Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?

You mean you don't have the mind to understand what I am saying?If you pay someone to invent an atom bomb, and they invent it, that is irresponsible.Cigarette companies, etc.I've even heard that some deseases can actually be cured, but they won't because then the drug companies would lose out. But that is here-say.
But surely focus of curing certain deseases take priority over others. That's when it becomes biased.

It's truely amazing how you miss all my points. You are so against anything I say. Its like playing tennis with you.Why don't you just for a second try to understand why I say what I say. And you don't know shit about who I know, or what I understand about science. Science is a part of my everyday life. I use it everyday, and make money from it. Most of it, destroys the earth in some way shape or form. So don't tell me it's not baised. Thats just BS. Science only goes in the direction that PEOPLE want it to go, or where PEOPLE pay for it to go, probably 90% of the time. Unless you know of a bunch of scientists who work for free. That probably makes up the 10% of actual true scientists who are actually un-biased. The rest are governed by peer pressure, and the "discovery of the day". Whats good for us today, ain't tomorrow.I laugh my ass off everytime I visit my kids doctor, and you can tell they just came back from a training course, and now believe something different. Or they just hooked up with the latest drug company and want to push this drug on you or that one.Maybe I am making a mistake combining docotrs and scientist, but the doctors are the end users of what science discovers, or is pushed to discover.Tell me why drug companies advertise thier drugs on TV? You can't go buy them. I mean shouldn't the doctor know if a certain drug is the right one for you, that you have to go in and ask for it? What a freakin joke. All this crap is centered around making money, not actually helping people.On the other hand, I have been in the labs where real science goes on, and strives are made to cure people, not for money, but for people.Then there is science that even though we may not know what is really going on, we pretend to, and base our thinking on that. For instance, I am into astronomy. Astronomers currently think they can see planets orbiting around distant stars from measuring the wobble in the star. The wobble is caused by the gravitational tug of the plane they can't see.I feel this may or may not be true, and there really isn't enough EVIDENCE to support such a claim. There could be a million unseens causing that wobble. Why can't we just say that, hey we see a wobble. Why do they have to associate this wobble with a planet? Probably because of 2 reasons that I can think of. 1, it generates exciment to say planet, and it brings in funds to keep research going, or 2, anything to find life elsewhere, like this would disprove God. Or it may in fact be a planet. That would be fine.I hope you see my point. I will stick to my guns, and say that science is only as good as the people doing it make it, and it is biased. Science by itself is not biased per say, but without people, there is no science, so it is biased. I say in this respect, it parrallels religion. I understand just how biased the bible is, but it also says we are to accept people the way they are, an un-biased way of thinking. Religion doesn't follow it, and neither does science.I do also want you to understand that in no way am I saying that religion is better than science, because you keep defending science, as though you need to. I don't even put the 2 into the same basket, but some people do. I think the 2 should even be mixed at all, except for finding artifacts of the stories in the bible.

Close, but no cigar. 90% of the bibles are crap, not 90% of the bible.but I was only talking about the ability of people, not bible, but some how you wanted to relate what I said to put down the bible, unsucessfully I might add.

I saw that and I did not mean to imply that I was singling you out!Just doin my duties is all....

quote:

---

It's truely amazing how you miss all my points.

---

Then you should get better at expressing yourself through the written word.If people consistently misunderstand you, then maybe it's a problem with your writing.Look, This happens all the time with you. How many times have you had to say "that's not what I meant", or "you don't understand" on this forum? A lot, right? It happens to me very infrequently.And I am just going to say that I was reading at the college level when I was in Junior High, and I got a nearly perfect score on my verbal SAT, so the problem is not my reading comprehension.

quote:

---

Why don't you just for a second try to understand why I say what I say.

---

You are not expressing yourself clearly, so please don't blame me for getting it wrong. I can only respond to what you write. I prefer not to try to "figure out" what people mean beyond what they actually write because I do not want to make unwarranted assumptions.

quote:

---

And you don't know shit about who I know, or what I understand about science.

