Scepticism towards science

[Deleted]

Thank god (no pun intended) for that, I thought I'd gone insane.

As to your point on failing to see his, there in fact is none to be seen. I'm reasonably sure he's "trolling". Surely someone couldn't be this dim.

My degree is in Molecular Biology, so it was a twitch reaction in replying. I hope he isn't being serious.

Now, read my text - all scientific data, theory and hypothesis are the most scrutinized information in human history. Your assumption that the average Joe will accept anything with "science" placed in front and toss aside anything with "God" placed in front is a fallacy. On average, you'll find equal numbers on this planet.

The difference is the average Joe doesn't have a reasonable position to judge scientific data, though the data is still largely available to the public. The average Joe however can have an opinion on religion as there is usually just one doctrine per religion.

[Deleted]

Simple example, and not trying to create controversy here, but The Gay Gene. It was pretty much thrown out there and taught as fact, but now even today there isn't any actual proof of it being true, only recently have scientists come out and said there isn't any. Now they are throwing out the theory of epigenetics, or something like that.

I'm pretty sure any reputable scientist that wasn't the puppet of a homophobic propaganda campaign wouldn't even consider such a thing.

Most scientific facts are stated as such within the confines of our understanding of the workings of whatever field being studied. Something miraculous could happen and bingo, previous facts are now void, progress has been made and it is embraced. And whilst an extreme example look at the Dark Ages where basically all scientific discovery was shunned because of religions. that was regression rather than progression in the general scheme of things..

[anyaka21]

Indeed, one of the first thing I learned in high school physics was that scientists never set out to prove something, they always set out to disprove.

While a nice notion, it just doesn't work in todays world. Scientists today get grant money because they are trying to prove a theory, not disprove. In fact, if they go to the government or a university and they only thing they have to offer is that they are trying to disprove something, then they'll never get the money to do the research.

[Eviscero]

Science encourages skepticism. One of the pillars of the scientific method is the repeatability of experiments which (implicitly) encourages other members of the scientific community to gather further EVIDENCE to support or refute a THEORY.

Nothing is provable outside of an axiomatic system where certain truths are taken as self-evident. Any scientist who suggests otherwise is not really a scientist.

To the OP: don't get frustrated, get educated.

[Deleted]

While a nice notion, it just doesn't work in todays world. Scientists today get grant money because they are trying to prove a theory, not disprove. In fact, if they go to the government or a university and they only thing they have to offer is that they are trying to disprove something, then they'll never get the money to do the research.

How old are you even? With what kind of authority are you even spouting this bullshit?

[Spectral]

While a nice notion, it just doesn't work in todays world. Scientists today get grant money because they are trying to prove a theory, not disprove. In fact, if they go to the government or a university and they only thing they have to offer is that they are trying to disprove something, then they'll never get the money to do the research.

Experiments are still drawn up to disprove hypotheses, not prove them.

[Adam Jensen]

While a nice notion, it just doesn't work in todays world. Scientists today get grant money because they are trying to prove a theory, not disprove. In fact, if they go to the government or a university and they only thing they have to offer is that they are trying to disprove something, then they'll never get the money to do the research.

Then they are doing it wrong. Science is based on skepticism and trying to disprove a theory. Scientists who are in it for the money and not for the pursuit of human knowledge are not on the right track. Of course scientists can be corrupted by greed and money, but pure science isn't suppose to work that way. It is true that human nature gets in the way of science, of course, I'm not arguing that.

[Melt]

Uff, I will have to quote myself from another Thread:

Have you looked at physics? I still fail to see why people bring up this whole religion thing without even knowing where the difference to science is. People just switch a few words and then call it physics. Example: "The earth has to be a sphere because gravity, derp derp" is the exact same thing as "The earth has to be a sphere because god". Nobody in here knows anything about gravity and from the top of my head i can come with at least 5 questions that people couldn't answer, EXACTLY like when it comes to questioning god. But people don't question things simply because they call it "science" and people nowadays grow up with the believe "science = jay" and "religion = nay".

Oh and i looove when people quote Einstein or Newton. They are the perfect equivalent to what religious people call "Jesus". It's like "Quote that guy he is right, because i can't think myself". Science is their religion. 1000 years ago people were told things are the way they are because GOD, now people are being told things are the way they are because SCIENCE! And the sheeple follow...

