Why do people reject science? Researchers shed new light on the topic.

[Long Live HFC]

But getting back to the OP of this thread, colour me unimpressed by a meta analysis by psychologists of our understanding of climate science. That is not science.

if your concern is education related, cook has an hons degree in physics and the co-authors have various other science degrees relevant to climate/environmental research. the study, despite it's supposed flaws, is still in broad agreement with all the other meta data analyses on the subject from the past 10-15 years.

that said, meta studies really aren't that important in this context because we already know that there is overwhelming evidence supporting AGW science. so, whether it's 100% agreement like oreskes' paper or 93% like stenhouse's, the weaknesses or limitations of such analyses don't open the door for the junk-science deniers.

 

[Frank Bunn]

if your concern is education related, cook has an hons degree in physics and the co-authors have various other science degrees relevant to climate/environmental research. the study, despite it's supposed flaws, is still in broad agreement with all the other meta data analyses on the subject from the past 10-15 years.

What are you talking about? The authors are psychologists.

This conclusion was based on a series of new interviews, as well as a meta-analysis of the research that's been published on the topic, and was presented in a symposium called over the weekend as part of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology annual convention in San Antonio.

 

[darthbards]

Poor moral standards is also a reason why a more modern society may turn away from science.
It's another simple area modern society has changed in a rather significant way. The killing of animals for scientific research had more of a 'squirming' effect on people back in previous times,but is far more of an issue with many today.
We have probably approached a time where science may need to re consider some or their moral standards and viewpoints in such areas.

 

[Long Live HFC]

What are you talking about? The authors are psychologists.

haha sorry, i thought you were being cheeky about my recent discussions re the 2013 meta study on climate research (the lead author is currently doing a phd in psychology). my mistake!

 

[katana]

So if someone doesn't think humans are causing climate change, they will ignore the hundreds of studies that support that conclusion

science is hardly meant to be a democracy. obviously it would depend on the perceived legitimacy (or otherwise) of the studies...

 

[chelseacarlton]

You seriously don't think people have lost confidence in this regard?
I think your even outlining one of the points I made in the third paragraph. Science is starting to come across very aggressive also,which turns people away beyond the layperson in this day and age.

People have done this for centuries,yet we live in an age where people still say what you've said whilst you humbly continue to post the same nonsense in almost every thread.
You and cannot are these deniers,because science progresses and you hate it.
You hate progression,you desire a cage to be happily fed safety.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Insurmountable evidence is still not proof,it's just not enough for me especially when put into consideration with our lack of understanding in a universal sense,and what is currently perceivable to the human mind. Scope and context are very important in my scientific love.
There are threads here on holographic universes where people are discussing multiverse and sims,and the possibility they would be 'flat'.
There is also a thread on flat holographic black holes.
Anyway this is supposed to be a more community based board. I feel this thread is being derailed,and out of respect to our scientific community,I think this discussion should be held elsewhere.

When I've done a little more research in regards to scientists at CERN now having concerns with the accuracy of quantum theory,I may start a thread on that,which could be an excellent place to hold discussions about the prospects of having to re consider,or re write some theories in this very exciting,new era science may be finding itself.

A little bit of wee just came out...

 

[darthbards]

People have done this for centuries,yet we live in an age where people still say what you've said whilst you humbly continue to post the same nonsense in almost every thread.
You and cannot are these deniers,because science progresses and you hate it.
You hate progression,you desire a cage to be happily fed safety.

There's no denying anything. Yes times move forward but I'm speaking for those who think we need to spread our wings and realise some of our theories could be very wrong. In some areas we have made wonderful progress,in others not much at all. I'm speaking for those areas.

As for the post you quoted,and the relevance to the thread,I know numerous people a bit sick of science on a nutritional front. We need to examine this and try and make sure it stops
There's no progression here, it's just backwards and forwards. Take eggs for example,one day good,one day bad,next day moderation,and back around we go. Turns people away. Especially when we get to the moderation stage,people just scream "I could have told them that,what a waste of money",huge turn off.

