Believe in science & ethics
-
It's still correct to apply it to the our environment,Originally posted by PRP:I think Newton's theroy of gravity is still fundamentally correct.Secondary students learn it nowadays,don't they? -
You forgot the last statement to make your logic correct:Originally posted by soul_rage:Science MAY BE correct & believable.
IF you can't trust people, and people are the drivers of science, how can you say Science is correct with so much absoluteness?
If you are such a firm believer of Science, then you should not forget the basics of logic Mathematics
1) Your statement says Science is 100% CORRECT
2) Not all human beings can be trusted
3) Science is HUMAN-DRIVEN
4) Since NOT ALL human beings can be trusted, THEREFORE Science CANNOT be 100% CORRECT and BELIEVABLE
Therefore your statement 1) cannot hold true.
5)Humans can always experiment to verify whether their theories of science is accurate. -
I din forget to add the last statement. Your point above is moot, since its already addressed in (2) that not all humans can be trustedOriginally posted by Herzog_Zwei:You forgot the last statement to make your logic correct:
5)Humans can always experiment to verify whether their theories of science is accurate.
And how will you ensure that their verified experimental results are correct, since humans are not 100% trustworthy?
Again, I will refer you to reports of past scientific discoveries being found to be incorrect several years later.
No matter you do 100 or 1000 or 10000 different experiments to verify a theory, what it is doing is to MINIMIZE the possibility of the result being wrong, but rigorous testing can NEVER guarantee that the result will NEVER be wrong.
If you guys are so into Science, then you should understand logic mathematics better. There is NO WAY to guarantee a 100% correctness. All we can do is to minimize errors -
Eh, I thought someone was arguing that Science is the Absolute Truth, now you guys are arguing with new assumptions?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:It's still correct to apply it to the our environment,
In scientific experiments, you must state your assumptions first. Similarly, there should not be last minute addition of assumptions, since you guys stated so clearly that Science is the absolute truth?
It shows then that Newton laws are only applicable to a tiny Earth, and Earth is NEGLIGIBLE compared to the entire universe.
So where is the talk that Science is 100% correct and believable, when this is shown right now to be only applicable to a negligible portion of the universe? -
If Newton's Theory is just an approximation,why don't recent scientists make it more accurate?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:To be more precise, Newton's Theory of Gravity is an approximation at smaller dimensions and lower velocities. At larger spatial dimensions and relativistic speeds, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity comes to the fore. -
Even if a scientist or a professional says his opinions or research are scientific, you cannot believe him 100% because he may err or cheat.So it is good that Soul_rage brings out the issue of doubting on science.
-
From my understanding
Ethics are just studies about how moral values can bring the greatest benefits out in humanbeings life.
So lets say, killing and raping each other can bring the greatest benefits out in humanbeings life. Then its correct under the law of ethics.
Thus there is no FIXED ethics for us to follow.
So being righteous, respecting others, showing good moral values arent really ethics what. Ethics is just a study, not a set of moral values for us to follow.
And up till today there is no philosopher that is able to confirm any "ethics" that would bring the greatest benefit what.
Am i wrong
-
Originally posted by PRP:
good that you accept this.
Even if a scientist or a professional says his opinions or research are scientific, you cannot believe him [b]100% because he may err or cheat.So it is good that Soul_rage brings out the issue of doubting on science.[/b]
All I want to say is, always keep an open mind. Science is a good tool to explain many things in this universe, but its too limited to be considered the holy grail. If one insists on always having a scientific explanation before accepting that a certain thing exists, then he would be depending too much on his 5 senses, and closing off his 6th sense, which is the most powerful sense of all.
Remember the korean scientist whom fabricated data on cloning. If he was not caught, then this would have been the 'truth' for as long as he was not caught. -
Your view reminds me of this:Originally posted by soul_rage:Science MAY BE correct & believable.
IF you can't trust people, and people are the drivers of science, how can you say Science is correct with so much absoluteness?
If you are such a firm believer of Science, then you should not forget the basics of logic Mathematics
1) Your statement says Science is 100% CORRECT
2) Not all human beings can be trusted
3) Science is HUMAN-DRIVEN
4) Since NOT ALL human beings can be trusted, THEREFORE Science CANNOT be 100% CORRECT and BELIEVABLE
Therefore your statement 1) cannot hold true.
