Homesteading Forum banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
13,844 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The implication is that if someone claims x is "guided by science", then x must be true.

The problem is that much of what science has stated as fact is later proved wrong. Isn't "Guided by Science" just the politically correct way of saying I'm right, you're wrong, and the discussion is closed?

If that's not the case, just what does "guided by science" mean?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,587 Posts
The implication is that if someone claims x is "guided by science", then x must be true.

The problem is that much of what science has stated as fact is later proved wrong. Isn't "Guided by Science" just the politically correct way of saying I'm right, you're wrong, and the discussion is closed?

If that's not the case, just what does "guided by science" mean?
.............For me , it would indicate that the experimentation , analysis , and conclusions ALL , employed the Scientific Principle ! Theories must withstand rigorous analysis by anyone who would try to replicate the same experiments and arrive at the same conclusions . It only takes one negative outcome to Disprove a Theory . Or , atleast this is what I was taught when I took Chemistry in HS . , fordy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,853 Posts
Seems to mean, that for instance, science can prove, or at least attempt to prove, or even theorize, that the earth is round, verses someone simply proclaiming that the earth is flat and therefore, everyone is to accept that it is flat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Seems to mean, that for instance, science can prove, or at least attempt to prove, or even theorize, that the earth is round, verses someone simply proclaiming that the earth is flat and therefore, everyone is to accept that it is flat.
"Scientists" used to "prove" the Earth was flat by killing anyone who disagreed with them.

The fact is that over the course of time all science is always wrong. In 500 years we will "know" something substantially different than what we "know" now.

In truth, this is the essence of science. Never stop learning, testing, and re evaluating. Todays truth only lasts as long as tomorrows discovery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,353 Posts
http://m.jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/196/Supplement_2/S142.full

Re: the study of ebola, I have managed to find only one journal report on the kind of ebola similar to the kind in the current outbreak.
I think it has been pretty much the basis for all guidelines, although that may change soon.

As you can tell, it was a limited study of only one strain of ebola. And contains a lot of unresolved issues. But it's the best that was available until more is published on the current outbreak. So all 'authorities' seem to rely on it without the usual repetition required to establish something as "proven."

One of the things that makes me question the validity of relying on this study alone is the frequent number of times someone insists they don't know how they contracted the disease. So it raises questions. You'd think that contact being needed in the way the CDC says, everyone would be pretty aware of the way they contracted the disease.
 

·
My name is not Alice
Joined
·
4,185 Posts
It means you
1) observe
2) filter the observation through your bias and philosophical world view
3) conjure an explanation
4) declare the explanation to be truth

If you (perhaps) applied the scientific method in step 1, and ran your step 3 past like-minded folks from step 2, then step 4 gets to become a new religion.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
13,844 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
The 2 main areas where "guided by science" is being used by the goverment as a strategy to win approval of an agenda are man-made global warming and Ebola. Based on definitions of hypothesis and theory, I believe global warming is a theory and the information surrounding Ebola are hypotheses (untested).

A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.
A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, an experiment designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety might have a hypothesis that states, "We predict that students with better study habits will suffer less test anxiety." Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your experiment or research.
While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in everyday use, the difference between a theory and a hypothesis is important when studying experimental design. Some important distinctions to note include:

With man-made global warming, it is possible to make a prediction such as if gas a increases by x amount, then global temperature should increase by y degrees over z time frame.

But with Ebola, how do they test contagion? It's not like they can get people to volunteer to be exposed to a person with Ebola at different stages to determine at what stage they get the disease. The best they can do is to try to reconstruct what happened based on people's recollections.

So they make assumptions. I think that's the problem many of us have with the government telling us that the Ebola policy is based on science. It is really based on assumptions based on available data. It is their best guess. It's an untested hypothesis.

A scientific study should be both reliable and valid. I would love to know the validity of any study of Ebola contagion. And at this point there is no reliability of any Ebola study as that requires consistency over time.
 

·
Voice of Reason
Joined
·
52,201 Posts
The problem is that much of what science has stated as fact is later proved wrong.
Do you have some recent examples? What I mean is, water still flows downhill doesn't it?

Are you aware that we have laws that say an engineer can be sent to prison for not following accepted science? If a bridge fails and someone dies, the engineer is criminally responsible if he didn't follow accepted science. That hardly seems fair if science is a just bunch of hooey that's probably going to be debunked tomorrow.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,250 Posts
Do you have some recent examples? What I mean is, water still flows downhill doesn't it?

