Anti-Science views?

[Vankrys]

Firstly, that 97% of scientists agree statement that gets trotted out all the time has been shown to be patently false.

The issues with science as I see it is that there is science that we can see to be obviously true and science that we cannot self determine so we have to have trust. When the science is 100% theory it means we have to rely on the scientists to tell us the truth. If a scientists tells me that he has mathematically worked out what dark matter is, how could I possibly argue? But if another scientist argues that equation is bogus and wrong, who do i believe? When there is no scientific consensus why is it bad if I remain sceptical?

From what you say, and how you say it, i'm guessing you have not graduated with a scientific major in college, and you are unaware on how the scientific community work.

first forget about english, i mean english as litteracy language. A "theory" in science is the highest trust you can have in a particular field. If something is qualified a theory, you can be certain that tens of thousands of studies have been conducted and while there is never 100% truth in science, it's as good as it gets. we talk about atomic and molecular orbitals theory, germ theory etc...

Yes humans sometimes disagree. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes because of dishonsty or ignorance. There are still in these days scientists that claim HIV does not cause AIDS although it's been demonstrated times and times again.

regarding the 97% I let you read that article. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-s-complicated

Man made climate change is solid and well documented. Any attempt to debunk i've seen completely fall short. And i'm talking about serious attempt, not donald trump completely ridiculous claim about weather changing all the time (he doesn't know the difference between weather or climate). There is a reason why every single country on earth bar 3 committed to the paris accord.

But it doesn't matter, i heard the united states, at the state level, is still commited to continue to reduce greenhouse emission regardless of Trump decision. It's funny Trump got all the backlash about quiting the accord while the country will still continue to follow the guideline.

[Jinpachi]

I'm pretty sure there aren't many scientists in this forum who actually go out and do the experiments, take the readings themselves, and document anything factual. What you are referring to is Scientism, which is the belief that what other people are telling them is true.

[Chrysia]

Yep your right, I clearly don't understand what the terms mean because now I'm thoroughly confused.

Is Einstein's theory of relativity accepted theory because it's consistently verifiable or because it cannot be disproved or both? Genuine question.

Because it's consistently verifiable within certain constraints. We actually already know that it can be disproved in certain cases.

- - - Updated - - -

Firstly, that 97% of scientists agree statement that gets trotted out all the time has been shown to be patently false.

The issues with science as I see it is that there is science that we can see to be obviously true and science that we cannot self determine so we have to have trust. When the science is 100% theory it means we have to rely on the scientists to tell us the truth. If a scientists tells me that he has mathematically worked out what dark matter is, how could I possibly argue? But if another scientist argues that equation is bogus and wrong, who do i believe? When there is no scientific consensus why is it bad if I remain sceptical?

Everything in science is theoretical, except data.

[Endus]

Yep your right, I clearly don't understand what the terms mean because now I'm thoroughly confused.

Is Einstein's theory of relativity accepted theory because it's consistently verifiable or because it cannot be disproved or both? Genuine question.

It could easily be disproved. The thing is that it hasn't been (more or less; it's gotten more complicated).

A theory, in science, is not a guess or an idea. That is described, in science, by the word "hypothesis". It's a body of work that describes the action of a certain concept, whether that's relativity, climate change, gravitation, what have you. That body of work has already been rigorously and exhaustively tested and confirmed, over and over, and has withstood all challenges. It describes that system accurately. It is not necessarily complete; the theory of gravitation, for instance, still does not include a propagation method, because it hasn't been uncovered. But that doesn't mean that discovering that propagation method would "disprove" gravitation; it would fill a gap that's known to exist.

Firstly, that 97% of scientists agree statement that gets trotted out all the time has been shown to be patently false.

No. It hasn't. Deniers like to malign John Cook, largely because he also runs the Skeptical Science website, which debunks denier arguments. They ignore that Cook was by no means the first to assess the consensus on climate change, nor is he by any means the only one, and all those studies have confirmed a similar degree of consensus;
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...1/4/048002/pdf

Repeating obvious and much-debunked propaganda pieces is not a way to come off as someone interested in a reasonable discussion.

