It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is science arrogant?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Do you think mainstream science is arrogant, especially about the paranormal?

For example, if you go to SETI's site and read some of their articles, you'll realize they are not on the side of the ufologists. In fact, it seems their whole goal is to spend decades searching the sky aimlessly and say "we haven't found anything, so they're not here".

How DARE scientists find life more intelligent than human scientists! Stuff they can't pick apart! What blaspheme!

Who's the logical rational people - the ones looking the sky and probing suspicious government documents, or the guys looking for rogue lasers from 1000 light years away?

How come scientists think intelligent life in the universe smarter than humans is so ridiculous, yet they masturbate over string theory, which is basically just mathematical speculation?

Do you think science is dogmatically materialistic, mundane and nihilistic? Or even arrogant and pretentious, claiming to be a sceptre of reason and sensibility but actually being close-minded and judgmental just like a dogmatic organized religion?




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I don't believe that science itself is arrogant, but many scientists are. In its truest form science leads to discoveries and constantly changes its own perception of reality. It is not afraid to be proven wrong over and over again. Instead it is those that stake their professional stature on an idea that refuse to let logic contradict them.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Cameoii posted what I was going to say -- Science is not arrogant but SOME scientists are.

...and Donnie (OP) -- What scientists are you talking about who say intelligent life elsewhere is ridiculous? The idea that there could be life elsewhere in the universe -- life even more intelligent than us -- is an idea that many (if not most) real mainstream scientists believe.

It may be true that current scientific theories, by their very definition, are conservative, but that's only because they need to hold up to logical scrutiny. HOWEVER current speculative scientific hypotheses could very "out there".

For example: a mainstream scientist my speculate that it is possible for ETs to be able to travel the vast distances to Earth (and many mainstream scientists do seriously speculate on the possibility of travel between the stars), but saying that it is actually happening is a totally different thing.

There are many mainstream scientists who have wild speculative hypotheses, but their actual tested theories are usually conservative, because a theory must be able to be verified through testing.


[edit on 7/14/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
What do they say about wisdom, and the first step is knowing you know nothing.

There are so many know it alls, in positions of power, and this is what society needs least. The problem is that these are the people that only make it, as it seems ambition is linked to this thinking.

I still cannot fathom why a scientist would say we are alone, how are you a scientist if you are closed minded?

The best scientists have always been the best who could think outside the box, they are the people that changed the world, not people who are so arrogant thinking they know it all.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033....I still cannot fathom why a scientist would say we are alone, how are you a scientist if you are closed minded?...

Again, which scientists are saying we are alone? I think it would be a rare thing to find a mainstream scientist who thinks we are the only intelligent life in the universe (I'm sure a few scientist like that exist -- but they are few and far between).

[edit on 7/14/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I agree. Most people in scientific fields that I know think that ET life is a given. That's where science comes in. First there is the hypothesis, then the experimentation and evidence, the the fact. I believe that we are in the experimentation and evidence phase right now (although some of the evidence may be hidden from the likes of you and me). One day, science will provide the determination that life outside of Earth is a fact.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I think the more appropriate question would be, when isn't it?

If you look through history you see that mankind has defined what science is which in itself is flawed.

When we start to rely on pure numbers that can be manipulated by any means necessary to make an outcome appear to favor one over the other then science is flawed.

At that point it becomes flawed because mankind believes everything has a numerical pattern and therefor can be explained. But at the same time Pie has no numerical pattern that mankind can discern so it remains a mystery. Maybe mankind should be looking at something besides the numerical pattern and at that point maybe we will solve pie.

In the end science asks how is that possible. Maybe the correct question is why is that possible. Science in itself can not distinguish between the how and why because it believes they are one of the same. When in fact they are two completely different questions.

In other words I really don't care how the earth is going to explode, I'm more interested in why it's going to explode.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
The Arrogant Certainty Of Science - Richard Dawkins




part 2 - Science vs. Intuition - Richard Dawkins



[edit on 14-7-2009 by Daniem]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Haha the idea of a scientist masturbating over string theory made me chuckle.


Jacob



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
In a court of law eyewitness's are a great piece of evidence.

In science eyewitness's are not.

Science is based on facts, not people's truths. If you can not replicate something, then it can not be proven to be fact.

Until you have concrete evidence, that can be prove that UFO's are real. Then science will remain skeptic.



[edit on 14-7-2009 by testrat]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
I still cannot fathom why a scientist would say we are alone, how are you a scientist if you are closed minded?

Scientists don't say that, in fact the OP talks about the SETI scientists who wouldn't be dedicating their lives to finding ET if they thought we were alone.

It's not a question of being open minded or not, it's simply a matter of following the scientific method. Anyone can propose any theory they want to, that's ok. But for science to accept any such theory, it has to be proven with observations or evidence. If there are observations or evidence to confirm a theory then scientists will accept it, eventually, after much more independent testing and confirming observations.

So it's not about the personal beliefs or open-mindedness of scientists, that's just the way science works.

I think the word I would use to describe science, is "conservative" instead of arrogant, and by conservative, I mean, just looking for proof of a theory. The more the theory varies from our current understanding, the more proof scientists need to be convinced.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darthorious
...At that point it becomes flawed because mankind believes everything has a numerical pattern and therefor can be explained. But at the same time Pie has no numerical pattern that mankind can discern so it remains a mystery. Maybe mankind should be looking at something besides the numerical pattern and at that point maybe we will solve pie...

