Attack (or defend) the science

[Soulforged]

Later a lot of threads attacking religion in all forms have poped up, so i thought that it will be a nice topic to talk about what it's the value of science, not compared to religion, but in abstract. If you want to attack science in anyway, then offer arguments, your opinions, sources ç, phylosophy, all that you want. But let's make this clear this is not an attack on religion, but it can be an attack on science, that's not so easy to defend as someone may think. My questions are: what makes science so certain? What makes you believe that it's founded on realility and it's not biased? What do you think about inductivism or deductivism? Well let's see it..

PS: I'll really like to see the opinions of the conservatives and the fanatics here, sure they can offer some refutation to the all knowing caracter of the science.

[Papewaio]

There is Physics and the the rest is stamp collecting.

[Adrian II]

I am looking for a 15-series of 1861 Victorian Uniform Penny Posts (blue), can anyone help me?

[Strike For The South]

Im not going to attack anyone over there personal beliefs just because they don't agree/badmouth mine. Im happy with what I belive and don't need other peoples approval


P.S Or did I just miss the point of the thread

[Papewaio]

Physics isn't a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money.

BTW The first quote is from Rutherford who got a Noble prize in Chemistry and Lord Kelvin was the first to make a similar statement.

[Bartix]

stamp collectors do "important research" on litterature and people die because of short food and energy and water
stamp collectors

[AntiochusIII]

Erm...what're you saying, Bartix? It's probably a joke but...I don't really get it...

I see no need to defend something that is perfectly capable of defending itself.

[sharrukin]

Science is biased by the preconceptions of the scientists themselves. It does however have a reasonable means of correcting itself over time. This has limits, again due to the preconceptions of scientists. Despite these limitations, it is a powerful tool for discovering the world around us.

"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."---Winston Churchill

[Aenlic]

They'll hand out a Nobel prize for chemistry to just anybody! They gave one to Linus Pauling for his work on the basics of molecular structure, particularly proteins. His work was the basis for the later discoveries of those two guys, Crick and Watson. In fact, some have suggested that Pauling, who was also seeking the clues to the structure of DNA at the same time, might have discovered the double-helix before Crick and Watson had he been able to attend the same London conference in 1952 where Crick and Watson saw x-rays of chromosomes with distinctive interference patterns (taken by the sadly uncredited Rosalind Franklin, wh never got the credit she deserved for inspiring Crick and Watson's work). Why was Pauling unable to attend the conference? He was denied a passport by the U.S. government because since the late 1940's and early 1950's he had become rather vocal about stopping nuclear testing and the arms race and "loyalty oaths" resulting in him becoming a target of McCarthyism. He was considered a risk. It wasn't until after that conference, when he was awarded his first Nobel prize in 1954 that he received an unrestricted passport. His blacklisting in the 1950's came in spite of the great contributions he made during WWII. He invented synthetic blood plasma, he invented various explosives, he served on a presidential commission to recommend future gvernment research programs which directly resulted in the establishment of the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Merit by Truman for his work during the war. But, because he also believed strongly in peace in the era of the horrors of nuclear weapons, he was labelled a traitor. In the latr 1950's he began agitating for an end to all atmospheric nuclear weapns testing, circulating a petition than finally went to the UN with over 9000 signatures f scientists - this during the height of the Cold War. His efforts paid off, in spite of being villified in the press with the 1963 limited test ban treaty. The same day that the treaty went into effect, the Nobel prize committee announced that Pauling would be the recipient of the Nobel peace prize for 1962. He's one of the very few people to receive two unshared Nobel prizes.

Pauling was an eccentric and one of my favorite scientists. Maybe one of the most brilliant men of his time, alongside Einstein. There's a story about him being invited to the Kennedy White House for a dinner in 1962. He spent the day marching around outside the White House with a placard calling for an end to atmospheric nuclear testing, then that night he and his wife had dinner with the president.

[Lazul]

Science is more a part of the world then religion, different faiths may come and go, but science cant just dissapear unless a fundamentalist regim takes over the entire world and push us back to the stoneage.

Science is also wonderfull, just like History, in that it is never 100%, something can only be more or less true. Something that was true yesterday is false tomorrow and so on. Religion doesnt have that luxuary.

Seeing as religion and science is to totaly different, they have nothing in common and should never be mixed in any sence.

Some might claim that science cant explain everything, im convinced that science Can explain everything, it allways just a matter of time.

[The Black Ship]

Something from nothing...science will have a problem explaining that. How did something, the Universe, come from nothing?

Now, science can categorize, describe, explain actions, analyze phyiscal properties...any number of events that fall within the purview of the scientic process. Yet, how did something come from nothing?

[Sjakihata]

Who says that something came from nothing? Maybe our minds cannot fathom that there maybe always have been something.

[Adrian II]

Now, science can categorize, describe, explain actions, analyze phyiscal properties...any number of events that fall within the purview of the scientic process. Yet, how did something come from nothing?

Why don't you join in the effort to find out? I am an ageing stamp collector, but you, The Black Ship, supposing that you are as young and smart as you sound, can try your hand at physics and make it your business to explore and investigate such fundamental questions.

[ichi]

This is the thread that I've been waiting for for over 2 years. A chance to vent my spleen on the demon called science.

Why should I believe some guys just because they've spent years studying something that has the potential to improve my life, when superstition or myth can provide me with all of the answers that I'll ever need.

Or I could just guess at the answers, that works pretty good. Or listen to the voices in my head.