---

So, how many professional scientists do you know? I am on a first name basis with at least 8 or 10, and are aquainted with a couple dozen at least.

quote:

---

Science is a part of my everyday life. I use it everyday, and make money from it.

---

Really? You use the scientific method to test theory every day? What is your current hypothesis? What kind of experiments are you doing, what is your methodology, and what kind of data analysis are you using?

quote:

---

Most of it, destroys the earth in some way shape or form.

---

So, ecology-based science "destroys the earth?" Huh, who would have thought? Science to develop solar and wind-based energy production is bad, eh? Interesting. Science to study the effect of pollution on the oceans, waterways, soil, etc., so as to get good information so we can make better public policy regarding pollution...THAT'S destroying the planet, too? Wild.

quote:

---

So don't tell me it's not baised. Thats just BS. Science only goes in the direction that PEOPLE want it to go, or where PEOPLE pay for it to go, probably 90% of the time.

---

No, people have the power to provide money for research, or not, 100% of the time. But there are many people, and all of them are not of one mind regarding what should be funded.

quote:

---

Unless you know of a bunch of scientists who work for free.

---

Sometimes they do donate their time to various projects.

quote:

---

That probably makes up the 10% of actual true scientists who are actually un-biased.

---

You really do make this up as you go along, don't you, rat?

quote:

---

The rest are governed by peer pressure, and the "discovery of the day". Whats good for us today, ain't tomorrow.

---

So, if you have such little trust or respect for science because it is "biased" then I expect you to never benefit from it's discoveries. Stop going to the doctor, using your computer, stop using a car because that has a computer in it...

quote:

---

I laugh my ass off everytime I visit my kids doctor, and you can tell they just came back from a training course, and now believe something different.

---

Yes, it IS really terrible that when we discover something new in medical science, we let people in the field know about it, hopefully so we can provide better care. It would be much better if we never tried to increase or improve our knowledge because to change, even in the light of new evidence, is scary and bad and dangerous, right? We should just stick with what seems to work now, and never, ever, change, right?

quote:

---

Or they just hooked up with the latest drug company and want to push this drug on you or that one.

---

Is the drug a good, useful one?

quote:

---

Maybe I am making a mistake combining docotrs and scientist, but the doctors are the end users of what science discovers, or is pushed to discover.

---

Yes, you are making a mistake.Doctors are not scientists (at least, most of them are not).They do not test theory for a living. They apply scientific findings, like engineers do.

quote:

---

Tell me why drug companies advertise thier drugs on TV?

---

Because the government allows them to. I do not think it should be allowed.

quote:

---

On the other hand, I have been in the labs where real science goes on, and strives are made to cure people, not for money, but for people.

---

Really? Who's lab?

quote:

---

Then there is science that even though we may not know what is really going on, we pretend to, and base our thinking on that.

---

Then that's our fault, not science's.

quote:

---

For instance, I am into astronomy. Astronomers currently think they can see planets orbiting around distant stars from measuring the wobble in the star. The wobble is caused by the gravitational tug of the plane they can't see.

​

I feel this may or may not be true, and there really isn't enough EVIDENCE to support such a claim.

---

Really? You understand cosmology well enough (and have the advanced physics necessary) to critique professional Astronomers' work?

quote:

---

There could be a million unseens causing that wobble.

---

Like what?

quote:

---

Why can't we just say that, hey we see a wobble. Why do they have to associate this wobble with a planet?

---

That is probably a very basic question that has been answered. Do you really think that professional Astronomers are too dumb to have never wondered about that? Do you really think they are so incompetent that they would just make wild guesses about this stuff?

quote:

---

Probably because of 2 reasons that I can think of. 1, it generates exciment to say planet, and it brings in funds to keep research going, or 2, anything to find life elsewhere, like this would disprove God. Or it may in fact be a planet. That would be fine.