Contrarian
A contrarian is someone who poses as a skeptic, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty. As Chris Mooney writes:
That doesnÂ’t mean that scientific consensus is right in every instance. There are famous examples, in fact, of when it was proved wrong: Galileo comes to mind, as does a lowly patent clerk named Einstein. In the vast majority of modern cases, however, scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism.*
Contrarians are particularly active in the areas of climate change and other environmental issues, but they have been active in many other areas as well, such as tobacco and health issues. Contrarians demand endless analysis of issues to prevent any action from being taken rather than to ensure that the most reasonable conclusion be arrived at. Polluters and anyone else opposed to government regulations are well served by the contrarian's paralysis by analysis. Contrarians often refer to their endless demands for more study and their claims that doubts still remain—no matter what the consensus—as "sound science," a bit of doublespeak that is the scientific equivalent of the filibuster.
Rather than demanding we dig deeper in order to clarify issues, the contrarian simply wants to throw dust in people's eyes so they can't see what's really going on. The function of contrarians is to arouse fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) and promote the false notion that "sound science" is science where you can't find a contrary view. The contrarian philosophy is Orwellian doublespeak at its best: Some of the best science available is labeled "junk science" by contrarians simply because there are contrary views that may be held by a very small minority.
http://www.skepdic.com/contrarian.html -
I am a person who lives life with philosophies, and I can tell you that what you are saying is not wrong.Originally posted by Xephone_xenon:From my understanding
Ethics are just studies about how moral values can bring the greatest benefits out in humanbeings life.
So lets say, killing and raping each other can bring the greatest benefits out in humanbeings life. Then its correct under the law of ethics.
Thus there is no FIXED ethics for us to follow.
So being righteous, respecting others, showing good moral values arent really ethics what. Ethics is just a study, not a set of moral values for us to follow.
And up till today there is no philosopher that is able to confirm any "ethics" that would bring the greatest benefit what.
Am i wrong
In the first place, ethics is a very subjective thing. My wife in her upbringing thinks that its not ethical to take a sibling's clothing without asking him/her that you are borrowing it.
In my family, our upbringing is to share everything, so its not an ethic issue to just go and take your bro/sis's clothes and use it, just need to inform him/her.
So what is ethical/unethical may not be true for the next person. -
QuoteOriginally posted by soul_rage:Science MAY BE correct & believable.
IF you can't trust people, and people are the drivers of science, how can you say Science is correct with so much absoluteness?
If you are such a firm believer of Science, then you should not forget the basics of logic Mathematics
1) Your statement says Science is 100% CORRECT
2) Not all human beings can be trusted
3) Science is HUMAN-DRIVEN
4) Since NOT ALL human beings can be trusted, THEREFORE Science CANNOT be 100% CORRECT and BELIEVABLE
Therefore your statement 1) cannot hold true.
A valid argument may have false premises.
Being valid is not the same as being sound. Validity is determined by the relationship of premises to conclusion in a deductive argument. The premises of a valid argument are said to imply their conclusion. Thus, a false premise can lead to a false conclusion. An argument may seem valid, but at the end of the day if it is built upon false premises, it is not sound
With ref to: http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson2.html
About how argumentative sophistry can blind one to reason.
You may give a "valid argument" but it is built upon false premises and lead to false conclusions. You automatically assume that just because science (and indeed all bodies of knowledge) is not 100% correct (what do you mean by "correct"? Do you define it as "verifiable"?) due to it being driven by "imperfect" Man, it is inherently untrustworthy.
No field of knowledge in this physical plane of existence is 100% verifiable. However, this doesn't mean we get "paralysed by analysis" and begin to doubt the soundness of existence. In the case of science, yes indeed it is not 100% "perfect" but it is the best methodology available to Man to study the natural world. It may not be 100% "foolproof" but it certainly is the most trustworthy of all the thinking tools available to Man. The greatest strength of science is its lack of dogmatism and its ability to correct its body of knowledge upon discovery of errors.
Some important features of the nature of the science that shows its strength and trustworthiness:
Scientists think critically about claims. Empirical evidence is their ultimate standard.
Scientists use a variety of methods: hypothesis, for instance, as well as analogy and induction. Some collect observations; others creatively recognize patterns in data. Imagination, logical reasoning, chance, and interdisciplinary thinking can all be important.
Observation is sometimes enhanced by quantitative measurement, by comparison—especially with controls that isolate the effect of individual variables or help distinguish correlation from causation—and by graphical representation and statistical analysis summarizing patterns in the data and the chances for error.
