Jump to content

Scientific "Community"


B. John Jones
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm asking for a measure, in your subjective opinion: on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being "steely cold but strongly unified", 10 being "warm with plenty of room for dissent," how would you describe the scientific community?

It's steely cold, strongly unified with plenty of room for dissent; yours is a false dichotomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does "intensely competitive, hugely collaborative, creative, imaginative, diligent, risk taking, cautious" fit on your scale?

 

I don't think you can categorise thousands of individuals in such a trivial way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can there be unity with dissent?

 

 

Because the "scientific community" is a large number of individuals with differing opinions, motivations, goals, etc. They will agree on some things and disagree on others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Robbitybob, you know your real name. You could prove it to some, but you wouldn't be able to prove it to me if you wanted to would you? I'm stating something as fact. Rejecting it is your prerogative.

That makes you sound as being obstinate. Just because your quote comes from scripture doesn't make it a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've stated severally, "If modern science has contributed its claims to modern man, then let science hold sway. But if God, then let the church of the Hawaiian Islands rock the world." You yoursel(ves) have stated that the scientific community is "steely cold but unified." I highly doubt that. Your "unity" will fall because you reject the living God, Jesus of Nazareth. He's given you time to repent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've stated severally, "If modern science has contributed its claims to modern man, then let science hold sway. But if God, then let the church of the Hawaiian Islands rock the world." You yoursel(ves) have stated that the scientific community is "steely cold but unified." I highly doubt that. Your "unity" will fall because you reject the living God, Jesus of Nazareth. He's given you time to repent.

Now you have reverted to preaching when you should be producing facts. You have been given time to repent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've stated severally, "If modern science has contributed its claims to modern man, then let science hold sway. But if God, then let the church of the Hawaiian Islands rock the world." You yoursel(ves) have stated that the scientific community is "steely cold but unified." I highly doubt that. Your "unity" will fall because you reject the living God, Jesus of Nazareth. He's given you time to repent.

 

 

You are mixing up two different things and creating a conflict where none needs to exist. Why?

 

Science is a methodology for creating models of the world around us. It works, in that it can lead to useful technology.

 

The role and purpose of religion is completely different. The Bible might tell you all sorts of things, but it won't help you eradicate smallpox or build a GPS system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you tell me your name doesn't make it fact. But it is fact.

Have you ever named a child? It never felt like a fact to me. It was more like a random event in my experience, any name was possible. Until someone said I choose this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can there be unity with dissent?

Science is not monolithic, as Strange has already explained, making your view a false dichotomy, as StringJunky has noted. Why are you ignoring this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is not monolithic, as Strange has already explained, making your view a false dichotomy, as StringJunky has noted. Why are you ignoring this?

Yes. The scientific method is the agreed methodology that brings unity and peer review is the agreed form of dissent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Science community here seems to be consistent with other communities I've been apart of online; essentially they're just people and have similar goals and motivations. Some members are absolutely lovely people who genuinely want to educate and continue to learn, they're open and willing to accept you as a friend regardless of your reputation and time here; they give you a chance. Others are polite, informative but distant. Few seem to be disrespectful, others have egos, some are full of humility. I haven't seen anything that has surprised me in terms of personality/character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think science is unified in motivation of science practitioners to achieve a better understanding of our world on the basis of what is supported by evidence and reason. It is unified by long standing practices of institutions, the application of high professional standards and open, accurate and honest record keeping. Depending on the specific subject there can be strong disagreements but the trend is towards consensus as the depth of knowledge grows and inadequacies of data and reasoning are overcome. Whilst counter examples can be found, most scientists are willing to let go of their conclusions in the face of contrary evidence and improved methodology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.