Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?

quote:

---

Are you joking? What you posted is only a small protion of the overall picture. And as if you could actually ask the military where the money goes, and they would give you a 100% accurate answer. They research things we don't even dream about. We might have nightmares about them though.

---

For biomedical research, that is not the case...the military is not a key player. In physics and chemistry, the breakdown will be similar though for physics, there will be more military applications and hence more funding from the military. The issue of what one "cannot dream about" smacks of paranoia or conspiracy theory to me. It also has nothing to do with science. Whether the Manhattan project had been used to produce peace time uses as opposed to weapons the physics would not have changed.

quote:

---

The fact that so many people are up in arms about this, should send up a signal to you, that something is wrong here.

---

Because you are wrong. Believing things without evidence or in spite of the evidence is faith. That has no place in science.My comment about your not understanding science was not meant to be insulting. Just to perhaps encourage you to look into how methodological naturalism actually works. Everything you have stated suggests you appreciate the end results and products developed from scientific research but that you don't really appreciate/understand the methods used.

I meant that in regards that it is a common response, and a fallacy. What I wonder is who is teaching you all.

Actually it is more the other way around. I really do appreciate the method. What I do not like is the purpose for applying the method. If it was only good things that we were trying to acheive, it would be great.I also witness a lot of peoples logic fail, and a lot of people put their faith in science. Like you said faith has no place in science, I agree 100%. But people figure, hey the experts got a grip on things, why should I have to know.So science is only as good as the people doing it, just like religion.
I am sure there is peer pressure in science as well, just like religion. Just like in the OP, peer pressure in church might stop a person from being able to stand up and say, hey I don't believe. In science, once and a while a scientist can have an "abstract" idea about something, and everyone will ridicule him, and possibly disourage him, when in fact he knows exactly what is going on.

quote:

---

Actually it is more the other way around. I really do appreciate the method. What I do not like is the purpose for applying the method. If it was only good things that we were trying to acheive, it would be great.

---

Scientific facts are not good or bad. I can use my car to drive to work on to purposefully run people over. Neither choice makes a car good or evil. A religious doctrine that enshrines killing, exclusion of others, or slavery is by its own doctrine advocating a specific position. That DNA can form a double helix does not suggest how I should act in society.

quote:

---

So science is only as good as the people doing it, just like religion.
I am sure there is peer pressure in science as well, just like religion. Just like in the OP, peer pressure in church might stop a person from being able to stand up and say, hey I don't believe. In science, once and a while a scientist can have an "abstract" idea about something, and everyone will ridicule him, and possibly disourage him, when in fact he knows exactly what is going on.

---

Scientists are VERY thick skinned. People will not believe what you say unless you support it with evidence. If someone can refute the evidence for your position, then you are toast. If you can support part of a hypothesis with evidence but not all of it, it will be approached skeptically but most scientists will accept the facts presented but perhaps not the conclusions. Anybody who cannot take being questioned and not simply believed should not be a scientist. Science requires people who constantly question each other and don't just believe each other.Religion is the opposite. You either accept the doctrine 100% regardless of its inconsistencies or consequences or you are out...and have to find another dogma to follow unquestioningly. Religion is the antithesis of inquiry and skepticism.

Being an interested outsider but having been close enough to see what goes on I'd disagree with this statement a bit.Individual scientists are just that; individuals. They vary a lot in their personal traits. What is true, however, is that the "society" of science accepts that blunt criticism is not a no-no. Someone can point out that you have dressed poorly and it is expected. Well, a large fraction of them wouldn't notice that but it is an analogy for a "slip" in a hypothosis put forward.It is expected that you will attack with guns blazing. In fact, I would think that the worst thing for a real scientist would be to simply be ignored with polite noises made but nothing else. Only ideas considered worth the effort are reviewed carefully and critically.

I have yet to meet a scientist who has made it in science without being thicked skinned. They might train as scientists but will not go very far. You face criticism every day whether it be an experiment you did, an idea you have, a publication you write, the peer-review process, presentation of data in a department or meeting, grant reviews, tenure reviews, progress reports, post-tenure reviews etc. etc. There is no field where you are so constantly put under criticism of your ideas as the sciences. If you are someone who is sensitive to criticsm (often very harsh and blunt) you won't last a lab rotation much less through a career. There are some very nice scientists and some total jackasses and the people do vary. But I have yet to meet a timid scientist who just accepts what others say and is unwilling to defend what they say.....except for Michael Behe when he rants about ID..but then, in that regard he is not talking about science anyway.