Gah!, attack science, Gah!

ichi

[doc_bean]

There is Physics and the the rest is stamp collecting.

Theoretical physics is hardly science however...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have no grief with science. As a frame of thinking/belief/discipline, methodical science as practiced since the general acceptance of hypothesis testing, experimentation, and quantitiative analysis has yielded a wealth of improvements across the span of human existence. We have learned more about what makes us and our universe "tick" in the last 150 years than was learned in the previous 15,000.

The stunning aspect of this is how many roadblocks get in the way of learning. Politics and money invade all facets of research (e.g. Who is on your dissertation committee ddeciding your fate? Who is the editor of the scholarly journal in your field and will she/he actually publish your findings? Yes, your basic physics research into the nature of existence may push all of mankind's knowledge forward...but the dean is hammering you with memo after memo to pump out more of that good work on laser refraction that keeps getting such wonderful grant money from "the man.") Researchers of all stripes are actively encouraged to bag replicative studies in favor of "ground-breaking" efforts, since the latter get published and the former often don't. This is despite the fact that replication is absolutely vital to confirming the value of any initial "discovery." DESPITE this, science continues to shove us forward in knowledge at an amazing pace.

Seamus

[Papewaio]

Theoretical physics is hardly science however...

I did Applied Physics at a BSc level so I would be biased in agreeing with you.

But I don't.

Physics without Theory is Religion without God(s)... lack of direction.

[Redleg]

I am looking for a 15-series of 1861 Victorian Uniform Penny Posts (blue), can anyone help me?

No but I have some early 20th Century United States postal stamps. And a unfortunately used and overstamped - 1932 Airmail stamp.

[Adrian II]

No but I have some early 20th Century United States postal stamps. And a unfortunately used and overstamped - 1932 Airmail stamp.

We're in business!

[doc_bean]

I did Applied Physics at a BSc level so I would be biased in agreeing with you.

But I don't.

Physics without Theory is Religion without God(s)... lack of direction.

True, but theories without a way of testing them aren't scientific. Maybe someone, someday will find a nice way of testing whether we live in a 5 or 13 dimensional space, but until then, I'll consider theoretical physics (at least string theory and such) as an intellectual excersise, but not as science.

[Papewaio]

If it can be tested and is disprovable then that is one of the conditions of a science. It is not in a limbo state of non-science until it is tested however.

==== EDIT for clarity... well I will try to be more clear ====

Part of science that sets it apart from philosophy IMDHO is that it is tested. However it is still science if it hasn't yet been tested... a car is still a car even if it hasn't been driven, just not particularly useful.

[ICantSpellDawg]

what were the arguements against christianity when it was first born?

I tend to like science, but simply because something is "true" one day and "false" the next, it undermines any solid faith in a path or decision. If something is "true" one day and "false" the next, it was never "True" to start (either that or it was not false). a life without faith (like my life) is a sad and immobile thing. pure science nearly eliminates faith. Faithful scientists are misleading themselves if they "believe" in something as truth, because probability points to it being decidely "wrong" over time, most likely.

i dont know. both religion and science have their drawbacks. i tend to side with science, but nearly any attempt by proponents of science to eliminate or vie with religion is met by me with contempt and scorn. Just as most challanges of science by religion.

IMO, everyone has their heads up their asses and are blindly running to whatever they believe the future is.

i am convinced of nothing

[The Black Ship]

Why don't you join in the effort to find out? I am an ageing stamp collector, but you, The Black Ship, supposing that you are as young and smart as you sound, can try your hand at physics and make it your business to explore and investigate such fundamental questions.

Funny you mention it, I try my hand at physics every day. I work in the Medical Physics department at a Cancer center. When I enter the desired monitor unit into the linear accelerator I expect a certain outcome. If that outcome doesn't occur, I attempt to find out why.

Doesn't explain how something came from nothing though...the accelerator won't run without power, try as I might, but I can explain certain actions, causes, and can investigate. But that doesn't get science off the hook for my original question.

Where did the power come from at the beginning of time? Of course, if you believe it was provided by God, then I'd also have to ask "was there a time before God? And if so, how did he (something) come from nothing"?

[bmolsson]

Religion and science is not in contradiction to each other. Science is a tool, which is used to try to explain phenomena and to use as a basis for development and evolution of our collected knowledge.
The largest problem with modern science is that it is often used for the good of individuals. Scientific work has many times taken the shape religion has and is nothing more than a political tool to push a specific agenda forward. More direction is needed.....

[Papewaio]

Actually more politicians with a science degree is needed rather then the 1% or so who do...

[Redleg]

We're in business!

Well you have to answer the secert stamp collector question before we can do business.

Which came first the stamp or the glue on the back of the stamp?

[ICantSpellDawg]

does anyone know how many politicians are doctors (medical or other scientific fields) and where they reside in the political spectrum?

[Soulforged]

P.S Or did I just miss the point of the thread

Yes you did, but i hoped that some religion fanatic to came hereand say something like this. Todo bien boludo

[Sjakihata]

Which came first the stamp or the glue on the back of the stamp?

Da stamp

[Aenlic]

does anyone know how many politicians are doctors (medical or other scientific fields) and where they reside in the political spectrum?

Well, I looked; because I'm curious as well. Sadly, I can't find any site which had the information in easy to get form. I did find that 3 members of the current U.S. Congress are medical doctors, all three Republicans. I don't have the patience to go through the biographies of each of the other 432 members to determine their educational background. I'd be willing to bet that most of them are lawyers, though.