Debate?

[morningstar2651]

Does anyone else find it odd that Physical & Life Sciences is under the category of Discussion and Debate?

It makes sense in fields where there isn't an objective right answer. We can discuss and debate philosophy, politics, and religion... but science?

 

[crjmurray]

Does anyone else find it odd that Physical & Life Sciences is under the category of Discussion and Debate?

It makes sense in fields where there isn't an objective right answer. We can discuss and debate philosophy, politics, and religion... but science?

That should tell you all you need to know about CF.

 

[Gene2memE]

All science is tentative, based on interpretation of the evidence. Some science - most of classical mechanics, for example - is so well supported that it is essentially pointless to argue against the interpretation. Other science - say, the cosmology of the very early universe, or the RNA world hypothesis - is not well supported, or the evidence is incomplete and so open to differing interpretations.

This is where the space for debate is.

Science is supposed to establish reliable theories that explain the available evidence. What then happens its that the rest of us are supposed to take this information and decide how we should apply it to the world.

Unfortunately, there is a body of people that reject certain established scientific theories - young earth creationists reject most of evolution and cosmology, electric universe people reject standard models of cosmology, AGW denialists reject man-induced climate change, anti-vaccine groups reject the idea of vaccine immunisation.

A lot of people think they can argue against well establish science, rather than that at the frontiers of our knowledge. They do this not for scientific reasons, but due to their theological or political positions. They have tied themselves to a particular view of the world and it doesn't matter the evidence presented, they're going to maintain it.

Winston Churchill said a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. I participate here mostly for my own edification. But I hope that every once in a while, I'll be able to run across someone who isn't like the fanatics and is open to the evidence.

Neither side is going to give ground. It bipolar. The theists will argue with the atheists. The EU people will argue with the physicists. The creationists will argue with, well, pretty much every branch of the physical sciences (the phrase "not even wrong" comes to mind) and most of the theists as well.

But, and its a big but, they all hope to influence the people in the middle. That's why a forum like this is important.

 

[Smidlee]

Science is just like religion as if someone doesn't agree or have doubts about the current theory they are seen as heretics. This including stuff no one is sure of like black holes.

Science can not be isolated from man's worldviews. This is why 87% of the time scientist will find what they are looking for... the confirm bias.

A Nature editor wrote had science has become a modern day religion and how the media tries to make science into truth when the truth is what they thought was true a few decades ago is now seen false and we they thought to be false now seem to be true after all. The media doesn't want to hear they 80% sure black holes exist for example but they truly exist and anyone who doesn't think so is a moron. I heard one scientist admit the more they learn the harder it was to even defend realism.

 

[Michael]

Does anyone else find it odd that Physical & Life Sciences is under the category of Discussion and Debate?

It makes sense in fields where there isn't an objective right answer. We can discuss and debate philosophy, politics, and religion... but science?

A lot of people *assume* that "science" is somehow beyond debate, but that Bicep2 fiasco from last year demonstrates that this is simply not the case. When the so called area of "science" is composed primarily of supernatural and invisible constructs, a *lot* is open to debate.

EU/PC theory isn't some "fringe" concept based on *supernatural* constructs galore. It's an *empirical* theory of the universe that is utterly and completely devoid of all the supernatural/invisible constructs of Lambda-CDM. It will therefore always remain a viable empirical option too.

Even the so called "evidence" presented in "science" is highly debatable as that Bicep2 fiasco demonstrates. That particular "science" team claimed to find support for gravity waves, inflation, and every other aspect of their theory in polarized photons, only to have all those claims turn to *dust* in mere months. Science is all about debate actually, and it's changing all the time, particularly in this generation.

 

[Michael]

All science is tentative, based on interpretation of the evidence. Some science - most of classical mechanics, for example - is so well supported that it is essentially pointless to argue against the interpretation. Other science - say, the cosmology of the very early universe, or the RNA world hypothesis - is not well supported, or the evidence is incomplete and so open to differing interpretations.

This is where the space for debate is.

Science is supposed to establish reliable theories that explain the available evidence. What then happens its that the rest of us are supposed to take this information and decide how we should apply it to the world.

Unfortunately, there is a body of people that reject certain established scientific theories - young earth creationists reject most of evolution and cosmology, electric universe people reject standard models of cosmology, AGW denialists reject man-induced climate change, anti-vaccine groups reject the idea of vaccine immunisation.

A lot of people think they can argue against well establish science, rather than that at the frontiers of our knowledge. They do this not for scientific reasons, but due to their theological or political positions. They have tied themselves to a particular view of the world and it doesn't matter the evidence presented, they're going to maintain it.