Pi is not a big mystery.
Sure, it is a non-ending and non-repeating decimal, but mathematics can show us scientifically that non-ending non-repeating numbers can exist.

Therefore, because Pi is (almost certainly) one of those non-ending and non-repeating numbers, there is no way to "solve" it in the way that I think you are trying to imply (i.e., calculate the "entire" decimal answer) because it probably never ends.

...and science is OK with that idea.


[edit on 7/14/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
How can the OP say that science is arrogant, when science is based on logic and fact.
There's not one piece of evidence to support greys, yet I have read various reports on these boards about their politics and how they fit into the intergalactic federation lol.
Ufology is more about belief. Take all these so-called abduction cases or anything that's prevelent in the ufo world for that matter, once it hits the board, immediatly large groups of ufo experts will say its true, in science though when something is newly discovered large groups of scientists test the theory repeatedly to see if it stands up.
If you look at what man has got from science compared to ufology then I think its easy to see what's real and what's not.
This is probably why the science world has no interest in ufology because its based on belief not workable theory testing.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
How come scientists think intelligent life in the universe smarter than humans is so ridiculous, yet they masturbate over string theory, which is basically just mathematical speculation?

Do you think science is dogmatically materialistic, mundane and nihilistic? Or even arrogant and pretentious, claiming to be a sceptre of reason and sensibility but actually being close-minded and judgmental just like a dogmatic organized religion?

It seems like you've answered your own question to an extent, regarding whether scientists are closed-minded or not, by pointing out that some are working on things like string theory, I think you have to be pretty open-minded to work on that.

Anyone can propose any theory. But until any of the theories are proven by observations or evidence, then they aren't accepted.

The one difference I see between science and religion, is that science is constantly re-examining itself, asking "is this right" and if someone provides a new theory like Einstein did that Newton's gravitational theories weren't quite right, it's NOT accepted at first. There had to be proof, and that took a long time, but eventually Einstein was proven right and science re-wrote the books on gravitational theory. I haven't seen anyone rewrite the Bible to make any major changes like that in 15 centuries. (well I guess the Mormons did but that's another story).

String theory now is sort of in that stage where Einstein first proposed his theories, that is, most scientists won't be convinced until they see proof. I think even Einstein wasn't 100% sure if his theory would be proven correct until he saw the proof. So if we provide proof science will accept it. For science to accept something without proof, it wouldn't be science, now would it?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Science is the new Religion. There is nothing in reality as we know it that needs science to prove or disprove anything. Science is a wee little race's way of making it proof for the masses all things are possible. The downside is that it is spoon-fed to us, pre-screened for our non-freakout pleasure.

Science doesn't prove or discover anything. It was already there, but now it is "owned" by the researcher who uses acceptable methods to the status-quo that it is true or possible.

If I wanted to discover we could exist in 2 places at once like Bi-location. I would need "for the masses" science. For the nature of the universe is all things are possible, we just have to be persistent enough, and find supporting evidence enough for it's "proof".

Sadly, no "status-quo" proof or it's not real.

Everything can be prooved even cheese has intelligence can be proved, we just need to find the "facts" that say so, for the masses to catch on.

Discoveries are not so much discoveries, as they are re-discoveries, biased in the light of the discoverer.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
well,

in an ideal world science
would be something great

but this is not an ideal world
it is filled with arrogant, selfish people
that made science what it is today:
dogmatic religious institution




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Anyone can propose any theory. But until any of the theories are proven by observations or evidence, then they aren't accepted.



yes, but the problem is when you have the proof
and you go against majority of dogmatic, egoistical scientists
who are more afraid to lose their careers and jobs
than to pursue the truth...

Max Planck once said:


A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it...


and he was right




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
The problem with the way you are looking at the SETI search OP is you are bringing BIAS that would contaminate the experiment.

You are already going into the experiment knowing that life elsewhere exists.

You just screwed the experiment.

You brought your BIAS on board.

Check that at the door before you come into the SETI experiment.

Go into the SETI search as looking for life without the BIAS of life existing. Searching for alien life. Not because you personally think it exists and are out to prove it. Your data will be corrupt and you will not have a substantiated claim if you do find results.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
If we went around modeling our world based on our beliefs, superstitions invisible imaginary entities and.. oh wait.

It would just be religion all over again.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2shores
...Science doesn't prove or discover anything. It was already there, but now it is "owned" by the researcher who uses acceptable methods to the status-quo that it is true or possible...

This is simply semantics...OK, I admit that nature and natural laws would still exist without science (I think that is a rather obvious fact that you stated), but science is needed to explain nature and natural laws.

Geometry is just the nature of shapes...so of course geometry would exist without Euclid. Calculus would still "exist" in the purest sense of the word without Newton. HOWEVER if it wasn't for scientists like Euclid and Newton, we would not "Know" that these laws describing the nature of mathematics exist.

The Moons of Jupiter would exist without Galileo. However, if a scientist such as Galileo did not discover them, then humans would not know they existed.

So -- OK -- I'll buy into your notion that natural laws would exist without science. However, humans would be totally ignorant to those laws without science. So what exactly is your point?


Everything can be prooved even cheese has intelligence can be proved, we just need to find the "facts" that say so, for the masses to catch on.

OK -- Do it.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join