A Brief Word For Science

[renfield]

The general public is utterly ignorant/misinformed about what science is and how or why research is done. They also don’t seem to care, most would rather be spoon fed what they should think or know. Critical thinking is hard and knowledge takes effort.

Fortunately for all of us there are still people who quietly do the hard work of advancing the state of the art in both pure and applied science.

I’ve peer reviewed many papers and worked with many researchers in academia and industry over the years. I’ll never forget one meeting where the head of the university department we were working with said “We’ll research whatever you want if you’re willing to pay for it.” Pretty much sums it up. Money makes the world go around.

 

[bullet08]

Science, I have no problems with. Scientists, some of them, should stick to science and get off politics.

 

[FurCoat]

It's not "science" with the problem it's the conflicting, changing facts/theories which confuse people. Most people seem to think scientists are infallible, especially when many blithely publicize theories and such, unreviewed and unproven as studied fact. Most of the problems stem from scientists who are not ethical or are, perhaps incompetent, having political or personal agendas. Scientists are often science's worst promoters. People get confused when one answer is correct on Monday and by Friday coffee/wine/masks/what have you are suddenly no longer acceptable/dangerous/efficacious/etc.

People have a problem with "flexible" science. They are much happier with constants. Scientists can only make findings based on "knowns" and those are ever changing as knowledge widens and improves, techniques evolve and equipment progresses. Then throw in incompetent scientists or, those with agendas and it is perfectly understandable why many people distrust scientists, scientific findings, etc.

YES...Very well put. Global warming comes to mind.

 

[FurCoat]

Science, I have no problems with. Scientists, some of them, should stick to science and get off politics.

Bingo

 

[Kottan]

Remember, some gave us a moon landing, others gave us Thalidomide.

Since 2008 Thalidomide is again in use in Germany and the US.
Approved drug for treating bone marror cancer(Ger/US) and leprosy (US). My mother died in 2006 she suffered from bone marrow cancer. Perhaps she could have lived a bit longer with this drrug.

 

[frozenchurchwarden]

Something else that must drive the scientists crazy.... Laymen who use the word "theory" in the way they use hypothesis. Or laymen who deride scientific theories as if they were the same as an untested hypothesis.

Except that many "Scientists" are perfectly willing to conflate the two as long as it promotes their agenda.
As soon as money and fame are in the balance "Science" is thrown out the window.

 

[BROBS]

Not a fan of the term “denialist,” personally. It easily becomes a pejorative and can hold back discovery and stifle alternative views that may have merit. I mean, Antoine Lavoisier was regarded as one of the greatest scientists in his day. He thought heat came from a substance that he named “caloric.” His fame and reputation as a scientist meant no one dared argue with him, and his view became accepted. He was dead wrong, of course. When a lesser known amateur scientist, Count Rumford, destroyed his hypothesis with a simple experiment utilizing a dull canon borer, he could’ve easily been labeled a “denialist,” and summarily dismissed, even though he was right. I guess my point is that there are people that champion science as long as it fits their ulterior motives, and blaspheme it when it doesn’t. It takes stepping back and looking at the big picture sometimes to not get caught up in that sort of bullshit. Just my opinion. ?‍

The article references those with unfounded views who deny scientific fact.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

The article references those with unfounded views who deny scientific fact.

Unfounded is a word used regularly.. who gets to decide whats unfounded?

Not being an ass about it.. It always comes down to who the popular opinion decides is founded.. or unfounded.

 

[Kottan]

Yup. Look at the number of true scientists who are able to reconcile a belief in God with their scientific studies. One demands faith and the other proof. And, neither cancel out the other. I'm being as careful as possible here not to start a discussion on religion. So, try and not take it there guys. Thanks. I'm just making an observation, not a judgement.

That reminds me of my late Prof who did basic research in plant physiology. He was a devout catholik. Once he told me he had studied Biology in spite of the evolution theory. And he was far away from giving any creatonistic explanations.

 

[Country Bladesmith]

The article references those with unfounded views who deny scientific fact.

Oh I know. I get it, I’m just saying that to me, it’s one of those slippery slope situations. People that still think the earth is flat, in spite of a plethora of evidence and proofs that it is not, sure, it’s fair to call them denialists. But my issue is with “where does the line get drawn?” Especially since a term like “denialist” has the potential to become a weapon of politics. And we all know how responsible the politicians are. ?

 

[Country Bladesmith]

That reminds me of my late Prof who did basic research in plant physiology. He was a devout catholik. Once he told me he had studied Biology in spite of the evolution theory. And he was far away from giving any creatonistic explanations.

Not to delve into religion, but Catholicism is ok with evolution.

 

[BROBS]

Unfounded is a word used regularly.. who gets to decide whats unfounded?

Not being an ass about it.. It always comes down to who the popular opinion decides is founded.. or unfounded.

Like when facts show something and people believe otherwise. Unfounded in fact.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

Like when facts show something and people believe otherwise. Unfounded in fact.

I agree, It should be that simple.. but what if those people find some professsional who makes their opinion or narrative founded?

It's like all the supplement commercials on late at night.. They all have a doctor backing up their snake oil. Hell, they even have "double blind studies".

We're living in a time were science is being smeared, big time..

 

[ashdigger]

If you don’t think science and politics are tied together (not wanting to close the thread) think about this. DDT is still manufactured and used even though the science of its lingering effects is very well known and studied.

Science, in its commercial form, is for sale.

I worked with a research limnologist (fresh water oceanography) and the hoops he had to jump through for funding led him to nuance and massage his findings. Now, was he dirty? Was he a scumbag? Was he just a cog in the wheel? All I know is the creativity to get funding was interesting to watch.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Not to delve into religion, but Catholicism is ok with evolution.

Growing up in a very fundamentalist church, I always heard that evolution and big bang were just parts of creationalism... explained that before there was a brain to register and contemplate days as being the rise and fall of the sun... time was subjective. I am not even sure when it became a thing to separate them as two different theories. I had thought all of that was hashed out long before I was born.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

You know about the young earthers right? I'm sure they're good people.. I'm not trying to knock em. But there's an alternate facts rabbit hole..

Theres a scientist out there who will make the case for a 2000 year old earth..

 

[cosmicfolklore]

If you don’t think science and politics are tied together (not wanting to close the thread) think about this. DDT is still manufactured and used even though the science of its lingering effects is very well known and studied.

Science, in its commercial form, is for sale.

I worked with a research limnologist (fresh water oceanography) and the hoops he had to jump through for funding led him to nuance and massage his findings. Now, was he dirty? Was he a scumbag? Was he just a cog in the wheel? All I know is the creativity to get funding was interesting to watch.

I agree... I think it's more fair to say that money corrupts science, not that merely science is corrupt. There is still much science that is still being practiced without biases, but that the corruption of such makes it look as if all science is corrupt.

 

[BROBS]

You know about the young earthers right? I'm sure they're good people.. I'm not trying to knock em. But there's an alternate facts rabbit hole..

Theres a scientist out there who will make the case for a 2000 year old earth..

The problem, also, can be who is considered a true scientist?

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

The problem, also, can be who is considered a true scientist?

Yep.

 

[mso489]

Wow. One of the liveliest threads on Forums I recall. Thank you one and all. I learned a lot, and received lots of food for thought. This is one of the better "seminars" on the subject I've encountered. This isn't to sum up and end the thread, but I just wanted to commend all of the thoughtful input.