Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why would you assume that they are? The very process of science requires an open-minded investigation based not on hearsay or traditional beliefs or speculation, but on close observation of natural phenomena. Many of the great discoveries of science contradicted the established beliefs of the time, and in some cases were pursued in the face of bitter opposition from powerful authority figures. Of course that doesn't mean that there aren't scientists who have their own cherished beliefs that they irrationally cling to, but I don't see any reason to believe that scientists as a group are "close-minded." They couldn't do what they do if that were true.
Alan
Herd mentality seems to be a consistent theme throughout history, which continues to this day. Its not unique to scientists (as Doazen pointed out). Scientists (in general) are just not an exception to the rule, as people tend to think they are.
It takes open-mindedness to do science, just as it takes open-mindedness to do detective work..... but you can be close minded about some things, open minded about others. A detective can be open-minded about what kind of person the killer was, but close minded to the possibility of it being Elvis Costello, since Costello is his best friend, and a well known musician. Likewise, scientists may be open minded about many things, but close minded to the possibility of anything that sounds like science fiction......well, because science fiction is fictional.....so it can't have anything to do with real life. :scratch:
Scientists are close-minded to the possibility of reality being weird. I really don't know why. The possibility of Angels and other paranormal things makes life more interesting.
I personally find your criticism of science to be valid up to a point, but then it becomes rather over-reaching and over-generalised.
What over-reaching and over-generalized "criticism of science" are you referring to?
Well, for example, your statement that all scientists can be "bought" by their funding sources. It may not be what you meant (you may have meant it on a more 'meta' level, in terms of the 'filtering' process your speak of), but in common parlance, saying someone can be "bought" is to imply that they would act dishonestly for the sake of their employer. Now, although I am quite sure this can and does happen, I am equally sure that, the majority of the time, it does not. People on this very thread have attested to the same, and I personally know several working research scientists for who the very idea of such things would make them lose their normally cool calm composure.
I'm very interested to know your thoughts on my previous question, which I'll repeat: Have you considered that selfish motivation (ie, profit) can nevertheless lead to the production of goods that are highly beneficial to society? Because it seems you assume that big business and/or the military cannot produce things which actually help society - yet they frequently do. In the case of business, profit drives innovation. In the case of the military, massive budgets drive developement of leading-edge technology. I'm not defending the military - I am a pacifist and if it was up to me their budget would be slashed - but I don't assume that they don't do good science. They do, because it is in their interest to.
Ric gave his opinion that there was no basis whatsoever on which to propose that the science of today might look foolish in 100 years. My contention is that there is indeed a basis on which to propose that the science of today might well look foolish in 100 years, as a lot of data that might disrupt our current orthodoxy in science is filtered out (before it is ever recorded) by our biases and military/industrial/social/corporate business interests and investments of the day.
I don't get your logic here. It seems like you expect the current orthodoxy to disappear within 100 years, to be replaced by a new system where the truth is revealed and thus, the science of 100 years ago looks foolish. Is that what you are saying? I'm more inclined to think that things will stay roughly the same, and that, just as we deeply repect Newton & Einstein today, we will still respect the work of today's leading scientists in 100 years.
PS - UFOs? - sorry, I'm not going there Start another thread on that if you want.
@Aura, But my point was more to the overall scientific understanding we have of things like atoms, magnetism, molecules...and so on. Those are not going to suddenly become foolish.
Except of course to the extent that future generations curse us for the long-lived synthetic toxic wastes our laboratories have unleashed throughout their bodies and food chain, as we egotistically reassured ourselves that our understanding of the universe those actions were based on could never look foolish to future generations. Do you think we will be able to plead ignorance?
Its not the fault of science aura. We know full well the science and toxicity. We know that oil is not unlimited. We know about biological systems. We know that there can be drilling spills and poison of fish.
Its the fault of politics not science. And politics starts with you. Do you have any plastic in your house? You are enmeshed in this whole thing aura you are not separate. It is called samsara.
Laboratories by the way make 1/1000etc of pollution of the factories.