In regards to people like yourself,many have no interest in your needless wars. Science doesn't need to bother itself attacking churches or bibles,people are a bit over that also. Science needs to look after its own shop,while allowing people to also make free choices. Attacking people and going to war in the name of science doesn't make them change their minds,it leads to rejection. It's not 1900. Science needs to follow traditional scientific methods,but it also needs to behave in a manner that's acceptable to modern standards,like everything else.

There's some brilliant scientific minds out there,but like anything in life,there's some absolute shockers.

 

[chelseacarlton]

There's no denying anything. Yes times move forward but I'm speaking for those who think we need to spread our wings and realise some of our theories could be very wrong. In some areas we have made wonderful progress,in others not much at all. I'm speaking for those areas.

As for the post you quoted,and the relevance to the thread,I know numerous people a bit sick of science on a nutritional front. We need to examine this and try and make sure it stops
There's no progression here, it's just backwards and forwards. Take eggs for example,one day good,one day bad,next day moderation,and back around we go. Turns people away. Especially when we get to the moderation stage,people just scream "I could have told them that,what a waste of money",huge turn off.

In regards to people like yourself,many have no interest in your needless wars. Science doesn't need to bother itself attacking churches or bibles,people are a bit over that also. Science needs to look after its own shop,while allowing people to also make free choices. Attacking people and going to war in the name of science doesn't make them change their minds,it leads to rejection. It's not 1900. Science needs to follow traditional scientific methods,but it also needs to behave in a manner that's acceptable to modern standards,like everything else.

There's some brilliant scientific minds out there,but like anything in life,there's some absolute shockers.

Utter meaningless nonsense.
You're masher matey.

 

[darthbards]

Utter meaningless nonsense.
You're masher matey.

Nothing on earth is meaningless,it's all apart of out journey through life.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Nothing on earth is meaningless,it's all apart of out journey through life.

Many things on earth are meaningless.
That's just jim dandy,when you're on a reality tv show,but it's essentially purposeless in context to this thread.

 

[Total Power]

Many things on earth are meaningless.
That's just jim dandy,when you're on a reality tv show,but it's essentially purposeless in context to this thread.

You are talking to a bloke who believes the earth is most likely to be flat (60% chance). Why do you bother to argue with such people, i stopped long time ago. Just go to the flat earth thread and look at his attempt to name a few "brilliant" flat earth "scientists". Facepalm worthy.

 

[chelseacarlton]

You are talking to a bloke who believes the earth is most likely to be flat (60% chance). Why do you bother to argue with such people, i stopped long time ago. Just go to the flat earth thread and look at his attempt to name a few "brilliant" flat earth "scientists". Facepalm worthy.

I was going to preface my first post with "why am I bothering".

 

[grumbleguts]

I was going to preface my first post with "why am I bothering".

I was happily trying to drive the discussion in the direction of reason, and realised I was arguing with either a cheesecake with internet access or cleverbot with a few cables torn free.

 

[Chief]

I was happily trying to drive the discussion in the direction of reason, and realised I was arguing with either a cheesecake with internet access or cleverbot with a few cables torn free.

But you have to admit he is a great example of the topic. I suggest questioning him to get a better understanding of his absurdity.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[darthbards]

You are talking to a bloke who believes the earth is most likely to be flat (60% chance). Why do you bother to argue with such people, i stopped long time ago. Just go to the flat earth thread and look at his attempt to name a few "brilliant" flat earth "scientists". Facepalm worthy.

Well we are spending billions of dollars to research the universe is nothing like we currently understand.
Elon Musk even went with the odds of one in a billion and chances are those odds very much include 'flat'.

If you have something to say regarding a seperate thread,why not say it in that thread?

