How much can we trust science?

[cladking]

You have no clue what you're talking about. Yes, there are limitations the further we go back in time, plus the amount of available information is certainly not always the same, but we use forensics much the same way detectives use them to gain evidence and, sometimes, convictions on that basis alone.

Sometimes forensics is used.

Even where it is used it is not usually used in a systematic and methodical way. Even where it is used there is very little surviving evidence of any kind from before 4000 years ago. Even where it is used the scientists can blame anomalous results on "old wood" the "unknown" rather than further investigation.

We always assume people are the same everywhere and it is this assumption that has negated the work related to very ancient times and to ancient pre-history. We dismiss volumes of evidence and proceed on the scant evidence that has been dug out of the earth seen in the perspective of our beliefs and semantics.

 

[metis]

They were a great magazine many years ago.

I don't remember them running many articles about the social sciences even in more modern times. Many individuals can look at experimental design and pick out the flaws and compare those flaws to the results in meaningful ways. But the fact no one finds a flaw or that the results look right does not necessarily mean that the replicable experiment perfectly reflects reality. Peer review of statistics and observation will always tend to reflect the models of peers. Peers and educated people will spot methodological errors but will not always be able to see errors founded in definitions and theory.

I have a great deal of respect for peers and all knowledge but this respect never includes their beliefs.



There is a "conspiracy" of belief. Everybody believes the same things and based in the same thinking in the same mutually translatable languages. They use the same models based in the same observations and definitions. It is these models at fault since there is no "conspiracy" to be wrong or to mislead people. I suppose one could say the models are at fault because so many things are "obvious" to everybody that these "observations" are never tested or analyzed. Even without such errors caused by what's obvious we still think the same way and still use induction based on language and we still compare all sensory input to models we all share.

There are millions of examples where "science" went wrong. Progress is always the exception rather than the rule. Today we are stuck in place by semantics.

You simply are inventing more nonsense.

 

[metis]

We always assume people are the same everywhere and it is this assumption that has negated the work related to very ancient times and to ancient pre-history. We dismiss volumes of evidence and proceed on the scant evidence that has been dug out of the earth seen in the perspective of our beliefs and semantics.

These "volumes of evidence" that you are referring to are often religious in nature, thus mostly subjective, plus people thousands of years ago were not steeped in the "scientific method". OTOH, scientific evidence MUST be objectively based.

 

[cladking]

These "volumes of evidence" that you are referring to are often religious in nature, thus mostly subjective, plus people thousands of years ago were not steeped in the "scientific method". OTOH, scientific evidence MUST be objectively based.

I suppose all the people who died in the 1860's died for religious reasons since all surgeons believed that washing hands and surgical instruments was a waste of precious time when someone was bleeding.

You are simply mistaken and looking at reality through your beliefs instead of your knowledge. This is simple human nature so it's the nature of science to mostly be held as BELIEF rather than as knowledge. If you don't like this then complain to whatever (g)God(s) you believe in because I don't care.

 

[cladking]

You simply are inventing more nonsense.

I know I'm doing OK when believers say this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is why it's pointless to try to pretend the total of human activities and knowledge that constitute the sciences can be neatly isolated from every other form of human activity.

Science reveals what is. It doesn't tell us what to do with it.

 

[Augustus]

Science reveals what is. It doesn't tell us what to do with it.

Depends on the science.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Depends on the science.

It doesn't "depend on the science." Science is science. Physics, chemistry, biology, these do nothing more than show us what is there. Like music notes. We didn't create or invent them. The sounds of those frequencies have always been. It was human minds who labeled them as notes, organized them into scales, and developed rhythm and melody. But rhythm and melody don't really exist outside of our minds. Out in nature, the G note is just a sound. Atoms, cells, acids, these are all basically about the same in that they just exist. It requires human minds to transmute these things into medicines or weapons.

 

[Augustus]

Science is science. Physics, chemistry, biology, these do nothing more than show us what is there.

What is there and how it can be altered/manipulated/exploited/etc.

Also science is not simply limited to the natural sciences, and social sciences frequently do far more than 'show us what's there'.

It requires human minds to transmute these things into medicines or weapons.

Yes, I've been talking about the positive and negative impacts of the sciences on human society and why it's silly to try to pretend we can isolate the human mind conducting scientific research from the human mind utilising this scientific research.

