - garbage out'.
Sometimes the scientists feed garbage in, and when they interpret the other end, they do the absolute best they can, are 100% accurate, but are flat out wrong, in describing reality, because they were absolutely wrong when they put the data in.

They make bad decisions (assumptions) about describing reality, so get the interpretation wrong.
Are on the same page?

No double speak there. Scientists are to science as priests are to religion. One is an institution and the other are agents of said institution. Just because the agents of that institution sometimes have theories that are false, doesn't mean the institution is wrong.

Scientists interpret data, science gives us the data. That's why scientists can be wrong, but science can't be. Data is data. If science is conducted right, that data is truth in its most impirical sense. Just because the interpretation of that data can be wrong sometimes, doesn't mean why we should condemn the process. That's why we have various degrees of scientific truths. That way we can differentiate between what is true, what is likely to be true, and what is hypothesis.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 9:05:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"peer reviewed"

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 6:06:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 8:25:01 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 5:59:57 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/4/2015 7:06:06 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Science doesn't get things wrong. Scientists are wrong when it comes to interpreting the data. Thankfully, science is self correcting which means the scientific process corrects the mistakes scientists make when interpreting data.

Sounds like double speak to me.
Lets see if we agree, or not.
We know the saying 'garbage in - garbage out'.
Sometimes the scientists feed garbage in, and when they interpret the other end, they do the absolute best they can, are 100% accurate, but are flat out wrong, in describing reality, because they were absolutely wrong when they put the data in.

They make bad decisions (assumptions) about describing reality, so get the interpretation wrong.
Are on the same page?


No double speak there. Scientists are to science as priests are to religion. One is an institution and the other are agents of said institution. Just because the agents of that institution sometimes have theories that are false, doesn't mean the institution is wrong.

Scientists interpret data, science gives us the data. That's why scientists can be wrong, but science can't be. Data is data. If science is conducted right, that data is truth in its most impirical sense. Just because the interpretation of that data can be wrong sometimes, doesn't mean why we should condemn the process. That's why we have various degrees of scientific truths. That way we can differentiate between what is true, what is likely to be true, and what is hypothesis.

Well, still not clear.
First, I would say the scientific process is not perfect, unlike religion which says god is perfect.
As I see it , either the system is perfect, or sometimes it gets it wrong. one of the other.
Do you disagree?
Do you want us to believe the scientific system is perfect, like god?
When you say "doesn't mean the institution is wrong", it sound like you are saying it is perfect.

Then there is this 'what is true' issue.
My understanding is, although as you say, the agents are subject to error and may make false pronouncements, the institution itself holds that there is no final statement of 'This is true', concerning the real world.
None of these things that may be a hypotheses, are ever 'True', as in some evidence has show proof.
The ideas and concepts of the institution of Science have a greater or lessor degree of being true, but never, ever, 100%.

I offer these lifter quotes in evidence:

Many people believe that science is the best route, if not the only route, to truth about the natural world. Other people, including many scientists, believe that scientific knowledge may not be perfectly true, but it is closer to the truth than other sources of knowledge and belief.
Both those views are misguided, not because of any problem with scientific knowledge itself, but because of our overly simple beliefs about it. In this essay I will argue that totally correct knowledge -- "truth" -- is neither the goal, nor the product, nor any part of the process of scientific work.
http://dharma-haven.org...

~ ~ ~
In science there is no "proof" for any thing.
Scientific proof does not exist. We are told this by professional scientists, and there is virtually no disagreement among them. Some few philosopher scientists may argue that proof is possible, but they are an unnoticeable minority.
Science can provide evidence that will convince a reasonable and informed person that this or that is true, and we call this "scientific convincing evidence". Things or events identified in this way will often be identified as "scientific facts".
There are many who say there is "proof" in mathematics, but that is a different issue.
I mentioned this in another thread, and it was doubted.
Now is the time for those who disagree with me on this, to speak up.
I have provided some documentation to support my position.
~ ~ ~
Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. I have dispelled some of them (misconceptions, not scientists) in earlier posts (for example, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is only skin-deep, and you can"t judge a book by its cover). Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.
http://www.psychologytoday.com...
~~ ~ ~
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.
http://chemistry.about.com...
~ ~
While we might use the word "proof" in science, it is not a scientific idea. Proving is an exercise in logic.
http://www.digipac.ca...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 11:23:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 6:06:12 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/5/2015 8:25:01 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 5:59:57 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/4/2015 7:06:06 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Science doesn't get things wrong. Scientists are wrong when it comes to interpreting the data. Thankfully, science is self correcting which means the scientific process corrects the mistakes scientists make when interpreting data.

