Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Peer Pressure stifle the acceptance of the obvious?
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 32 of 268 (256311)
11-02-2005 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by nator
11-02-2005 4:56 PM


Re: peer pressure
On the other hand, when I tell people who ask that I am a non-believer, I run a pretty good chance of getting a lecture.
When asked, I tell people that my religion is a private and personal matter.
That's my story, and I am sticking to it. It sure helps avoid arguments, lectures, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 11-02-2005 4:56 PM nator has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 126 of 268 (257476)
11-07-2005 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by riVeRraT
11-06-2005 6:04 PM


Re: peer pressure
quote:
That's why the entire scientific method and peer-review system is designed to be a powerful, sophisticated, illogic and bias detection system.
Then why did we think no 2 finger prints are the same for so long?
Fingerprints don't make for a good example of failure in science. They were never part of science. They were part of what is called "forensic science", but the word "science" in the name does not make it science. Forensic science is more like an engineering practice that makes use of basic science discovered elsewhere.
As far as I can tell, fingerprint analysis had never gone through rigorous scientific testing until quite recently. It had gone through judicial testing, with many court cases accepting the evidence as valid. But the courts relied on expert testimony from crime investigators, not on any thorough scientific investigation.
It may be a black mark for forensics, but if anything it points to the value of the more thorough testing that we expect of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by riVeRraT, posted 11-06-2005 6:04 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by mike the wiz, posted 11-07-2005 12:03 PM nwr has not replied
 Message 132 by riVeRraT, posted 11-07-2005 7:48 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 134 of 268 (257590)
11-07-2005 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by riVeRraT
11-07-2005 7:48 PM


Re: peer pressure
cheap cop out.
Science is based on our observations, I guessed we missed that one.
No. There is no cop out there.
Television watching is based on observation. Eating is based on observation. Tourism is based on observation.
That's a really poor description of science. Many things are based on observation. Science is skeptical observation, skeptical testing, replication of results to rule out biases, peer review. That's what was missing in the use of fingerprints.
So just what science IS science? lol, what a joke, I'm not going to even touch this one.
Maybe you should do a little study on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by riVeRraT, posted 11-07-2005 7:48 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by riVeRraT, posted 11-08-2005 8:36 AM nwr has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 202 of 268 (260372)
11-16-2005 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Ben!
11-16-2005 1:57 PM


Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
I think nwr would also attest to the degree in which old, philosophical ideas on the nature of mind dominate people's ways of thinking.
I certainly agree with that. I'm not sure that this contradicts Mammuthus, however, for there isn't a whole lot of evidence available. Cognitive science is still at a primitive stage where it hasn't fully settled on what is to be considered evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Ben!, posted 11-16-2005 1:57 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Ben!, posted 11-16-2005 8:55 PM nwr has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 257 of 268 (261543)
11-20-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by riVeRraT
11-20-2005 11:18 AM


Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
riVeRraT writes:
We see stars wobbling, and without actually seeing exactly what is causing the wobble, we claim to know what is causing it. And advertise it. It's ok to guess, thats part of science, but to advertise your guesses, is another story.
Some of my retinal cells are stimulated, and I claim to see roses.
All of our perception is inference from the known to the unknown. We cannot know anything, except by such inference. This isn't just science, it is everything in our interaction with the world.
Science, much like everyday life, depends on inference to the best explanation (often called abduction).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by riVeRraT, posted 11-20-2005 11:18 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by riVeRraT, posted 11-20-2005 11:54 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 261 of 268 (261560)
11-20-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by riVeRraT
11-20-2005 11:54 AM


Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
quote:
Science, much like everyday life, depends on inference to the best explanation (often called abduction).
This is what I have been saying, only you put it more eloquently.
This is also what I believe makes science biased.
I'm sorry that you didn't get it.
I was trying to point out that your thesis reduces everything to an absurdity. If science is biased, then you are biased. If science is unreliable, then everything you do is also unreliable. If what you believe about science is correct, then that applies to everyday life too. You might just as well commit suicide right now.
I am not recommending suicide. I am pointing out that your reasoning is utterly absurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by riVeRraT, posted 11-20-2005 11:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by riVeRraT, posted 11-20-2005 7:34 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 265 of 268 (261648)
11-20-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by riVeRraT
11-20-2005 7:34 PM


Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
And if you think my reasoning is utter absurd, then your mind is closed.
No, but your understanding of "science" disagrees with that of most scientists.
Tell me, is there science without an intelligent mind to carry it out?
With our ordinary understanding of "science", it involves a scientist. I guess you can infer that involves an intelligent mind, but only if you use the kind of inference that you were bashing in Message 259.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by riVeRraT, posted 11-20-2005 7:34 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2005 8:15 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 267 of 268 (267901)
12-11-2005 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by riVeRraT
12-11-2005 8:15 PM


Re: Science and Religion, two ways of cracking the nut
We are really way off-topic here. I've avoided responding to some of your posts in this thread because it had drifted off topic.
I'll respond this once, but probably not again unless we open a new topic for the discussion. If you want to continue this discussion, you might want to open a suitable "Proposed New Topic".
riVeRraT writes:
To many people in here treat the word science, like a noun. It is not a noun, it is a verb.
Sorry to break the news, but "science" is a noun. Still, there is something to what you say. For science isn't purely passive. Although science is considered by some to be a system of beliefs, it is really more of a system of methodologies. So it has to do with action, even if the word itself is a noun.
One exapmle is freon.
I have a question on freon. I was under the impression that it was being phased out, to be replaced by other refrigerants. As someone working in that area, maybe you can update me on that.
By the way, I am glad to see your concern for the atmosphere.
Does science always go in a righteous direction? Or is powered by money, war, greed? How is the knowledge that we chase after applied?
"Righteous" is not a technical term, and is the wrong question to ask about science.
I think we need to distinguish between science, and the applications of science (often engineering). Most of the abuse of science, what you might consider unrighteous, is in the application rather than in the science itself. And many scientists are concerned about such misuse when it occurs.
People in here say that knowledge byitself, which represents science does not do any harm.
I agree with those who say science normally does no harm. But some of the applications of science are harmful, and I think that is what you are talking about.
WTF are we doing to this planet? We have the ability to stop it, but money and greed would never let it happen.
I am as concerned as you. But let's not blame the scientists. The "doing" is being done by businesses and politicians. Worse still, many people who claim to be deeply religious Christians are involved in the insane raping of the planet.
If I hear the gravity comparison in this forum one more time, I think I will flip out. Gravity does not = science.
Sorry to tell you, but it is pretty likely to come up again (and again, and again, ...)
Is science going to save us, or kill us?
Scientists can only do their best and provide the best advice that they can. Regrettably politicians and businesses, driven by greed, will refuse to take their advice until it is too late, or almost too late.
Do you believe in evolution? If you do, then I think there is a distinct possibilty that we are going to evolve ourselves right off the planet.
I accept the theory of evolution, while perhaps occasionally criticizing it in its current form. But I don't "believe in evolution". A scientific theory is not something to believe in. It is something to understand, and to use as a guide where appropriate. I am not a biologist, so evolution is not central to my work although I have found it a useful guide.
I think "evolve ourselves off the planet," while colorful, is the wrong way to describe the situation. Yes, our species could go extinct if we continue in our path of destruction, but that wouldn't be a case of evolving ourselves off the planet.
Evolution relies on mutations, and selection right?
Those are important parts of the "mechanism" (I think "mechanism" is a poor term here, but it is what people often use).
Well while we pump ourselves full of unatural chemicals, our bodies will then evolve around that, and if science can't keep up, then it may all come crumbling down in our faces. We will evolve into being an unnatural species on this planet, relying on our own abilities, which are BTW limited.
I now see why you used "evolve ourselves right off the planet." But I don't expect it to happen that way. What I see as more likely, is that we will damage the environment to such an extent that it can no longer produce the food we need to feed the world's population. And then there might be wars, as people fight over who gets to use the dwindling resources. It is hard to predict the eventual outcome, but for sure we are heading toward danger.
If that day comes, you better hope that we were designed, and God knew it was going to happen, and he designed protection for us into our bodies.
One of my concerns is that there are Christians in high places who ignore these problems. They believe that the second coming will occur in the nick of time to rescue us from all of the destruction that we cause to the planet.
I believe that they are seriously mistaken. I see it as our responsibilty to take care of nature, to replenish the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2005 8:15 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2005 10:58 PM nwr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024