It's okay to believe in things like God. We take things on faith when we get to the limits of logic and reason. Even in the 21st century there are many mysteries beyond human knowledge. Faith helps many of us deal with the uncertainties of life.
The thing about science is that it's not about belief. It's a method of figuring out what is true and factual. It's the best reasoning at the time with the available facts.
People get upset when science changes its opinion about something. That's actually a strength of science. As new knowledge becomes available a better understanding of reality is arrived at.
Theoretically, you don't have to take a scientist's word on anything. You could study the subject yourself until you had a good working knowledge of the particular field of interest. Then you could look at the available data. Maybe you'd even run experiments of your own to confirm others' observations.
Yes, it's possible, but not really practical for most of us. We should have all received a good grounding in the scientific method in school. When the US was afraid that the Russians were going to get to the moon before us, science was pushed in the school systems. I had the good fortune to be in school when money was available for the teaching of science. Of course, the quality of science teaching varied greatly by district.
If you have a decent understanding of how science works you can at least make an informed judgment about the quality of a person's scientific work. It also helps if a vast majority of trained scientists reach the same conclusions. The guy who 97% of the scientists thinks is wrong might actually be right, but that's not the way to bet.
Problems arise when science become politicized. German science was set back in WWII when “Jewish science” was rejected. Big mistake. We got the atomic bomb and they did not. Soviet scientists had to labor under the watchful of the state. Approved science got support. Politically unpopular scientists found themselves chopping wood in Siberia.
Western nations are not immune to political influence over science either. The Canadian Government destroyed years of climate observation. It's one thing to disagree with the conclusions from the raw data. It's something else entirely to throw out the data just because you don't like what it implies.
There's some fear that the Trump administration might also throw out unpopular data. With that in mind there's currently a mad rush to back up governmental data on non-governmental computers. It would be a shame to lose data paid for with US taxpayer money. Actually, it's probably a good idea to have this stuff backed up anyway. No sense having all our eggs in one basket.
In conclusion, I don't believe in science, but I have respect for the scientific method. That steady increase in knowledge is the reason why we don't conduct human sacrifices on top of pyramids so the sun will keep rising every morning.
It has been scientifically proven!!! Politicians should be sacrificed on a pyramid so the sun will keep rising.ReplyDelete
Well, we should try it and take careful notes.Delete
human science warps and bends realityReplyDelete
. . . if you do it right.Delete
Very well said. It's almost alarming how many folks think science is the definitive word on everything - if science doesn't "prove" it, they don't believe it. In that sense it is almost like a religion.ReplyDelete
One problem I think scientific researchers have is with funding. It's expensive to research properly. I have an acquaintance who is an assistant botany professor at a large university. Their university gets huge grants from Monsanto for research. She said the funds are so generous that it enables the research staff to pay for their personal projects as well as what Monsanto wants. Of research on GMOs she told me, "we don't bite the hand that feeds us."
Always good to look to see where the money comes from, in anything.Delete
The best science is when the unexpected is discovered.
LIEGH that is a good truth, hey for the right money could tie in SIXBEARS stove to GLOBAL WARMING .ReplyDelete
do miss sacrificing redheads on top of buicks..... MODERN TIMES!
Hey . . . the stove's carbon neutral -I can use buzz words too!Delete
My problem is the self serving so called "scientist" who for the sake of continued tax payer funding and job security will fib the data. Such as deliberately locating weather monitoring equipment on a hot airport tarmac, or deleting contradictory data in order to obtain the desired results that will support their "accepted consensus". Some already proven to have made up the "data" out of whole cloth. Consensus is not science, it is fraud. If one were to believe all the popular "consensus" by now the maple tree in my front yard should be dropping coconuts on my head.ReplyDelete
Bad science is bad science, no matter who pays for it. I have to wonder, however, if all of them have been bought out?Delete
I hate it when I have to gather my own data and do all the hard work myself. At least I know how it's supposed to be done. :)
Human nature wants everything to be the way they want it and think it should be. That is why they slant the data to suit their beliefs.ReplyDelete
There are days when I marvel that we've made any progress at all.Delete