Sounds like double speak to me.
Lets see if we agree, or not.
We know the saying 'garbage in - garbage out'.
Sometimes the scientists feed garbage in, and when they interpret the other end, they do the absolute best they can, are 100% accurate, but are flat out wrong, in describing reality, because they were absolutely wrong when they put the data in.

They make bad decisions (assumptions) about describing reality, so get the interpretation wrong.
Are on the same page?


No double speak there. Scientists are to science as priests are to religion. One is an institution and the other are agents of said institution. Just because the agents of that institution sometimes have theories that are false, doesn't mean the institution is wrong.

Scientists interpret data, science gives us the data. That's why scientists can be wrong, but science can't be. Data is data. If science is conducted right, that data is truth in its most impirical sense. Just because the interpretation of that data can be wrong sometimes, doesn't mean why we should condemn the process. That's why we have various degrees of scientific truths. That way we can differentiate between what is true, what is likely to be true, and what is hypothesis.

Well, still not clear.
First, I would say the scientific process is not perfect, unlike religion which says god is perfect.
As I see it , either the system is perfect, or sometimes it gets it wrong. one of the other.
Do you disagree?
Do you want us to believe the scientific system is perfect, like god?
When you say "doesn't mean the institution is wrong", it sound like you are saying it is perfect.


Then there is this 'what is true' issue.
My understanding is, although as you say, the agents are subject to error and may make false pronouncements, the institution itself holds that there is no final statement of 'This is true', concerning the real world.
None of these things that may be a hypotheses, are ever 'True', as in some evidence has show proof.
The ideas and concepts of the institution of Science have a greater or lessor degree of being true, but never, ever, 100%.

I offer these lifter quotes in evidence:

Many people believe that science is the best route, if not the only route, to truth about the natural world. Other people, including many scientists, believe that scientific knowledge may not be perfectly true, but it is closer to the truth than other sources of knowledge and belief.

thisn't about whether or not science can offer definitive proof or not. It's whether or not, science, not scientists, are wrong the majority of the time.

My argument is simply. Science can't be wrong. It's a process of disproving hypotheses. The only way to advance a hypothesis is to test them. Science tries to find evidence against a hypothesis not for the hypothesis. That's why you get all those statements that science can't offer proof for anything. Scientists offer educated guesses, known as hypothesis, they then test it and publish their results for others to see, people then repeat those tests to see if they are correct. The hypothesis is then either dismissed or accepted. If dismissed, the scientist was wrong in his guess and science was right in disproving said scientist. If the hypothesis is supported by multiple experiments and can't be shown to be false, it becomes a theory. The theory is put to more rigorous tests. If it fails any of those, it is dismissed. If it's dismissed then the scientists didn't get it right, but science was correct. And so on. Science is in the business of being correct because it is set up to disprove rather than prove. That is why scientific theories and laws can never be shown to be true 100%. Only testing the negative can never offer you proof, it can only offer you evidence. We can say that there is a high or low likelihood that a scientist had a correct hypothesis.

It sounds like we actually agree on this as your quotes support those notions and you described it as such. Therefore scientists can only be correct to a certain degree, however, science will always be correct. You're making the mistake of joining the content of the hypothesis and later the theory, etc.. To the process of science. That portion of linked to the scientist. Only the data, only the process is linked to science. That process is self correcting and therefore can't be wrong.

Perhaps explaining it in terms of religion was a bad comparison. It isn't perfect in that in can never offer certainty like religion does, however the process is, nonetheless, flawless in the sense that it's set up to be right all the time. It doesn't give us certainty of knowledge, but it gives us certainty about things that aren't true.

I didn't think I'd have to explain this for such a simple argument. Mine is purely an argument of semantics, so offer me proof that scientists and science are synonymous and I'll happily forfeit the point.

Until you can either show me that scientists and science are synonymous or you can prove that the scientific process is fundamentally flawed and gives us falls data, you don't really have an argument.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 2:47:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 11:23:36 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/6/2015 6:06:12 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/5/2015 8:25:01 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 5:59:57 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/4/2015 7:06:06 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Science doesn't get things wrong. Scientists are wrong when it comes to interpreting the data. Thankfully, science is self correcting which means the scientific process corrects the mistakes scientists make when interpreting data.

Sounds like double speak to me.
Lets see if we agree, or not.
We know the saying 'garbage in - garbage out'.
Sometimes the scientists feed garbage in, and when they interpret the other end, they do the absolute best they can, are 100% accurate, but are flat out wrong, in describing reality, because they were absolutely wrong when they put the data in.

They make bad decisions (assumptions) about describing reality, so get the interpretation wrong.
Are on the same page?