 

[cladking]

It doesn't "depend on the science." Science is science. Physics, chemistry, biology, these do nothing more than show us what is there.

Yes, exactly. And it told 19th century surgeons not to wash their hands.

Peoples' ability to just ignore facts and logic that doesn't agree with their models is astounding.

Even today we are told to sneeze into a handkerchief which causes droplets to go in every direction and hang in the air. Everyone knows everything and we shovel resources out of the earth and bury them right back into landfill at profits realized only to the wealthy few.

People are wholly blind except to what they believe and those wjho believe in science are the worst of all because they have God and The Laws Of Nature on their side.

 

[cladking]

Also science is not simply limited to the natural sciences, and social sciences frequently do far more than 'show us what's there'.

Indeed. They show us what is politically correct and what money wants us to see.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What is there and how it can be altered/manipulated/exploited/etc.

Yes. But science doesn't tell us to do those. It doesn't tell us that we should, or what alterations should be made. Science isn't "do it just because you can." Humans with that mentality are why we had to create institutional review boards. Science didn't tell them to do that, it didn't encourage them, and is the result of biases of people who used the information (these biases are actually widely acknowledged in science and a reason replication is mandated).

Yes, I've been talking about the positive and negative impacts of the sciences on human society and why it's silly to try to pretend we can isolate the human mind conducting scientific research from the human mind utilising this scientific research.

Science didn't create those medicines or weapons. Like fire, it just is. It's not to blame for the arsonist.

Also science is not simply limited to the natural sciences, and social sciences frequently do far more than 'show us what's there'.

If you accept them as sciences.
But, even so, all it can do is show us what is there. A great example is it's basic human psychology if you want someone to succeed you have to make them feel empowered to succeed. 12 Step programs with addiction begin with disempowering people. And they aren't evidence-based anyways. Most addiction treatments and regiments aren't. It's not the fault of psychology, it's the fault of people who disregard evidence, are very certain they have it figured out with their "common sense," and do what they think will work.
With medications like Prozac, it actually didn't pass scientific muster but was promoted by greedy humans anyways. That's not a problem with science. The opiate epidemic is human error on all levels and not the fault of science.
Science is science. It can lend weight to discussions of morality and ethics, but it's ill suited for the task. Science can't tell us hurting someone is bad. All it can do is explain what is likely to happen when someone is hurt. Science doesn't tell us what to do with that information, however. There are certainly philosophical thoughts that it may just not be a concern worth caring about. And we can use science to predict (no, we don't know for sure and any such predictions reflect poor understandings) what would happen if everyone quit caring and was only in it for themselves. But the results aren't good or bad from a scientific perspective. They just are.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

People are wholly blind except to what they believe and those wjho believe in science are the worst of all because they have God and The Laws Of Nature on their side.

I assure you, god is not on my side.
And I don't "blindly accept" science. You throw this out there, but really you are barking up the wrong tree.

Indeed. They show us what is politically correct and what money wants us to see.

False. Political correctness is an ideology, not science. "What money wants us to see," I'm not sure what you mean by this? Such as what advertisers are implying with their sexed up advertisements of fantasy?

Yes, exactly. And it told 19th century surgeons not to wash their hands.

We were just discovering germs halfway into that century.
And there is not one field of profession that has not changed with new knowledge and discoveries.

 

[Augustus]

Science didn't create those medicines or weapons. Like fire, it just is. It's not to blame for the arsonist.

I never said anything about 'blame' as it is not a singular 'thing' with agency, but the cumulative actions of countless people.

While there is also a normative concept of science that exists only in abstraction, I think it is far more meaningful to treat the sciences as a series of human activities with real-world effects, not all of which are beneficial. That the sciences aren't perfect is to be expected with any human activity given our limitations as a species.

Do you agree that the sciences, when viewed as human activities in human society, sometimes have harmful consequences and are also a major source of false information?

[Of course they are also a major source of useful information, and often have positive consequences]

 

[cladking]

I assure you, god is not on my side.

You nor I have any way to know this.

And I don't "blindly accept" science.

I never said anyone blindly accepts science. There are a very few who do and it's not impossible I said this of them but I don't know you well enough to know if it applies to you or not. What I said was that people blindly accept the premises and beliefs that underlie science or are widely believed to underlie science. What I said was people hold almost all science as a "BELIEF" because this is how Homo Omnisciencis holds almost everything. What I said was we are ALL BLIND to reality because we see our beliefs preferentially to anything else.

