CPAPtalk.com

I wonder how many true scientists regulary use the "scientific method"--regardless of consequences.
Truthful results could get in the way of lucrative funding.
Sadly, money cannot be removed from the equation.

Also, before I am given credit for an original thought:

snuginarug wrote:And, I have to say, that is a really snappy quote.

NightMonkey wrote:

OT: Why Do People Reject Science

Because of the scientists!

Let me say I stole that quote from the church and modified it. Inside the church we often say,

Why do people reject Christianity?

Because of the Christians!

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put incorrect words in you mouth. It was an honest mistake, not a ruse de guerre. I am determined to agree with you on something, though...

NightMonkey wrote:It's the scientists. All are human and just like the rest of us come with their own inadequacies, biases, and tendencies to lie, cheat, cut corners, pursue unelightened self-interest, and pave roads to hell with good intentions.

snuginarug wrote: I am determined to agree with you on something, though...

Well! I will have to see what I can come up with next to foil your sinister plot.

M.D.Hosehead wrote:leads to this mind-bending tautology:

Can a scientific understanding of science rejection lead a science rejector to reject science rejection?

Brings back a faint memory of a little ditty wherein a biologist is ruminating on the abilities and future propensities of a whistle-pig to hurl volumes of an organic composite of cellulose fibers encased in a matrix of lignin which resists compression. Quite mind bending. At least for my simple, pliable mind.

M.D.Hosehead wrote:

Can a scientific understanding of science rejection lead a science rejector to reject science rejection?

That statement gave me goosebumps

It reminded me of the days I used to get into semantics with -SWS, and argue with Rooster all the time.

Thank goodness I still have So Well and NightMonkey to give me some mental exercise

Just a little, that is

Still, I am envious that I did not think of that statement first

cheers

Mars

NightMonkey wrote:Brings back a faint memory of a little ditty wherein a biologist is ruminating on the abilities and future propensities of a whistle-pig to hurl volumes of an organic composite of cellulose fibers encased in a matrix of lignin which resists compression. Quite mind bending. At least for my simple, pliable mind.

Exactly... And THAT challenging question has been pondered by some of the world's keenest minds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI7xCpk3tuc

Well, my hat is off to RocketGirl for being erudite as well as a scientist. I am a hard rock geochemist. I can tell you that I did not do it for the money. I spent 20 years getting a BS in Chemistry, then an MS in geology with a Chemistry minor, then a PhD in Geology focusing on hard rock geochemistry. Then I did a 4-year postdoctoral stint. All those years at poverty wages and now I work as an environmental chemist for wages that are well below my educated potential. That is partially because of timely budget cuts by several Republican administrations and partially that I do not choose to prostitute myself to a low wage / high pressure job making a corporation wealthy researching something I would not want to study.

Its my opinion that science appeals to a particular mind set of cognitive abilities. I think scientists necessarily need to like and be well suited to learning and manipulating symbolic languages. All scientists learn a special set of descriptive words and relationships that define their specialty. Additionally if you can learn one set, its not impossible or even fairly easy to learn another set and bridge to another discipline. A scientist learns how to reason in the abstract, to find solutions in the now, from observations and knowledge of the conditions under which the observations were made. We do it because we want to see the nature of the reality that underlies all that we experience with the sense. Its an incomparably rich reality.

Your typical non scientist has no knowledge base and lacks the tools to evaluate what to accept and what to reject when presented with frivolous or even well intended arguments about the local reality. Its been made worse recently by those who want to believe that an opinion sold to the masses via media, is just as valid as evidence and the collaborative work of thousands of scientists. This we have the straw dog of 'intelligent design' being set against evidence from Physics, Geology, Astronomy, Biology, Climatology, and Mathematics to refute the theories of Evolution and Climate and just about any theory that some political wackadoo thinks will stand in the way of convincing ordinary folk that opinions matter more than thermodynamics, more than reality itself.

@nightmonkey
I recall back in my college days, that we did not think med students were scientists. They were bright and by god they could memorized a ton of information, but scientists? no. Can some of them rise to it? yes.

@GoofProof
I had one roommate in college, scientifically dumb as a rock, but obviously slated to make big bucks in corporate America because he was connected by family and wealth. I would not trade places with him for any amount of money. Most science majors understand they will not become rich. If you want to be in a technical field and get rich, you study an appropriate field of engineering. They make a ton of money more than your average scientist.

@mars
I think you are right on and thanks for the links that started this conversation.

Mr Bill,
Yours is an excellent explanation on how many think and how some are unequipped to think and are happy for others to do this for them.

Nothing takes the place of pure reason and logic in addition to lots of expertise in formulating a cogent position.

But far too many ignore this and opine away.

OT: Why Do People Reject Science?

Because .... 86.2% of published scientific studies have this as the final sentence in the conclusion section:

Further studies are needed to reach a conclusion.

Mr Bill wrote:

Your typical non scientist has no knowledge base and lacks the tools to evaluate what to accept and what to reject when presented with frivolous or even well intended arguments about the local reality.
I recall back in my college days, that we did not think med students were scientists. They were bright and by god they could memorized a ton of information, but scientists? no. Can some of them rise to it? yes.

Most science majors understand they will not become rich. If you want to be in a technical field and get rich, you study an appropriate field of engineering. They make a ton of money more than your average scientist.

So MDs, engineers, and economists are not scientists and businessmen and the general public are too stupid to understand science and think logically? Interesting.

