Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Leena Helttula
11666 Followers
Russ Smith
18390 Followers
Janine Kahn
6178 Followers
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
beatnut2k4
4852 Followers
Noy Allaxua
230 Followers
Closed AccountJul 20, 2011
I notice that the people who go on about how science has got it all wrong never really seem to have any explanations of their own. It's like they think that these conclusions aren't made with any data whatsoever. If that were the case, then yeah, feel free to say that scientists are wrong, but as it stands, when you do that, you still leave a collection of data which needs to be explained, and if you can't do that, you're probably not qualified to say that scientists are wrong.
Take, for example, the Big Bang. A lot of people simply dismiss it saying, "We can't know what happened billions of years ago. It's all assumptions." Okay, that's fine, but then explain the data that suggests that the universe is rapidly expanding. Or evolution... I mean, dismiss it all you want, but that doesn't make the fossil record go away. I personally think it's very telling that aside from, "God put the bones there to test us," no one who opposes evolution ever attempts to address the issue of the fossil record, because they know that evolution is the best answer we've got for its existence at the moment.
agmlauncherJul 20, 2011
What people chronically misunderstand is that science is not an alternative to religion. A biology text book is not just "someone else's bible".
You can't compare science to religion any more than you can describe the color blue as tasty.
Science is a PROCESS by which conclusions are drawn from evidence and reasoning. As that evidence changes, so does the conclusion. Religion is simply a belief rooted in blind faith, which completely ignores anything that contradicts that belief.
The importance of science is not the conclusions it draws today or may draw tomorrow. The importance of science is the process by which those conclusions are drawn. More accurate information leads to more accurate conclusions.
Religion, meanwhile, is completely oblivious to information, data, and evidence.
When you buy car, you factor in the quality of the car, how much it costs, your financing options, you personal financial status, and a bunch of other factors to determine if you're going to buy it or not. If one of those conditions changes, it might affect your decision to buy the car or not.
If you used a religious approach to buying that car, you'd buy it because you "felt it would be a good purchase". If the dealer comes back and tells you that your finance rate was 30%, you'd go "So? I feel that this will be a good purchase for me"...
You FEEL it will be good for you, vs you calculate whether it's financially sane to buy it or not based on the information you have. That is the difference between religion and science/reasoning.
mdwstmusikJul 20, 2011
Isn't a little too idealistic/naive to believe that scientists are benevolent individuals whose interpretations of ‘evidence’ could never be tainted by personal agendas, peer pressure or conformation bias?
isaac7719Jul 20, 2011
It's idealistic, but that's why we have peer review. It tends to smooth out the wrinkles, so to speak.
agmlauncherJul 20, 2011
That's irrelevant though. That just means it's bad science, not what science is supposed to be.
Meanwhile the very fundamental nature of religion demands putting your intellect and rationality in park.
Closed AccountJul 20, 2011
To an extent, sure, that is a problem, but there is plenty of incentive to be the first, to be the one to fundamentally change our understanding of how the universe works. It's like yeah, there was a lot of inertia in favor of maintaining Newton's view of the universe, but due to the very nature of the scientific process, someone like Einstein was bound to come along and upend things. Sure, there was resistance at first to the notion of replacing Newtonian physics, but Einstein won out because after a certain point, the data supporting him simply could not be refuted, and if he hadn't proposed the theory of relativity, eventually someone else would have.
mdwstmusikJul 21, 2011
[Please, read the entire post before digging down]
I agree that the scientific method is THE best method at gaining knowledge, and fleshing out the truth...in the long run. However, those who purport to be pro-science, yet claim "the science is settled" do nothing to advance said science...especially when it is still in it's infancy.
The AGW climate 'debate' however, is a religious one. Either you're a believer (You believe every pro-AGW "study" no matter how speculative the results or questionable the source, and every climatic event is proof your beliefs are correct) or you are a heretic. (greedy, right-wing, anti-science, nut-job who's in the pocket of "Big Oil" and would rather destroy the world than pay a few more dollar per year in taxes.)
I read practically every article that I can find regarding the study of climate change. What often gives me pause is that the results are seldom given in context. You see articles that state "Climate scientists conclude that due to climate change water skiing COULD replace snow skiing in the Alps by 2015."
They typically go on to state that the conclusion was derived from computer simulations. But, they never say, "Scientists run 500 simulations using multiple variables and in one scenario water levels rose to 3/4 the height of Mont Blanc by 2015." They also leave out the probabilities regarding the likelihood that the values of those variables are correct in that certain scenario. These are the same tactics used by pharmaceutical companies to spin the results from studies regarding the effectiveness of their drugs.
