Scientist and their Science - Infalliable ?

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Anthony
Knowledge only exists because man exists?

 

 

Anthony,

I can only ask, are you intentionally missing my point? Science is knowledge of our natural world, and the tools used to arive at conclusions.

This needs repeating.

"Science is ever fine tuning, changing and advancing. The bottom line is results for the betterment of mankind. Look at the bigger picture. Look at the fact that whenever you get a fever or headache, some doctor does not start draining blood out of you by the pints. Look at how life expectancy is much longer than it was a mere 200 years ago. Today, medical science is detecting and curing diseases that were considered 100% fatal a mere 100 years ago. Look at this computer in front of you, and how it allows you to communicate with people worldwide, in an instant, and share knowledge and experiences. Look at all the advances in agriculture. 200 years ago, 95% of America's population were in agriculture, producing 100% of the country's food needs. Today, about 5% of the population are in agriculture, yeilding more food on less land, and producing enough food to export. Look at things like doppler radar, which has saved countless lives over the recent years, by spotting and identifying tornado formations and severe thunder storms.

The list goes on. My point is, do not deride the very process that we all benefit from."

John

 

[TheBear]

I think I know where the terninology break-down lies. The natural world and universe is there, with or without accurate scientific explaination.

 

[Anthony]

Hmm those poor animals everything they learned, everything they figured out was all simply deposited in their brains at birth. How about our friends the Apes no knowledge for them either? Oh that's right we can't consider the Apes, because there considered to be entry level men?

Above comment refers to:Knowledge could not exist without man

Originally posted by sampo
How could it exist otherwise?

 

 

[TheBear]

You have lost me at this point, Anthony. I am completely confused about what you are talking about.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by TheBear
I think I know where the terminology break-down lies. The natural world and universe is there, with or without accurate scientific explanation.

Exactly - we agree on that

 

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by TheBear
Science is ever fine tuning, changing and advancing. The bottom line is results for the betterment of mankind. Look at the bigger picture. Look at the fact that whenever you get a fever or headache, some doctor does not start draining blood out of you by the pints. Look at how life expectancy is much longer than it was a mere 200 years ago. Today, medical science is detecting and curing diseases that were considered 100% fatal a mere 100 years ago. Look at this computer in front of you, and how it allows you to communicate with people worldwide, in an instant, and share knowledge and experiences. Look at all the advances in agriculture. 200 years ago, 95% of America's population were in agriculture, producing 100% of the country's food needs. Today, about 5% of the population are in agriculture, yeilding more food on less land, and producing enough food to export. Look at things like doppler radar, which has saved countless lives over the recent years, by spotting and identifying tornado formations and severe thunder storms.

The list goes on. My point is, do not deride the very process that we all benefit from.

John

Any comments on this?

 

[sampo]

Originally posted by Anthony
Hmm those poor animals everything they learned, everything they figured out was all simply deposited in their brains at birth. How about our friends the Apes no knowledge for them either? Oh that's right we can't consider the Apes, because there considered to be entry level men?

Above comment refers to:Knowledge could not exist without man



 

 

Instinct and knowledge are not the same thing. 

 

[LouisBooth]

"Today, medical science is detecting and curing diseases that were considered 100% fatal a mere 100 years ago."

Yes, tech has increased. Does that mean science is infallaible? No.

"do not deride the very process that we all benefit from."

LOL, love it or leave it huh? how trite. I'm suprised no one on this forum has jumped on you yet for that statement....lack of being constant I guess...

 

[TheBear]

Looking for another fight? I'm not in the mood, Louis. Go pick on someone else. This will be my last reply to your insulting remarks. I am done with you.

See ya!

 

[LouisBooth]

1. I'm not being insulting, if you took it that way you're *ahem* misunderstanding
2. I was commenting on how this forum has a double standard, I've done that before
3. i was trying to stay on topic, which I think you started straying from.

why do you take everything so personal? Chill out man.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by sampo
 Instinct and knowledge are not the same thing. 

While some functions that animal demonstrate are instinct, there is no such thing as animals obtaining knowledge? What about Older/Parent animals teaching their young?

 

 

[sampo]

Apparently our definitions of knowledge differ.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Something I just noticed that bothers me...

Why is this thread titled, "scientists and their science? Is there some other kind of science not practiced by scientists?

Reading some of the other threads on this board, I have to assume that there is. Most arguments are not using what I'd call "science" to prove their points.

Would somebody please explain what this non-scientific "science" is? What makes it different from scientists' science? And is it infalliable?

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
Something I just noticed that bothers me...

Why is this thread titled, "scientists and their science? Is there some other kind of science not practiced by scientists?