---

The above statements are moronic. Seriously stupid. Very stupid, moronic statements.Just who do you think you are that you feel comfortable maligning the integrity of hundreds of thousands of professional scientists like you just did?Because to imply that scientists lie and distort their findingsin order to get more funding or to promote a personal agenda is disgusting and incredibly insulting to each indivisual scientist and the entire scientific method.It is statements like those, rat, that convince me that you do not have the slightest clue what science is nor how it is conducted, and that you actually despise it.You couldn't possibly "love" it while holding such a low opinion of all those who do it.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-18-2005 07:28 AM

Holy crap schraf, I am scrolling but I never reached the end of your reply. I am trying, and doing the best I can. English is not my strong point, or expressing myself through the written word. I am better at math and science. Only certain people, which leads me to believe it is not completely me. Because the certain people that misunderstand me, already have a certain way of thinking. If I say something that goes against that grain of thought, then it may seem like they are misunderstanding me, but in reality it just needs to be explain in a different manor to them. I experience this when teaching learning disabled children.This one kid could not grasp the concept of pints in a quart. It took me 3 weeks to explain it to him. Each time I varied the teaching until I found the one that worked. The books or school could not teach him, but I found a way. That is because I do not give up to easily, or let the fact the people are not grasping my concepts distract me.In these more complex subjects we discuss here, sometimes it is me who needs to learn, and I do. I have learned several things while hashing it out in these forums. I would like to think, that is because I am open minded. I have seen the smartest people (book smart) miss the simplest concepts. Nosey Ned would agree, it is difficult to be simple. People who are as smart as you (yes I think your smart) and me (I am relating to you ) sometimes miss out on the simplest of ideas. That is because our brains are going a million miles an hour, and never really slow down enough. Usually people like us are not as "street smart" as others who cannot grasp some of the concepts we toy with. Then we need to slow our conversations down a bit. The next time you misunderstand me, I wold like to break it down in a discussion with you, and see where it is that either you or I is screwing up.
I would prefer that you understand what I am saying.You say you don't want to figure out what I am saying, because you don't want to make unwarranted assumptions, but I feel you do that to me all the time. Sometimes you make me feel like I am Jim Baker or something, just because I believe in God. Then you put me on the same level as him.but I understand where you are coming from, because as people tried to explain the "truth" to me, I reacted the same way you do. That is becasue religion and God seemed like all BS to me. But I was taught wrong, in a way that I would have never found God, because I am above what some of these religions are trying to teach us. I can see through their silly little scams. I worked in a hospital (several hospitals)for 11 years. While my profession was sheet metal, I hung out in the labs where all the experimenting was going on, and had conversations about science, God, and life in general with the research scientists. I've seen things like synthetic blood when it was first being tested, and watch first hand how a kidney gets matched for transplant. I grasped all the concepts, and understood everything that was going on.
I am an ametuer radio operator,
I am an enviromental specialist (indoor),
I work with chemicals everyday, and hold an EPA certification,
I build my own car engines, I have 68 camaro,
I design, build, and fly model planes, electric, and gas,
I am a master sheet metal layout mechanic, I can cover you in metal if I wanted to, that makes me an expert in trig. I actually invented certain aspect of trig, on my own, out of a need to have formulas to make 2d metal into 3d shapes, without knowing trig.
I build and fly my own rockets.
I studied for my MCSE, and write my own programs, and web pages.
I am a national online gaming champion, I had to throw that in there.While all this stuff I do doesn't qualify me as being a scientist, it is the end user of what science/math develops. I also just want to let you know a little about myself, so that you can understand that I am capable of grasping concepts, I am not bragging, but understating what I know. But the first part about working in the hospitals, does qualify me as knowing scientists, several of them. I went through this with Nosey Ned. I own a HVAC and plumbing company. I trouble shoot problems daily. With A/C and refrigeration systems especially, you run into problems, and have to systematically figure out what is wrong. Similar to the sientific method. Rememeber, we are dealing with chemicals like freon, and it is doing stuff inside the pipes that you cannot see with your eye. The only difference is that my hypothesis, or theorys have to be correct, or else I don't get paid. lol.Even a good car mechanic can grasp the concept of the scientific method when running into the more difficult problems. The scientific method is not exclusive to scientists. Ok, bingo. Here we have a clear representation of your poor reading comprehension, and interjection of your personal feelings. If there is anyone else reading this, can you please point out to schraf how and why she did not understand what I told her. A true scientist. Just like a missionary in religion. Just how many times are you going to say that? People never die from drugs. Another example of your poor reading comprehension. You basically just repeated what I said in other words. That was an unecessary response.
You could have just said, I understand you and agree with you, because you do. NYC Health and Hospitals. There is no science without us. Science is not it's own separate entity from us, it is us. I might not be as trained as them, I do believe I have studied it enough to completely understand why they think what they think, and have a valid reason to doubt them.But you see, none of this is written in stone. You keep thinking that I am narrow minded, but it is the other way around. I remain open minded to anything. I believe if we can imagine it, then it is possible. Yes. Go read the history of astronomy, and see all the guesses that have been made. Of course it was all based on the realative knowledge they had. But haven't we learned one thing yet? That one thing is to stop making assumptions.Remember the earth once went around the sun. Who am I to say different? No scraf, they are not. They are very real, and based on first hand discussions with scientists, and what they "believe" in.Example. I once asked Nosey Ned, why do you not believe in God. His response was, I have no choice but to not believe in God.What do you think that means?The science world is full of unwarranted assumptions. And it all probably stems from peer pressure, just the same way it happens in religion.