No double speak there. Scientists are to science as priests are to religion. One is an institution and the other are agents of said institution. Just because the agents of that institution sometimes have theories that are false, doesn't mean the institution is wrong.

Scientists interpret data, science gives us the data. That's why scientists can be wrong, but science can't be. Data is data. If science is conducted right, that data is truth in its most impirical sense. Just because the interpretation of that data can be wrong sometimes, doesn't mean why we should condemn the process. That's why we have various degrees of scientific truths. That way we can differentiate between what is true, what is likely to be true, and what is hypothesis.

Well, still not clear.
First, I would say the scientific process is not perfect, unlike religion which says god is perfect.
As I see it , either the system is perfect, or sometimes it gets it wrong. one of the other.
Do you disagree?
Do you want us to believe the scientific system is perfect, like god?
When you say "doesn't mean the institution is wrong", it sound like you are saying it is perfect.


Then there is this 'what is true' issue.
My understanding is, although as you say, the agents are subject to error and may make false pronouncements, the institution itself holds that there is no final statement of 'This is true', concerning the real world.
None of these things that may be a hypotheses, are ever 'True', as in some evidence has show proof.
The ideas and concepts of the institution of Science have a greater or lessor degree of being true, but never, ever, 100%.

I offer these lifter quotes in evidence:

Many people believe that science is the best route, if not the only route, to truth about the natural world. Other people, including many scientists, believe that scientific knowledge may not be perfectly true, but it is closer to the truth than other sources of knowledge and belief.

thisn't about whether or not science can offer definitive proof or not. It's whether or not, science, not scientists, are wrong the majority of the time.

My argument is simply. Science can't be wrong. It's a process of disproving hypotheses. The only way to advance a hypothesis is to test them. Science tries to find evidence against a hypothesis not for the hypothesis. That's why you get all those statements that science can't offer proof for anything. Scientists offer educated guesses, known as hypothesis, they then test it and publish their results for others to see, people then repeat those tests to see if they are correct. The hypothesis is then either dismissed or accepted. If dismissed, the scientist was wrong in his guess and science was right in disproving said scientist. If the hypothesis is supported by multiple experiments and can't be shown to be false, it becomes a theory. The theory is put to more rigorous tests. If it fails any of those, it is dismissed. If it's dismissed then the scientists didn't get it right, but science was correct. And so on. Science is in the business of being correct because it is set up to disprove rather than prove. That is why scientific theories and laws can never be shown to be true 100%. Only testing the negative can never offer you proof, it can only offer you evidence. We can say that there is a high or low likelihood that a scientist had a correct hypothesis.

It sounds like we actually agree on this as your quotes support those notions and you described it as such. Therefore scientists can only be correct to a certain degree, however, science will always be correct. You're making the mistake of joining the content of the hypothesis and later the theory, etc.. To the process of science. That portion of linked to the scientist. Only the data, only the process is linked to science. That process is self correcting and therefore can't be wrong.

Perhaps explaining it in terms of religion was a bad comparison. It isn't perfect in that in can never offer certainty like religion does, however the process is, nonetheless, flawless in the sense that it's set up to be right all the time. It doesn't give us certainty of knowledge, but it gives us certainty about things that aren't true.

I didn't think I'd have to explain this for such a simple argument. Mine is purely an argument of semantics, so offer me proof that scientists and science are synonymous and I'll happily forfeit the point.

Until you can either show me that scientists and science are synonymous or you can prove that the scientific process is fundamentally flawed and gives us falls data, you don't really have an argument.

I believe I understand your point.
When you say "science will always be correct", you mean the scientific process allows that it may have a theory that is presented as true for a long time, like 100 or 200 years. If it is then shown to be totally wrong, we simply say it has self-corrected.
In other words Science, never presents any definitive statements about anything, therefore it cannot be wrong, ever.

By the same reasoning, we should say the weatherman never gets an incorrect forecast, since when they say "The chance of rain today is nearly 100%", if it does not rain, well, nearly 100% is not 100%.
Have I got it?
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:07:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Can you specify your question? Are we talking about established scientific theories, or fields which are still in a speculative state?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:25:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 9:05:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
"peer reviewed"

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That's Richard Smith's opinion. He offers a few suggestions for improvement, but cannot suggest a better alternative, as can be seen in the part you posted.

Yes, peer review is imperfect, as is everything done by imperfect humans, but it remains a good method of evaluation, and much more reliable than wild interpretation.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:33:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:25:11 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/5/2015 9:05:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
"peer reviewed"

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That's Richard Smith's opinion. He offers a few suggestions for improvement, but cannot suggest a better alternative, as can be seen in the part you posted.