Well, for example, your statement that all scientists can be "bought" by their funding sources.
I made no such statement at any time.
I'm very interested to know your thoughts on my previous question, which I'll repeat: Have you considered that selfish motivation (ie, profit) can nevertheless lead to the production of goods that are highly beneficial to society?
I think it is irrelevant to the original post questioning if the sum total of our current scientific knowledge and methods is likely to be capable of providing answers for everything.
It is a strange compartmentalization of thought indeed that would regard the development of science as somehow separate from and untainted by the development of humanity, its politics, and economics, and scientific research as responsible solely for the benefits and none of the liabilities it has produced.
Its not totally separate. But its the difference between farming and going to war to defend the farms. That is not separate, but the farm may provide positive karma to feed your family. While the war is based on aggression and confusion and greed.
A scientist could be studying to make a polymer that can be processed more environmentally friendly. Or they can be making a polymer to put on warplanes to shield them from jamming signals.
This happened in my labroratory in college and the two scientists could be friends going to the bar together after work. They are using the same library to do research, the same instruments, the same textbooks.
They decided their research project. Personally I decided to work on the warplanes (it could have been used for many other things I was just getting part of my funding)...
And the reason I choose it was because I liked my research advisor and I was familiar with the type of chemistry because I had studied that in undergraduate (copier machine materials)..
I contributed to war. But I don't think I had as much control as expresident Bush. Would you agree with that sentence? Bush is a politician and I am a scientist.
My statement: "Scientists who cannot be conveniently bought by the sources funding their research grants are as mythical as unicorns." is not at all the logical equivalent of: "all scientists can be bought by their funding sources"
Unicorns are mythological creatures which may indeed exist somewhere in the universe, but of which we have no credible physical evidence to date. A scientist, a human being, who cannot possibly be bought (sold, pigeonholed, controlled, restricted, silenced, blacklisted, defamed, discredited, influenced, pressured, blackmailed, edited, bamboozled, mercilessly exploited with his/her life's work destroyed etc. etc. etc.) by the funding sources on which his income and career are dependent is likewise a mythological creature of which we have no credible physical evidence to date.
aura you have to realize that others don't share your view on unicorns. I had taken your discussion of unicorns not to be a literal statement! I had understood it as a flowery way to say 'unbought' scientists are as rare as virgins in a whorehouse.
I contributed to war. But I don't think I had as much control as expresident Bush. Would you agree with that sentence? Bush is a politician and I am a scientist.
Bush is a human being. You are a human being. Bush made his choices in life and bears the karma of those choices. You made your choices in life and bear the karma of those choices. What's the difference?
Bush is a human being. You are a human being. Bush made his choices in life and bears the karma of those choices. You made your choices in life and bear the karma of those choices. What's the difference?
aura you have to realize that others don't share your view on unicorns. I had taken your discussion of unicorns not to be a literal statement! I had understood it as a flowery way to say 'unbought' scientists are as rare as virgins in a whorehouse.
I think you need to review the rules on syllogisms. I also think that Frank Oppenheimer was the closest thing I've ever personally met... to a unicorn.
We all experience our own karma. I don't think that you responded to the thrust of my argument. Regarding science. And politics. And the technology used to build your computer. And the society. And you.
If karma brings liberation then you and I are screwed. But karma does not bring liberation. That is why we can love and forgive. And tolerate even though we are not indifferent. And not be huffy and angry.
When one has done a negative thing one first acknowledges it. IF blaming oneself one would have two negativities instead of one.
And so you let the feeling runs its course. If it concerns another person AFTER the feeling has run its course THEN you can change.
So scientists need to be loved. We need to be at peace. Recognition. No blame. Change. You cannot force anyone to be moral, that is wrong. You are living in samsara and the thing to do is to point out what is happening without blaming.
I am kind of hypocritical in saying this, but thats what I have been taught. So I remember my own difficulties and all the negative things that are arising. And also my impermanence. So even if I am correct or incorrect I will eventually be gone.