Which 'BIBLE' are you specifically talking about.And, can you show why that specific bible is soo much more reliable that other versions of scripture? Other than your heartfelt belief of course.

You claim that science world is full of 'unwarrented assumptions'.Can you name a few, and show why they are unwarrented. Can you take some of those assumptions, and falsify them?

riVerRat In what way? The knowledge of the atom bomb is part and parcel of the application of the knowledge of how to make it. If we do not access that information someone will.That it was invented in wartime also invokes a measure of responsibilitysince doing nothing could have had the effect of leaving ourselves vulnerable to others who also can access that information.Cigarette companies make use of chemicals for the value they have in creating their product.You drive a vehicle which as a part of people's day to day lives {and of which they freely if not eagerly engage in} is responsible for many fatalities and many more disabilities and monetary damage.Yet our modern world considers this acceptable risk.The chemicals that cigarette companies use are also used in other industries including the clothing you presently wear.It is not the knowledge that is dangerous but the humans application of this knowledge. In a perfect world. Do you have the time energy and talent to put together the necessary instruments of investigation needed to achieve cures? Do you live in a nation where an individual has the right to choose what he does with his life? Would you dictate that those who have the money invest in this research or that research or is it up to the individual? Your nation runs on the capitilalist system without which you would not enjoy the luxury of what cures research has found or will find.If you can think of another way to do this I am all ears.