Winston Churchill said a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. I participate here mostly for my own edification. But I hope that every once in a while, I'll be able to run across someone who isn't like the fanatics and is open to the evidence.

Neither side is going to give ground. It bipolar. The theists will argue with the atheists. The EU people will argue with the physicists. The creationists will argue with, well, pretty much every branch of the physical sciences (the phrase "not even wrong" comes to mind) and most of the theists as well.

But, and its a big but, they all hope to influence the people in the middle. That's why a forum like this is important.

You're absolutely right about fanatics not changing their mind based on the actual empirical evidence. The various 'predictions' "cold dark matter" have been falsified *repeatedly* in the lab, and in further studies of the stellar composition of galaxies over the past 8 years or so, yet the fanatics of Lambda-CDM really couldn't care less about the outcome of their own experiments. If they did care about the results of their "tests", LHC, LUX, Panda-X and all the revelations about the amount of *ordinary* mass that they failed to account for in their galaxy mass estimation techniques would have had some impact on their claims. Instead, they basically buried their heads in the collective sand, and pretended that none of it happened. Debate is a *necessary* component of science, otherwise science wouldn't *ever* progress.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Does anyone else find it odd that Physical & Life Sciences is under the category of Discussion and Debate?

It makes sense in fields where there isn't an objective right answer. We can discuss and debate philosophy, politics, and religion... but science?

While there is an "objective right answer" to all scientific questions, the path that we take to get to that correct answer is often indirect. We often don't really know if we have ever reached the "objective right answer" to a scientific question because science is inherently inductive and thus more evidence could present itself which runs contrary to what we thought was fact. This is both the aspect of science which makes it so powerful and lacking in dogma, but also makes it susceptible to cranks and woo.

There is plenty of room for debate in scientific subjects. Cranks and woo can usually quickly be identified and discarded but the cranks and the woo-peddlers themselves think that they are modern day Galileos. They are not. They do not apply sound scientific reasoning and so are in fact quite the opposite of Galileo.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Does anyone else find it odd that Physical & Life Sciences is under the category of Discussion and Debate?

It makes sense in fields where there isn't an objective right answer. We can discuss and debate philosophy, politics, and religion... but science?

So are you saying that we should still believe the Milky-Way is the entire universe, since that too was once considered an established scientific fact and the objective right answer - with mathematics and all to prove it. So if no debate existed, then no alternative theory could ever arise. You are confusing what people "believe" is established fact with what may indeed be the actual facts.

 

[morningstar2651]

Don't get me wrong - I don't think science is beyond criticism. Criticism and critical thinking are how our understanding of how the world works is improved.

Science isn't up for debate, but it isn't to be protected from critical analysis. This is an important distinction. In a debate, everyone's opinion carries weight. In science, nobody's opinion carries weight - all that matters is the evidence.

Science doesn't change based on well-reasoned arguments about opinions and beliefs - it changes based on research and evidence. I'm not an expert in the field of biology, and you most likely aren't either. It takes a lot of hubris for either of us to think our beliefs or opinions about biology matter to anyone. We haven't been exposed to the research and the evidence that the experts have been, and to decide our conclusions are more accurate than the experts' is incredibly foolish.

You could post a well-reasoned argument about the ethics of abortion or same-sex marriage, and you might be able to sway the opinions of others by doing so - my own beliefs on the ethics of these topics has shifted drastically over time. We can't really do the same thing with science. No matter our beliefs about the origin of life, the dangers of vaccinations, etc. - our beliefs and opinions will never trump research and evidence.

 

[morningstar2651]

So are you saying that we should still believe the Milky-Way is the entire universe, since that too was once considered an established scientific fact and the objective right answer - with mathematics and all to prove it. So if no debate existed, then no alternative theory could ever arise. You are confusing what people "believe" is established fact with what may indeed be the actual facts.

Let's say I believed that. Let's say I believe that the Milky Way is the entire universe and I believed that Earth was the center of the universe.

Could I possibly craft an argument that would convince you that I was right? If not, why couldn't I convince you otherwise - is this a discussion or debate?

Let's assume that I absolutely refuse to listen to what experts say because it contradicts my strongly held religious beliefs and no matter what evidence exists I will not change my opinion - is this science?

 

[morningstar2651]

That should tell you all you need to know about CF.

It speaks volumes that physical and life science is under debate, while oncology, cardiology, endocrinology, and gynecology are in a section where debate is explicitly forbidden.

Apparently only certain branches of science are up for debate?

 

[morningstar2651]

EU/PC theory isn't some "fringe" concept based on *supernatural* constructs galore. It's an *empirical* theory of the universe that is utterly and completely devoid of all the supernatural/invisible constructs of Lambda-CDM. It will therefore always remain a viable empirical option too.

