dismissing science

[lithium.]

Why does alot of people in this world always try to dismiss science even when it has facts or when a theory on something hold up.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

People dismiss science when it contradicts their established worldview. Having your worldview changed or contested can be a scary thing, so people usually just try to dismiss or discredit anything that might cause them to question their view.

Basically, I'd say it's a mixture of stubborness and fear.

And, this applies to people on both sides of the fence.

 

[lithium.]

OK thanks, thats whats i thought.

 

[LouisBooth]

because nothing science says is absolute and thus can be challenged its actually something you're supposed to do as a scientist.

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
because nothing science says is absolute and thus can be challenged its actually something you're supposed to do as a scientist.

Dismiss: to reject serious consideration of [dismissed the thought] (as defined on www.m-w.com)

Scientists should not dismiss science, they should reject bad science after giving it serious consideration.

-jon

 

[paulewog]

Theory is not science.....

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by paulewog
Theory is not science.....

Gravity is not scientific; relativity is not scientific; atoms aren't scientific. Gotchya.



-jon

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Methinks paulewog shouldn't skip science class.

 

[lithium.]

HAHA same here.

 

[paulewog]

Er, what? Gravity is scientific, we see it happen all the time, and we can perform tests on it even.

But, for example, ummm, the theory of ... let's see, quarks I guess. I forgot what they think is smaller than that. That, I don't believe, has been proven at all. So ... it's technically not scientific. I mean it is in the REALM of science, and it's a scientific theory... but it's not ... hm, I should have clarified...

SCIENTIFIC LAW. Or the toher word, scientific FACT.

 

[paulewog]

sorry, hehe, I was getting a bet mixed up.

I meant, a theory is not necessarily true.

That's what I meant.

/me was a bit confoozled. He's starving

/me got A's in biology, chemistry, and is getting A's in physics.

 

[lithium.]

Well for anything to be a theory there has to be evidence for it and so far the theory for evolution and Gravity seem to be true.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by paulewog
I meant, a theory is not necessarily true.

Theories are constructed to explain a large body of experimental evidence and observable phenomenon. Theories will typically make predictions that can be tested and observed. If the predictions hold true, then the theory is assumed to be correct.

After 150 years or so of experimental data, gathering of evidence, etc, I don't see the theory of evolution being discarded in any big hurry.

 

[paulewog]

Theories is an idea of what happened that fits the evidence, but is not necessarily true. There could be multiple theories for the same evidence. Like in Sherlock Holmes.

I'd raelly like to see an experiment on the past. that'll be interesting. Time machines?

 

[lithium.]

Well that will not happen anytime soon lol, Since right now Time Machines are impossible, But IMO I don't think you could go into the past, probably only the future.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by paulewog
Theories is an idea of what happened that fits the evidence, but is not necessarily true. There could be multiple theories for the same evidence

True, others tried to explain the diversification of life on Earth, fossils, etc, including before Darwin's time. But Darwin (and Wallace)'s early formation of the theory of evolution fit the evidence the best. And it still stands today (albeit it has undergone some transformation, especially with regard to the discovery of genetics).

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by paulewog
Er, what? Gravity is scientific, we see it happen all the time, and we can perform tests on it even.

But, for example, ummm, the theory of ... let's see, quarks I guess. I forgot what they think is smaller than that. That, I don't believe, has been proven at all. So ... it's technically not scientific. I mean it is in the REALM of science, and it's a scientific theory... but it's not ... hm, I should have clarified...

SCIENTIFIC LAW. Or the toher word, scientific FACT.

Physics is far beyond debating whether quarks exist.

For a theory that has not been proven, try WIMP's. However, this theory is scientific because it makes predictions that can be experimentally verified or disproved (well eventually).

 

[blader]

Originally posted by paulewog
Theories is an idea of what happened that fits the evidence, but is not necessarily true. There could be multiple theories for the same evidence. Like in Sherlock Holmes.

I'd raelly like to see an experiment on the past. that'll be interesting. Time machines?

Once again, layman's "theory" and scientific "theory" gets mixed up.

Layman's "theory'' is as you described in the above post.

The scientific "theory" is the closest thing to a "law" that anything can be in the realm of science. Which is why it's called the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, and the theory of quantum mechanics.

The layman's "theory" is more equivalent to the scientist's "hypothesis," not "theory." Theory, in science, is a well established model for explaining a large body of evidence.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by paulewog
Theories is an idea of what happened that fits the evidence, but is not necessarily true. There could be multiple theories for the same evidence. Like in Sherlock Holmes.

I'd raelly like to see an experiment on the past. that'll be interesting. Time machines?

That's why scientists (unlike the Greek philosophers) test their theories. If a theory makes a prediction that does not occur, it is either discarded or modified.

We do experiments on the past by comparing the theory to new data that is discovered.

 

[lithium.]

I have to agree with fragmentsofdreams, and blader.