 

[grumbleguts]

But you have to admit he is a great example of the topic. I suggest questioning him to get a better understanding of his absurdity.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

If a man in an isolated, as yet undiscovered by western society, village in Papua New Guinea communicates with drums and runners, and he looks up at the sky and sees 747 jets flying overhead, he can only wonder at their communication network. He thinks, "They must have the biggest drums and the fastest runners." His postulate is limited by his experience. Yet all the time the radio waves the plane uses are passing right through his body. In some ways, I see people who don't understand science and as a consequence reject its findings, limited by their experience. They communicate with drums, flat earths and runners.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Okay let's cut the user-directed posts and move back to science as the topic here, thanks.

I have something to contribute to this thread but it'll be long and I don't have time to get it done right now. I'll work on it throughout the day.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

darthbards, I'm going to sort of amalgamate a bunch of your points here and address them together in a way that, in my mind, gives my perspective on the rejection of science, science itself, and of your alternatives. It shouldn't be perceived as a personal attack or anything of the sort, simply a general rebuttal of some of the common anti-science perspectives.

I apologise for the humungous post.

What you're suggesting from my perspective is that scientific rigour should be extended to the point where nothing is announced/taught until it is proven as fact. A noble intention, and I understand why you think this way. However, this is pretty much impossible.

Science focuses on falsifiability rather than verification. We seek to disprove theories and hypotheses, not to prove them. Why, you ask? It can be demonstrated many different ways, but I'll use a philosophical example that has been used throughout time.

You go out to the lake every morning and see a group of swans. You know nothing about swans and have never seen them before. After a week, you realise that every single one is white.

By now, you probably start to form the hypothesis that "all swans are white." But if you wanted to verify this statement, you would need to see every single swan in the world and confirm that they are white. Not exactly efficient, nor realistic. However, if you saw one single black swan, you could, without a shadow of a doubt, reject that hypothesis.

Pattern completion is another good example. A b c d e f g h i j k...what do you think comes next in this pattern? If you said 'l', you're wrong, because I was about to reverse the pattern. The answer is 'j'. It could just as easily have been 'l', or 'a', or a freakin' '3'.

Until you examine every single point of the universe and understand every single thing about it, it is impossible to prove a theory. You can't say for sure that there isn't a contradiction out there until you examine everything. And that's not just unrealistic, it's a paradox. I can't prove theory A without examining and proving theories B, C, D, E...but I can't prove those theories without theory A. You can't do it. It's impossible.

All of that is without even mentioning how easy it is to have a flawed or biased study/observation.

As such, science focuses on falsifiability. A hypothesis must be able to be proven incorrect, and that is what studies seek to do. They attempt to look for that one contradiction amongst a sea of confirmatory observations. Theories get stronger and stronger via inductive reasoning, but they can never be proven.

Your obsession with proof is somewhat troubling to me. I don't want to bring debate from other boards here but suffice it to say that I've seen you use the, "It's your job to prove it to me," line numerous times. I hope I've demonstrated why that's impossible.

You have also noted in this thread that you don't believe theories should be taught until they're proven as "fact." The first part of my argument has already been made, but there is another assumption here that is wrong in my mind: the assumption that there is nothing to gain from the understanding of later-falsified theories.

In psychology I use the example of functional brain imaging. A lot take the results as gospel - and there is good reason for that - but we still operate with the assumption that greater blood/oxygen flow to the brain is indicative of greater activation of those neural networks. A reasonable assumption, and one that is backed by all current evidence - but not a proven assumption by any stretch.

Functional brain imaging - and, by extension, the application of this "unproven" assumption - has astronomically furthered our understanding and treatment of various neurological conditions. Directly as a result of its influence, we've become far more able to diagnose these conditions, and, remarkably, treat them. We've become more able to track improvement or decline, which is vital in treatment plan formation.

Now, if we were to use your reasoning, that nothing should be accepted until it is fact - these developments would not have happened. Countless sufferers of neurological disorders would have unnecessarily lost their lives, independence or functionality because we were too bogged down under the accepted notion that additional oxygen/blood flow to the brain = more activity.

In the future, maybe we discover that you cannot necessarily infer high vs. low activity from blood flow alone. That does not, however, invalidate the progress we have made elsewhere. It does not invalidate the lives it has saved. It does not invalidate neuroimaging's standing as a methodology of vital importance to scientific progress.

