People who criticise science should stop using the internet!!

i recently observed a popular thread about how science is constantly wrong so why should we trust it, i have the following points

can i just state im refereing to science as a study. a method of aquiring knowlage and progress. im not refereing to specific controversial aspects of science be that GM crops cloning evolution etc. i am simply refereing to science as the means to study things. not specific theories, im not saying if you dont beleive in evolution you shouldnt use the internet, im saying if you think conducting science in any manor wrong then why use the results of already conducted science.

1) if you think science is a useless tool. why are you using some of the most complicated aspects of science to write on this forum. ironic doesnt cover it

2) if science were to cease, you are effectivly implying we should all live in the same way forever, how rediculous

3) the case was made that the advancement of thought and mind would make scientific advance irrelevent -

an analogy for you sirs and madams . your trying to understand how to open a box. you can walk round the box and see the edges thats all. thinking harder and guessing more wont give you any more clues as to the details of this box.

by inventing a ladder you can now see the top of the box. an extra detail of the box is revealed. there apears to be a seem where the box is fasened on top. you have been offered a new PERSPECTIVE from which to veiw the box you now understand the box can be opened from the top

the box is very heavy you cant lift it on your own, sombody invents a forklift truck and lifts the box, you see under it. a further detail is revealed. there is a diagram with instuctions showing the box is

you can now see with the information from the bottom of the box that what appears on the top of the box as a seem to open the box is infact the stuff holding the hole box together

the point, yes we stil cant open the box, but trying to work it out its alot more effective than just standing there and asuming it will just open itself

the point is science continually gives a new perspective as it changes and grows, so in turn the way we look at problems and questions can change and grow

[edit on 8-1-2010 by C1OUD]

[edit on 8-1-2010 by C1OUD]

Science is always wrong before it's right. That's sort of how the whole process works.

I cant imagine anyone honestly believing "it was wrong this time we should get rid if it altogether."

An absolutely valid position to take, one which every thinking man should, is that government needs to stop enacting policies and laws in a knee-jerk fashion spurned on by pop-science tripe and 'research' that has obvious interest conflicts. It's so easy for many to dismiss research funded by some corporation but for some reason or another cannot accept the reality that research funded by government can be just as corrupt.

reply to post by C1OUD


Maybe you ought to have the internet inventor, Gore the junior, to shut off the internet from those transgressors. I'm sure he has a switch somewhere in that big house to do that.

[edit on 1/8/10 by Ferris.Bueller.II]

Originally posted by C1OUD
i recently observed a popular thread about how science is constantly wrong so why should we trust it, i have the following points

1) if you think science is a useless tool. why are you using some of the most complicated aspects of science to write on this forum. ironic doesnt cover it

2) if science were to cease, you are effectivly implying we should all live in the same way forever, how rediculous

3) the case was made that the advancement of thought and mind would make scientific advance irrelevent -

So let me get this straight.
If I believe climate science is wrong, I should stop using the internet?

If I believe that scientists should stop researching possible hybrid human/ animal cross to harvest organs, we will not continue to grow as a human species?

so the idea that using your mind and thinking of the possible consequences of the experiment you may be creating is a bad thing?

So If I think scientists modifying my food is bad science, if I feel that mother nature provided us with perfectly healthy food and we don't need science creating Genetically modified crops.

should I now stop using the internet?

reply to post by C1OUD


And your point is ______________, criticizing certain aspect of scientific research specially when manipulation is involved for private agendas is not by any means been against science overall.

Please be more specific.

Science is what makes man, man. Even Aristotle made his cases about different things called Sciences, something that is tested or to be tested. You usually have a theory before the experiment lol and that's how science operates, not everything everyone says can be correct. Just be patient

"So let me get this straight.
If I believe climate science is wrong, I should stop using the internet? "

no not the belief an aspect of science or theory is wrong . actual science itself as a technique of study.

If I believe that scientists should stop researching possible hybrid human/ animal cross to harvest organs, we will not continue to grow as a human species?

again, the study of science, at no point did i say we should use science in an unethical way, only that science is essentiual for progress

so the idea that using your mind and thinking of the possible consequences of the experiment you may be creating is a bad thing?

at no point did i mention that science could replace thinking, i mentioned that thinking couldnt replace science. a combination of the two is usually best

So If I think scientists modifying my food is bad science, if I feel that mother nature provided us with perfectly healthy food and we don't need science creating Genetically modified crops.

i think iv covered this point, thanks for pointing out how misleading the wording is in my thread it will be modified

Science is like politics. You can hate it as much as you want but it effects every part of your life.

Science-phobes are just affraid of the implications of science. Some might say this is justifyed with regards the creation of nuclear weapons.
Ultimately though its just an extension of mans most basic urge to understand the world around us.

Originally posted by C1OUD
the point, yes we stil cant open the box, but trying to work it out its alot more effective than just standing there and asuming it will just open itself

the point is science continually gives a new perspective as it changes and grows, so in turn the way we look at problems and questions can change and grow

Well now I can give you a star for the thread,

One of the main aspects of Science is that it bring "empirical" debate, science can prove and disprove theories and can bring new ideas.

But science now a days is been used as a tool of manipulation because actually is very easily manipulated.

I would agree to this notion IF the scientist that are caught falsing, manipulating, hiding, destroying and/or generally total disregard for how it should be done- are identified, strip of any credentials, not allowed to work in any scientific field that receives gov't funding (our money) etc.

I could go on but.... I think you get the picture. They are Gods-above reporach.

I think we have seen enough of the Pop Culture crap. We the people have to stop believing every piece of info that comes out from them.