Are you aware that we have laws that say an engineer can be sent to prison for not following accepted science? If a bridge fails and someone dies, the engineer is criminally responsible if he didn't follow accepted science. That hardly seems fair if science is a just bunch of hooey that's probably going to be debunked tomorrow.
Galloping Gertie followed accepted engineering science. Fortunately no one died when that bridge collapsed.

Other examples:
Big Bang vs. Steady State
Cause and cure of ulcers
Causes of schizophrenia
Understanding of placebo effect
Tongue mapping
Brain mapping
(there are plenty of others, those are just quick examples)

Water doesn't always flow downhill. That is a statement that illustrates the traps of overstating or paraphrasing basic science. Water in pipes flows uphill all the time. Water has mass and is affected by gravity. Other forces can be stronger than the effect of gravity upon it.

Scientific method is a process and not an object. Science is ultimately composed of models that help understand reality. By definition, a model of an object or action is not the actual object, but an imperfect tool.

The consistency of questioning and the willingness to throw out or modify the bad models allows for increasingly correct interpretations of reality.

Everyone who has posted on this thread has been guided or aided by science to some extent. The Bible doesn't reference the internet or computers, and yet they exist. Printed Bibles used the science and technology of the times, otherwise they could not have been created.

The use of a phrase "guided by science" is more akin to stating the the person has an alternate system of belief and priorities of belief. Getting panties in a bunch over it is just a personal issue, like the one I have when people go through a tornado, have their house destroyed, car smashed, cat and neighbors killed, get covered in bruises and then relate to the news camera "God was looking out for us."

Internal beliefs and interpretations of external reality are constantly changing in people. That is fine and good, and we ALL do it. Being non-factual about external reality is a disservice to others.
 

·
Voice of Reason
Joined
·
52,201 Posts
Galloping Gertie followed accepted engineering science. Fortunately no one died when that bridge collapsed.
It wouldn't have mattered if someone died. As you pointed out, they followed accepted science at the time. What went wrong was that they didn't understand boundary layer disturbance when the bridge was built. That's a good example of improvements in science. But did anyone outside of the scientific community suspect that boundary layer disturbance would play a part in that bridge? I think not.

What this thread suggests is that "much" of science is probably false and will be disproved sooner or later, and that there is something better than science to rely upon (common sense, scripture, wives tales, superstition, etc.). That suggestion is not only wrong, but downright dangerous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,353 Posts
What this thread suggests is that "much" of science is probably false and will be disproved sooner or later, and that there is something better than science to rely upon (common sense, scripture, wives tales, superstition, etc.). That suggestion is not only wrong, but downright dangerous.
No it doesn't. It suggests that the word 'Science' can and is abused by people picking and choose parts of ideas they frequently don't thoroughly understand when it seems to be an 'authority' for the emotional position they have chosen. Then applying even that inappropriately. At least lately.
 

·
Voice of Reason
Joined
·
52,201 Posts
No it doesn't. It suggest that the word 'Science' can and is abused by peopoe picking and choose parts of ideas they frequently don't thoroughly understand when it seems to be an 'authority' for the emotional pisition they have chosen,
It goes both ways. Public opinion doesn't depend on science. That's how Chris Christie is making points with his rejection of science on the quarantine issue. That's an obvious case of being on the wrong side of science, but on the right side of public opinion.

Chris Christie doesn't even suggest that his stand is consistent with science, and nobody cares. If anything, the public prefers it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,246 Posts
"Scientists" used to "prove" the Earth was flat by killing anyone who disagreed with them.

The fact is that over the course of time all science is always wrong. In 500 years we will "know" something substantially different than what we "know" now.

In truth, this is the essence of science. Never stop learning, testing, and re evaluating. Todays truth only lasts as long as tomorrows discovery.

now they just kill with prescription drugs
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sawmill Jim

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,353 Posts
That's beyond absurd.
Of course it's true in the absolute sense. Science, in all fields, is just a process to determine what is. But, so far at least, and for the foreseeable future, it just does the best it can, developing a theory that fits more of the empirical evidence, then that theory changes or is discarded as newer ideas are developed to account for those nasty little anomalies that always exist.

Here's to the formerly accepted science of miasma as theory of disease. Who knows, it may come back as accepted science in some form.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,353 Posts
I'm suggesting that there is nothing better than accepted science.
So you think we have achieved the ultimate extent of understanding now? That what is accepted science (accepted by whom and applied how???) Is never going to change?

Me- I think we used the tools if they work, always keeping an eye out for what might work better.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top