Scepticism towards science

[Chrysia]

actually i would have to disagree a lot of bio-science isnt proving something wrong its to answer questions, however if there is already an outdated hypothesis that is already widely believed you want to prove your study is right but in the process you can mention how the previous one was flawed.deciding if other peoples work is right or wrong belong in literature reviews.

Yes, but you answer questions by testing hypotheses. A test of a hypotheses is entirely designed to break it. You try to prove yourself wrong, and when you can't, you say "well, none of my tests could prove this wrong, so it seems to fit." You then submit that for peer review, and voila, answers are obtained.

[Deleted]

Yes, but you answer questions by testing hypotheses. A test of a hypotheses is entirely designed to break it. You try to prove yourself wrong, and when you can't, you say "well, none of my tests could prove this wrong, so it seems to fit." You then submit that for peer review, and voila, answers are obtained.

i know what your saying i guess your right in my dissertation i was studying lab mice and how they behaved with various cage sizes and enrichment and i wanted to prove that they didnt like small cages and they should be housed better and to do so i put 2 mice in a small cage for a day to show they performed stress behaviors and measured cortisol levels in poo and all that stuff, and when you have proved that you want to show a bigger better cage is better. i just never thought of it that way around i wanted to prove they needed something and in the process i aimed to prove something was wrong.

also i took the mice home after the experiment and they now live 4 giant cages all connected up its a mousetropolis the whole experiment was to improve welfare :P

[daboy]

The OP has made a good point, albeit probably inadvertently. A sensible, considered atheist doesn't deny the existence of god(s), he simply states there is no evidence for them. However, similar to the religious, some atheists simply believe there aren't any, based on nothing at all.

Anyway, scientific inquiry and discoveries are peer reviewed, repeatable and verifiable. Obvious difference.

[Blackmist]

Science is based entirely on scepticism.

Or you can stick to your story book. In 100 years time when you're lopping clitorises off baby girls because you found something that says they're "unclean", and your entire country is in the stone age, don't come crying to us. We'll be commuting to Mars.

[Dezerte]

The OP has made a good point, albeit probably inadvertently. A sensible, considered atheist doesn't deny the existence of god(s), he simply states there is no evidence for them. However, similar to the religious, some atheists simply believe there aren't any, based on nothing at all.

Anyway, scientific inquiry and discoveries are peer reviewed, repeatable and verifiable. Obvious difference.

Would be more accurate to say that they base that claim on the lack of evidence for a god, and the success of science being able to explain the world. But sure, I agree that it's more reasonable to say that there is not enough evidence available to be able to justify a belief in a god. One could make an exception for claims like "the god as described in book X doesn't exist" which is also reasonable.

Obviously saying "there couldn't exist a god" is different. In the same way saying "santa couldn't exist".

Science doesn't deal in absolute truths.

[Video Games]

Well life has as many plot holes as infinite does so whatever.

[Deleted]

Priests are at least just as sceptical towards other religions as scientists are towards other theories.

But I'm talking about the average Joe, the guy that doesn't understand/does not care enough to understand gravity and all this stuff. Why is the average Joe not sceptical?

Scientists are sceptical toward their own theory. I really don't get how people can compare science and religion. Religion does not need anything except faith to back up their own ideas, it's not how science works. Religion is about power, science about understanding.

[Brubear]

After reading the whole thread, it just seems to me that the OP is some young gent who is a (self-proclaimed) nihilist that has started to get really big on philosophy in the past few years. They strike me as someone whose probably in/fresh out of college and is in that phase of their life where, "They just get it, man". Granted I could be way off but I doubt I'm too far from the mark as it's just like talking to my 20 year old brother, or my other younger brother when he was in his early twenties or, hell, even talking to me when I was in my late teens/early twenties. In fact I'm pretty sure I held similar beliefs when I was younger (You can't even know anything, everything is unknowable and all information is skewed by each persons own perspective, etc)

However, as many have stated repeatedly, science isn't just followed blindly because "herp derp they went to college for long time and are smart and wear lab coats" but is generally perceived to be trustworthy because most scientific theories and hypothesis are tested many, many times by the person who came up with then and then refined multiple times. Once they seem to hold up to the scientific method, they're then submitted to scientific community for peer review where a plethora of other scientists then repeat said theory/hypothesis and try the same experiments and new ones as well to see if it still holds up. If it passes all that then it's accepted as scientific evidence of said theory/hypothesis.

Yes, some people do follow all scientific studies blindly, even the ones that are obviously heavily biased or based on faulty data (Hello vaccines cause autism) But to use that as evidence that science is no worse than religion is silly at best. Just because some people are too simple-minded to understand the scientific process that means you should distrust all science? Really? That's the conclusion you came too? That's the conclusion I used to come too? Man, I know what I was smoking back then but man, what the hell was I smoking.

[vizzle]

OP is complaining about people's lack of skepticism to a video game... and this thread has gotten to 15 pages somehow.

