Scientific Dogma

[Kassz007]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I don't believe you are thinking critically.

Scientists are human, right?

Okay. So they have the same human nature as everyone else.

Do we see corruption in every single institution in the US?

Yes.

So why would scientists be immune?

You think scientists are cigarette companies didn't know that cigarettes cause cancer?

You think scientists at drug companies don't know that there are worse side effects than publicized? You think that scientific studies by drug companies, etc. are pure science and the scientists who perform them are above corruption?

No, scientists are human. I am not talking about the "rules" of science. But do all scientists follow the rules, or can they be bought off just as easily as politicians?

Would you have as much of a problem with Christianity, if all of the followers and leaders actually followed the teaching of Christ?

So please detach, look critically at what is actually happening.

Power corrupts...even at the "scientific" level.

So now you are arguing that some scientists are corrupt? Why do you feel the need to state the obvious? What is the point of your statements?

Are you familiar with the concept of peer-review?

Nobody should ever take someone at face value. But when a consensus is reached, it is worth some credibility...

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I think you can bring in politics, religion, and any other institution into the discussion. As all are influence by scientists and their opinions.

Fair enough, but usually when someone mentions the word "right" or "left" into a thread, it usually veers off into a Obama vs. Bush piss fest.

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I think scientists don't apply the same critical thinking in every case to scientists, which impacts politics, religion, our health, etc.

To believe that scientists (human beings) are any less corruptible than politicians, Wall Street, religion, or any other institution is not reasonable.

We see preachers preaching, and then getting caught doing the exact opposite of what they preach.

So why wouldn't you expect the same behavior from scientists?

There is so much information out there, that we can't possibly process it daily...so we turn to the news media for our news.

Should we blindly trust any media source?

There is so much going on behind the scenes in government, should we blindly trust the government?

So why do the scientists so often get a free pass on their opinions?

They are without an agenda but following the rules of science?

At some levels, only a few scientists truly understand what is offered up as "scientific proof."

Very few people can actually do the math of many of the advanced theories, and the concept of proof is getting less concrete as we go deeper into the exploration of our own world, and our own human mind.

Someone who quotes a scientist and their opinion means exactly what?

We should automatically believe what they are saying is actually true and proved...or that because Stephen Hawkings said it, then it has to be true?

One truth is that when someone promotes a theory not proved, they typically do their best to try and prove it. They don't think critically about their own work, because human nature invariably wants the theory to be true.

No, scientists are no more evolved on a human nature scale than any other human being.

I am not saying distrust them...just don't trust them blindly...which is what I see happens much of the time in practical life.

Again, I think you are stating the obvious...

Don't blindly trust government - check.
Don't blindly trust preachers - check.
Don't blindly trust the media - check.
Don't blindly trust a scientist - check.
Don't blindly trust ANYONE - check.

Anyone capable of thinking independently already knows all of this. I don't think people blindly follow a scientist any more than they would blindly follow anyone else. Why you singled out scientists in this thread does not make sense to me. The thread should be about blindly following ANYONE, not just scientists.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Oh, I don't think this thread "should" be (dogmatic thinking there on your part with the should) about blind following in general, but if that is what the people want, they could post their own thread entitled:

ANYONE blindly following ANYONE is wrong.

I don't agree with that necessarily. The problem is more systemic than the blind following. We, by necessity have to trust so many people in our society today. We don't have the time and information not to have to trust, blindly at time.

The thrust of my argument is that scientists are still given some elevated position in the minds of others. This is not a knock on the scientific method, or the political process, or any other reasonable system.

With the blind followers of scientists though, is they think they are being scientific by blindly following scientists.

Quote from Kassz007:

Again, I think you are stating the obvious...

Don't blindly trust government - check.
Don't blindly trust preachers - check.
Don't blindly trust the media - check.
Don't blindly trust a scientist - check.
Don't blindly trust ANYONE - check.

Anyone capable of thinking independently already knows all of this. I don't think people blindly follow a scientist any more than they would blindly follow anyone else. Why you singled out scientists in this thread does not make sense to me. The thread should be about blindly following ANYONE, not just scientists.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

A look in the review mirror of the history of science reveals the pattern of scientific dogma.

Theories are made, discoveries are made, and scientific "facts" are established.