Yes, peer review is imperfect, as is everything done by imperfect humans, but it remains a good method of evaluation, and much more reliable than wild interpretation.

"with little evidence that it works" That's a pretty damning statement considering I am supposed to be persuaded by something that is "peer reviewed"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:35:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:07:04 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Can you specify your question? Are we talking about established scientific theories, or fields which are still in a speculative state?

How about: Do you belive trans fats are bad for you?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:51:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:35:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:07:04 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Can you specify your question? Are we talking about established scientific theories, or fields which are still in a speculative state?

How about: Do you belive trans fats are bad for you?

To my knowledge, limited as it is on this particular subject, if consumed in excess, yes, trans fats are a health risk. Why?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 5:03:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:33:54 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:25:11 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/5/2015 9:05:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
"peer reviewed"

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That's Richard Smith's opinion. He offers a few suggestions for improvement, but cannot suggest a better alternative, as can be seen in the part you posted.

Yes, peer review is imperfect, as is everything done by imperfect humans, but it remains a good method of evaluation, and much more reliable than wild interpretation.

"with little evidence that it works" That's a pretty damning statement considering I am supposed to be persuaded by something that is "peer reviewed"

Why not, apparently you have been persuaded by one man's opinion.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 5:50:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 5:03:24 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:33:54 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:25:11 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/5/2015 9:05:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
"peer reviewed"

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That's Richard Smith's opinion. He offers a few suggestions for improvement, but cannot suggest a better alternative, as can be seen in the part you posted.

Yes, peer review is imperfect, as is everything done by imperfect humans, but it remains a good method of evaluation, and much more reliable than wild interpretation.

"with little evidence that it works" That's a pretty damning statement considering I am supposed to be persuaded by something that is "peer reviewed"

Why not, apparently you have been persuaded by one man's opinion.

"one man's opinion." An opinion of a "scientist" HMMM didn't think scientists gave opinions.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 6:44:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 5:50:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:03:24 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:33:54 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:25:11 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/5/2015 9:05:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
"peer reviewed"

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That's Richard Smith's opinion. He offers a few suggestions for improvement, but cannot suggest a better alternative, as can be seen in the part you posted.

Yes, peer review is imperfect, as is everything done by imperfect humans, but it remains a good method of evaluation, and much more reliable than wild interpretation.

"with little evidence that it works" That's a pretty damning statement considering I am supposed to be persuaded by something that is "peer reviewed"

Why not, apparently you have been persuaded by one man's opinion.

"one man's opinion." An opinion of a "scientist" HMMM didn't think scientists gave opinions.

It wouldn't matter if it were Einstein. It's still one man's opinion, which far from establishes it as accepted opinion or fact.

What made you think scientists don't give opinions?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 8:21:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 2:47:38 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/6/2015 11:23:36 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/6/2015 6:06:12 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/5/2015 8:25:01 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/4/2015 5:59:57 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/4/2015 7:06:06 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:23:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
It is a proven fact that science gets things wrong a lot. It is wrong more than it is right. What claims is science making today on anything that you don't believe.

Science doesn't get things wrong. Scientists are wrong when it comes to interpreting the data. Thankfully, science is self correcting which means the scientific process corrects the mistakes scientists make when interpreting data.

Sounds like double speak to me.
Lets see if we agree, or not.
We know the saying 'garbage in - garbage out'.
Sometimes the scientists feed garbage in, and when they interpret the other end, they do the absolute best they can, are 100% accurate, but are flat out wrong, in describing reality, because they were absolutely wrong when they put the data in.

They make bad decisions (assumptions) about describing reality, so get the interpretation wrong.
Are on the same page?


No double speak there. Scientists are to science as priests are to religion. One is an institution and the other are agents of said institution. Just because the agents of that institution sometimes have theories that are false, doesn't mean the institution is wrong.

Scientists interpret data, science gives us the data. That's why scientists can be wrong, but science can't be. Data is data. If science is conducted right, that data is truth in its most impirical sense. Just because the interpretation of that data can be wrong sometimes, doesn't mean why we should condemn the process. That's why we have various degrees of scientific truths. That way we can differentiate between what is true, what is likely to be true, and what is hypothesis.

Well, still not clear.
First, I would say the scientific process is not perfect, unlike religion which says god is perfect.
As I see it , either the system is perfect, or sometimes it gets it wrong. one of the other.
Do you disagree?
Do you want us to believe the scientific system is perfect, like god?
When you say "doesn't mean the institution is wrong", it sound like you are saying it is perfect.


