Meridae'n

It occured to me, watching a similar themed show on TV this morning, that alot of people walk around this country, at least, with absolutely no idea how science works. Many more actually actively doubt some or all aspects of science: some of our favorite topics, for example, including evolution, the greenhouse effect, the missile shield...

I never "doubt" science, especially not for religious reasons, but I think it's important that we don't fully accept it, and instead are slighly skeptical like (most of) the scientists themselves. Some people accept just about every scientific theory as a fact (until it's disproven). They talk about quantum mechanics or evolutionary theories without knowing what the hell they are. They don't realise that this is against the spirit of science.

Nobody likes to say they don't believe we landed on the moon (well, I guess there a few here who do) but plenty of folks hold their religious dogma in ascendency over the scientific paradigm. What about you? Do you doubt science?

__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

Pragma

I'd say that I take the same view of science that I take with religion, or just about everything in life - I like working things out on my own, seeing the physical proof of how and why things work (at least within reason - I don't have access to electron microscopes and quantum particle colliders).

That's perhaps one of the reasons why I excelled at science classes in highschool, as I wanted to see how and why things worked. So yes, I doubt science, until I prove the theory myself. Then I believe it.

__________________
Eat antimatter, Posleen-boy!

WhoaitsZ

I doubt human intelligence.

we are brilliant but we are far from perfect. science is a tool. until we can use it perfectly, then yes, many things will be doubed by me.

but to doubt it entirely, like say 'this idea will never, ever happen' is kind of silly to me. so many impossibilities have become possible. look at the stem cell research they've been doing on broken spinal cords.

any and everything we do has the chance to fuck up.. but to doubt entirely is silly to me.

Slims

Trust but verify. If I read something in scientific american, I will quote it as fact, but I will also make sure that it holds water. I'm the same way with pretty much everything else too.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

fearofmear

I am a scientist (chemist actually) so I don't doubt science. More specifically, I don't doubt hard science such as chemistry, biology, physics. I do doubt some of the other sciences such as psychology or sociology on a few issues. That is primarily because I haven't had the background in social sciences to understand that. I am sure it would swing the other way with a psychologist might question something like string theory which is way out there for someone who doesn't understand the reasons behind it.

Speed_Gibson

This entire universe is God's creation, and the knowledge that we humans have is comparable to a tiny drop of water in the ocean. I keep that in mind whenever I see something touted as "indisputable fact" by the media.

Cynthetiq

I'm a fan of the pseudosciences like sociology and phsychology, for it's scientific methods. One cannot replicate the same findings from place to place with the pseudosciences.

As for science, as I read the methodolgy and how they came about their findings, yes, I'm one to believe the science. Most science magazines and other journals that corroborate their findings I tend to trust almost implicitly.

With the recent scandals at the NYTimes, CNN, and Newsweek, I do know that it's important to at least nod a little skepticsm.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Meridae'n

As opposed to an 'indisputable fact' from the bible, a book written by men.

At least there's examples of tangible evidence to back science up...

__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

fearofmear

There is a real problem in the academic world about research in scholarly journals. Alot of it is sound, legitimate stuff. But I am experiencing some of this first hand doing research for my thesis, some research in legitimate journals is the equivalent of horseshit. Not not to pick on anyone, but reputable Russian journals are notorious for that sort of thing.

pavel_lishin

I don't doubt science, but I doubt scientists. :P Especially, people who are so absolutely sure of themselves that they are unwilling to examine contradictory evidence. Basically, I think most scientists are too full of themselves.

__________________
Vote Quimby!

spectre

I'm very similar. I'm not going to put a lot of faith into something unless I know for a fact that it isn't bullshit. I trust in science, but only when it isn't someone using scientific terms to promote something that probably doesn't exist.

