Jump to content
B. John Jones

Scientific "Community"

Recommended Posts

There's plenty of dissent in science; anything on or near the cutting edge is bound to have it, because of incompleteness in the evidence. Not everyone will agree on what the existing evidence means.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

We're talking about science here. How about leaving all the God nonsense out of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a kingdom [unity] divided against itself will not stand. Fact.

 

As best as i can tell the OP is claiming that because science is not unified it will ultimately 'fail'. But dissent is one of the pillars of science - if everyone agreed on everything there would be no science and progress would stop. Another pillar is evidence; as we collect more evidence on a theory the dissent around it reduces. To say science will fail because it is not unified is to misunderstand how science works.

 

By analogy, because football teams are always competing and are not unified they will ultimately fail. Makes no sense does it?

 

And what about the house of God? There are few institutions on Earth as fractured and hostile as the Abrahamic faiths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about the house of God? There are few institutions on Earth as fractured and hostile as the Abrahamic faiths.

 

 

Which implies that "And a kingdom [unity] divided against itself will not stand" cannot be true.

 

That is what happens when you test an idea against reality; you find out if it works or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're talking about science here. How about leaving all the God nonsense out of it?

 

!

Moderator Note

Let's make this official.

 

Religion topics don't belong in Other Sciences, so start another thread in Religion if you wish to discuss that aspect further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can there be unity with dissent?

There is dissent about things, until we find out the answer- by a method that we agree about.

To not realise that is to utterly fail to understand science to a point where it's hardly worth your while talking about it.

 

It's like me trying to discuss knitting patterns, for a Ferrari , in Chinese, with a pine tree.

 

Why are you even posting here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

The naming of the child is ceremonial. Once it's decided his name is what it is, that's a fact.

There is dissent about things, until we find out the answer- by a method that we agree about.

To not realise that is to utterly fail to understand science to a point where it's hardly worth your while talking about it.

 

It's like me trying to discuss knitting patterns, for a Ferrari , in Chinese, with a pine tree.

 

Why are you even posting here?

Because, as you say, in science, majority holds sway. The minority either conforms by compulsion, exits, or a very few might have the guts to continue to speak their mind--that's me.

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

 

Number one, if it is not "monolithic," then how is it that none have objected that it is also "steely cold," in it's unity?

Edited by B. John Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, as you say, in science, majority holds sway. The minority either concedes by compulsion, exits, or a very few might have the guts to continue to speak their mind--that's me.

 

No, that is not how science works. You have it completely backwards.

 

If the majority agree it is because they find the evidence convincing. There are times when the majority don't agree and don't hold sway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, but people today are easy to sway. Look at how retail chains mark their "impulse items" up 300% or more of cost quite often at the check-out because they study their market. Very smart people can, and do, sway the masses, for example, Bill Nye, Dawkins, etc., through popular appeal, through massaging them, through entertaining them.

Edited by B. John Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be mixing up how science is done with what the public think of it (or are told about it). These are not the same thing.

 

The majority view in science may be what gets communicated to the public (although minority, fringe and more speculative ideas are probably more popular).

 

But science is not driven by or controlled by a majority view. It wouldn't have made the progress it has, if that were the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody once said, something like, "You say you have power. But you would have nothing if you hadn't gotten it." In other words, science's "contribution" is fictitious. The guy who invented the most advanced hand-plow wasn't a scientist, he was an inventor. Henry Ford later invented the tractor. We have the Wright Brothers, who invented aerodynamic flight machines. We even have space-craft now. These were inventions. Not science. It began when you were young and learned to count with your fingers. Now you're practically an engineer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody once said, something like, "You say you have power. But you would have nothing if you hadn't gotten it." In other words, science's "contribution" is fictitious.

 

So the computer you are using doesn't exist. Interesting.

Why are you posting on a science forum when you are so anti-science. And you think science is fictitious. Isn't it a bit of a waste of your time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nye and Dawkins don't have to do with science?

 

Plenty of science has been done before those two arrived on the scene and plenty will be done after they are gone.

 

Do you seriously think science is in any way dependent or reliant or in need of those two?

Why ask such a question?

 

Also, you don't appear to read and comprehend what others post here.

 

This is a good one for you to pay attention to:

 

You seem to be mixing up how science is done with what the public think of it (or are told about it). These are not the same thing.

 

The majority view in science may be what gets communicated to the public (although minority, fringe and more speculative ideas are probably more popular).

 

But science is not driven by or controlled by a majority view. It wouldn't have made the progress it has, if that were the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number one, if it is not "monolithic," then how is it that none have objected that it is also "steely cold," in it's unity?

 

 

There was objection. You are forgetting that this was identified as a false dichotomy, and taking that bit out of context in the response you were given. Remember the part about "plenty of room for dissent" also being included? i.e. both things are true?

 

Once the weight of evidence has accumulated, there is little dissent. Other than a few crackpots, physics is pretty unified on the core of classical physics, quantum theory and relativity. And yet there is lively discussion on what can't be tested, or tested yet, such as the interpretations of QM, and (as I said before) the parts that have little or no evidence. Similarly, is there much questioning among scientists that evolution happens, and that atoms and molecules are things that exist? I would say no — I don't see it. But away from the core, and you will see increasing amounts of disagreement.

 

Are you going to continue rephrasing your flawed premise and pretend that everybody hasn't objected to its flaws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because, as you say, in science, majority holds sway. The minority either conforms by compulsion, exits, or a very few might have the guts to continue to speak their mind--that's me.

 

Number one, if it is not "monolithic," then how is it that none have objected that it is also "steely cold," in it's unity?