Above all, it does not mean that nobody should have followed that assumption in the first place.

That's a pretty simple example, but I'm going to ramp it up now and show you how blatantly wrong theories have furthered our knowledge of the universe.

If you take a science class - or, better yet, a philosophy class - they will often begin by outlining the history of the topic and by covering various theories that were later falsified. I always hated these tangents because I asked similar questions to you - why should I waste time learning about wrong theories? It took a philosophy of science class (which I begrudgingly took because of a lack of elective options) for me to find the answer to that.

The answer is that these theories were useful to science in spite of their failings.

This is a brilliant example, but I'll link to it as it's not exactly my domain:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/_0_0/howscienceworks_20

Without these theories, progress would not have been made in various other fields. Because they weren't wrong, they were just inadequate and did not explain everything.

Now I'm no astronomy/physics expert, but I see this example as being quite simple to the Big Bang. It's flawed. It doesn't account for everything. But what it does account for it accounts for better than anything else that exists right now, and its acceptance has led to a number of useful scientific findings.

Getting into an area where I'm more comfortable, let's talk about your mothe---err, Freud.

Freud was a nut job. The underlying principle of a lot of his theories was that everything about human nature revolved around sex. Now, I don't think this is a ridiculous premise, but the lengths he would go to to rationalise and expand this notion was batshit crazy.

Let's first establish just how contemptible and wrong a lot of his suggestions were. I love this quote: "There is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas." As for examples...

Amongst many other things, he suggested that: boys lusted after their mothers; girls lusted after their fathers; girls suffered "penis envy" which could only be overcome by having a baby or being intelligent enough to hold a professional job; women who couldn't orgasm from sex were immature; that women were the problem in society; that homosexuality derived from stunted growth in the anal phase of development...

For all intents and purposes, his system is useless today. Completely and utterly flawed to the point where it explains almost nothing and does more harm than good. Freud still has his followers - or as we know them today, sex offenders - but in the scientific community his beliefs are largely dead, thankfully.

In all of the history of science, it is difficult to name somebody who managed to be more wrong than Freud. But as posited by the article I'll link below: he still matters.

There is a fair argument to be made that he started everything. Even today a lot of our beliefs and findings began with him. Began with his inquiries.

Freud strongly believed that we were not in complete control of our own mind - that instead, unconscious forces contributed to our decision making processes. He was wrong about a lot of the details but this postulation began decades of research into the unconscious mind, which has found that his underlying suggestion does in fact have a lot of grounding in reality. His intermingling of the unconscious mind and therapy resulted in remarkable advances in psychotherapy (although it is very fair to suggest that Freudian psychoanalysis itself was more harmful than beneficial).

Memories, defence mechanisms, dreams, importance of conflict, personality development, psychological development...all of these areas began with the acceptance of and further development of Freud's ideas. Even wrong science can be good science. Even wrong science can lead to good science.

Failing to pass these theories on and teaching them to the next generation - which you have referred to as "acceptance" - would have stunted these developments. We would know a fraction of what we do today without Freud's troubling beginnings.

If you want to read more about Freud's sexual depravity, this is a good place to start:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-matters-when-he-was-wrong-about-almost-1055800815

Further, Aristotle, Freud, Newton, Einstein and Ptolemy, for example, are all very recognisable names but they were all wrong about at least some of their theories. But they still furthered scientific understanding by forming hypotheses that lead to the creation and in some cases acceptance of theories. Theories that were ultimately not correct (at least, in our current understanding), but still did a lot for science. And this is why we simply cannot subscribe to your views of verification/acceptance/scientific rigour.

For more examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

-------------------

In closing, science is not perfect. Science is not foolproof. Science is not an effective method for proving anything. But here's the thing: nobody that understands science pretends that it is.

Science, as it currently stands, is our best, most efficient method of knowledge, and one that is undermined only by a lack of understanding of its own methods and bias in interpretation, as suggested by the OP (as well as some bad eggs in the community, for sure).