__________________
"Fuck these chains
No goddamn slave
I will be different" ~ Machine Head

schUsseln

whoah! Skating on thin ice here...I'd say things like phrenology, numerology, etc. would be better examples of pseudoscience than sociology or psychology. While they may not be "hard" science, or could even be occasionally considered quasi-scientific, for the most part these two fields use techniques (statistical and logical) that are equal to, if not more fundamentally precise than the hard sciences. Also, most psychological or sociological EXPERIMENTS *can be* and *are* replicated by other labs. Which adds to the statement above that most scientists are skeptical observers, and are quite conservative when it comes to accepting something as the “modern scientific assumption.”

That being said, science pays the rent here, gets me beers and music, and affords me the time and comfort to read this thread. I believe in it wholly, but will be the first to admit to an overriding belief in divinity and a cosmos. At which we’re all slowly, slowly chipping away an understanding.

__________________
A moral point of view too often serves as a substitue for understanding in technological matters.
-Marshal McLuhan

Gortexfogg

I trust science. I love science. But, I hate "new research". Things like "eating more this gives you a less chance of getting that". Some of it is true, maybe all of it... but there is always some other "research" that says something different or contradicting.

I don't think science needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but, like said in Metal Gear Solid 2, it could all be fabricated facts that we believe because they're the only ones the government lets us have...

Phaenx

Yeah, I'm not too big on the "This is right and you're wrong even if it's a theory." dealie.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

taog

I don't think it's really a matter of doubting science. I think it's a matter of doubting the human ability to find and prove the science.

Obviously these sciences exist, but like suggested earlier, we know nothing about a huge ocean of knowledge. Science is so huge and there is so much to know. We know absolutely nothing about it, which is why things change and new findings change the sciences.

Basically this is the way i look at science.

I am huge into astronomy, and i go and read new findings all the time. I haven't really been that big into it lately, since i've been very busy working and stuff, but any astronomer out there knows that a book written 6 months ago with many theories is probably outdated. Theories change all the time in the science of astronomy, because of new findings.

Look at the whole idea that the universe might be expanding at an accelerating rate, rather than a constant rate. If it's not that then the speed of light is slowing down.

This idea changes our theories on space, time and a lot of known forumlas (E = mc^2).

I wouldn't say that i doubt any science, but i do keep an open mind and i know that things might change because of new findings.

As for other sciences that i am not into, but i might 'doubt', i also keep an open mind and know that i know less about that than i do about sciences i 'know' about.

Also, as for the scientists thinking they are right about things. Take this for an example.

You go and prove something amazing and you believe it's one of your best pieces of work, but someone says that it's not correct. They are going to want to show you why, and if they are proven wrong, they still want to try to prove that theirs is right, because they spent so much time on it.

Einstein is a perfect example with his whole 'static' universe beliefs. He basically proved that the universe was expanding with some of his theories in general relativity, but he so badly believed that his thoughts about the universe being static were so strong that he tried to prove his own theories otherwise. Then he went to see hubble at the university of chicago where hubble proved that the universe was expanding, and not static. Einstein was quite angry that his thoughts were proven wrong. Imagine someone telling you that something you believe in is wrong, and showing you why. I am guessing that your reaction wouldn't be very positive, because it's something that you have a huge passion for.

Also, as for the whole 'it's just a theory' thing that everyone says. Come up with some great finding and create a scientific theory out of it and tell me that it's just a theory.

zfleebin

Fearofmear: I enjoy science no matter what the discipline but I am amazed when scientists refer to psychology as a soft science. I agree the scales we use in psychology are not as precise as the ones used in chemistry and physics but the underlying process of science remains the same. So what exactly does one mean when they say psychology is a soft science? I have trouble understanding what is soft about psychology. Is that in reference to the theories we use or our research methods? Maybe you can enlighten me.

taog

I think it's the fact that psychology isn't always true for every case and can change very easily in different areas or upbringings or whatever, even down to how much oxygen one breathes in or whatever. I think this sometimes makes people think that psychology is somewhat of a soft science because it doesn't seem as concrete.

However, every single science is based on assumption within mathematics or something similar, and basically any theory changes given a little bit of a different situation or atmosphere. In a science like physics, the change is sometimes easier to explain than in psychology, which could also lead to people seeing psychology as more of a soft science.