European Plastics Converters? That's all I found by googling EU/PC

 

[PsychoSarah]

European Plastics Converters? That's all I found by googling EU/PC

I know what he is talking about, don't worry, he has links to it too. It is an out there idea on how the universe works.

 

[juvenissun]

Does anyone else find it odd that Physical & Life Sciences is under the category of Discussion and Debate?

It makes sense in fields where there isn't an objective right answer. We can discuss and debate philosophy, politics, and religion... but science?

Exactly. Most issues in science do not have right answers.

For example, should you take vitamin pill?

 

[Architeuthus]

Does anyone else find it odd that Physical & Life Sciences is under the category of Discussion and Debate?

Perhaps that's because there is very little actual discussion of Physical & Life Sciences here.

Instead, we have threads like "The Science of the Mark of the Beast," "Are papercuts a selection pressure?," "Why was the tale of Adam & Eve...?," and, of course, this one.

 

[Michael]

Don't get me wrong - I don't think science is beyond criticism. Criticism and critical thinking are how our understanding of how the world works is improved.

Science isn't up for debate, but it isn't to be protected from critical analysis. This is an important distinction. In a debate, everyone's opinion carries weight. In science, nobody's opinion carries weight - all that matters is the evidence.

Science doesn't change based on well-reasoned arguments about opinions and beliefs - it changes based on research and evidence. I'm not an expert in the field of biology, and you most likely aren't either. It takes a lot of hubris for either of us to think our beliefs or opinions about biology matter to anyone. We haven't been exposed to the research and the evidence that the experts have been, and to decide our conclusions are more accurate than the experts' is incredibly foolish.

You could post a well-reasoned argument about the ethics of abortion or same-sex marriage, and you might be able to sway the opinions of others by doing so - my own beliefs on the ethics of these topics has shifted drastically over time. We can't really do the same thing with science. No matter our beliefs about the origin of life, the dangers of vaccinations, etc. - our beliefs and opinions will never trump research and evidence.

Your belief that opinions don't carry weight, only evidence matters, is a tad naive I'm afraid. There isn't any empirical 'evidence' that dark energy has any empirical/tangible effect on a photon in any lab on Earth, it's just a "popular opinion" in the final analysis. Ditto for "dark matter". In fact they keep debating as to whether or not it's even actually "dark".

In some areas of "science" the expertize is obvious, particularly electrical engineering and biology. When the whole lot of astronomers can't name so much as a single source of "dark energy" however, let alone demonstrate it has some tangible effect on a photon, one starts to wonder what kind of 'expertize" they actually posses.

Try Googleing Hannes Alfven and plasma cosmology theory. You'll find *hundreds* of published papers on the topic.

I think a lot of atheists look to "science" as their surrogate source of "truthiness', but alas even "science" can be a political animal, that is often driven more by "popular opinion" rather than empirical evidence. It depends on the branch of "science" we're talking about of course. I certainly value areas of science that produce tangible goods as much as the next guy.

 

[Michael]

While there is an "objective right answer" to all scientific questions, the path that we take to get to that correct answer is often indirect. We often don't really know if we have ever reached the "objective right answer" to a scientific question because science is inherently inductive and thus more evidence could present itself which runs contrary to what we thought was fact. This is both the aspect of science which makes it so powerful and lacking in dogma, but also makes it susceptible to cranks and woo.

True. Dark energy, dark matter, and "inflation" theory are about as cranky and woowy as they get.

 

[morningstar2651]

There isn't any empirical 'evidence' that dark energy has any empirical/tangible effect on a photon in any lab on Earth, it's just a "popular opinion" in the final analysis. Ditto for "dark matter". In fact they keep debating as to whether or not it's even actually "dark".

I'm not an expert in this field, are you? Perhaps there is a reason the experts have a consensus - what you call "popular opinion"?

I certainly value areas of science that produce tangible goods as much as the next guy.

Are there branches of science that don't produce any tangible goods?

 

[Architeuthus]

I'm not an expert in this field, are you? Perhaps there is a reason the experts have a consensus

In the long term, theories survive because they are true.

In the short term, sociological factors come in to play, which may keep a false theory afloat for a while by favouring those people who accept it. Lysenkoism is the worst example, but one hears plenty of PhD graduates say "I couldn't get a job because I didn't toe the party line."

 

[Architeuthus]

(duplicate post deleted)

 

[Architeuthus]

Are there branches of science that don't produce any tangible goods?

Presumably he means, say, quantum theory (which has led to the manufacture of all kinds of technology) as opposed to recent cosmology (which has as yet produced no tangible products).