We're all convinced, and believe you are a smart guy. But that in itself, has no baring on your claims, as that would be fallacious. Your capabilities are not what Shraff's problem is. Her problem is your unwarranted and illogical claims about science, and the impending doom thereof, aswell as your assertions about scientists' motives pertaining to God.It has been shown numerous times, that religion and science are not the same because they are man-made. Infact, science, is a floating measurement, of what actually is.Astronomers are certainly not even interested in refuting God, as the real guys probably have an orgasm when they spot a new nebulae anomoly. Haven't you watched the sky at night on the BBC? These boffins speak martian I tell thee. You see, the smartest of people can struggle because they don't apply logic. Here is an example of what you dismissed, and instead you blamed teachers for not teaching properly. how you argue.When I said A is B, and C is B, therefore A is NOT C, you instead didn't listen, and chose to say that these are fancy little sayings (atleast you used similar words). But infact, they aren't just letters, they're symbols, they represent something.For example.An apple is a fruit. So we would say that an apple is "A" and the fruit is "B". (Forgive my previous lack of explanation)
An orange is a fruit. (an orange would be "C", in this scenario).But when I said that an orange therefore isn't an apple, you dismissed this.You see how simple that is? Infact, all it would take is a more subtle example for you to be tricked entirely into the indistributed middle term. For example;Bush is a believer in the Father
Christ is a believer in the FatherTherefore Bush and Christ are the same sort of guy. [invalid][incorrect]These kinds of thought processes are hard to train. But science works off from logic. You don't use logic, so you don't understand why science is correct.As surely as taking away 2 from five would make three, which is infact logical deduction, then as sure as that, science "works out".This is the same with your assertions pertaining to Cosmology. You dismissed the fact that astronomers would have seen and measured the effects of planets on the trajectory of the stars' path. They would have shown that a greater pull would indicate a bigger planet, as they would have tested that theory on closer stars. They would use a LOGICAL conditional implication more commonly known as a modus ponen;If the star wobbles then there is planet effecting itThey would then see if this wasn't the case, to see if their theory was incorrect. If a star wobbled without a planet being there effecting it, then their modus ponen would be incorrect.They would test their ponen, via confirmation. If the star wobbles and there is a planet --> confirmation. They would look for many, many examples, and seek extra-corroboration as Shraff noted.So If there is nothing effecting the gravity, then the star shouldn't wobble according to their theory.If they found one faslification, then their theory wouldn't hold as true, unless the falsification was explained. THIS IS HOW stringent the emphasis of faslification is .If this is just a consensus amongst the astronomers, and not a theory they have tested, then obviously they are holding to this agreement, or concept, because they are giving an educated guess, that it is a very probable scenario that planets are putting the pull on stars. There is certainly no collusion to get rid of God, as that ludicrous suggestion would be met with derision from all sides. Trust me; there's smart, like you and I, and the guy on the street, and then there's the astronomically- intellectually-endowed, who would not even entertain the whims of the religious, as their minds would never entertain anything that has no proper thought involved.So you see Riverrat, you are smart. Most of us here are pretty smart,(though intelligence comes in many forms) and I'm impressed by your claims about your talents, and I believe you can do these things you say you can do. But I have no evidence to support this belief, as you could just be showing off. P.S. The difference with me is that I like your character because I find everyone entertaining, even if they are dead wrong. But Shraff and others might have some personal attachment to science, so you have to be careful not to hurt her feelings on the matter, as she seems to know honest scientists, and witnesses their genuine character of integrity everyday. Ofcourse, this is just my guess.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-18-2005 02:05 PM

I will say (IMHO) that many of the educated minds of our country who laugh at religion are staunchly defiant of their right to earn a good living based on their educational credentials.This is the American way to be sure, but a capitalist idolator will defend the system that funds their paycheck just as readily as a reluigious wingnut will defend the faith that changed their lives.Some of us have faith in human progress. We also expect to benefit financially by being supporters of it...like the "useful" drugs that the giant companies mass market.This message has been edited by Charismaniac, 11-18-2005 03:53 PM

---

Matt 10:39-40 "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me."Jesus Christ
Heb 4:12-13-- For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Holy Spirit,speaking through the Apostle Paul

quote:

---

I have seen the smartest people (book smart) miss the simplest concepts. Nosey Ned would agree, it is difficult to be simple. People who are as smart as you (yes I think your smart) and me (I am relating to you ) sometimes miss out on the simplest of ideas. That is because our brains are going a million miles an hour, and never really slow down enough. Usually people like us are not as "street smart" as others who cannot grasp some of the concepts we toy with.

---

I am "book smart", but I have also worked, and excelled, in very busy retail settings for 10 years. Just ask FliesOnly; I've helped him out before.I also teach various tasting and cooking classes from beginner to advanced and deal with purveyors and wholesalers.I also have 3 managers and about 15 immediate coworkers in my department, several managing partners, and about 60 peripheral collegues in the same business, about half of which I interact with on a weekly or daily basis.You don't get much more "street smart" WRT communication than that.

quote:

---

The next time you misunderstand me, I wold like to break it down in a discussion with you, and see where it is that either you or I is screwing up.I would prefer that you understand what I am saying.