In my opinion, since a lot of psychology is based on trail and error and actual tests, rather than mathematical formulas that are basically true or false, it's more 'real' than anything else. Every scientist knows that a mathematical formula might be wrong in some way, because of the big or the small, but until it's proven wrong, it's used and accepted. Once it is proven wrong, it's disregarded and the new proof is put in place.

In other words, the more 'hard' sciences are sometimes either true or false, depending on if you have proven if they are false or not, but the 'soft' science of psychology is the way it is because of testing, and works that much, because of trials. If that isn't hard science, i don't know what is.

I think psychology gets kind of a bad rep in the science world.

Also, psychology does have a lot of exceptions, but so does every other science in the world. We just have to figure out what the true theories or formulas are so we have no exceptions.

YourNeverThere

i just doubt everything, even what i see in front of me, weve all seen or heard of the matrix, i dont think its real but who knows

__________________
The Above post is a direct quote from Shakespeare

Pennington

Science has to be doubted and mistrusted. Only through suspection can undeniable proof be obtained. If nobody doubted science, than science would no longer be science.

m0ntyblack

Well, since almost all science has to be "proven" in some way, its somewhat reliable, and considering the scientific community is in some ways the most skeptical community in the world, its rather easier for me to trust Science than most other factions in the world...face it, Religion and Politics aren't nearly the most trustworthy sources.


MB

HaloLauren

I think NASA should be disbanded. They're without mission, and without purpose now. Research does better in the private sector, and NASA is a waste of our money.

jeenyus

yes , i doubt everything

fearofmear

I use the term "hard science" to refer to science based on mathematics i.e. chemistry, phsyics, biology, computer science and geology. (There are more just listing those off the top of my head). Something like psychology or sociology uses the scientific method and is definitely a true science, but is based more on social aspects, not mathematics. "Hard" is a term I have always heard referred to science based on mathematics. I didn't mean to offend anyone by that.

zfleebin

I didnt take offence. I just always wondered what it means because it sounds funny. thanks for the heads up

Cynthetiq

hard science... make experiment, replicate experiment all over the planet and get same result as first experiment and all subsequent experiments.

soft science... follows the scientific method, but results not able to be replicated in other areas due to different factors such as culture and location.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

BBtB

Back to the original question, do I doubt science? Yes, yes I do. Well sorta, I mean I take it all with a grain of salt. There is so many contradicting theorys and arguements out there. Who is to say which one is right? Or that any of them are? Most likely the truth lies somewhere inbetween. Its not wether its right or wrong but what you can learn from it.


EDIT: Okay I am going to elaborate on that a little. What I mean is in my day to day life I don't need to know that gravity increase by so many meters per second. Nor do I need to know the impact rate needed to break a glass. All I need to know is if I drop a glass it breaks. That happened to me about 25 minutes ago actully.

__________________
Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ...

"I would like about three fiddy"

Fibrosa

I don't doubt science per say; after all, if needs be I can go out and replicate it. If something is going to clash against my paradigm, then I'll do some further research into the matter.

Someone said something earlier about "just a theory", I think that's a bit of a misnomer, because scientists do not use the word "theory" as laypeople do.
I said this in another thread, but here I go again:

A Law is (basically) a repeatable observation (what goes up, must come down).
A hypothesis is, an educated guess as to why the repeatable observation occurs.
A theory is a tried and true explanation of why the observation happens (ie, objects of large mass attract objects of smaller mass-basically).

So saying something is "just a theory", in the popular vernacular is more akin to saying that it's "just a hypothesis", instead of saying it's a theory.

MacGnG

of course we have to doubt science! we cant prove it... like religion and math... and um everything else.

the above was a joke and not to be taken seriously

Tirian

from "Dave Barry" here's a reproducable theory for you to try at home... :-)

Speaking of fruitcakes: I also received some unhappy mail from an "L. Edwards," who got his (or possibly her) dander up over a column I wrote about the California power shortage. "L. Edwards" was particularly upset about my explanation of where electricity comes from, which was that when lightning strikes the earth, it goes underground and hardens into coal, which is then burned in generators to form electricity.

