About modern science

[icomeanon6]

It seems to me that the true meaning of science has been lost in today's society. As I've always understood it, science is about reasoning and analysis. When political bias becomes involved in science, we lose what science is really about. I see this happening all the time with the issue of global warming. No, I'm not saying that people who are skeptical of global warming are getting in the way of science. On the contrary, people who decry skeptics as "Flat-Earthers" are the problem in my opinion.

Think about it: Al Gore can make any extreme claim or show any misleading graph he wants and everyone will just believe him. And yet, when I see columnists like George Will say anything to the contrary, they're immediately attacked and accused of ignoring science. This is absurd, science is not about closing your ears to any idea that's contrary to the common opinion. Real scientists will look at all sides without any bias or prejudice. Doesn't anyone else here think it's disturbing that we classify a scientist as anyone who unquestioningly follows the teachings of the Great Prophet Al?

 

[Zet]

I thought scientist only looked at the possible things and not both sides

 

[icomeanon6]

I thought scientist only looked at the possible things and not both sides

Science would not have gotten anywhere if no one questioned what was possible. Questioning possibility is what led to some of the great experiments that showed us so much about how our world works. Just think of Ernest Rutherford's gold foil experiment. Before he ran that experiment, scientsts might have told you that the idea of atoms deflecting alpha particles was impossible. Rutherford himself said the outcome was like having a piece of tissue paper deflect a bullet.

Science isn't about making presumptions. It's about listening to ideas and then putting them to the test. Right now, an large number of people is listening to only one side of an issue that is still wide open and has not reached a viable conclusion.

 

[Aurafire]

I totally agree...It's frustrating to see that people can become wrapped up in the lies of the media instead of drawing their own conclusions. It just goes to show how influential the media can be, when sometimes just taking a second to think about things logically makes much more sense. =/

 

[ShadowofTime01]

I'm going to agree with Shinjiro, scientists don't look at "both sides" whatever that implies. Science is about trail and error and experimentation. But i do agree the media tends to blow things out of proportion. To prove something as a scientific theory, your hypothesis has to be correct 100% of the time, or else you're forced to rework what the theory is. Atomic theory, the theory of evolution, and germ theory are not perfect theories, but they are generally correct. Al Gore isn't a scientist, and the media distorts a great many things, but you also can't deny the physical evidence we have of our planet's surface temperature being above what we consider to be normal.

I think you're being a little unreasonable in saying that the average person thinks a scientist is only right when following what Al Gore has said about the environment... that's illogical and short-sighted. I don't think you're giving the gerneral public enough credit here.

 

[Starom]

To be honest, it depends what aspect of modern science. But I think the biggest flaw of modern science isn't bias, but the fact that it is so money driven. People no longer wish to discover things just to benefit others, like Vesalius, Harvey or Pasteur. Instead, they just wish to find a cure for something to reap the profit. I mean, until GSK announced they were going to sell their medicine dirt cheap to poor countries, everyone around the world had to pay millions to cure themselves of problems that were not their own creations. What kind of science is that? Science should be working for the benefit of humanity, not just for yourself...

 

[.Ozymandias]

To be honest, it depends what aspect of modern science. But I think the biggest flaw of modern science isn't bias, but the fact that it is so money driven. People no longer wish to discover things just to benefit others, like Vesalius, Harvey or Pasteur. Instead, they just wish to find a cure for something to reap the profit. I mean, until GSK announced they were going to sell their medicine dirt cheap to poor countries, everyone around the world had to pay millions to cure themselves of problems that were not their own creations. What kind of science is that? Science should be working for the benefit of humanity, not just for yourself...

This. Science is no longer about discovering new things and sharing your knowledge to further mankind's understanding of the world we live in, but is now about making the most money for the least work and effort. Even forensic science, an area I'm studying, is becoming biased towards what will make money, which cases will cost money, and even what protocols are economically viable, and it makes me sad that something 100 years ago that was about a global community is now about money.

 

[sims796]

Now, I am not trying to drag religion into this thread, I swear, do not jump on me about this. But it really goes with this thread soooo well.

It annoys me how those who follow religion is immediatly labeled as some sort of Church Going fanatic who ignores all rational evidence of anything ever. This sort of ignorance only hurts scientific development. It irks me when people can't get it through their heads that science is only what people prove & create. It Isn't a religion. Therefore, it is perfectly possible that Scientist may also be vivid churchgoers. If you think otherwise, it's time to grow up.

Heck, I might get in trouble for even mentioning it in this thread. If so, I must say, get over youself, as you are doing just what the OP is saying.

 

[Spinor]

This would apply sometimes, but today, not all the time.

If science was ALL about looking at both sides then they would want to test the claims of people that use TV controls as radio transmitters.

If you are REAL smart, you won't try it. Because TV controls don't receive signals at all.

If a scientist tried to test that, he would feel very stupid and be looked upon stupid at his failure.

It's Ok to see the other sides that are not that challenged, like "Dedicating to music impairs hearing late at life". Ok, that doesn't sound probable but it's worth a try.

However, "The earth is flat"... -_-...

*MP44ed*

 

[Penguin13]

Biology 101 - Lecture 1 (14 January, 2009)

-Biology - scientific study of life.
--Science: what is it?
---The disciplined observations of, and experimentation on, the material world and it's processes in order to test and refine hypothesis, make generalizations (theories, laws, concepts, etc.), and make predictions.

--Aspects of science
---Empirical and logical.
---Tentative - hypotheses are accepted only as long as there is evidence for it. If not, it is either rejected or revised.
---Hypotheses must be falsifiable (stronger than verifiable, because if it is falsified, it is not true for all of time.)
---Scientists tend to be pragmatic (practical), they study what they sense (not philosophical).
---Scientists are skeptical (of proof by authority).
---There is no magic machine to do science. You need creativity. Scientists are creative in their own sense.

-Socially-not science.
--Literature, political science, business, religion, art, music, etc.

-Basic methods used in science.
--Simple observations.
--Experiments.
---Controlled experiment: preliminary observation, then create hypothesis.
----You need an experimental group and control group.
----Results are analyzed to test hypothesis.
----Conclusion: results consistent -> tentatively accepted.
----Conclusion: results not consistent -> hypothesis revised or rejected.

Terms:
-Theory: Supported my many experiments.
-Consensus: General belief that it is correct.



Hope this helps a little bit.

 

[Starom]

This. Science is no longer about discovering new things and sharing your knowledge to further mankind's understanding of the world we live in, but is now about making the most money for the least work and effort. Even forensic science, an area I'm studying, is becoming biased towards what will make money, which cases will cost money, and even what protocols are economically viable, and it makes me sad that something 100 years ago that was about a global community is now about money.

Exactly. Maybe, as a result of this recession, the economy will become so worthless, they have no choice but to return to benevolent science...

 

[Netto Azure]

Well that is true to a point...I can't help but laugh everytime I read George Wills essay at the end of NewsWeek. Seriously, lambasting Gov. Schwarzenegger for his GW activism, while criticizing his in-action on the California budget? (Eh I won't continue...XD)
While I agree that we can go on heaven and earth to the actual meanings of science. We have to remember that science can never be exact. Theory is a term used in science as the highest level of fact.
We can't help but politicize Science, see how the theory of evolution is politicized in today's society?


Eh, I know it's incoherent...I'll try better later on...

 

[sims796]

Finally somebody said it. As reasonable theories area, they aren't exact, they are just what we piece together & deduce as fact.

Sorry, getting off topic, sorry, sorry.