I don't trust any sources. At all.

[Deleted]

Even science isn't dependable. By its very nature, science is supposed to be constantly changing. We make a theory and prove it correct, but later a new theory comes along and blows the last one out of the water. It's evolving. What we found true 100 years ago, we don't find true at ALL now. The same will be true in the next 100 years. So whenever I read a report that is supposedly "science", all I can think about is the fact that in x amount of years, that will no longer be "fact". And if it's not fact in 100 years, then it's not fact now, either. I can't ever be sure.

Wrong (the majority of the time anyway). Sure 100 years ago we might have had views constantly changing as our technology to study improved vastly in leaps and bounds, but nowadays most of the time it doesn't change so much as improves on older theories and ideas rather than simply replacing them. Sure some stuff like dark matter is still generally debated but that's a minority of ideas nowadays.

[Jersovic]

I feel the same way.. especially having grown up in America where our education in History varies widely from the rest of the world's!! Didn't figure that out until late in my adulthood, haha. I seriously thought America won World War II until I was like 25 years old.

[Deleted]

Well, it really depends on what kind of topic you're investigating - the more scientific the approach, the smaller the margin of error. Of course, if you base your knowledge on things that either express opinion or lack thorough research, you're going to come across more than one answer and approach to the problem.

Just to take one of your examples, dieting: there basically isn't any scientific dispute as to how you lose weight. It's simply a matter of absorbing less energy than you spend. That is established fact. Now, what people wrongly consider 'ways of losing weight' are simply different approaches to the same goal and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Yes, I'll lose weight if I only eat salad for a month. I'll also lose weight if I eat like I normally do and run 15 miles a day. These are, obviously, simplified examples, but they still serve to show that there are scientific fact, and there are layman opinion, and in a world where everyone with access to the internet has a chance to be heard, it's often difficult to tell the two apart. Couple that with the copious amount of people who are looking to make a quick buck, by selling you things that demonstrably have no effect at all - it quickly becomes confusing, but if you keep at it, you'll quickly be able to weed out the sources that seem incapable of producing the result that you want.

[Drofu]

The problem I have with science, is non-mainstream science is frowned upon. I mean, when Albert Einstein brought forth his theory of Relativity, everyone thought he was a nutcase and would not think twice about accepting it over Isaac Newton's laws of motion. Nowadays, it is very similar, however it is all about funding. If a scientist brings forth a theory, it has to be in line with mainstream thinking. If it is not, and the scientist not only comes forth with this idea but further pushes his it, the scientist risks being the laughing stock of the scientific community. Not only will he be the laughing stock, the scientists will lose the funding he needs to prove his new theory. Very rarely do you see a scientist come forward with a new idea that shakes the foundations of a previous theory.(Yes it does happen, however new ideas and theories are not pushed into the mainstream view enough) Modern science is nothing more than a "agree with me or lose your funding and become the laughing stock of the scientific world." It sickens me.

[Deleted]

This is something that will never change unfotunately. You just have to pick the source you have the least problem with, and roll with it. nothing much else to do apart from conduct your own research/news :P

[Deleted]

If it is not, and the scientist not only comes forth with this idea but further pushes his it, the scientist risks being the laughing stock of the scientific community. Not only will he be the laughing stock, the scientists will lose the funding he needs to prove his new theory.

Got any examples?

[Drofu]

Got any examples?

Without turning this thread into a conspiracy theory thread and going against the rules of the forum? Probably not. Just merely speaking of the examples would be considered conspiratory. Since, you guessed it, they are not based in "mainstream fact." And since the theories in question remain non-mainstream theories, they will always remain conspiratory. But hey, once they get the funding to further their study on the theories and thus making it a theory accepted by a small minority at least and thus making it acceptable under the forum rules, I will be the first to answer that question.

Don't you love how science works!

[Deleted]

Without turning this thread into a conspiracy theory thread and going against the rules of the forum? Probably not. Just merely speaking of the examples would be considered conspiratory. Since, you guessed it, they are not based in "mainstream fact." And since the theories in question remain non-mainstream theories, they will always remain conspiratory. But hey, once they get the funding to further their study on the theories and thus making it a theory accepted by a small minority at least and thus making it acceptable under the forum rules, I will be the first to answer that question.

Don't you love how science works!

So what you mean is that they're 'theories' which don't actually have any real science backing them up at all. The reason things like that are not accepted isn't because they don't fit into the 'mainstream fact', it's because they don't fit into the criteria of science at all.

[Deleted]

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical about everything, but I imagine being distrusting to that extent could make you feel a little isolated. Maybe do some research into different papers' or broadcasters' histories and see what makes you pull that, "Not bad.", face? Then, once your pleased with the background, take a look at how the 'brand' is run today and by who. But worrying about bias etc. is, I'm unavoidable, but at least it's fairly obvious and public what various media outlets' bias leans towards.