"SHAME ON YOU!" wrote "L. Edwards" across my column in large letters with a marking pen. "Electricity does not harden into coal! I think you should be wary of telling untrue scientific facts."

"L. Edwards," you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and far be it from me to suggest that you are a great big wienerhead. But it just so happens that my theory that coal is hardened electricity fits perfectly with the thinking of some of the world's leading scientific minds. And when I say "some of the world's leading scientific minds," I am referring specifically to Mr. Harold Jones of Tulsa, Okla. In response to my electricity column, Mr. Jones sent me a letter explaining his theory, which he summarizes as follows: "ELECTRICITY IS SMOKE!"

Mr. Jones contends that electrical circuits work by means of smoke traveling from place to place inside wires. By way of proof, he points out: "Every time you let the smoke out of an electrical circuit, it no longer works. You can test this at home. If you have a wall outlet that is black where the smoke has leaked out, plug something in, and you will see that it no longer works."

I would like to see "L. Edwards," or any other so-called "critic," poke a hole in Mr. Jones' tightly reasoned theory. It is probably the most important scientific breakthrough since Albert Einstein discovered the "Theory of Relativity," which states that time and space are relative, which explains why time goes slower, and space gets smaller, when you are with your relatives. I assume that Harold Jones will soon be receiving the Nobel Prize, which comes with a nice cash award. Plus, you get a fruitcake.

Zargix

I've made it a rule not to trust fanatics of anything. Religion, government, science, whatever. This world is a world of grays, not a world of blacks and whites. Not everything can easily be catagorized to help us think that we understand everything. As humans, the belief is common that understanding something means controlling it, and the more we think we understand, the more we control. I try to seperate myself from society this way, and make myself as hard to classify as possible.

mml

Life is entirely too short to "doubt" science as a whole. There are certain Laws and theories that have been proven time and time again. However, when new claims are made, they must be evaluated. In my own cozy, insular world, I have little direct need to understand science. But intellectually yeah I guess you should look at everything with a grain of salt. You know someday they may prove that the Earth is not the center of uninverse - ha, ha no I'm just kidding, that would be crazy.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

chavos

I have a great deal of trust in science, especially when it's explained well. I had teachers who really had a passion for it in high school, and i think that helped. Whenever i have doubts about it, i usually just seek out more information, and that most often puts the matter to rest. It's amazing what an answer can do a question.

TaLoN

if you can't trust science (studies of the mind are NOT science) then what can you trust?

bussman

I trust science for the most part, though I still have my religous beliefs.

Other then that, what truely amazes me about science is how people figured out some of this stuff. It makes me wonder if you are just born with some knowledge.

nothingx

How can you "doubt science"? It doesn't make sense to say that you "doubt science". Science, as definded by Merriam-Webster, is "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method." The scientific method goes along the lines of absolute truths which are things that can be proven true, and not proven false ... and theories which are things that cannot be proven true, but cannot, or have not been disproven. Saying that you doubt science is saying you doubt a principal or a paradigm that is well defined in sound logic. If you're going to doubt that, why don't you just doubt that you exist as well? I feel the same applies for things like evolution. How can you doubt evolution? It's right in your face and you're surrounded by it. Open your eyes and look around.

Destrox

Science is how i believe in whats what, and why somthing is. I dont have any religion in my life, so if I started to doubt science that'd be like doubting my self.

__________________
You bore me.... next.

Cynthetiq

Those of you who "doubt" science, then should avoid the following things:

Travelling in cars, as there is no such thing as a horseless carriage.
Travelling in planes, metal objects which are heavier than air should not be able to be kept aloft.
Using the computer/internet, as only some sort of witchcraft or magic can make the images on the slate screen appear to be words and pictures.
Using the telephone, how can one's voice be projected with miles and miles separating both speakers.

There are plenty more...

Science in itself is about faith. Faith that what the scientists themselves have tested, created, and replicated, yet it's still impossible at this point in time to see an electron, yet we all agree that they exist.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.