My statement: "Scientists who cannot be conveniently bought by the sources funding their research grants are as mythical as unicorns." is not at all the logical equivalent of: "all scientists can be bought by their funding sources"
Unicorns are mythological creatures which may indeed exist somewhere in the universe, but of which we have no credible physical evidence to date. A scientist, a human being, who cannot possibly be bought (sold, pigeonholed, controlled, restricted, silenced, blacklisted, defamed, discredited, influenced, pressured, blackmailed, edited, bamboozled, mercilessly exploited with his/her life's work destroyed etc. etc. etc.) by the funding sources on which his income and career are dependent is likewise a mythological creature of which we have no credible physical evidence to date.
I think aura is way off on this. It is like saying Buddhism is bad because some people misuse it to abuse and control people.
Blame the human condition. Nuclear theory is good, meaning that we know more and more about the world about us. Now if its used to kill people, it doesnt mean the theory is evil.
Thats the point I was trying to make with the two scientists. They both use the same texts and the same theory. They go to the bar after work. One is not good and the other evil.
You said "conveniently bought" (ie easily) - which is VERY different to "possibly bought".
The fact is, you made a ridiculous claim. Subsequent to this statement, you expanded your definition of "bought" well beyond the normal meaning in an attempt to make it retro-fit your claim. I'm not buying it.
It's a pity if you never met Frank. He was a brilliant man. Mercilessly overworked and exploited, abused, harassed, blacklisted, his physics career in ruins and his source of livelihood destroyed, he worked tirelessly and gave everything he had to the cause of trying to further the science education of children and the citizenry such that they would be capable of carefully scrutinizing and critiquing and not be bamboozled by the powers that be in the name of science. It meant everything to him. I think the OP might be inspired by his living legacy, The Exploratorium: http://www.exploratorium.edu/
You said "conveniently bought" (ie easily) - which is VERY different to "possibly bought".
It would seem that you have not recently observed the new international corporate-sponsored indentured servitude practices in science at the university level.
I think the problems with "science" we have today actually come from a relationship between the observer and the audience.
Science in its most general term as i understand it is simply an idea that we can understand the universe, and we can only hope to do so when we are continually open to new ideas (that is, every idea in science will forever be subject to the criticism of others).
So in that way, a scientist is not a person in a lab coat doing magic tricks that nobody can understand, and can come up with any results he would like to come up with.
On the contrary, he is simply a person who was trained to observe and think about something in a way as to avoid taking things as true, when other people clearly saw they were wrong for a certain reason. Thus, he has the freedom to come up with his own conclusions about what he sees, aided by people who have gone before him who have warned him of common ways the object of observation might guide an observer into believing his idea was correct, but was in fact not.
Let me give an example. We have an untrained observer. We could call him a scientist, as he is a person who tries to understand the universe, and comes up with a good idea, lets say, about lightening: "There is a powerful man on the clouds and when he gets angry, a bolt of lightening appears". But as the time goes on, his idea is subject to criticism, and so another person observes: "I have flown over the clouds, there was no such man - therefore such a man is not a cause for lightening". And, you could call him a scientist, when he thinks of this: "Maybe there are little particles that move from the sky that rub off the clouds and shoot towards the Earth and make up lightening".
Both explain what is happening, but the second observer added an additional observation to the idea, that is, that he has not seen a man on the clouds. If a third person were now to come and found lightening interesting, he might have heard what the two before have said, and he would be called a "professional", or a scientist.
---
Now what i think what happens in our society is really: the scientist makes an observation, but builds on what people have observed before him. The thing that makes it so hard for people to understand is that when this person makes an assumption, it will be based on years of studying of the work of the people before him.
Which does not mean that he is perfect or knows everything, he is simply a person who observed something in nature and came up with a thought about it. Will it be perfect? Probably not. But neither will it be completely wrong, the only thing that will be "wrong" with it is the fact that this observer simply did not have access to evidence that followed him.
Additionally, we can now have only a small amount of people in a field that actually understand enough to argue against each other whether something is correct or not, because the knowledge has become so complex and may require lifetimes to properly understand. So every person cannot even join the discussion.