If climate scientists want to convince those people on the fence that they are correct regarding AGW, they need to provide the whole picture, not just those results that support their position...EVERYTHING...what they know, what they DON'T know, all of the data and their methodologies. If the evidence and methodologies are as strong as we're told, they should have no problem standing up to the 'skeptics.'
inajeepJul 21, 2011
I did not digg you down because you stated everything very amicably. You are making the incorrect assumption that everyone is as well read and thought-out as you.
The religion part of the GW debate is accurate for the general public who gather their opinions watching various news channels and read an article or two from USA Today. Some of us have read a lot of information from numerous sources that have peer reviewed data. Those conclusions are never %100 agree with nor are predictions %100 accurate. The materials I read from NASA and other scientific areas concerned with research without a direct political influence.
I do agree that communicating with the public who have varying degrees of knowledge from various sources should be handled better. The first step is education for the general public. The anti-educational stance is not just political in nature but I see it in everyday disdain for college or otherwise education people.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2011
I'd say the problem is that when global warming makes the news, we don't see the actual, peer-reviewed research which contains the data and the methodologies, we get crappy, watered-down articles written up by people who are journalists, not trained scientists. I mean, that's pretty much true of any science news - you get a lot of sensationalist, possibly inaccurate reporting because the general public isn't scientifically literate enough to tackle the research firsthand.
mdwstmusikJul 21, 2011
It's nice to have a real discussion on this topic. @inajeep and @rocknog, I am in complete agreement with your responses to my post.
bloatedbellyJul 20, 2011
The lengthy linked-to article could have been condensed into a small paragraph and convey the same message.
Was the writer paid by the word or required to write an entire lengthy essay in order to obtain payment?
rustedoutJul 20, 2011
THANKS, a great post !
Frankly, I feel confident re: evolution or climate change but will feel better when we can figure out just WHAT dark matter/energy are. Also perplexing that 95% of the universe is of an unknown construction ;-)
A real shame culture wars have produced the dichotomy we are in-
so much to learn, so little time.
Thanks,
Howie
ratichousJul 20, 2011
Beautifully written piece. I couldn't agree more.
msbpodcastJul 20, 2011
I've got some real reservations about the inflationary pseudo-event that was supposed to allow for expansion to proceed at super-luminal speed. (Einstein was wrong for a billionth of a second during which time, the universe expanded by ... how much?)
I suspect that there was another event which happened in other dimensions congruent to our own four about 14± billion years ago which is behind the incredibly coherent CBR we can observe now because the universe is 14± billion years old in all directions, which means that the observable "event horizon" is 28± billion years old and that just doesn't make sense.
Our observable universe is merely our observable universe.
The actual universe doesn't stop there.
melthornalJul 20, 2011
You have to remember that during expansion nothing is moving. Everything is staying in one spot, and the space between them is getting larger. Space can expand so rapidly that light cannot cross from point A to point B. But point A and point B are not moving.
Nothing is going faster than the speed of light.
Also the observable universe can be:
a: smaller than real universe.
b: the whole universe
c: larger than the real universe.
brooks007Jul 20, 2011
umm, you do sound smart but I think you missed the point of the article...
murxJul 20, 2011
Hubbles approach to determine the age of the universe:
'By calculating when all of the objects must have started speeding out from the same point yielded the first estimate of the age of the Universe.'
So by observing stellar objects and in which direction they move and how fast it is trivial to triangulate the starting point, the big bang.
Since nothing can move FTL nothing could move out of 'our' observable horizon - since everything started at the same point.
So, no your idea of an 'event horizon' of 28 billion years is wrong.
cocreator10Jul 20, 2011
Do you Miss Mixx?
ka5p3rJul 20, 2011
just like religion wheres the proof. i saw on a science program they said stars are moving away from earth.if so earth is the center of the universe.
jdigrizJul 20, 2011
or the universe is expanding and all stars are moving away from each other.
rgb86Jul 20, 2011
The best simplified analogy to an expanding universe I've seen is that of an inflating balloon.
Imagine you have an uninflated balloon with a number of dots on its surface, representing galaxies in the universe. When you inflate the balloon, the dots all move away from another. As an outside observer, it's easy to see that all the dots are moving away from each other equally with no center on the surface of the balloon. However, if you pick just one point to focus on as you inflate the balloon, it will appear as though everything else is moving away, making that one point seem like the center of expansion. It's simply an illusion of perspective that we are the center of the universe.
goweigusJul 21, 2011
I can move away from you, but that doesn't make you the center of the universe either.
SCIENCE!!!