I remember Christopher Hitchens saying something along the lines of, "The best thing about being a journalist is that I don't have to get my news from the press.". I envied him for that. He was one of those journalists I was willing to "take on faith" though.

Also, the thing about the sciences is, in order to get papers and theories published, scientists need to get their work peer reviewed. For the most part, those peers are intentionally looking for flaws in their work. If it makes it through peer review, I'm inclined to believe what they say. Plus, most scientific theories, in principle, should be observable to anyone (with a little help perhaps), so you can always try to get some hands-on evidence.

[nyc81991]

It is good to be sceptical, History shows us that most humans really knew nothing when they thought that they knew it all (the world being flat) Now that isnt to say that everything is always wrong, but it is safe to say that we know close to nothing in the grand scheme of things. The best thing to do is to do your own research and try to apply what you learn to what other people think and kind of meet half way.

[Drofu]

So what you mean is that they're 'theories' which don't actually have any real science backing them up at all. The reason things like that are not accepted isn't because they don't fit into the 'mainstream' fact, it's because they don't fit into the criteria of science at all.

Yes, kinda, well here. Yes, because they do not have the funding in which to be backed. Kinda, because the theory is so out in left field due to how it would be viewed by mainstream science. And well here, just because something does not fit into the criteria of science at all does not mean it has no place to fit into a theory. By saying that the theory itself has to fit within the boundaries of science means that it must adhere to the rules of what is considered current mainstream science. By going out of the boundary of what is considered mainstream science, the scientist risks humiliation. Even so much as going forth with a theory that has proof of becoming a theory, if it does not abide by the laws of science, then it will be shunned and laughed at.

But how about an example!! Michio Kaku!! Sure, he is more of a "celebrity" Scientists, however in the science world, he is nothing more than just an entertainer. Many claim his ideas are hurting the very boundaries of modern science itself. However, going back to what I was saying, his theories go above and beyond what current mainstream science values. That is why I like him, he isn't afraid of what other scientists think of him. He may not be right all the time, but his theories are what many non-mainstream scientists can look up to.

[nyc81991]

Yes, kinda, well here. Yes, because they do not have the funding in which to be backed. Kinda, because the theory is so out in left field due to how it would be viewed by mainstream science. And well here, just because something does not fit into the criteria of science at all does not mean it has no place to fit into a theory. By saying that the theory itself has to fit within the boundaries of science means that it must adhere to the rules of what is considered current mainstream science. By going out of the boundary of what is considered mainstream science, the scientist risks humiliation. Even so much as going forth with a theory that has proof of becoming a theory, if it does not abide by the laws of science, then it will be shunned and laughed at.

But how about an example!! Michio Kaku!! Sure, he is more of a "celebrity" Scientists, however in the science world, he is nothing more than just an entertainer. Many claim his ideas are hurting the very boundaries of modern science itself. However, going back to what I was saying, his theories go above and beyond what current mainstream science values. That is why I like him, he isn't afraid of what other scientists think of him. He may not be right all the time, but his theories are what many non-mainstream scientists can look up to.

You would think that anyone who considers themself to be "smart" would know that things change and break our understanding of the world and universe all the time. I don't see why it's so hard for them to figure that out.

[Drofu]

You would think that anyone who considers themself to be "smart" would know that things change and break our understanding of the world and universe all the time. I don't see why it's so hard for them to figure that out.

Yep. My favorite example still is Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity brought to a panel of scientists who claimed he was a nutjob while the scientists held on to Newton's Law of Motions. And there now is some people who are thinking the Theory of Relativity may not be exactly right either. Why aren't these people getting more attention!

[Trigg]

sounds to me like you're exptremely pessimistic.

[Deleted]

Yes, kinda, well here. Yes, because they do not have the funding in which to be backed. Kinda, because the theory is so out in left field due to how it would be viewed by mainstream science. And well here, just because something does not fit into the criteria of science at all does not mean it has no place to fit into a theory. By saying that the theory itself has to fit within the boundaries of science means that it must adhere to the rules of what is considered current mainstream science. By going out of the boundary of what is considered mainstream science, the scientist risks humiliation. Even so much as going forth with a theory that has proof of becoming a theory, if it does not abide by the laws of science, then it will be shunned and laughed at.

What is and isn't science isn't determined by the current mainstream science. If an idea or discovery follows the scientific method then it's science irrespective of how closely it matches mainstream thinking. If it doesn't then it has no place in science. You can't just come up with an idea that has nothing to support it and/or doesn't follow the scientific method and expect the scientific community to accept it. You should quite rightly have it pointed out that your idea has no backing and isn't science.