 

[bontshow]

What you're suggesting from my perspective is that scientific rigour should be extended to the point where nothing is announced/taught until it is proven as fact. A noble intention, and I understand why you think this way. However, this is pretty much impossible

Definitely a worthwhile post Dan on the nature of science, but from what I have understood from Darthbards' posting you have made his point - it's hard to ever really know anything for sure, so we shouldn't close our minds to other possibilities

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Definitely a worthwhile post Dan on the nature of science, but from what I have understood from Darthbards' posting you have made his point - it's hard to ever really know anything for sure, so we shouldn't close our minds to other possibilities

I understood his view to be a lot more extreme than that, personally. I definitely agree that we shouldn't close our mind to other possibilities. That is a basic tenet of scientific practice. There's a line, though, and when that extends to giving credit to theories that have been falsified over and over and over again, and to suggesting that we shouldn't focus on our current understanding in an educational setting, then I have an issue.

 

[darthbards]

darthbards, I'm going to sort of amalgamate a bunch of your points here and address them together in a way that, in my mind, gives my perspective on the rejection of science, science itself, and of your alternatives. It shouldn't be perceived as a personal attack or anything of the sort, simply a general rebuttal of some of the common anti-science perspectives.

I apologise for the humungous post.

What you're suggesting from my perspective is that scientific rigour should be extended to the point where nothing is announced/taught until it is proven as fact. A noble intention, and I understand why you think this way. However, this is pretty much impossible.

Science focuses on falsifiability rather than verification. We seek to disprove theories and hypotheses, not to prove them. Why, you ask? It can be demonstrated many different ways, but I'll use a philosophical example that has been used throughout time.

You go out to the lake every morning and see a group of swans. You know nothing about swans and have never seen them before. After a week, you realise that every single one is white.

By now, you probably start to form the hypothesis that "all swans are white." But if you wanted to verify this statement, you would need to see every single swan in the world and confirm that they are white. Not exactly efficient, nor realistic. However, if you saw one single black swan, you could, without a shadow of a doubt, reject that hypothesis.

Pattern completion is another good example. A b c d e f g h i j k...what do you think comes next in this pattern? If you said 'l', you're wrong, because I was about to reverse the pattern. The answer is 'j'. It could just as easily have been 'l', or 'a', or a freakin' '3'.

Until you examine every single point of the universe and understand every single thing about it, it is impossible to prove a theory. You can't say for sure that there isn't a contradiction out there until you examine everything. And that's not just unrealistic, it's a paradox. I can't prove theory A without examining and proving theories B, C, D, E...but I can't prove those theories without theory A. You can't do it. It's impossible.

All of that is without even mentioning how easy it is to have a flawed or biased study/observation.

As such, science focuses on falsifiability. A hypothesis must be able to be proven incorrect, and that is what studies seek to do. They attempt to look for that one contradiction amongst a sea of confirmatory observations. Theories get stronger and stronger via inductive reasoning, but they can never be proven.

Your obsession with proof is somewhat troubling to me. I don't want to bring debate from other boards here but suffice it to say that I've seen you use the, "It's your job to prove it to me," line numerous times. I hope I've demonstrated why that's impossible.

You have also noted in this thread that you don't believe theories should be taught until they're proven as "fact." The first part of my argument has already been made, but there is another assumption here that is wrong in my mind: the assumption that there is nothing to gain from the understanding of later-falsified theories.

In psychology I use the example of functional brain imaging. A lot take the results as gospel - and there is good reason for that - but we still operate with the assumption that greater blood/oxygen flow to the brain is indicative of greater activation of those neural networks. A reasonable assumption, and one that is backed by all current evidence - but not a proven assumption by any stretch.

Functional brain imaging - and, by extension, the application of this "unproven" assumption - has astronomically furthered our understanding and treatment of various neurological conditions. Directly as a result of its influence, we've become far more able to diagnose these conditions, and, remarkably, treat them. We've become more able to track improvement or decline, which is vital in treatment plan formation.