The issues with science as I see it is that there is science that we can see to be obviously true and science that we cannot self determine so we have to have trust. When the science is 100% theory it means we have to rely on the scientists to tell us the truth.

Again, all this states is that you have no idea what a "scientific theory" is. The word has a specific meaning, in science, and you're just flat-out using it incorrectly.

If a scientists tells me that he has mathematically worked out what dark matter is, how could I possibly argue? But if another scientist argues that equation is bogus and wrong, who do i believe?

You take the time to understand both arguments, so you can figure out for yourself which of them is correct.

Or you just don't have an opinion either way, because you don't understand the subject. I don't understand how to code, so if I saw one coder saying "C++ is the most powerful language" and another saying "no way, Java is", I'd just shrug and go do something else. I wouldn't pick one at random to "believe" in the first place.

And people who actually know anything about coding; I picked two languages I know exist. I don't know more than that. Don't tell me how stupid that argument is, because I'm freely admitting I know basically nothing.

When there is no scientific consensus why is it bad if I remain sceptical?

See, but you're not remaining "skeptical". You're denying known facts, and refusing to accept that there's consensus, even though there clearly is. Skepticism is about asking to see the evidence and methodology so you can analyse it yourself and figure this out. Science welcomes that. That's not what you are doing. You're just saying "nuh-uh, I refuse to believe whatever evidence you have, no matter how convincing, I'm not even going to look at it." That's not "skepticism". That's willful ignorance.

[Chrysia]

I'm pretty sure there aren't many scientists in this forum who actually go out and do the experiments, take the readings themselves, and document anything factual. What you are referring to is Scientism, which is the belief that what other people are telling them is true.

No, trusting experts that have relevant special training is not "Scientism," it's common fucking sense. You'd need 5000 lifetimes to make a dent in the sum of current human knowledge.

[Endus]

Because it's consistently verifiable within certain constraints. We actually already know that it can be disproved in certain cases.

Which is what I was getting at with the "it's complicated" bit. The concept of relativity hasn't been discarded, but it's also not as simple as Einstein described it to be.

[Vankrys]

Yep your right, I clearly don't understand what the terms mean because now I'm thoroughly confused.

Is Einstein's theory of relativity accepted theory because it's consistently verifiable or because it cannot be disproved or both? Genuine question.

Einstein's theory of relativity is what is called a model. A model is a mathematical description of phenomenum that matches reality. The thing is often, mathematical model are "simplification" of reality. Why simplification, either because it's otherwise impossible to solve or because we simply don't know better.

Often simplified models are only valid within a certain set of parameters and as you drift further from optimal paramiters the model can fell apart. Don't think for a second that quantum physics research stopped after Einstein. In fact, current researchers know certainly more about quantum mechanic than Einstein ever did. Einstein was a genius because he was a pioneer.

[Endus]

I'm pretty sure there aren't many scientists in this forum who actually go out and do the experiments, take the readings themselves, and document anything factual. What you are referring to is Scientism, which is the belief that what other people are telling them is true.

That isn't what "scientism" means, no.

[Chrysia]

Which is what I was getting at with the "it's complicated" bit. The concept of relativity hasn't been discarded, but it's also not as simple as Einstein described it to be.

The same thing has actually happened to Newtonian Physics. We still use it, because in day-to-day problems, it's simpler than the more complete models we've built since then, but really Newtonian Physics is just a model that ignores several factors that become irrelevant until you start dealing with larger systems. You can bring those factors back in and have a better model of physics, but they just end up factoring out.

[The Stormbringer]

What the fuck is 'mainstream science'? Science that's pushed by the media? Because let me tell you, science that's pushed hard by media is often muddled by the opinion of whatever media branch is reporting on it. Not always, certainly not, but often. And there's also the confusion you get from the layman not understanding what the science actually is and means, and people interpreting findings or statements to be more serious or groundbreaking than they actually are.