Because of that, we have people who will sum up what it is all about. They may make assumptions and mistakes. Than piling on top of that, people may sum up what others have summed up. And than sum up all of this. They may make mistakes in any of the steps, and it is really not even given that in the beginning, the evidence was something it was meant to be or mean.
In the end of the chain, we have the media and journalist, who sum up, what others summed up, what was first collected by someone as a collection of collections, and simplified by people who are not trained to know if such evidence even CAN be simplified (or could in this case change its meaning). And in the end in a way of a copy of a copy it is posted into works meant for the more and more general public (that is, for people less specialized in that area of knowledge).
And here, we have: - politics - common opinion - policies - sales
From which it may further be abused and turned into gossip.
If that was something edible, how do you think the final product would taste if it was chewed so many times before?
Fishy to most, i'd say :rolleyes:
So really, to ask whether science "knows" everything is to ask whether we will ever count to " n + 1 ". There will always be things not covered by science.
If the world history was different, the scale might fall to the later so scientists would make a good effort to study this phenomenon without being ridiculed by the general scientific community.
Absolutely. Historically, the study of young children spontaneously recounting past life issues has been thoroughly ridiculed by the general scientific community in the West, in spite of the fact that the phenomenon is readily observable if one ever bothers to observe and listen to young children and one has a sufficiently trusting relationship with them such that they feel free to talk. I've met members of the scientific community who have observed the phenomenon in their own children, but it is simply not worth the destruction of their credibility and careers to run the gamut of ridicule by the academic orthodoxy by making public comment on it. Stevenson was an extremely courageous guy.
"The first requirement of a scientist is that he be curious. He should be capable of being astonished and eager to find out." -Erwin Schrodinger
Are 'scientists' confined to those in university? Can we consider practitioners of Traditional Chinese medicine, ayurveda, yoga etc scientists?
As a person with two degrees in the natural sciences, I will answer by saying -- no, "scientists" are not only those who work in the university.
And while I believe that some things that those who practice traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, and yoge (etc.) work, I also would not consider them to be scientists for two reasons:
First, their approach is sort of hit or miss and sometimes dependent upon folk remedies. Consider the following from Google: "There are roughly 13,000 medicinals used in China and over 100,000 medicinal recipes recorded in the ancient literature...Some animal parts used as medicinals can be considered rather strange such as cows' gallstones. Some can include the parts of endangered species, including tiger penis and rhinoceros horn. The black market in rhinoceros horn decimated the world's rhino population by more than 90 percent over the past 40 years. Concerns have also arisen over the use of turtle plastron and seahorses. In general, Chinese traditional medicine emphasizes the penis of animals as therapeutic. Snake oil, which is used traditionally for joint pain as a liniment, is the most widely known Chinese medicine in the west, due to extensive marketing in the west in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and wild claims of its efficacy to treat many maladies; however, there is no clinical evidence that it is effective."
NOTE THAT LAST PHRASE.
"Traditional Chinese Medicine also includes some human parts: the classic Materia medica (Bencao Gangmu) describes the use of 35 human body parts and excreta in medicines, including bones, fingernail, hairs, dandruff, earwax, impurities on the teeth, feces, urine, sweat, organs, but most are no longer in use."
Second, "Regarding Traditional Chinese herbal therapy, only few trials of adequate methodology exist and its effectiveness therefore remains poorly documented."
Science without adequate methodology is not science. If you understand the scientific method, you understand what I mean.
I'm not saying some of these things don't work, but I'm saying they're OFTEN not scientific...and OFTEN without any serious attempt at proper diagnosis.
While living in southeast Asia, I've been offered snake's blood and the fluid from the various organs within a snake -- without even being asked about any maladies. Would you call that science?
While living in southeast Asia, I've been offered snake's blood and the fluid from the various organs within a snake -- without even being asked about any maladies. Would you call that science?