---

I thought I was already doing this quite frequently, but I suppose I can do it more.

quote:

---

I've seen things like synthetic blood when it was first being tested, and watch first hand how a kidney gets matched for transplant. I grasped all the concepts, and understood everything that was going on.

---

Well, we'd really need the other people to tell us if you really understood everything, wouldn't we? Isn't it possible that you understood only the really dumbed down, layman's version of what they told you they were doing?I mean, come on, if what they were doing was so easy and simple that a sheet metal guy who hung around to shoot the shit could get a brief description and then understand "everything", then why do we require people to go to college to be doctors and medical research?

quote:

---

I am an ametuer radio operator,

---

Not science. Technician.

quote:

---

I am an enviromental specialist (indoor),

---

Not science. Technician.

quote:

---

I work with chemicals everyday, and hold an EPA certification,

---

Not science. Technician.

quote:

---

I build my own car engines, I have 68 camaro,

---

Not science. Mechanic.

quote:

---

I design, build, and fly model planes, electric, and gas,

---

Not science. Mechanic and designer.

quote:

---

I am a master sheet metal layout mechanic, I can cover you in metal if I wanted to, that makes me an expert in trig. I actually invented certain aspect of trig, on my own, out of a need to have formulas to make 2d metal into 3d shapes, without knowing trig.

---

Not science. Mechanic and math.

quote:

---

I build and fly my own rockets.

---

Not science. Mechanic and designer.

quote:

---

I studied for my MCSE, and write my own programs, and web pages.

---

Not science. Programming.

quote:

---

I am a national online gaming champion, I had to throw that in there.

---

Not science. Fun.

quote:

---

While all this stuff I do doesn't qualify me as being a scientist,

---

Not in the least.

quote:

---

it is the end user of what science/math develops.

---

Right. That means you don't develop and test theory, which is what scientists do for a living.

quote:

---

Even a good car mechanic can grasp the concept of the scientific method when running into the more difficult problems. The scientific method is not exclusive to scientists.

---

But you don't use the scientific method the way that scientists do, not really. You use cause and effect logic, and troubleshooting techniques. Simple elimination.Those are baby-sized, extremely elementary versions of investigation compared to what scientists do in most cases. The documentation and methodology are much, much, much more rigorous and detailed.

quote:

---

Yes. Go read the history of astronomy, and see all the guesses that have been made. Of course it was all based on the realative knowledge they had. But haven't we learned one thing yet? That one thing is to stop making assumptions.

---

OK, smarty pants, if you think you are so much smarter than the professional Astronomers, then why don't you answer the question I asked in my last post;If the wobble could be caused by a million other things other than a planet, then what do you suggest some of those other things might be?

quote:

---

The science world is full of unwarranted assumptions.

---

Such as?

quote:

---

In fact, science is a floating measurement of what actually is.

---

I like this description of science very much, mike.Really well done!

quote:

---

But Shraff and others might have some personal attachment to science, so you have to be careful not to hurt her feelings on the matter, as she seems to know honest scientists, and witnesses their genuine character of integrity everyday. Ofcourse, this is just my guess.

---

It it incredibly insulting for riverrat to malign the integrity of all scientists everywhere, especially when the very fabric of the scientific community relies so heavily upon openness and the sharing of information.If he really believes that many or most scientists are willing to cook their data just to report the results that will attract more funding, then he simply cannot have any concept of how peer-review works, or how elementary and crucial having a high level of integrity in one's work it is to scientists just to keep their careers, if for no other reason. In short, he has not a clue how science is done.If a scientist is caught cheating, or lying, or falsifying data, they become unemployable. Their career as a professional scientist is over. Quite literally. No scientists will ever want to collaborate with them, no university will ever want to hire them, no graduate student will ever want to be in their lab, because of the taint it would give to be associated with any sort of dishonesty.What other profession or occupation can say that?So, I do take it personally, because what riverrat is accusing scientists of doing is simply outrageous and a very serious accusation.I should think, that he should be required to back up his claim that scientists lie about their results in order to get funding.I'll wait here.

Aren't they all worded a little different?