Data does not speak for itself. Rather, scientists interpret findings, and sometimes those interpretations are biased by theoretical or cultural perspectives.
Scientific claims vary in their level of certainty. No method guarantees answers or absolute certainty, yet multiple lines of evidence help reinforce many claims. Even important problems may remain unresolved. In some cases, scientists may justifiably disagree.
Science is a human enterprise. Some scientists are motivated by curiosity or a passion to solve problems, others by profit or ambition. Some collaborate; others compete.
Knowledge develops historically. Sometimes concepts change dramatically.
Science resolves only problems of fact, not values. Nonetheless, the practice of science and its results have moral dimensions.
Science generally aims to map and explain the world. Technology differs in that it aims to adapt that understanding of the world.
With ref to: http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/allchin2.html -
May I point out that that unethical Korean scientist (Hwang Woo-Suk) was caught in the act by other eithical SCIENTISTS. This shows the self-correcting nature of the scientific process in dealing with errors and falsehoods. A close examination of Hwang Woo-Suk's case shows that he committed this ethical breach more out of human weakness rather than because the process of science is untrustworthy. This case is more about moral ethics and should not be used as a chopping board to indict the scientific process. In fact it is downright spurious to condemn the scientific process just because of a mistake due to an ethical lapse (that is due more to the pressure-cooker success-driven Confucian society like Korea).Originally posted by soul_rage:good that you accept this.
All I want to say is, always keep an open mind. Science is a good tool to explain many things in this universe, but its too limited to be considered the holy grail. If one insists on always having a scientific explanation before accepting that a certain thing exists, then he would be depending too much on his 5 senses, and closing off his 6th sense, which is the most powerful sense of all.
Remember the korean scientist whom fabricated data on cloning. If he was not caught, then this would have been the 'truth' for as long as he was not caught.
With ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk
BTW, what is this "6th Sense" (This sounds too much like a M Knight Shyamalan's movie.....) which you claim is so "most powerful of all"? Please define it (is it instinct, pineal gland, second sight, gut feel, etc) and tell me what makes it so that "powerful"?
Surely something that "most powerful of all" must have a name of its own. Even each of the other "less powerful" 5 senses (taste, smell, touch, sight, hearing) have names and properties of their own.....so how about this wondrous "6th sense" that you seem to exalt so highly? -
Do you want to learn multivariable calculus in Secondary school or in Junior College?Originally posted by PRP:If Newton's Theory is just an approximation,why don't recent scientists make it more accurate?
Do you want to learn Lagrangian mechanics in Secondary school or in Junior College?
General Relativity requires a deep understanding about mechanics, and at a very high level, topology, which I don't even want to touch for fear of burning my hands and brains off, which isn't taught at the Secondary school level or Junior College level. Hell, even undergrad Physics merely skims this topic. The rest is left to graduate Physics students pursuing a PhD to figure it out. -
Finally, someone comes along and repeat what I said pages ago.Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:May I point out that that unethical Korean scientist (Hwang Woo-Suk) was caught in the act by other eithical SCIENTISTS. This shows the self-correcting nature of the scientific process in dealing with errors and falsehoods. A close examination of Hwang Woo-Suk's case shows that he committed this ethical breach more out of human weakness rather than because the process of science is untrustworthy. This case is more about moral ethics and should not be used as a chopping board to indict the scientific process. In fact it is downright spurious to condemn the scientific process just because of a mistake due to an ethical lapse (that is due more to the pressure-cooker success-driven Confucian society like Korea).
With ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk
Science is by no means infallible, but it is the vigorous proof, the peer review process, and the repeatability of results that demonstrates whether or not a hypothesis can be accepted as fact. Even if it is accepted by fact, the community, in general, encourages people to think out of the box and question existing theories and to attempt to disprove them.
An example would be Quantum Mechanics. There are some ... 3 ways to approach Quantum Mechanics. One was first derived by Heisenberg, then Schrodinger, who didn't fancy Heisenberg's interpretations and preferred something more classical, came along with his. Dirac wanted a more mathematical basis and rederived the whole lot again. Decades later, we have Feynman coming along with his own ideas and interpretation on Quantum Mechanics. In the end, Dirac, Schrodinger and Heisenberg all came up with the same thing. -
Again, someone fails to see my point.Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:May I point out that that unethical Korean scientist (Hwang Woo-Suk) was caught in the act by other eithical SCIENTISTS. This shows the self-correcting nature of the scientific process in dealing with errors and falsehoods. A close examination of Hwang Woo-Suk's case shows that he committed this ethical breach more out of human weakness rather than because the process of science is untrustworthy. This case is more about moral ethics and should not be used as a chopping board to indict the scientific process. In fact it is downright spurious to condemn the scientific process just because of a mistake due to an ethical lapse (that is due more to the pressure-cooker success-driven Confucian society like Korea).
With ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk
BTW, what is this "6th Sense" (This sounds too much like a M Knight Shyamalan's movie.....) which you claim is so "most powerful of all"? Please define it (is it instinct, pineal gland, second sight, gut feel, etc) and tell me what makes it so that "powerful"?
Surely something that "most powerful of all" must have a name of its own. Even each of the other "less powerful" 5 senses (taste, smell, touch, sight, hearing) have names and properties of their own.....so how about this wondrous "6th sense" that you seem to exalt so highly?
You posted so many replies about me, but I will just summarize what I say, instead of replying to your misconception of me
1) I in no way openly declare and claim that Science is 100% untrustworthy (which is what you imply of me). I merely am using Discrete Mathematics, which is one of the areas of Science, to prove that Science cannot be 100% believable. This, no matter how much you post, you cannot deny
2) Science is human-driven. Therefore, there is always room for error, and thus you cannot say that its 100% trustworthy.
3) Please read up on the 6th sense. Being a person who goes about quoting so many articles, I am very sure you can find out some info on the 6th sense.
4) Its not my business at the end whether you want to think Science is the holy grail or not. I merely just wish to remind everyone of the possibility of that 1% or 0.1% or 10% or how many % possibility that Science can be wrong. And this possibility can NEVER be 0%, given points (1) and (2)
And to your point above on the Korean scientist, its NOT a matter of WHO catches him, or WHEN he is caught. Its a matter of WHAT IF he is not caught for a period of time? Let us assume that what if he is not caught for a period of time (one month, one year, one decade, etc), that his proofs are so solid that other scientists are not able to locate the lie?
Then during this period (one month, one year, one decade), his study would be acknowledged by the scientific community that its correct and valid, and this will result in what I mention, a 'lie' or 'incorrect science', that will be considered as correct and as a fact.
Do not forget that before he was caught, he had won numerous awards, and being honoured by many in the scientific community.
And yes you are correct, I like to question, because I like to find out more. I do not think there's anything wrong with keeping an open mind. You cannot deny that Science was wrong in many counts during the course of history. Its part and parcel of what Fingernolin mentioned, but because of that, its also not 100% believable then. -
Note that I do not disagree with you, but you indirectly support what I am highlighting. That Science cannot be 100% believable exactly because of the scientific process.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Finally, someone comes along and repeat what I said pages ago.
Science is by no means infallible, but it is the vigorous proof, the peer review process, and the repeatability of results that demonstrates whether or not a hypothesis can be accepted as fact. Even if it is accepted by fact, the community, in general, encourages people to think out of the box and question existing theories and to attempt to disprove them.
Even though the scientific community encourages people to think out of the box, how many of the laymen (you, me and all here who are not scientists) ever have that sort of energy or time to do that? Most people would just trust what Science says. -
Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:
By the way, do you know that you are a contrarian yourself, because you refuse to accept that Science is not 100% trustworthy, even though its a consensus that Science is human-driven, and therefore there is always the possibility of an error, no matter how rigorous the testing and validation is performed?
Your view reminds me of this:
[b]Contrarian
A contrarian is someone who poses as a skeptic, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty. As Chris Mooney writes:
That doesnÂ’t mean that scientific consensus is right in every instance. There are famous examples, in fact, of when it was proved wrong: Galileo comes to mind, as does a lowly patent clerk named Einstein. In the vast majority of modern cases, however, scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism.*
http://www.skepdic.com/contrarian.html
[/b] -
I won't particularly consider myself layman, but that aside, the trouble is the "6th sense" is particularly unquantifiable, and thus it is not trusted within the realm of Science which bases itself upon evidence and not something particularly "unquantifiable".Originally posted by soul_rage:Note that I do not disagree with you, but you indirectly support what I am highlighting. That Science cannot be 100% believable exactly because of the scientific process.
