It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In my opinion, seeing the situation today, the science is deeply corrupted, results are over rated, skewed or even falsified (google: peer review scandal) and no one knows what is really true or not.
She began teaching special ed students, developmentally disabled and when she was able to get many of those students on a level surpassing normally developed children, children who were not handicapped, it made her question the entire system of education up until that point. What are they doing in schools to these normal children if I can get mentally disabled students to top them in exams? She asked herself.
originally posted by: mahatche
I just love when the anti-science crowd says things like "science thought the world was flat", without realizing that they only know it's not, because of science.
I don't see what anyone gains from attempting to discredit science.
Very ,very,smart and well said.
originally posted by: eisegesis
Science Is Not Democratic
“I’m not a doctor either, but if a bunch of doctor's tell me that tobacco can cause lung cancer, then I’ll say, OK.” - Barack Obama
This was a quote from a speech he gave to a league of conservative voters. I stopped reading after that. I felt weird inside. I sounds like passive mind control. I hope others can see his tricks. Take what you hear from your doctor and use it to do your own research. If it jives with the doctor's advice and you feel comfortable, then take it slow.
During his speech, Obama lambasted members of Congress who espouse either an active distrust of our scientific community or passive ignorance of its findings. The distrust of scientists in the U.S. has become an effective political tool since the 1980s. But it is also extremely dangerous to our democracy.
Science isn’t a belief system. It’s proven knowledge. It either knows the answer to a problem, or admits it doesn’t and keeps looking for it. Every time we ignore the scientific community, bad things generally happen.
The question is, what exactly is the scientific community? The scientist, the investor, the shareholder, the highest bidder, the most ruthless, the most wealthy, the most agreeable, the most trustworthy, the most willing to lie?
Before 1980, Congress and the President generally deferred to the scientific community to interpret science. Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t argue the merits of the Bohr atom with Oppenheimer when he wrote to him 1943. Yes, the Moon landing was driven by military and Cold War aims, but no one in politics questioned how NASA went about getting us there.
I forgot, it doesn't take a genius to run a country. Just a person surrounded by geniuses. My doctor knows what he learns just just like anyone else is capable of doing. If you are not in immediate jeopardy, do some research and try a few natural remedies. You will be surprised.
Beginning in the 16th century, it took almost 200 years for the scientific method to develop to the point where it provided demonstrable survival advantages to civilization. It is not coincidental that this realization by the monarchs and governments of those times came first through military applications and the advancement of material sciences, since they were the original funding agencies.
Does survival of the species dictate who we take scientific advice from or does what will give dictators the greater advantage over those they wish to segregate from? Science for the wealthy and slave magic for the poor and useless.
If those in power didn't show so much desire to use science as a way to separate us, then we as a species would not be suffering. The poorest person on the planet can still afford to have an outstanding idea but it will usually never make it past their own lips. There is little motivation or funding for those who don't play the role.
At some point we spun out of control and those who were taught to be trustworthy and reliable became more obsessed with their own self interests than our own. Doctors receive kickbacks for prescribing certain medicine, get paid vacations disguised as learning seminars by drug companies. Kind of hard to make a heartfelt diagnosis and treatment after being bought out. Do you trust your doctor? Your lucky if you have a good one. Mainstream science is usually bought and sold as well.
But things began changing in the United States about 30 years ago. Basic Science began being cut in favor of Applied Science. Research budgets for agencies like the Department of Defense exploded while basic research funding for Universities and scientific societies began drying up. The Directors and Chiefs of those science-based government agencies, previously held by scientists in those fields who worked their way up that agency’s ladder, became political appointees. It was worrisome.
I thought this would be a good topic for ATS because there are people on this site with some serious trust issues, including myself, when it comes to science and medicine. Does anybody have faith in science anymore? Are there some bright minds on here willing to share their thoughts on where we stand? Do you trust companies who conduct their own safety testing? Do you trust global warming research? Do you trust your electric company? Do you trust cancer research to be cutting edge? Phage, do you trust NASA!!! lol
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis
Science is a process for discovering things about the world around us, a methodology. This methodology can be applied to many things. It requires no faith or belief; anyone with the proper equipment and powers of observation can repeat any experiment and achieve the same results. If the results are not repeatable, the hypothesis the experiment was intended to prove is rejected. This is an extremely democratic process, as anyone can participate who wishes to. On the other hand, it is not democratic because the body of knowledge derived is not the result of people voting based on their personal opinion.
Can science be abused? Yes, anything can be abused. The fault is not with science, but the abuser.
By all means, do your own research: if you do it properly, it makes you a scientist.
originally posted by: Loveaduck
a reply to: eisegesis
Well no. Science is science. I just saw a program last evening about Montessori schools of learning begun by Marie Montessori in the early 1900s. They flourished being that they encouraged free thinking and discovered children will learn for learnings own sake, without need for either reward or punishment, if you allowed them to be free thinkers, if you let them alone. Founders of Google and other notables were Montessori school students.
It is rigid indoctrination that makes little soldiers.
originally posted by: Antigod
Reply specifically to OP.
Science is not democratic.
Your uneducated opinion is not an equal to sciences accumulated thousands of years of direct study, which is checked and verified over and over.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
I think a lot of people just confuse the science part with the media's biased headline of what they interpret that bit of science to mean.
Headlines are always slanted one way or another. Politics can manipulate those slants but it cannot manipulate the outcome of experiments. If you don't want to be fooled you have to study proper scientific methods and then you can do the experiments yourself. Then you don't have to listen to the spin.
There is definitely a whole slew of scientists who would lie for the right amount of money, but their work won't hold up to public scrutiny.
I will never understand how someone who has never studied a field of science can reject it on principle alone and never come to think that maybe the folks who have disciplined themselves and memorized the pertinent methods might know what they're talking about.