Now, if we were to use your reasoning, that nothing should be accepted until it is fact - these developments would not have happened. Countless sufferers of neurological disorders would have unnecessarily lost their lives, independence or functionality because we were too bogged down under the accepted notion that additional oxygen/blood flow to the brain = more activity.

In the future, maybe we discover that you cannot necessarily infer high vs. low activity from blood flow alone. That does not, however, invalidate the progress we have made elsewhere. It does not invalidate the lives it has saved. It does not invalidate neuroimaging's standing as a methodology of vital importance to scientific progress.

Above all, it does not mean that nobody should have followed that assumption in the first place.

That's a pretty simple example, but I'm going to ramp it up now and show you how blatantly wrong theories have furthered our knowledge of the universe.

If you take a science class - or, better yet, a philosophy class - they will often begin by outlining the history of the topic and by covering various theories that were later falsified. I always hated these tangents because I asked similar questions to you - why should I waste time learning about wrong theories? It took a philosophy of science class (which I begrudgingly took because of a lack of elective options) for me to find the answer to that.

The answer is that these theories were useful to science in spite of their failings.

This is a brilliant example, but I'll link to it as it's not exactly my domain:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/_0_0/howscienceworks_20

Without these theories, progress would not have been made in various other fields. Because they weren't wrong, they were just inadequate and did not explain everything.

Now I'm no astronomy/physics expert, but I see this example as being quite simple to the Big Bang. It's flawed. It doesn't account for everything. But what it does account for it accounts for better than anything else that exists right now, and its acceptance has led to a number of useful scientific findings.

Getting into an area where I'm more comfortable, let's talk about your mothe---err, Freud.

Freud was a nut job. The underlying principle of a lot of his theories was that everything about human nature revolved around sex. Now, I don't think this is a ridiculous premise, but the lengths he would go to to rationalise and expand this notion was batshit crazy.

Let's first establish just how contemptible and wrong a lot of his suggestions were. I love this quote: "There is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas." As for examples...

Amongst many other things, he suggested that: boys lusted after their mothers; girls lusted after their fathers; girls suffered "penis envy" which could only be overcome by having a baby or being intelligent enough to hold a professional job; women who couldn't orgasm from sex were immature; that women were the problem in society; that homosexuality derived from stunted growth in the anal phase of development...

For all intents and purposes, his system is useless today. Completely and utterly flawed to the point where it explains almost nothing and does more harm than good. Freud still has his followers - or as we know them today, sex offenders - but in the scientific community his beliefs are largely dead, thankfully.

In all of the history of science, it is difficult to name somebody who managed to be more wrong than Freud. But as posited by the article I'll link below: he still matters.

There is a fair argument to be made that he started everything. Even today a lot of our beliefs and findings began with him. Began with his inquiries.

Freud strongly believed that we were not in complete control of our own mind - that instead, unconscious forces contributed to our decision making processes. He was wrong about a lot of the details but this postulation began decades of research into the unconscious mind, which has found that his underlying suggestion does in fact have a lot of grounding in reality. His intermingling of the unconscious mind and therapy resulted in remarkable advances in psychotherapy (although it is very fair to suggest that Freudian psychoanalysis itself was more harmful than beneficial).

Memories, defence mechanisms, dreams, importance of conflict, personality development, psychological development...all of these areas began with the acceptance of and further development of Freud's ideas. Even wrong science can be good science. Even wrong science can lead to good science.

Failing to pass these theories on and teaching them to the next generation - which you have referred to as "acceptance" - would have stunted these developments. We would know a fraction of what we do today without Freud's troubling beginnings.

If you want to read more about Freud's sexual depravity, this is a good place to start:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-matters-when-he-was-wrong-about-almost-1055800815

Further, Aristotle, Freud, Newton, Einstein and Ptolemy, for example, are all very recognisable names but they were all wrong about at least some of their theories. But they still furthered scientific understanding by forming hypotheses that lead to the creation and in some cases acceptance of theories. Theories that were ultimately not correct (at least, in our current understanding), but still did a lot for science. And this is why we simply cannot subscribe to your views of verification/acceptance/scientific rigour.