Even though the scientific community encourages people to think out of the box, how many of the laymen (you, me and all here who are not scientists) ever have that sort of energy or time to do that? Most people would just trust what Science says. -
Where in my postings did I say that science is 100% foolproof? You are using a strawman argument in which you create/misrepresent another's position in which you refute a position of your own creation rather than address the position of another.Originally posted by soul_rage:By the way, do you know that you are a contrarian yourself, because you refuse to accept that Science is not 100% trustworthy, even though its a consensus that Science is human-driven, and therefore there is always the possibility of an error, no matter how rigorous the testing and validation is performed?
My position is that the methodology of science is self-correcting, and is certainly the most trustworthy compared to other methodologies (i.e. philosophy, religion, gut instinct, etc) of understanding the natural world. Science is a tool and though the humans who use this tool may not aways get things right, this does not invalidate the greatness of science in bringing illumination in an otherwise blinkered word of supersition and "6th sense (please illuminate me, I have no idea what this is?) " -
Only stupid people believe that science is 100% correct and only people that are more stupid believe that there is anything else more believable than scientific discoveries.
-
Yes, please elaborate. What is this wondrous "6th sense" that you speak so exultantly of?Originally posted by soul_rage:Please elaborate. One-liners do not contribute to this thread
You said in your previous posting that it is "awareness".....well, what kind of "awareness" are we talking about. Please elaborate, one liners do not contribute to this thread.
I did do a web search and all I got are just sites on Mr Shyamalan's ghost movie and some websites that promote pseudoscientific psychic beliefs....and if this is the "6th sense" that you talk about, then it is patently much much more unreliable (and indeed is plain supersitious folly) than the scientific method in studying natural phenomena. -
Ah, the pot calling the kettle black then. Please read your previous postings. You started by calling me a great disbeliever and a contranian, when all I call upon is for the understanding that Science cannot be 100% believable.Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:Where in my postings did I say that science is 100% foolproof? You are using a strawman argument in which you create/misrepresent another's position in which you refute a position of your own creation rather than address the position of another.
My position is that the methodology of science is self-correcting, and is certainly the most trustworthy compared to other methodologies (i.e. philosophy, religion, gut instinct, etc) of understanding the natural world. Science is a tool and though the humans who use this tool may not aways get things right, this does not invalidate the greatness of science in bringing illumination in an otherwise blinkered word of supersition and "6th sense (please illuminate me, I have no idea what this is?) "
So I wonder who is misrepresenting who?
Bear in mind then, that when you accuse someone else, you are most often found performing the same act too.
No, I din say Science was not great.
And I said before that I respect and agree that Science is the best tool to explain many things around us.
So long as you agree with me that Science is not 100% believable (which you have to, coz you are again implicitly agreeing to this when you say Science is self-correcting. If it is not 100% trustworthy, then there is room for self-correction), we can stop the argument
Its not that you have no idea what the 6th sense is, its because you refuse to understand it because you cannot see, hear, touch, smell it. -
Yup, I totally agree with you.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Only people that are more stupid believe that there is anything else more believable than scientific discoveries.
And as I said before, the scientific methodology is not 100% foolproof (becos it is a tool of "imperfect humans"), but it is still much better (and more trustworthy) than other methods of studying the world around us.
People like soul_rage love to slam science, but can they come up with a better alternative methodology in studying the natural world? Nope, science may not be 100% foolproof but it is definitely more reliable than other mental tools mankind can employ in understanding our universe. -
Yup, I totally agree with you.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Only people that are more stupid believe that there is anything else more believable than scientific discoveries.
And as I said before, the scientific methodology is not 100% foolproof (becos it is a tool of "imperfect humans"), but it is still much better (and more trustworthy) than other methods of studying the world around us.
People like soul_rage love to slam science, but can they come up with a better alternative methodology in studying the natural world? Nope, science may not be 100% foolproof but it is definitely more reliable than other mental tools mankind can employ in understanding our universe. -
here we go again... sigh... I did not slam science. I merely am just giving examples on how Science is not 100% trustworthy.Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:Yup, I totally agree with you.
And as I said before, the scientific methodology is not 100% foolproof (becos it is a tool of "imperfect humans"), but it is still much better (and more trustworthy) than other methods of studying the world around us.
People like soul_rage love to slam science, but can they come up with a better alternative methodology in studying the natural world? Nope, science may not be 100% foolproof but it is definitely more reliable than other mental tools mankind can employ in understanding our universe.
Now you are agreeing to my point, that it is not 100% foolproof.
That's all I am saying.
Perhaps you should see how you go about slamming others, before accusing others of slamming science.