Pharmaceutical marketing/drug pushing is big business all over the world and has been known to use an extremely selective process of scientific inquiry to give it a shiny veneer of scientific legitimacy.... "Could $$$$pharma be right for you? Ask your doctor!" Does your doctor receive a percentage for each new prescription written for $$$$pharma? To what extent was his medical training/knowledge on the useage of and alternative treatments to $$$$pharma directly sponsored/financed by $$$$pharma? Better ask your doctor! But your doctor is not required by law to tell you.
At least you were offered the choice to refuse the snake's blood. The soldiers whose children developed GoldenHar Syndrome were not so lucky. The children whose mothers were given diethylstilbestrol for morning sickness who have faced a lifetime of confusion, prejudice, and ridicule over their transgender status were not so lucky.
"At least you were offered the choice to refuse the snake's blood."
Don't be foolish. People have choice not to use medicine in the west. Aside from children's parents can be prosecuted for not giving them medical care in life threatening cases. Rare. And aside from forced hospitalizations such as 1050s and Baker Acts.
Pharmaceutical marketing/drug pushing is big business all over the world and has been known to use an extremely selective process of scientific inquiry to give it a shiny veneer of scientific legitimacy.... "Could $$$$pharma be right for you? Ask your doctor!" Does your doctor receive a percentage for each new prescription written for $$$$pharma? To what extent was his medical training/knowledge on the useage of and alternative treatments to $$$$pharma directly sponsored/financed by $$$$pharma? Better ask your doctor! But your doctor is not required by law to tell you.
At least you were offered the choice to refuse the snake's blood. The soldiers whose children developed GoldenHar Syndrome were not so lucky. The children whose mothers were given diethylstilbestrol for morning sickness who have faced a lifetime of confusion, prejudice, and ridicule over their transgender status were not so lucky.
Modern medicine is not infallible. I think we all know that. But if I am given a choice between controlling my blood pressure by tiger penis or prinivil. I'll cloose the prescription medicine. And you also don't know but what some of the alternative "medicines" are doing you harm, either.
There is always a balance. Do you want science to test and test and test medicines for years or decades (which is how long it sometimes takes to find problems), or do you want to get critical medicines to people sooner?
To be honest, I just went back and read all your posts in this thread. Let's face it, Aura, you're basically anti-science. But, in reality, like everyone else, you use science everyday to your advantage (like the computer you're working on and the internet, the homogenized milk you drink, and the car you drive), and there will likely come a time when you run to science to save your life.
Let's face it, Aura, you're basically anti-science.
I have devoted my entire life to creating what Frank Oppenheimer wanted to see.... the development of a public citizenry with sufficient education and critical thinking skills to be fully capable of exercising its right to make truly informed decisions, and which does so... clearly cognizant of the difference between what constitutes marketing and what constitutes sound, unbiased, and legitimate science.
I would like to see that research making any claim of scientific legitimacy whatsoever be required by law to make full and public disclosure of its funding sources. Lack of financial conflict of interest is the most basic prerequisite to the establishment of scientific legitimacy.
I would also like to see scientists demonstrate logical syllogistic argument commensurate with their purported education.
aura with medicine you don't have to know anything about any of that. at least psychiatric medicines. if the medicine doesn't help you know. i guess your saying that you need to trust your own judgement and advocate for yourself. but for that you don't need schooling, just learn from friends.
I have devoted my entire life to creating what Frank Oppenheimer wanted to see.... the development of a public citizenry with sufficient education and critical thinking skills to be fully capable of exercising its right to make truly informed decisions, and which does so... clearly cognizant of the difference between what constitutes marketing and what constitutes sound, unbiased, and legitimate science.
I have devoted my entire life to creating what Frank Oppenheimer wanted to see
How have you done that?
The same way he did; by giving up everything else to work in the field of education. The next generations are the future. They are all that matters.
Good for you. My career was in education, as well, 13 years as a science teacher, 20 years as a school administrator.
But I didn't "give up everything else" any more than anyone does. I had job/career, I was dedicated to it, I enjoyed it, I received some mild acclaim. Not sure what you think it takes to "give up everything else".
