So, "Science" is becoming rubbish? Who'd have thought?

[Mazeari]

It's pretty common. And sometimes you can't do anything about it, but most of the time you just have to critically read the paper. I've seen some weird shit. Like uhm yeah guys, it consisted of 3 hours a week for 8 weeks of landbased excercise. Like dafuq is that supposed to mean.

[Malachi256]

Yeah, you're not wrong. Stubbornness and inability to adjust to evidence is definitely a thing, and as I mentioned earlier, p-hacking and publication bias are HUGE problems in biological sciences. The good news is that they're not afflicted with the sort of ideological rot that social psychology is, so there's a better chance of sorting it out when an individual is wrong.

Most bio sci ideas can be easily tested with rigorous experiments - not so much with psych and sociology. Hence the hard vs. soft science colloquialisms. Ideological rot sets in when opinion and consensus have to replace actual experimental data generation, but the alternative is human experimentation, which is of course unethical.

[Shahad]

It is indeed a stretch. Accurate models of the natural world. Key words: model and natural. Don't try to leave those two off.

I am not entirely certain where you are going at. If experience confirms a model, how is the model not true?

[Spectral]

A few years back, a Smithsonian magazine director lost his job because he published a peer reviewed article from an author who happened to be fond of intelligent design. The squabble will always be there.

Can you give me the citation? I flatly do not believe that this occurred as you describe it.

[Pua]

The fuck?

That's precisely what science is not.

Every time you start a piece of research that rests on prior research, you're taking it on faith that the prior research was done correctly.

We shouldn't make this out to be some sort of battle between science and faith. They have a common enemy: corruption. Corrupt people can ruin good science OR good faith. Its actually a core theme in World of Warcraft, too.

That's what I'm aiming at. I'm not arguing that religious faith is somehow better (it's not), but that financial corruption has undermined large swathes of legitimate scientific research.

I do, however, find it interesting that as soon as someone questions the All-God Science, the screams against religion start.

[Baracuda]

TIL: Don't click on threads started by people who are on your ignore list.

TIL: MMO-champion is a blog and the people from Twitter who blocks everyone they disagree with come here too.

[Synbios]

We should let those silly people who hate on science die the next time they get sick or injured, since if they're coherent they won't believe in silly things such as medication and surgery. Better yet, we should infect them with smallpox and see how great they think life is without science.

[Jessicka]

That's what I'm aiming at. I'm not arguing that religious faith is somehow better (it's not), but that financial corruption has undermined large swathes of legitimate scientific research.

I do, however, find it interesting that as soon as someone questions the All-God Science, the screams against religion start.

Science is tested, and it's prepared to be tested, it's what science is. If you want to test it, go ahead and test it, don't just post some shitty blog saying "sometimes science is wrong" and then declare all science wrong. Especially using a medium that exists purely because of science.

[stariv]

This thread is rubbish and aimless. It doesn't really matter if you think science is rubbish, because we're going to keep making discoveries and improving technology, and you're going to keep buying it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

This really doesn't apply in basic science in biology, chemistry, or physics though. No one takes it personally if it turns out that a DNA-binding motif works differently than what they original though; they publish the results and move on with their lives. Likewise, if you test a half dozen adjuvants, you probably don't have a rooting interest in which one does best.

Theory vs Practice, and it very much does have to a lot to do with any science you bring up, otherwise humanity would have been light years ahead of where we are not in many ways.

[zorkuus]

This thread is rubbish. Scientists are always at the drawing board. If not then they're not doing science.

[Pua]

Science is tested, and it's prepared to be tested, it's what science is. If you want to test it, go ahead and test it, don't just post some shitty blog saying "sometimes science is wrong" and then declare all science wrong. Especially using a medium that exists purely because of science.

Eh?

I never once declared all science wrong.

[Jessicka]

I am not entirely certain where you are going at. If experience confirms a model, how is the model not true?

Difference between a model and a simulation.

[stariv]

You are saying science seeks truth. You might see it as an issue of semantics, but this is my biggest issue with atheists. Science does not seek truth. You have to concede that God may still be true (regardless of one's belief in it). Yet, science will never seek to model or study God.

Just because not everything can be learned through scientific method, doesn't mean that scientific methodology isn't truth seeking.

It's like saying cars don't actually travel because you can't drive to Hawaii.

[Shahad]

You are saying science seeks truth. You might see it as an issue of semantics, but this is my biggest issue with atheists. Science does not seek truth. You have to concede that God may still be true (regardless of one's belief in it). Yet, science will never seek to model or study God.

Science seeks fact, fact is truth. If there's a way to model/study God in the far future, you can bet your ass science will be all over it.

[Jokerfiend]

TIL: Don't click on threads started by people who are on your ignore list.

Man up and listen to everyone. You might not like what they have to say, but ignoring them shows how much you let text on a screen influence you. You might think you are in control, but it's the exact opposite. You let him control you.

The fact anyone on this forum would ignore anyone is fucking laughable.

[Jessicka]

Eh?

I never once declared all science wrong.

Then what exactly is the point of the OP? Science being science by checking its established methods? Scientists have been doing that for thousands of years.

[mvaliz]

The fuck?

That's precisely what science is not.

That's why I love my favorite Neil DeGrasse Tyson quote:

"The good thing about science is it's true whether you believe it or not".

[Doctor Amadeus]

Every time you start a piece of research that rests on prior research, you're taking it on faith that the prior research was done correctly.

Not really, but you are close and your point is still well made, faith happens pretty well before any research is ever done. For instance if I said there are purple invisible flying dragons, because I believe humanities fascination with Dragons has to come from somewhere, that spans all cultures.

That in and of itself is not scientific, and even before I get to the point where I might research or test that there really has to be a lot that goes on before Science even gets started, and I don't mean scientific method.

If nobody else under any circumstance can reproduce that experience in any way, then there is no hope of ever proving that, or even getting to the point you do research.

Now let says 100 years from now Science does explain Invisible Flying dragons in any context, it wont be because someone else had faith about them at all.

[Jessicka]

Science seeks fact, fact is truth. If there's a way to model/study God in the far future, you can bet your ass science will be all over it.

I think his issue is that a lot of Atheists replace God with Science, even though most Scientists don't even do that. Scientists study 'How it works', rarely 'Why' That's traditionally the domain of Philosophy.