 

As others have said, your perception is wrong on almost all levels. What really holds sway in science is evidence consensus only exits around a large body of evidence gained over time. In science, opinions are cheap. If you have no data or other evidence "speaking your mind" is the same as gut feeling: It has no sway and it shouldn't have. And as others have said, starting off with a flawed premise and taking it for reality will not shape a a good discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because, as you say, in science, majority holds sway. The minority either conforms by compulsion, exits, or a very few might have the guts to continue to speak their mind--that's me.

The evidence holds sway.

You seem to be sticking to your view in spite of it. That's religion, not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B. John Jones - I think you have a view of how science reaches consensus/agreement that is based on assumptions that have little or no foundation, that have nothing to do with how science really reaches consensus. Perhaps you have been told that agreement comes via compulsion by threat of expulsion but you have not shown evidence that that is the case or even appear willing to consider that such a view could be incorrect. Perhaps there are issues within science that conflict with your religious beliefs, beliefs that are accepted as self evidently true within "religious communities" with similar beliefs that are "minority" opinion and rejected within scientific ones. But these will rarely be cases of rejection for being in disagreement with majority of expert opinion but because the observation, data, experimental results and logical basis fail to support them. Persistence in the face of such criticisms can, unfortunately, provoke derision - which, when seen without the context (of the details of the critique, pointing out logical flaws etc) can be mistaken for a kind of tribalistic expulsion by a "scientific community". And not all who do the derision and agree with the mainstream scientific understanding on a subject are scientists or even necessarily well informed themselves. I suppose, despite my efforts to be well informed on issues of interest to me I am more an enthusiastic fan and defender of science without being a scientist; given the Internet anyone can appoint themselves a critic or claim expertise; in my experience taking those discussions to those who can legitimately claim expertise will see me corrected without mercy when I have the facts wrong. Taking them preferentially to those without expertise and ignoring or avoiding those with it will tend to reinforce views that may have little or no scientific basis.

Those who hold particular views that are rejected by science and cannot or will not engage with the detail of criticism and reasons for rejection may easily conclude that it is unreasonable and unfair or even an attack on their beliefs or selves by people with different ones, but that would not be correct; the mainstream, consensus, established scientific understandings did not arise out of belief but from a preponderance of evidence within a framework that holds honesty and accuracy, backed by thorough record keeping (to perpetually allow conclusions to be subject to review and revision) - even if for those without expertise it may appear to be "just" a personal belief.

 

(Minor edit done for clarity)

Edited by Ken Fabian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand all the words but im not sure what you mean. As I understand it you are asking are they strong headed in their opinion but mostly in agreement or in support of each other but disagree a lot and kind and informative about it. please correct me if I misunderstood. I think people can be strong headed but in disagreement so I wouldn't want to link agreement and strongly set in their opinion. i think scientist are mostly in agreement on things that have good scientific proof behind it.they are usually open minded because science is the pursuit of knowledge and knowledge can form an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

Number one, if it is not "monolithic," then how is it that none have objected that it is also "steely cold," in it's unity?

 

 

 

 

There was objection. You are forgetting that this was identified as a false dichotomy, and taking that bit out of context in the response you were given. Remember the part about "plenty of room for dissent" also being included? i.e. both things are true?

 

Once the weight of evidence has accumulated, there is little dissent. Other than a few crackpots, physics is pretty unified on the core of classical physics, quantum theory and relativity. And yet there is lively discussion on what can't be tested, or tested yet, such as the interpretations of QM, and (as I said before) the parts that have little or no evidence. Similarly, is there much questioning among scientists that evolution happens, and that atoms and molecules are things that exist? I would say no — I don't see it. But away from the core, and you will see increasing amounts of disagreement.

 

Are you going to continue rephrasing your flawed premise and pretend that everybody hasn't objected to its flaws?

 

This is what I'm talking about. You guys always do this. You use bad logic to avoid or mask the thing at hand. It's clear that stringjunky was trying to claim a so-called false dichotomy due to my apparent assumption that there could not be dissent in unity. Whether he was correct or not, it has nothing to do with THIS question, that being that the scientific community, as stringjunky stated, is both "stone-cold and unified." The objection had nothing to do with that statement. You all agree on bad logic. That's the problem with modern science. You do it all the time. Bad logic and good logic are very logical. That's why it works for you.

Edited by B. John Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I'm talking about. You guys always do this. You use bad logic to avoid or mask the thing at hand. It's clear that stringjunky was trying to claim a so-called false dichotomy due to my apparent assumption that there could not be dissent in unity. Whether he was correct or not, it has nothing to do with THIS question, that being that the scientific community, as stringjunky stated, is both "stone-cold and unified." The objection had nothing to do with that statement. You all agree on bad logic. That's the problem with modern science. You do it all the time. Bad logic and good logic are very logical. That's why it works for you.

By 'stone cold' I meant dispassionate; emotions should not cloud the interpretation of any results. I think your OP is based on aesthetically pleasing, warm and fuzzy with freedom to make stuff up out of thin air vs unaesthetically pleasing, closed shop and closed-minded. Your OP gives a choice that doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The problem with modern science" huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By 'stone cold' I meant dispassionate; emotions should not cloud the interpretation of any results. I think your OP is based on aesthetically pleasing, warm and fuzzy with freedom to make stuff up out of thin air vs unaesthetically pleasing, closed shop and closed-minded. Your OP gives a choice that doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

 

There you go. Logic always works.

"The problem with modern science" huh?

 

"Modern science," not science.

Yes, I have have a beef with modern science, because it uses bad logic to "prove" things contrary to truth.

As long as you have a model you agree on to test by, you can prove what you want. That's how logic works. It can be good logic or bad. If it seems, or you can present it, logically, you can do whatever you want. I hate bad logic. I love right logic--logos, good word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what things have been proven that are "contrary" to truth?

Share this post


Link to post
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

×
×
  • 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.