Sorry, but these climate scientist (if you will) brought this on themselves and thier community.

yes i will not deny but infact totaly agree with you on the fact climate science has become a economic powerhouse, the preservation of which is now essential to keep certain systems of ecomony flowing, the implications of proving climate change by humans false would be massive.

the point is, aspects of science may corrupt but its the SCIENTISTS and political driving forces that are corrupt not the SCIENCE itself. science does not have its own personal agenda how can it , it is mearly the method of prediction, action and observaton. to sugest we just stop learning new things seems rather foolish

[edit on 8-1-2010 by C1OUD]

The thing that always baked my noodle is that some people seem to think that scientists at large are idiots and know nothing.

Need I point out that the very machine they are using to type that very thing is a marvel of modern science? Perhaps I should draw your attention to the cell phone in your pocket?

We have some pretty cool gadgets for people to say that scientists know nothing. Now that's irony.

so what your saying is we cant criticise when the numeriss times they are wrong just keep our mouths shut when they make a catastrophic mistake if someone in any other line of work done there job badly the would expect to have somthing said about it so why not scientists why are the so differant

Science is based on KNOWN repeatable and tested knowledge/theory.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

Hard Fact Science posters have their place - - but so does every one else.

Just because something is not provable TODAY - doesn't mean it is non-existent or real.

[***NOTE TO THE OP*** Overall i agree with you about "science as the means to study things" but this does not comprise science as a whole, it comprises science as a discipline.


I have no problem with science. I LOVE it, it is the language that allows us to understand our universe. But, i am realistic, i am not afraid to admit that science, like any other human construct, is flawed.

Science and by extension the academia around it are not protected from human-bias or socio-political agendas. Prime example? Eugenics programs, global warming hysteria, and of course the ever raging war of Science VS Religion. I don't bring my religion into science, yet there are many people who claim to be scientists that insist on bringing their science into my religion, .

Science and religion are pursuits of two completely different truths. What i have a problem with is so called "scientists" such as richard dawkins or sam harris trying to whip people up with this hysteria that somehow religion is holding science back. Meanwhile we have figured out how to program human skin cells to act as stem cells, there is a 17 mile long 9 billion dollar supercollider underneath the borders of france and switzerland is probing into some of the greatest questions of all time, attempting to get us closer to a unified theory of physics. Amazing advances are made every year in the fields of electronics ( look up the Neurogrid concept by kwabena boahen if you want to see how advanced we are now in computing alone) and theoretically we could build a whole new animal or other complex lifeform from what is essentially dead lifeless matter.

Science is NOT being impeded. It never was impeded.

The problem is that science is not this magical infallible thing that many scientists try to make it out to be. If you disagree with climate change science or evolutionary science you are called a knuckle dragger or flat earther. They have their flaws, and simply aknowledging them can get you ridicule despite the amount of "peer review" you have.

And that is another thing. Why is it that scientists think that somehow peer-review is a magical objectivity device? Logic tells us that when one or more people who share the same view on a subject band together objectivity. So if the NAS (which is supposedly 85% atheist) were to review a solid empirical basis for a creationist or ID argument (but note this example is not limited to creationism or ID, it can happen in any field) they could potentially suppress it by claiming it didn't stand up to peer review, when in reality the data could show otherwise, and most of us would not be able to question their judgment because we do not have access to the data or were there to watch the peer review process, we have to assume that human bias can still exist. But above that since the average person does not have access to a life-science lab, super colliders or even something as rudimentary as neodynium magnets we have to put a degree in faith in our scientists as well as our science. We have to assume that current scientific theory and data that is regarded as fact is the result of honest reviews, conclusions, interpretations and experiments. We have to have faith that Editors of peer-reviewed journals are not choosing to leave out key-facts or even entire stories that stood up to their peer review. If tomorrow it was announced that empirical evidence for god or other "paranormal" phenomenon was discovered do you think people such as Richard Dawkins or James Randi would readily accept it? No, i do not expect that from christians, and i sure as hell would not expect it from people who's whole lives had been dedicated to "debunking" religion,deism and other arguments for "higher power." especially when an entire scientists work hinges on another scientists work as being fact.

I'm sorry if you think science is this magical method that is immune to human fallibility and should not be criticized then i think you have more or less forged yourself a secular religion wherein empiricism is the faith and science is the god.

Originally posted by DaMod
The thing that always baked my noodle is that some people seem to think that scientists at large are idiots and know nothing.

Dude, I hear you. My noodled is baked, too. I forgot to mention that I'm a scientist

Need I point out that the very machine they are using to type that very thing is a marvel of modern science? Perhaps I should draw your attention to the cell phone in your pocket?

Frankly, I've made this argument untold number of times, over years on ATS. But it always falls on deaf ears! Not surprisingly, perhaps, because people who bash science seem to have deficiency of logic and excess of grandeur, with some conspiracy theory to boot, for a good measure.

Self removed post, due to being considered "off topic"

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Mr Mask]

People who can't spell criticize properly shouldn't write baseless inflammatory headlines!!!

What do you have against spell check?

What about scientists who criticize other scientists?

Do they still have your permission to use computers?

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Deny Arrogance]

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Deny Arrogance]

Originally posted by Mr Mask
People who can't capitalize the letter "i" when referring to themselves, shouldn't use keyboards.

See how silly that sounds?

It does, but then again it has nothing to do with the topic of the OP.

A better analogy would be that most fervent critics of animal cruelty should not be eating meat.

Stop the Off Topic remarks and Personal Sniping, Please.