Are these scientific truths and fact presented as "what we know now based on what we can know" or are they presented as creed and dogma?

When deeper "facts" are discovered, the previously believed and preached scientific "facts" are discarded without any notice.

A new creed and dogma is born, only to die as soon as the next deeper level of relative truth comes along.

So why is it that we now look to the opinions of leading scientists, whose musings are accepted as creed and dogma...knowing full well that we don't have all the facts yet?

Why would anyone looking back at all the wrong guesses of science, that were once accepted as absolute truths---but have since been revealed as only truths from a limited knowledge, not also come to the conclusion that current scientific knowledge is just as much of a product of limited thinking and limited instrumentation which produces limited and relativistic truths?

Creed and dogma is what we have in science. Not objective expressions of "this is what we believe today, but we know it is not absolute."

People actually believe whole heartedly that their very, very, distant relative was a monkey. They will claim to know this because of science. They will claim that descent theory is a proven fact (which it is not, it is not proven factually). The followers have embraced science with the same religious zeal and fervor of any religious person.

Creed and dogma.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk4HX3kqUjo&feature=related

theres just no getting over you

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Oh, I don't think this thread "should" be (dogmatic thinking there on your part with the should) about blind following in general, but if that is what the people want, they could post their own thread entitled:

ANYONE blindly following ANYONE is wrong.

I don't agree with that necessarily. The problem is more systemic than the blind following. We, by necessity have to trust so many people in our society today. We don't have the time and information not to have to trust, blindly at time.

The thrust of my argument is that scientists are still given some elevated position in the minds of others. This is not a knock on the scientific method, or the political process, or any other reasonable system.

With the blind followers of scientists though, is they think they are being scientific by blindly following scientists.

Why shouldn't we give these people elevated status? Someone who devotes their life to biology for instance, should be the person we turn to for biology questions...much in the same way that we would turn to say the US ambassador to Lithuania for questions about USA/Lithuanian relations.

You aren't articulating your argument very well. From what I can tell, you are angry at people who believe what scientists tell them. But like I said, your point isn't very clear.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Kassz007:

You see, that's the problem. Now you are not only speaking about right-wing politicians but right-wing minded people everywhere. Your comments seem to imply you are mostly referring to Republicans in the USA, but I'd rather not read between the lines. Literally speaking, you are saying all right-leaning people in the world are the same and believe all of which you stated in your post. This is simply not true.

I consider myself right-leaning, but my views are vastly different than many other right-wingers.

You understand, of course, that I was speaking in generalities rather than in absolutes. And although you may not like such generalities, your aversion to them does not make these generalities any less observable.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I don't believe you are thinking critically.

Scientists are human, right?

Okay. So they have the same human nature as everyone else.

Do we see corruption in every single institution in the US?

Yes.

So why would scientists be immune?

You think scientists are cigarette companies didn't know that cigarettes cause cancer?

You think scientists at drug companies don't know that there are worse side effects than publicized? You think that scientific studies by drug companies, etc. are pure science and the scientists who perform them are above corruption?

No, scientists are human. I am not talking about the "rules" of science. But do all scientists follow the rules, or can they be bought off just as easily as politicians?

Would you have as much of a problem with Christianity, if all of the followers and leaders actually followed the teaching of Christ?

So please detach, look critically at what is actually happening.

Power corrupts...even at the "scientific" level.

You make some valid points. But I don't think that any observations you make about Big Oil, Big Tobacco and Big Pharma necessarily translate to the generally accepted scientific thought regarding evolution by the world's most prominent scientists. I don't think there's big money in denying ID. And my initial impression, based on the pattern of your prior posts and threads rather than the specific wording of your initial post in this thread, was that this thread was motivated by your antipathy towards science becauses it dismisses ID.

 

[omegapoint]

Where are these absolutist heretics, they should be pilloried on the square.

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from Gabfly1:

You understand, of course, that I was speaking in generalities rather than in absolutes. And although you may not like such generalities, your aversion to them does not make these generalities any less observable.

You don't find anything wrong with generalizing anyone to the right of center? You don't see a distinction between say Stephen Harper and Bush?

Look, I know you were speaking generally but you should qualify your statement when doing so. I take offense to being lumped in with many of the right-wingers that I don't agree with.

But in any case, we are quite off topic in this thread. Let's move on.