[RaoBurning]

I'm pretty sure there aren't many scientists in this forum who actually go out and do the experiments, take the readings themselves, and document anything factual. What you are referring to is Scientism, which is the belief that what other people are telling them is true.

I trust that the results of my blood tests are accurate, too (baring obvious strangeness), but that doesn't mean I'm participating in some kind of hematologist worship. Specialization is the backbone that modern civilization is built on, so unless we want everyone to become experts in everything to verify everything all the time, there will necessarily be some trust involved.

[Chrysia]

What the fuck is 'mainstream science'? Science that's pushed by the media? Because let me tell you, science that's pushed hard by media is often muddled by the opinion of whatever media branch is reporting on it. Not always, certainly not, but often. And there's also the confusion you get from the layman not understanding what the science actually is and means, and people interpreting findings or statements to be more serious or groundbreaking than they actually are.

You mean like that fossil found in Europe that totally means that we didn't begin in Africa, even though it's almost certainly not in our direct lineage and literally every piece of data we have indicates our distant ancestors migrated out of Africa and disseminated across the world from there?

[Glorious Leader]

Yeah, when I was about 17 years old and kinda chubby I shed 30 pounds with keto. I think for most people, it's the easiest way to lose weight. It can also be an efficient dietary strategy for extreme endurance sports, FWIW.

More broadly, I think it's important to note that there's a lot of variance across individuals, to the point where giving generalized advice just isn't very good. I run a lot and eat a fairly typical runner diet with lots of rice and pasta. I don't seem any worse for it, but I surely wouldn't recommend it to someone that was either sedentary or only did light exercises.

- - - Updated - - -


My money is on high IQ people making better decisions under stress/pressure/time constraint than low IQ people, on average. I don't think your example is particularly good here. Maybe this will occasionally be swamped by other factors, but on average, I would expect high IQ people to have an even larger advantage over low IQ people under time constraints than when everyone has plenty of time. Tests like the Wonderlic support my contention.

Its equally as likely that the people making "better" decisions are just individuals with less ethical constraints and will simple step on whomever. Success as measured by wealth is not a function of IQ. Behind every great fortune is a great theft.

[The Stormbringer]

You mean like that fossil found in Europe that totally means that we didn't begin in Africa, even though it's almost certainly not in our direct lineage and literally every piece of data we have indicates our distant ancestors migrated out of Africa and disseminated across the world from there?

Sounds about right. People like to take things out of proportion to suit their own ideologies and agendas. Sometimes they don't even do it consciously, they just see something that supports their worldview and think, "Yes! We've got it, we've finally got it!" It's just an unfortunate fact of human psychology.

[The Stormbringer]

People don't understand religion because there is nothing to understand, it's called faith for a reason - you blindly believe in something because you were told so.

Incorrect! You can understand the mythology, teachings, and beliefs of a religion. Of course, that doesn't mean you have to accept or believe in them.

(Yes, I am aware this is semantics.)

[Endus]

The same thing has actually happened to Newtonian Physics. We still use it, because in day-to-day problems, it's simpler than the more complete models we've built since then, but really Newtonian Physics is just a model that ignores several factors that become irrelevant until you start dealing with larger systems. You can bring those factors back in and have a better model of physics, but they just end up factoring out.

Or take gravity. Most people are familiar with the Galileo stuff; if you drop a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum from the same height, they'll both hit the floor at the same time.

Except that isn't technically true. It's true at that scale, to any practical sense, but in truth, both masses have a pull on each other. And while the Earth's pull on the ball and feather are the same, the ball pulls the Earth "up" slightly more than the feather. Given their relative masses, this is meaningless in any practical sense, but it exists, and it becomes important when the two masses are less radically different.