Then there is this 'what is true' issue.
My understanding is, although as you say, the agents are subject to error and may make false pronouncements, the institution itself holds that there is no final statement of 'This is true', concerning the real world.
None of these things that may be a hypotheses, are ever 'True', as in some evidence has show proof.
The ideas and concepts of the institution of Science have a greater or lessor degree of being true, but never, ever, 100%.

I offer these lifter quotes in evidence:

Many people believe that science is the best route, if not the only route, to truth about the natural world. Other people, including many scientists, believe that scientific knowledge may not be perfectly true, but it is closer to the truth than other sources of knowledge and belief.

thisn't about whether or not science can offer definitive proof or not. It's whether or not, science, not scientists, are wrong the majority of the time.

My argument is simply. Science can't be wrong. It's a process of disproving hypotheses. The only way to advance a hypothesis is to test them. Science tries to find evidence against a hypothesis not for the hypothesis. That's why you get all those statements that science can't offer proof for anything. Scientists offer educated guesses, known as hypothesis, they then test it and publish their results for others to see, people then repeat those tests to see if they are correct. The hypothesis is then either dismissed or accepted. If dismissed, the scientist was wrong in his guess and science was right in disproving said scientist. If the hypothesis is supported by multiple experiments and can't be shown to be false, it becomes a theory. The theory is put to more rigorous tests. If it fails any of those, it is dismissed. If it's dismissed then the scientists didn't get it right, but science was correct. And so on. Science is in the business of being correct because it is set up to disprove rather than prove. That is why scientific theories and laws can never be shown to be true 100%. Only testing the negative can never offer you proof, it can only offer you evidence. We can say that there is a high or low likelihood that a scientist had a correct hypothesis.

It sounds like we actually agree on this as your quotes support those notions and you described it as such. Therefore scientists can only be correct to a certain degree, however, science will always be correct. You're making the mistake of joining the content of the hypothesis and later the theory, etc.. To the process of science. That portion of linked to the scientist. Only the data, only the process is linked to science. That process is self correcting and therefore can't be wrong.

Perhaps explaining it in terms of religion was a bad comparison. It isn't perfect in that in can never offer certainty like religion does, however the process is, nonetheless, flawless in the sense that it's set up to be right all the time. It doesn't give us certainty of knowledge, but it gives us certainty about things that aren't true.

I didn't think I'd have to explain this for such a simple argument. Mine is purely an argument of semantics, so offer me proof that scientists and science are synonymous and I'll happily forfeit the point.

Until you can either show me that scientists and science are synonymous or you can prove that the scientific process is fundamentally flawed and gives us falls data, you don't really have an argument.

I believe I understand your point.
When you say "science will always be correct", you mean the scientific process allows that it may have a theory that is presented as true for a long time, like 100 or 200 years. If it is then shown to be totally wrong, we simply say it has self-corrected.
In other words Science, never presents any definitive statements about anything, therefore it cannot be wrong, ever.

By the same reasoning, we should say the weatherman never gets an incorrect forecast, since when they say "The chance of rain today is nearly 100%", if it does not rain, well, nearly 100% is not 100%.
Have I got it?

Yup, I don't know if the weatherman analogy works since it's predictions based on computer models that average out thousands of scenarios of the patterns. Meteorology is sort of a probability game as far as accuracy goes.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 9:24:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 6:44:24 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:50:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/6/2015 5:03:24 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:33:54 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:25:11 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/5/2015 9:05:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
"peer reviewed"

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That's Richard Smith's opinion. He offers a few suggestions for improvement, but cannot suggest a better alternative, as can be seen in the part you posted.

Yes, peer review is imperfect, as is everything done by imperfect humans, but it remains a good method of evaluation, and much more reliable than wild interpretation.

"with little evidence that it works" That's a pretty damning statement considering I am supposed to be persuaded by something that is "peer reviewed"

Why not, apparently you have been persuaded by one man's opinion.

"one man's opinion." An opinion of a "scientist" HMMM didn't think scientists gave opinions.

It wouldn't matter if it were Einstein. It's still one man's opinion, which far from establishes it as accepted opinion or fact.

What made you think scientists don't give opinions?

I thought scientists only deal in facts. But anyhoo, if scientists admit that peer review is flawed, why doesn't it do anything to improve it? Why doesn't it raise the standards to get something labeled peer reviewed. The flaws are numerous and well documented and correctable. Alot less publishing and alot more verifying. Science has lost it's integrity in my book, because it allows so much garbage to be printed in "IT'S" name. No more "STUDIES SHOW" But instead "exhaustive, conclusive research" If it isn't conclusive it doesn't get published.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%