Comments
It takes open-mindedness to do science, just as it takes open-mindedness to do detective work..... but you can be close minded about some things, open minded about others. A detective can be open-minded about what kind of person the killer was, but close minded to the possibility of it being Elvis Costello, since Costello is his best friend, and a well known musician.
Likewise, scientists may be open minded about many things, but close minded to the possibility of anything that sounds like science fiction......well, because science fiction is fictional.....so it can't have anything to do with real life. :scratch:
Scientists are close-minded to the possibility of reality being weird. I really don't know why. The possibility of Angels and other paranormal things makes life more interesting.
I'm very interested to know your thoughts on my previous question, which I'll repeat: Have you considered that selfish motivation (ie, profit) can nevertheless lead to the production of goods that are highly beneficial to society? Because it seems you assume that big business and/or the military cannot produce things which actually help society - yet they frequently do. In the case of business, profit drives innovation. In the case of the military, massive budgets drive developement of leading-edge technology. I'm not defending the military - I am a pacifist and if it was up to me their budget would be slashed - but I don't assume that they don't do good science. They do, because it is in their interest to. I don't get your logic here. It seems like you expect the current orthodoxy to disappear within 100 years, to be replaced by a new system where the truth is revealed and thus, the science of 100 years ago looks foolish. Is that what you are saying? I'm more inclined to think that things will stay roughly the same, and that, just as we deeply repect Newton & Einstein today, we will still respect the work of today's leading scientists in 100 years.
PS - UFOs? - sorry, I'm not going there
Namaste
Do you think we will be able to plead ignorance?
Its the fault of politics not science. And politics starts with you. Do you have any plastic in your house? You are enmeshed in this whole thing aura you are not separate. It is called samsara.
Laboratories by the way make 1/1000etc of pollution of the factories.
and scientific research as responsible solely for the benefits and none of the liabilities it has produced.
A scientist could be studying to make a polymer that can be processed more environmentally friendly. Or they can be making a polymer to put on warplanes to shield them from jamming signals.
This happened in my labroratory in college and the two scientists could be friends going to the bar together after work. They are using the same library to do research, the same instruments, the same textbooks.
They decided their research project. Personally I decided to work on the warplanes (it could have been used for many other things I was just getting part of my funding)...
And the reason I choose it was because I liked my research advisor and I was familiar with the type of chemistry because I had studied that in undergraduate (copier machine materials)..
I contributed to war. But I don't think I had as much control as expresident Bush. Would you agree with that sentence? Bush is a politician and I am a scientist.
is not at all the logical equivalent of:
"all scientists can be bought by their funding sources"
Unicorns are mythological creatures which may indeed exist somewhere in the universe, but of which we have no credible physical evidence to date.
A scientist, a human being, who cannot possibly be bought (sold, pigeonholed, controlled, restricted, silenced, blacklisted, defamed, discredited, influenced, pressured, blackmailed, edited, bamboozled, mercilessly exploited with his/her life's work destroyed etc. etc. etc.) by the funding sources on which his income and career are dependent is likewise a mythological creature of which we have no credible physical evidence to date.
Bush made his choices in life and bears the karma of those choices.
You made your choices in life and bear the karma of those choices.
What's the difference?
I also think that Frank Oppenheimer was the closest thing I've ever personally met... to a unicorn.
He invented the atomic bomb right? With einstein? Why do you think he is a unicorn?
Science is the job where you work all day and nothing gets done.
If karma brings liberation then you and I are screwed. But karma does not bring liberation. That is why we can love and forgive. And tolerate even though we are not indifferent. And not be huffy and angry.
And so you let the feeling runs its course. If it concerns another person AFTER the feeling has run its course THEN you can change.
So scientists need to be loved. We need to be at peace. Recognition. No blame. Change. You cannot force anyone to be moral, that is wrong. You are living in samsara and the thing to do is to point out what is happening without blaming.
I am kind of hypocritical in saying this, but thats what I have been taught. So I remember my own difficulties and all the negative things that are arising. And also my impermanence. So even if I am correct or incorrect I will eventually be gone.