Again I am learning from this forum and this time it is the definition of scientist that I am learning. To summarize what I have learned so far from this thread:

scientist [ˈsaɪəntɪst] n 1. One who is a member of an exclusive class who deems themselves smarter and of higher values than everyone else. 2. One who compensates from taking a so-called vow of poverty by disparaging the intellect and morals of everyone else. 3. One who belongs to a class which kicks everyone out of the class as soon they put their book learning to practical use. 4. One who has never been promoted.

Mars, I haven't forgotten that money you saved with that dentist. I hope you are holding onto it because I expect a good latte or non-alcoholic beer when I visit Oz next year. Maybe you can invite the dentist if she is cute.

Ooops. Forget it. Dentists practice, so they are not scientists.

We will still have a good time - just the two of us.

NightMonkey wrote:

OT: Why Do People Reject Science?

Because .... 86.2% of published scientific studies have this as the final sentence in the conclusion section:

Further studies are needed to reach a conclusion.

Would you rather that they lie?

Also, where does 86.2% come from?

There is something very interesting going on here.

It is clear that there is a rich diversity of expertise and viewpoints, and most people here seem interested in debating from genuine principles, in good faith, and to share their views and information. Not all, but most. It's been a very interesting OT thread, and has the potential to continue.

It is also clear that there are very different views here of what constitutes respectful treatment of others. Some posters (on all sides of the discussion) are clearly trying very hard to stick to facts and to present their viewpoints carefully and respectfully of others.

Others are using rhetoric techniques of loaded emotive language, sarcasm, and twisting other people's words to score points. Those techniques squash any legitimate discussion because they move the thread from fact-based information and viewpoint sharing to emotion-based reactive argument.

In other forums of which I'm a member, that sort behaviour gets you branded as a troll and a bully, and nobody takes you seriously any more.

RocketGirl wrote: <snipped> and nobody takes you seriously any more.

Yep. For quite some time I've not paid much attention to So Well and Night Monkey. Their scribblings remind me of the writings of another character I had stopped taking seriously even longer ago -- rooster/roster.

So Well wrote:

Mr Bill wrote:

Your typical non scientist has no knowledge base and lacks the tools to evaluate what to accept and what to reject when presented with frivolous or even well intended arguments about the local reality.
I recall back in my college days, that we did not think med students were scientists. They were bright and by god they could memorized a ton of information, but scientists? no. Can some of them rise to it? yes.

Most science majors understand they will not become rich. If you want to be in a technical field and get rich, you study an appropriate field of engineering. They make a ton of money more than your average scientist.

So MDs, engineers, and economists are not scientists and businessmen and the general public are too stupid to understand science and think logically? Interesting.

Those are your words, not mine. I implied ignorance, which is the simple state of not having knowledge.

Mr Bill wrote: Your typical non scientist has no knowledge base and lacks the tools to evaluate what to accept and what to reject when presented with frivolous or even well intended arguments about the local reality.

You interpreted 'ignorance' as stupidity and inability to think logically. Anyone who desires to learn about a science, and can persevere long enough, and can accept the methodology, can do it. I said some people find it easier to learn than others and speculated that it was like a talent or skill. Science is a method and each branch of the sciences has a vocabulary and a large body of specialized terms and relationships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_la ... ndixe.html

Those in the technical fields usually find it easier to pick up on them. I certainly would not exclude MD's, engineers, and economists from also becoming scientists. However, they generally don't have to be scientists to do their jobs.

Some of the hard sciences look down on the 'lesser' sciences and that can be quite entertaining.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwavgQ7Dbiw

I was thinking about this subject this morning and came up with this idea. Quite possibly one reason many people reject science is because of a common (predominate? I don't know) attitude within the science community that all of life can be explained by scientific fact and theory and religious beliefs have no relevance. I don't accept this. Science has learned much through the ages, and continues to learn much. The irrefutable portion of the body of scientific knowledge is that which can be proven by physical means.

Then there are those aspects of the universe which science to date has not been able to explain in a demonstrable fashion. At least not that I'm aware of.

If indeed the universe began with a big bang where did all the energy originally come from that coalesced into the big bang?

Where and how did time begin?

What is life? This was impressed on me when I watched the documentary about 9/11 that the two French brothers made. They didn't show it happening, but they did record the sound, of bodies hitting the plaza floor as people jumped from the tower. One moment that person was a 100% living human being. A few milliseconds later that person's body was nothing more than a pile of chemicals with no life. That is no life as a whole, but some of the cells in that pile undoubtedly still were alive for a few minutes. We transplant living hearts from dead people to live people. The person died, but the heart did not. So, I ask again, what is life?

For questions like these I for one just don't see how there can be an answer outside of the realm of believing in God, in one way or another. So when a scientist says to me there is no such thing as God, but cannot give me a laboratory provable answer to the above questions, I can't help but question his/her willingness to be open minded. As a natural consequence I tend to be skeptical about the science they espouse.

If all the scientists who have ever lived are brought together in one room, how much of the total realm of knowledge might they have discovered and documented, 1%, 10%, maybe even 20%? Even if the number is 50% how can they possibly be so bold as to declare that a knowledge of God and His power does not exist in the 50% they have not yet discovered?

I am not a radical religious nut. Many people are a lot more faith driven than I am. For them all science that refuses to embrace such concepts as creationism is suspect. I don't buy into that, but many folks do. That's why they reject science.