[Chrysia]

OP is complaining about people's lack of skepticism to a video game... and this thread has gotten to 15 pages somehow.

Because he phrased it as a broader issue of "faith" in science versus faith in religion.

[Deleted]

OP is complaining about people's lack of skepticism to a video game... and this thread has gotten to 15 pages somehow.

read the post, look at the avatar, trying hard not to rush to the nearest bakery to buy a cake like that.

[PizzaSHARK]

Because he phrased it as a broader issue of "faith" in science versus faith in religion.

And religious topics are verboten. Why was this thread not immediately killed? :/

Honestly, the only thing that needed to be said was said like two posts in, anyway. I'm pretty sure this is just a thinly-veiled attempt to spoil Bioshock Infinite, anyway.

[Deleted]

are you sure you understand the difference between science and science fiction? from your post it seems you do not

why people accept anything scientists say? because it has been proven again and again experimentally that's the scientific method...science means solid proof and only fools argue against those,should we be sceptical about gravity?

the only people i can think of that debate against cases already proven true are people with little education and greatly biased on the ideological department

[Morden]

Science = People who seek Truth.
Religion = People who need an Answer.

Thats the hard and fast of it, most people who blindly follow science care more about finding the truth about whether something is real or not or correct, whereas most Religion and people who follow them are more concerned with the Questions and Answers that those religions provide. Both are after the same thing really, but one group wants to find the answer and the other wants someone else to give them the answer.

To put it this way. If God exists then he created science as an alternate path for those who want to find the answer themselves, if he does not exist then people merely need a security blanket and cannot bear to consider that there may not be some great answer for the question of "Why?"

Personally I think there is likely some sort of greater power, but then again I think that it would likely look upon almost all the religions on this planet and wish it had dropped a rock on them because they are abominations which abuse the power and faith of people, cause more destruction and harm than almost everything else combined.

So does it really matter? if your comfortable with your science, then why does it matter if someone believes in God? If you believe in God then why do you care if someone follows the scientific route?

Ask yourself this. Is it more important to believe than it is to be a good person? not all good people believe, yet not all people who believe are good...

[Wildmoon]

I have always been scepticsm toward science. I accept science as the way to make our life easier not the mean to find or judge the truth of this world or universe. Science does things base on experience so there's a possibility that there may be a lot of wrong things.

[Deleted]

I have always been scepticsm toward science. I accept science as the way to make our life easier not the mean to find or judge the truth of this world or universe. Science does things base on experience so there's a possibility that there may be a lot of wrong things.

What do you mean with the truth of this world or universe? How is science not discovering truth? Science is the only way to do that.

[zorkuus]

I have always been scepticsm toward science. I accept science as the way to make our life easier not the mean to find or judge the truth of this world or universe.

In other words, you accept science when it suits you but if you don't see its immediate effects on your everyday life you dismiss it on whim...

Science does things base on experience so there's a possibility that there may be a lot of wrong things.

That doesn't make any sense.

[Wildmoon]

What do you mean with the truth of this world or universe? How is science not discovering truth? Science is the only way to do that.

Are you sure that what science give you are all real truth? or it is the only way? My answer is I don't know that's why I don't really believe science is the absolute way to find truth. There are different level of "truth" too.

---------- Post added 2013-04-06 at 11:00 AM ----------

In other words, you accept science when it suits you but if you don't see its immediate effects on your everyday life you dismiss it on whim...


That doesn't make any sense.

I have never dismissed them.... I just don't believe everything they say. Science is 1 way but it is the only way or not I am not sure. People these day worship science in no different sense from religion. Science is empiricism. Their knowledge are based on experience. They experiment over over again. There's a possibity that when they discover new things, they will change their previous answer that people said it was truth. It's not like it never happened before.

[Dezerte]

Are you sure that what science give you are all real truth? or it is the only way? My answer is I don't know that's why I don't really believe science is the absolute way to find truth. There are different level of "truth" too.

---------- Post added 2013-04-06 at 11:00 AM ----------



I have never dismissed them.... I just don't believe everything they say. Science is 1 way but it is the only way or not I am not sure. People these day worship science in no different sense from religion. Science is empiricism. Their knowledge are based on experience. They experiment over over again. There's a possibity that when they discover new things, they will change their previous answer that people said it was truth. It's not like it never happened before.

First of, science is not an belief. It's a method. And it's the best known method there is, and I challenge anyone here to think of a question that we once had an scientific answer for, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious or non-scientific one.

[Deleted]

Science: Information gathered through impartial and objective methods to explain phenomena, e.g. why matter is matter.

There is no belief involved in it, it doesn't ask you to suspend rational and logical thought. Rather science asks that you question it and try to explain said phenomena even better. Lot of bullshit in this thread, mostly from people trying to equate science with religion. Most likely to justify their own illogical beliefs.