Blame the human condition. Nuclear theory is good, meaning that we know more and more about the world about us. Now if its used to kill people, it doesnt mean the theory is evil.
You said "conveniently bought" (ie easily) - which is VERY different to "possibly bought".
The fact is, you made a ridiculous claim. Subsequent to this statement, you expanded your definition of "bought" well beyond the normal meaning in an attempt to make it retro-fit your claim. I'm not buying it.
He was a brilliant man. Mercilessly overworked and exploited, abused, harassed, blacklisted, his physics career in ruins and his source of livelihood destroyed, he worked tirelessly and gave everything he had to the cause of trying to further the science education of children and the citizenry such that they would be capable of carefully scrutinizing and critiquing and not be bamboozled by the powers that be in the name of science. It meant everything to him.
I think the OP might be inspired by his living legacy, The Exploratorium:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/
Science in its most general term as i understand it is simply an idea that we can understand the universe, and we can only hope to do so when we are continually open to new ideas (that is, every idea in science will forever be subject to the criticism of others).
So in that way, a scientist is not a person in a lab coat doing magic tricks that nobody can understand, and can come up with any results he would like to come up with.
On the contrary, he is simply a person who was trained to observe and think about something in a way as to avoid taking things as true, when other people clearly saw they were wrong for a certain reason. Thus, he has the freedom to come up with his own conclusions about what he sees, aided by people who have gone before him who have warned him of common ways the object of observation might guide an observer into believing his idea was correct, but was in fact not.
Let me give an example. We have an untrained observer. We could call him a scientist, as he is a person who tries to understand the universe, and comes up with a good idea, lets say, about lightening: "There is a powerful man on the clouds and when he gets angry, a bolt of lightening appears". But as the time goes on, his idea is subject to criticism, and so another person observes: "I have flown over the clouds, there was no such man - therefore such a man is not a cause for lightening". And, you could call him a scientist, when he thinks of this: "Maybe there are little particles that move from the sky that rub off the clouds and shoot towards the Earth and make up lightening".
Both explain what is happening, but the second observer added an additional observation to the idea, that is, that he has not seen a man on the clouds. If a third person were now to come and found lightening interesting, he might have heard what the two before have said, and he would be called a "professional", or a scientist.
---
Now what i think what happens in our society is really: the scientist makes an observation, but builds on what people have observed before him. The thing that makes it so hard for people to understand is that when this person makes an assumption, it will be based on years of studying of the work of the people before him.
Which does not mean that he is perfect or knows everything, he is simply a person who observed something in nature and came up with a thought about it. Will it be perfect? Probably not. But neither will it be completely wrong, the only thing that will be "wrong" with it is the fact that this observer simply did not have access to evidence that followed him.
Additionally, we can now have only a small amount of people in a field that actually understand enough to argue against each other whether something is correct or not, because the knowledge has become so complex and may require lifetimes to properly understand. So every person cannot even join the discussion.
Because of that, we have people who will sum up what it is all about. They may make assumptions and mistakes. Than piling on top of that, people may sum up what others have summed up. And than sum up all of this. They may make mistakes in any of the steps, and it is really not even given that in the beginning, the evidence was something it was meant to be or mean.
In the end of the chain, we have the media and journalist, who sum up, what others summed up, what was first collected by someone as a collection of collections, and simplified by people who are not trained to know if such evidence even CAN be simplified (or could in this case change its meaning). And in the end in a way of a copy of a copy it is posted into works meant for the more and more general public (that is, for people less specialized in that area of knowledge).
And here, we have:
- politics
- common opinion
- policies
- sales
From which it may further be abused and turned into gossip.
If that was something edible, how do you think the final product would taste if it was chewed so many times before?
Fishy to most, i'd say
:rolleyes:
So really, to ask whether science "knows" everything is to ask whether we will ever count to " n + 1 ". There will always be things not covered by science.
Historically, the study of young children spontaneously recounting past life issues has been thoroughly ridiculed by the general scientific community in the West, in spite of the fact that the phenomenon is readily observable if one ever bothers to observe and listen to young children and one has a sufficiently trusting relationship with them such that they feel free to talk.