But how about an example!! Michio Kaku!! Sure, he is more of a "celebrity" Scientists, however in the science world, he is nothing more than just an entertainer. Many claim his ideas are hurting the very boundaries of modern science itself. However, going back to what I was saying, his theories go above and beyond what current mainstream science values. That is why I like him, he isn't afraid of what other scientists think of him. He may not be right all the time, but his theories are what many non-mainstream scientists can look up to.

Who are these 'many' who claim his ideas are hurting the very boundaries of modern science itself? Could you give an example of some of the theories he's made that you're talking about?

[Ogretron]

I have a little quote I live by "Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see" by Benjamin Franklin.

[2Loud]

My problem is theory in science is taught as a fact before it is ever proved as a fact.

Evolution for example is a THEORY: Also known as NOT PROVEN nor DISPROVEN 100%

Why teach it as a fact. To me that is sadly the case in many schools. Teach it as a theory that many believe but leave it up to people to discern. I'm not looking for a debate on evolution, but just as an example. The same thing happens through history.

[skrump]

Sy the rason it is a problem is because laws are passed based on assumptions.

For example cigarettes are taxed for being unhealthy yet many of the perservatives used in food and even the flouride added to the public water supply are deemed just as unhealthy by multiple sources.

Cellphones can supposedly cause cancer and a much larger perventage of society uses tham than that of which smokes cigarettes so wouldnt it make sense in the interest of public safety to ban them altogether ?

Of course due to such reasoning it is my opinion that the government should not be able to institute laws based on safety concerns of any product ever and should just stick to making laws to protect people from other people.

Then again you could go as far as to say the masses are so easily manipulated by the media that democracy is doomed to fail then be in favor of communism until you realize it's pitfalls and demand freedom from both forms of government and the ability to protect yourself as you see fit which has its own pitfalls.

The only way to truly go about it is to live completely free of laws and government, thus doing as you believe to protect yourself from what you consider harmful and taking the chances you believe to be worthwhile thus removing all mass security of a social structure in order to preserve freedom.

[Deleted]

Yep. My favorite example still is Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity brought to a panel of scientists who claimed he was a nutjob while the scientists held on to Newton's Law of Motions.

It's not unusual or unexpected for new ideas to face difficulties in becoming accepted when they're first introduced, that's nothing more than human nature. It's also why things like the scientific method are important. Einstein's work, while a huge change in thinking, was supported by the scientific method which is why it became accepted. People were able to look at the science, to examine and test it, to challenge his findings and it was demonstrated time and time again that his work produced predictions that matched experimental results.

And there now is some people who are thinking the Theory of Relativity may not be exactly right either. Why aren't these people getting more attention!

Because their claims don't have any actual science behind them usually.

---------- Post added 2012-03-29 at 11:52 AM ----------

My problem is theory in science is taught as a fact before it is ever proved as a fact.

Evolution for example is a THEORY: Also known as NOT PROVEN nor DISPROVEN 100%

Why teach it as a fact. To me that is sadly the case in many schools. Teach it as a theory that many believe but leave it up to people to discern. I'm not looking for a debate on evolution, but just as an example. The same thing happens through history.

Evolution as a process is a fact, we can observe it happening in nature. It's also a theory which is the part that explains the process we see occurring in nature. It's like gravity which is also a fact and a theory. And theories are never proven, they just survive every attempt to disprove them. As it is the chances of the theory of evolution as a whole being incorrect are as close to 0 as makes no difference, there may be parts of it which get altered as we learn new things but as a whole it's extremely unlikely to get thrown out and replaced at any point.

[Drofu]

What is and isn't science isn't determined by the current mainstream science. If an idea or discovery follows the scientific method then it's science irrespective of how closely it matches mainstream thinking. If it doesn't then it has no place in science. You can't just come up with an idea that has nothing to support it and/or doesn't follow the scientific method and expect the scientific community to accept it. You should quite rightly have it pointed out that your idea has no backing and isn't science.

That is where you are wrong. An idea doesn't have to follow the scientific method to be considered a part of science. Science is anything that can explain something that was previously unexplainable. Pseudoscience as a great example of this.

Who are these 'many' who claim his ideas are hurting the very boundaries of modern science itself? Could you give an example of some of the theories he's made that you're talking about?

I just gave you a major example with Michio Kaku.(Though he is more of an enigma, being mainstream with non-mainstream ideas) I don't have a list sitting in my pocket of every known non-mainstream scientist in existence to whip out on demand, but I can look some up for you. Most of them don't even give their names out in fear of scientific "retribution."

How about Freeman Dyson(Dyson Sphere), Tom Van Flandern(speed of gravity, his infamous "face at cydonia" on mars), just to name a couple. But I am not a personal Google machine to spend all day looking up non-mainstream/hypothetical scientists.