For instance, most people know that tides are caused by the moon's gravitation. But the Sun also has an effect, gravitationally. During full or new moons, when the Sun and Moon are aligned with the Earth on a single line, tides are slightly higher than otherwise, because these two effects add on to each other. Every body in the system pulls on every other, and modeling all of that is insane, so we generally simplify where possible when effects are so small that they can safely be ignored. The effect Pluto has on the tides, while non-zero, is so tiny that it doesn't matter in any realistic sense.

All this stuff does matter, in the long run, though. For instance, take relativity. If we didn't understand it, GPS satellites couldn't work. Those satellites travel fast enough that relativistic effects apply, and their onboard computers need to adjust for the changes in experienced time between the satellite and the ground. Without making those adjustments, their internal clocks would get progressively further off from the same system on the ground, just due to relativistic time dilation. They're nowhere close to light speed (obviously), but they're fast enough that it "matters".

[Vankrys]

For instance, most people know that tides are caused by the moon's gravitation. But the Sun also has an effect, gravitationally. During full or new moons, when the Sun and Moon are aligned with the Earth on a single line, tides are slightly higher than otherwise, because these two effects add on to each other. Every body in the system pulls on every other, and modeling all of that is insane, so we generally simplify where possible when effects are so small that they can safely be ignored. The effect Pluto has on the tides, while non-zero, is so tiny that it doesn't matter in any realistic sense.

sounds to me that the theory is still sound but not all the forces in action were accounted for for an accurate prediction (trajectory is the prediction in that case?).

[Endus]

sounds to me that the theory is still sound but not all the forces in action were accounted for for an accurate prediction (trajectory is the prediction in that case?).

No, it's that many times, factors that have some effect have so little effect that even if we can calculate it mathematically, in terms of practical measurement in the real world, they may as well not exist, even collectively with other such factors. With tides, a stiff breeze is going to have more effect on the height of the tide than Pluto's alignment, for instance. It's just not worth calculating in any practical setting, at that point, even if there is some minute immeasurable effect in theory.

Gravitational theory states that those gravitational effects exist, but in applied practice, they can safely be ignored. So for educational purposes, you usually start out with the major factors before digging into the smaller principles down the line, because for most people, those practical applications are the most important anyway. A fisherman might get some benefit out of knowing the Sun and Moon both affect tides. They gain nothing by knowing that Pluto has a measurably-undetectable-but-technically-still-there effect on those same tides.

[Zeek Daniels]

I have a BS in Geology had a 3.6 just in my major, pretty much just A's and B's in geology related courses yet i dont believe in what the mainstream considers climate change namely its direct causes and its direct effects. I believe these things are being blown out of proportion with a bunch of guess work, and by guess work i mean the conclusion the draw from their analysis. They always talk about these extreme situations, and they have been talking about these situations for decades yet nothing has happened. And they keep acting like its going to happen in the next 5 years yet it doesnt and not only that but they shout down anyone who disagrees.

I bet you its easier to get a research grant to help prove climate change than it is to disprove it.

[Endus]

I have a BS in Geology had a 3.6 just in my major, pretty much just A's and B's in geology related courses yet i dont believe in what the mainstream considers climate change namely its direct causes and its direct effects. I believe these things are being blown out of proportion with a bunch of guess work, and by guess work i mean the conclusion the draw from their analysis. They always talk about these extreme situations, and they have been talking about these situations for decades yet nothing has happened. And they keep acting like its going to happen in the next 5 years yet it doesnt and not only that but they shout down anyone who disagrees.

I bet you its easier to get a research grant to help prove climate change than it is to disprove it.

You keep saying "believe". Try actually educating yourself on the subject, first. Since you clearly haven't.

Here, I'll help, here's the IPCC's most recent breakdown of the physical science basis; http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

As for the "nothing has happened", we passed that point decades ago. Sea levels are already rising, temperatures are already climbing globally. Storms have started flooding cities, like Hurricane Sandy which hit New York and did billions of damage to NYC and the rest of the State.