I've said in the past that natural science underlies religion and only experiment underlies science. But I always add that nobody stops with just experiment and they almost invariably color in between experiment with what they believe is "obvious". Assumptions, extrapolations, and interpolations are NOT science. What is obvious is not science. You believe things that are not true and this isa proven by the fact that science has never been right before so assuming it is now is mere nonsense.

False. Political correctness is an ideology, not science. "What money wants us to see," I'm not sure what you mean by this? Such as what advertisers are implying with their sexed up advertisements of fantasy?

Every meteorologist believes in global warming. Every Egyptologist believes in ramps and every doctor belie4ves we should sneeze into a tissue to catch the biggest pieces while launching a cloud of tiny disease carrying droplets to circulate throughout the environment. Why can't you read my posts and respond to that rather than what you BELIEVE I must mean?

And there is not one field of profession that has not changed with new knowledge and discoveries.

Then I guess we were wrong for the very last time more than a century ago.

 

[metis]

I guess the irony is that those who badmouth science are relying on the science they badmouth while benefitting from the science that was a huge part in the making of the internet that they use to post here at RF. We take so much for granted the science that we rely on a daily basis. Science ain't perfect because we ain't perfect, but most of the mistakes and/or bias gets corrected over time.

The word "science" is from the Latin and it means "knowledge", and yet for some reason there are those who don't much like that, thus probably those who prefer their own bias over objectively-derived evidence. They can have their bias, but I prefer going in the direction objective evidence takes us.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you agree that the sciences, when viewed as human activities in human society, sometimes have harmful consequences and are also a major source of false information?

I don't believe science is harmful or beneficial in that regard. As that is not science. It's using what science revealed to use in other applications, such as military. Discovering atomic energies is nothing more than a part of learning how atoms work. And they worked the same before and after we made those discoveries. Science isn't magic, it explains magic. Science explains electricity. The electric chair is not inherently a part of that or of science. That is people using the findings of science and applying them to destructive and lethal ends.

 

[gnostic]

You nor I have any way to know this.



I never said anyone blindly accepts science. There are a very few who do and it's not impossible I said this of them but I don't know you well enough to know if it applies to you or not. What I said was that people blindly accept the premises and beliefs that underlie science or are widely believed to underlie science. What I said was people hold almost all science as a "BELIEF" because this is how Homo Omnisciencis holds almost everything. What I said was we are ALL BLIND to reality because we see our beliefs preferentially to anything else.

I've said in the past that natural science underlies religion and only experiment underlies science. But I always add that nobody stops with just experiment and they almost invariably color in between experiment with what they believe is "obvious". Assumptions, extrapolations, and interpolations are NOT science. What is obvious is not science. You believe things that are not true and this isa proven by the fact that science has never been right before so assuming it is now is mere nonsense.



Every meteorologist believes in global warming. Every Egyptologist believes in ramps and every doctor belie4ves we should sneeze into a tissue to catch the biggest pieces while launching a cloud of tiny disease carrying droplets to circulate throughout the environment. Why can't you read my posts and respond to that rather than what you BELIEVE I must mean?

Wow!

Still using all the generalizations, conspiracy theories, strawman argument, etc. You are still making things up.

You are still blaming ALL EGYPTOLOGISTS ABOUT THE RAMPS, even when many don’t even mention “ramp”...the same silly strawman.

You have even blame me about ancient Egyptians using “ramps” to built the pyramids, when I have make no mentions of ramp. You like making up false accusations, just because I disagree with your claims. You just keep bringing up this stupid ramp, whenever anyone disagree with you.

 

[cladking]

Still using all the generalizations, conspiracy theories, strawman argument, etc. You are still making things up.

You might believe the millions of dead from the dirty hands of surgeons is a "generalization" or a "conspiracy" or a "strawman", or even that I made it up but the fact is that it is a fact and none of your beliefs.

All Egyptologists believe in ramps and tombs, and ignorant superstitious people. It doesn't matter if you believe it's a "conspiracy" or not. I don't. I believe they are misled. I believe surgeons were and are misled and that you hold what scientific knowledge you have as a belief.

 

[cladking]

Still using all the generalizations, conspiracy theories, strawman argument, etc. You are still making things up.

And tomorrow you'll still go out and sneeze into your handkerchief and walk through the clouds generated by those who do. Rather than squint and exhale you'll not even know you chose to get sick.