The Pseudoscientific Use of Science Fallacy

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


Despite the circularity of the definitions, it is clear that trust is founded on a reliable relationship, whereas faith is founded on an unproven belief.

reply to post by DJW001

Despite the circularity of the definitions, it is clear that trust is founded on a reliable relationship, whereas faith is founded on an unproven belief.

Do you not trust the dictionary?

I understand what you're getting at, and I agree. But this is my point. If you have trust in "science", why not employ the scientific method to at least verify? Until you do, you are taking science as an unproven belief. To trust something merely because it's called science...well that's a leap of faith.

NiNjABackflip
reply to post by DJW001

 

Despite the circularity of the definitions, it is clear that trust is founded on a reliable relationship, whereas faith is founded on an unproven belief.

Do you not trust the dictionary?

I understand what you're getting at, and I agree. But this is my point. If you have trust in "science", why not employ the scientific method to at least verify? Until you do, you are taking science as an unproven belief. To trust something merely because it's called science...well that's a leap of faith.

edit on 24-12-2013 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)

But it is not science that I trust, it is the people who practice it. If they lie about their research, they stand to be exposed. It's just that simple.

reply to post by DJW001

But it is not science that I trust, it is the people who practice it. If they lie about their research, they stand to be exposed. It's just that simple.

The same can be said of believers and priests.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip

While science is a useful tool, people still understand far less than the 5% science can see.


I do have a problem sometimes with the idea that, science alone, must test science, in order to be considered in a discussion. I read articles about studies on bovine flatulence and just laugh. Sorry but I don't need to get a grant, do a study, and submit to a peer review, to know that it's crap (pun intended).

I often hear from people on ATS "we discovered" we did this, and we did that. I'm sorry but do you all have a 19th century , french research scientist in your pocket, with all this, we stuff?

The weird thing with science on ATS, is the proponents, almost seem to take personal ownership, and claim it for themselves, like it was something they came up with, and they get the credit for.

Somewhere, people are living their life in a remote jungle. Using a bow, they understand Newtonian physics, but have no idea of the scientific definitions associated with what they are doing. Their human brain does all the necessary calculations for them. Einstein might roll over in his grave, but people lived their lives just fine without understanding the definitions associated with the Theory of Relativity.

Science is the smartest kid in the classroom. Brimming with self confidence and pride. He knows what is best for everyone else. Science has no peers except Science itself.

We are told what to believe because it was demonstrated in a scientific study. We are considered fools, if what we believe, is not backed up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in approved scientific research.

People now use Science to tell us what to eat and what chemicals to put into our bodies.

But don't worry, it's not just safe.

It's Science.

Now be a good boy, and eat your GMO cookie……….

reply to post by NiNjABackflip

The same can be said of believers and priests.

You are beginning to catch on. I had a good friend who was an Anglican priest. He knew I didn't believe in his god, but he knew that I trusted him not to lie to me about Latin declension. He also knew that if he loaned me his car, I would return it unharmed. He trusted me because I never disappointed him in those regards. Get it?

reply to post by DJW001

They not only cooperate, each team submits others' work to intense, jealous review. If someone falsifies data, it will eventually be discovered, and that can end a career. (Cf: "Cold Fusion." ) If something passes the peer review, you can readily trust the results.

Oh I get it...Science at its finest

So they co-operate with each other milking the system peddling vaccines and then let the Govt (taxpayer) pickup the bill

Vaccine Injury Compensation
www.hrsa.gov...

reply to post by TheConstruKctionofLight


You do realize that science isn't a person right? It's a process for testing hypothesis. Don't confuse the process with the aspect of human greed. Of course there are always going to be fallible, greedy people who utile scientific accomiahments to line their pockets and while some people working in various disciiplnes do engage in their work for profit they are few and far between. Especially in pharmaceuticals it's far more often than not that the deplorable aspects you loathe are perpetrated in the boardroom not a lab. The vast majority of people working in research are not making a killing off their endeavors. For example, my wife's grandfather was on the team that developed the first working photovoltaic cell and he never saw a dime from that. It's not greed that motivates most people to go into science it's curiosity and a desire to understand.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Do you have any proof that the entirety of the scientific community simply "scans over" submitted papers, comparing it to the currently-accepted theories, and then discards absolutely everything that doesn't beat to the same drum?

Or, is it possible that you really do believe in pseudoscience, and are just jilted because "mainstream" science refuses to accept your anecdotal testimony as "proof" of a claim's validity?

As I said in my first post on this thread:

If you happen to find a problem with something generally accepted by the scientific community though, research it, get your findings peer-reviewed, and publish it. That's the great thing about science: it revises itself based on what is observable and proven. Observe something? Prove it, and science will adjust its view. Simple as that.

Link

As for a "faith-based dogma," I believe you're barking up the wrong tree there. Science is based on observation and experimentation. Everything taught in a scientific textbook can be duplicated in a laboratory by anyone who has the time to perform the experiments. Absolutely nothing in the corpus of accepted scientific literature is taken on faith alone.

The only conjecture used in science is during the hypothesis phase, where a prediction is made at what the results of experimentation will be. Beyond that though, the results published in scientific journals and studies are all based on observable findings. If something lacks observable data, like dark matter, then it is considered a hypothesis, or theory, and not a law, Such hypotheses are built upon mathematical models that suggest those things should be there. When science finally does achieve the capability of performing experiments concerning those things, then the models are revised to reflect the results of experimentation.

Faith only comes into play when you're working with the supernatural or the spiritual, not the scientific. Any science that does operate on faith, belief, feeling, or intuition is bad science, and, rightfully so, labeled as pseudoscience.

If you really can't accept science though, and believe that it is is all based on faith, lies, conspiracies, and cover-ups, then I leave you with this challenge: live without science.

It should be simply, really. If science is faulty, then you should have no problem making a cell phone work by praying, or finding a destination you've never been to with dowsing rods, turning your TV on by telekinesis, or powering your automobile with Qi-energy cultivated from meditation.

Accept the challenge: live in a world without the benefits of science, or, admit that science does work, and it is just you who has a grudge with it, because it won't accept your beliefs as scientifically accurate.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


You realize that you just asserted a false dichotomy right? I'd expect nothing better from people here though to utilize cheap debate tactics.

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

 

You realize that you just asserted a false dichotomy right? I'd expect nothing better from people here though to utilize cheap debate tactics.

I Don't see the false dichotomy. Please spell it out for me.