And

Science is not about explaining things but about questioning them. You create a premise and draw conclusions. If this premise allows for a new perspective you go by it and create new premises (ask new questions). The outcome is not an issue. There is no consequence in "knowledge". The way people express "knowledge" has a consequence. The wannabe scientists of today who obviously know how the world works go apeshit at anybody who says the word "God" when in fact all they do is quote wikipedia and google which seems to be their "God".

I am strongly driven by the assumption that we only acquire knowledge that our subconsciousness thinks we can gain value from. And I do believe that people nowadays get so heavily bombarded with the idea that "science is your god" that they stop questioning.

[Deleted]

Science = god stuffs

Gods try to state themselves as infallible, science tries to prove the previous statements wrong, give an explanation to why and then find the circumstances that lead the theorized effect.

Gravity's effects on the formation of planets can be proven within the confines of our understanding. "God did it lel" can't be used because there is no evidence either way to prove or disprove the existence of god.

[Deleted]

I am strongly driven by the assumption that we only acquire knowledge that our subconsciousness thinks we can gain value from. And I do believe that people nowadays get so heavily bombarded with the idea that "science is your god" that they stop questioning.

Myeah, alright, could we just delete this thread please? Or at the very least, let's all abandon it.

[Wromthrax]

Science all the way, it's based on something that you can test and see if it's true or not, religion on other hand while I have certain respect for it is something that's not proven and backed with evidence, you need to have faith in it and it's all based on stories X told Y told Z...

[Kraenen]

Uff, I will have to quote myself from another Thread:


And



I am strongly driven by the assumption that we only acquire knowledge that our subconsciousness thinks we can gain value from. And I do believe that people nowadays get so heavily bombarded with the idea that "science is your god" that they stop questioning.

I'm not really sure what the point of your quotes were. All you did was assert things with no evidence and gave opinion as if it were objective fact. You tried to twist the world to your viewpoint to make an argument.

In delicious irony, you've shown us the value of scientific method over faith.

[A Challenger!]

Quality thread here OP, I legitimately cannot tell if you are serious or not.

I'll bite though for the sake of it: Are you honestly trying to put religion on the same pedestal as science? Religion, especially the christian religion, is grounded in fairy-tales and allegory, while science is grounded in truths and facts; what isn't fact is constantly broken against the waves, so to speak.

[Eviscero]

...And I do believe that people nowadays get so heavily bombarded with the idea that "science is your god" that they stop questioning.

Simpler explanation: Most people assume scientific theories are facts because most people aren't scientists.

[Porimlys]

1. You should really mark spoilers for the part about Bioshock Infinite

2. Bioshock Infinite is a game that takes a tremendous amount of suspension of disbelief, how palatable it is to the audience cannot be compared to how acceptable an idea in real life is.

[Melt]

Then they are doing it wrong. Science is based on skepticism and trying to disprove a theory. Scientists who are in it for the money and not for the pursuit of human knowledge are not on the right track. Of course scientists can be corrupted by greed and money, but pure science isn't suppose to work that way. It is true that human nature gets in the way of science, of course, I'm not arguing that.

Funny thing. In Germany we translate scientist into Wissenschaftler. Translated word for word that would be "knowledge creator" and it shows very well why I stopped accepting science. They get paid for creating all these statistics. They have deadlines, they have people they have to listen to and they have to "strive for the next sensation".

[A Challenger!]

I stopped accepting science.

Go home everyone, thread's over.

[caninepawprints]

Science can be proven or not based upon experiments done in the physical world, and religion is based upon faith. Some people are comfortable with faith while others think it is silly.

[Deleted]

Funny thing. In Germany we translate scientist into Wissenschaftler. Translated word for word that would be "knowledge creator" and it shows very well why I stopped accepting science. They get paid for creating all these statistics. They have deadlines, they have people they have to listen to and they have to "strive for the next sensation".

You don't want more knowledge?

Here is the definition of knowledge:

Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

No blind faith there.

This'll get locked soon anyway, because religion n stuffs.

[Eviscero]

Funny thing. In Germany we translate scientist into Wissenschaftler. Translated word for word that would be "knowledge creator" and it shows very well why I stopped accepting science. They get paid for creating all these statistics. They have deadlines, they have people they have to listen to and they have to "strive for the next sensation".

Who is "they" again? I guess "they" must be the same "they" as in statements like "hey, THEY just found that 75% of herp derp ..." amirite?