For more examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

-------------------

In closing, science is not perfect. Science is not foolproof. Science is not an effective method for proving anything. But here's the thing: nobody that understands science pretends that it is.

Science, as it currently stands, is our best, most efficient method of knowledge, and one that is undermined only by a lack of understanding of its own methods and bias in interpretation, as suggested by the OP (as well as some bad eggs in the community, for sure).

Cheers for the long post Danx10.
Personally I think we are on the same page except you've had the opportunity to explain it better or to just explained it better.

On some of your points,I've never said to dismiss science rigour,or to ignore science,or our current theories.I've never said proof must be had,rather objected to people dismissing alternate theories on the back of no real proof. I've been against aggressive behaviour based solely around theory,often flimsy theories at best,while we are starting to discovery some new and exciting theories that at least warrant consideration.
I've also stated at times,like you have also mentioned,that sometimes these wrong theories could be a pathway to the correct answer. I was even told by a poster science is no pathway which I didn't understand that mindset.

I've continued to say we are at exciting times in science and need to keep an open mind while keeping our minds open to alternate theories using science.

Most of my views have been solely based at astronomy and my belief our knowledge is extremely poor,and I think I need to emphasize the word extremely,and this seems to get up people's noses,which obviously alters my attitude towards their opinion,in a negative manner.
My views on our lack of knowledge is only magnificent when I also consider the perceivability of the human mind and senses to also be very poor.

I strongly believe our universe is nothing like we think,but i have never outright said it isn't or dismissed what we currently believe.

Imo,we may never discover all we would like to,which doesn't mean we shouldn't try,and personally I think the key to this knowledge is via the invention of Super Intelligence to do the discovering for us. We, imo are simply not intelligent enough.

I hope to continue to express my viewpoint on these matters on this board,and obviously within compliance of this boards rules. If you think I've stepped outside those guidelines,please feel free to pm for an explanation.
Multiverse,sims and M Theory are very real possibilities,and taken very serious by many in the scientific world.

 

[JackOutback]

There is a difference between keeping your mind open to all possibilities and giving extreme possibilities with no evidence the same weight as theories with extensive research and evidence.

 

[grumbleguts]

darthbards,
What you're suggesting from my perspective is that scientific rigour should be extended to the point where nothing is announced/taught until it is proven as fact. A noble intention, and I understand why you think this way. However, this is pretty much impossible.

Science focuses on falsifiability rather than verification. We seek to disprove theories and hypotheses, not to prove them. Why, you ask? It can be demonstrated many different ways, but I'll use a philosophical example that has been used throughout time.

You go out to the lake every morning and see a group of swans. You know nothing about swans and have never seen them before. After a week, you realise that every single one is white.

By now, you probably start to form the hypothesis that "all swans are white." But if you wanted to verify this statement, you would need to see every single swan in the world and confirm that they are white. Not exactly efficient, nor realistic. However, if you saw one single black swan, you could, without a shadow of a doubt, reject that hypothesis.

Great post, just thought I'd add a little something on the nature of proofs. Some proofs are self evident and we can use them to prove other things.

eg. Pythagoras' theorem. Now I could utterly disprove pythagoras' theorem if I could find one right-angled triangle in which the square of its hypotenuse does not equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides. However I would according to the swan analogy have to investigate all the infinite possible RAT's to prove it.

However there is another way.

consider the following square.



The area of the outer square is (a+b)^2 This is self evident
If I expand that I get a^2 + 2ab + b^2 This is self evident
The area of the small square is c^2 This is self evident.

The area of each triangle is 0.5ab This is self evident
The area of the four triangles combined is 2ab.

Take away the four triangles from the big square you get the small square.
a^2 + 2ab + b^2 - 2ab = a^2 + b^2

OR a^2 + b^2 = c^2

This can be proven without the need for a lack of a counter example.

 

[sataris]

The trend seems to be that people are saying "Science doesn't know everything" and then carrying on as if they've said "Science knows nothing".

Truly mind boggling.