Yes it does. We currently use many scientific discoverys in our everyday lives, whether they are good or bad. The automobile is a direct result of scientific discovery. You either use it and believe in it 100% or you don't.Antibiodics, at one point the doctors would give your kids a pill for any little thing, that was accepted. Now they prefer to let your child cure himself with his own immune system, and that helps build up thier immune system. What will be the fad in ten years?People keep saying in here that there is no evidence of a world wide flood. Well if you believe that, and accept it, you may use that thought to not believe in any religions, and think that they are all BS, thereby affecting how you act in society.Science absolutly affects how we act in society, to say different is ignorance. Science is not nuetral.

quote:

---

The point was, that scientific research has the possibility of being biased when there is a grant involved, wouldn't you agree?

---

Topics are funded, not the results.Also, like I already said, the agencies which grant funds do so on the basis of it being likely to be productive research.

quote:

---

The scientific method becomes biased in respect to the fact that we are limited in just what we can research.

---

Topics of research do not affect the scientific method.Do the rules of baseball change depending upon the players on the teams?

quote:

---

So how can certain things be up for peer review when we just aren't getting paid to research that right now.

---

If it is up for peer review, the research has already been done. The article that is perr-reviewed is the write up of the results, riverrat.How can you say you "love" science when it's clear that you don't have a clue as to how it's done?

quote:

---

In science, once and a while a scientist can have an "abstract" idea about something, and everyone will ridicule him, and possibly disourage him, when in fact he knows exactly what is going on.

---

It's the evidence, the adherence to the scientific method that matters in science.Careers are made and Nobel prizes won by overturning notions that were previously considered very solid, but it's the evidence and the method that everybody uses that is the means to do that.What, do you think that scientists get ahead in their firelds by being able to talk a better line of bullshit than anybody else?

Yet again, riverrat, you miss the point entirely.I'll let others explain it to you, as I'm off to work.

Yes, I think he means that infact science might be taken as an authority, but that doesn't mean that the scientists are saying that their results should be an authority. It just so happens that in this world, it's the only thing we really know that works, so we listen to it.My example of cause and unforeseen effect; E=mc². Einstein didn't intend to split the atom. Neither did the Jewish gal who was working on firing neutrons at the atom. Neither did either of them plan an atomb bomb. Neither did either of them say, "hey, listen to me on this in regards to your life".If science affects us, it's because of it's realtime results.I trust you'd rather go the doctors than indulge in bloodletting?Therefore your doctor is your authority on health. This doesn't mean it has to be; you could by all means prefer to have religion as an authority on your health, but logically, it's best to let the doctor as science tells us facts. But that's your choice.I infact still believe I was healed by something as petty as a cold, by Christ. But that's off topic. But then, all of this is. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-16-2005 10:56 AM

riVeRrat The knowledge of science is neutral,however, the application of that knowledge is not.The choice of how to apply knowledge is dependant on the people involved and cannot be easily judged as to its merit until the technology itself is in place.You drive a vehicle fully aware of the damage it is causing and yet can you imagine how much would have to change in order for our society to live without it? Perhaps it would ultimately be for the better, especially if it were to bring the pace of life down to a reasonable level and force people to be more equitable and trusting of one another. It is a cinch that we are not so far from actually discovering the reality of this scenario.It will be through a greater understanding of science by all people that we can face the challenge of the future and not through ignoring these challenges expecting that they will work themselves out.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

Your missing the point. If something is not right and widely accepted, and only one person really has the right idea what is going on, then it takes some doing to prove it.Columbus was the perfect example.Mean while every lives as though the world is flat.

On the contrary, you have missed the point again.If you understoud my point, there would be no rebutal necessary.It ia amazing just how defensive everyone here is.

Well you just about summed up what I am saying.
You contradict yourself, and in your statement science becomes biased.First you say science might be taken as an authority, yes I see that first hand, in my own life, and in the lives of others.Then you say scientists aren't saying their results should be taken as an authority. Well of course not, no one would ever admit to that, unless they needed the money. But there is a responsibility and an accountability there. Seems no one wants to be responsible for things when they are wrong. Why should they? We have the blameless scientific method as law.The you top it off by saying "It just so happens that in this world, it's the only thing we really know that works, so we listen to it."Is it an authority or isn't it? Does it affect our roles in society or doesn't it? You can't have it both ways. He is supposed to be, but that is rarely the case. All this technology and still people die unecssary deaths. I need more faith.