I've met members of the scientific community who have observed the phenomenon in their own children, but it is simply not worth the destruction of their credibility and careers to run the gamut of ridicule by the academic orthodoxy by making public comment on it.
Stevenson was an extremely courageous guy.
"The first requirement of a scientist is that he be curious. He should be capable of being astonished and eager to find out."
-Erwin Schrodinger
practitioners of Traditional Chinese medicine, ayurveda, yoga etc
scientists?
And while I believe that some things that those who practice traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, and yoge (etc.) work, I also would not consider them to be scientists for two reasons:
First, their approach is sort of hit or miss and sometimes dependent upon folk remedies. Consider the following from Google: "There are roughly 13,000 medicinals used in China and over 100,000 medicinal recipes recorded in the ancient literature...Some animal parts used as medicinals can be considered rather strange such as cows' gallstones. Some can include the parts of endangered species, including tiger penis and rhinoceros horn. The black market in rhinoceros horn decimated the world's rhino population by more than 90 percent over the past 40 years. Concerns have also arisen over the use of turtle plastron and seahorses. In general, Chinese traditional medicine emphasizes the penis of animals as therapeutic. Snake oil, which is used traditionally for joint pain as a liniment, is the most widely known Chinese medicine in the west, due to extensive marketing in the west in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and wild claims of its efficacy to treat many maladies; however, there is no clinical evidence that it is effective."
NOTE THAT LAST PHRASE.
"Traditional Chinese Medicine also includes some human parts: the classic Materia medica (Bencao Gangmu) describes the use of 35 human body parts and excreta in medicines, including bones, fingernail, hairs, dandruff, earwax, impurities on the teeth, feces, urine, sweat, organs, but most are no longer in use."
Second, "Regarding Traditional Chinese herbal therapy, only few trials of adequate methodology exist and its effectiveness therefore remains poorly documented."
Science without adequate methodology is not science. If you understand the scientific method, you understand what I mean.
I'm not saying some of these things don't work, but I'm saying they're OFTEN not scientific...and OFTEN without any serious attempt at proper diagnosis.
While living in southeast Asia, I've been offered snake's blood and the fluid from the various organs within a snake -- without even being asked about any maladies. Would you call that science?
by anyone or any culture.
"Could $$$$pharma be right for you? Ask your doctor!"
Does your doctor receive a percentage for each new prescription written for $$$$pharma? To what extent was his medical training/knowledge on the useage of and alternative treatments to $$$$pharma directly sponsored/financed by $$$$pharma? Better ask your doctor! But your doctor is not required by law to tell you.
At least you were offered the choice to refuse the snake's blood.
The soldiers whose children developed GoldenHar Syndrome were not so lucky.
The children whose mothers were given diethylstilbestrol for morning sickness who have faced a lifetime of confusion, prejudice, and ridicule over their transgender status were not so lucky.
Don't be foolish. People have choice not to use medicine in the west. Aside from children's parents can be prosecuted for not giving them medical care in life threatening cases. Rare. And aside from forced hospitalizations such as 1050s and Baker Acts.
There is always a balance. Do you want science to test and test and test medicines for years or decades (which is how long it sometimes takes to find problems), or do you want to get critical medicines to people sooner?
To be honest, I just went back and read all your posts in this thread. Let's face it, Aura, you're basically anti-science. But, in reality, like everyone else, you use science everyday to your advantage (like the computer you're working on and the internet, the homogenized milk you drink, and the car you drive), and there will likely come a time when you run to science to save your life.
I would like to see that research making any claim of scientific legitimacy whatsoever be required by law to make full and public disclosure of its funding sources. Lack of financial conflict of interest is the most basic prerequisite to the establishment of scientific legitimacy.
I would also like to see scientists demonstrate logical syllogistic argument commensurate with their purported education.
But I didn't "give up everything else" any more than anyone does. I had job/career, I was dedicated to it, I enjoyed it, I received some mild acclaim. Not sure what you think it takes to "give up everything else".