 

The thread was started to focus on the Men & Women, they create the rules on the collecting and publishing of findings and theories. Many cloak this under the umbrella of Science. There really are not up front checks and balances, sure someone might later prove something wrong, but there is no money in that.

 

[Morat]

The thread was started to focus on the <B>Men &amp; Women</B>, they create the rules&nbsp;on the collecting and publishing of findings and theories. Many cloak this under the umbrella of Science. There really are not up front checks and balances, sure someone might later prove something wrong, but there is no money in that.

&nbsp; Only fame and fortune. Oh wait, that is money. So I guess you are wrong.

&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Anthony
&nbsp;

The thread was started to focus on the Men &amp; Women, they create the rules&nbsp;on the collecting and publishing of findings and theories. Many cloak this under the umbrella of Science. There really are not up front checks and balances, sure someone might later prove something wrong, but there is no money in that.

No, "up front" checks and balances?&nbsp; You've got to be kidding!! Ever submit a grant proposal?&nbsp; The hypothesis must be sound, the methodology to test the hypothesis must be sound, the personnel to do the study have to have the appropriate expertise in the methodology, and the resources must be adequate.&nbsp; All that is reviewed and checked.&nbsp; Without it, no money.

Then there are the peer-reviewers for the papers.&nbsp; Everything is checked to see if 1) the conclusions match the data, 2) there are no alternative hypotheses that can also explain the data.

Don't forget the scientific societies.&nbsp; Most are open to anyone who wants to join. The rest function as democracies, so it is impossible for a small group to impose their scientific ideas on everyone.

No, what we have here is another version of the "Conspiracy Theory of Evolution". Evolution is not accepted by the data.&nbsp; Heaven Forbid!!&nbsp; Oh no!!&nbsp; It must be a conspiracy to put a false idea over on people.

Of course, psychologists call this "projection". You project the problems of yourself onto others.&nbsp; The data falsifies creationism and creationists make scientists sign oaths that they won't find any data contradicting creationism.&nbsp; So, if that is how creationists work, of course evolutionists must work the same way.&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Today, medical science is detecting and curing diseases that were considered 100% fatal a mere 100 years ago."

Yes, tech has increased. Does that mean science is infallaible? No.

"do not deride the very process that we all benefit from."

LOL, love it or leave it huh? how trite. I'm suprised no one on this forum has jumped on you yet for that statement....lack of being constant I guess...

Both points, Louise, mean that science isn't wrong all&nbsp;the time.&nbsp; What's worse, showing itself wrong is exactly what science does.&nbsp; The only sure statements in science are the negative ones:&nbsp;
The earth is not flat.
The sun is not the center of the solar system.
Each species was not specially created in its present form.
There are no barriers between "kinds".

Whatever happens to evolution in the future, creationism is falsified. It is completely, irrevocably wrong.&nbsp; Simply put, God didn't create that way.

 

[Anthony]

Since when is this thread about evolution? Why does every discussion about science end up back at evolution? Can this topic exist without evolution being injected? Also there are lots of check and balances to join a "group" , but very few to publish findings.

 

[Morat]

Since when is this thread about <I>evolution</I>? Why does every discussion about science end up back at <I>evolution</I>? Can this topic exist without evolution being injected? Also there are lots of check and balances to join a <I>"group"</I> , but very few to publish findings.

&nbsp; Oh my! You really don't know anything about science, do you?

&nbsp;&nbsp; Let's start simply: What do you imagine "peer-review" means?

&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by seesaw
But what I am saying is the earth is so big we can't look at every species of animal and check and see if macro has happened.

Why do we have to check every species?&nbsp; All you need to do is see one speciation event to know that the statement "macroevolution does not happen" is false.&nbsp; And speciation has been observed hundreds of times in the lab and in the wild.&nbsp; Here is a good one of both lab and wild:

Speciation in action&nbsp; Science 72:700-701, 1996

What happened was that the researchers produced in the greenhouse the genetic changes leading to the formation of a naturally occurring species of sunflower.&nbsp; The species is Helianthus anomalus and molecular evidence suggested it was formed by recombinational speciation of H.annuus and H. petiolarus.&nbsp; This is a process in which two species hybridize, and the mixed genome of the hybrid becomes a third species that is reproductively isolated from its ancestors.

So what the researchers did was hybridize H. annuus and H. petiolarus&nbsp; and produced 3 independent hybrid lines undergoing different regimes of mating to siblings and backcrossing to H. annuus. After 5 generations the DNA was analyzed for comparison to the wild type and to see which ancestral genes persisted in the hybrids.&nbsp; It matched with the wild type.&nbsp; Remarkably, despite the different crossing regimes, all 3 lines converged to nearly the identical gene combinations.&nbsp; The gene recombinations were complex, but repeatable in all 3 hybrid lines.

The fact that the genes in the lab hybrid matched wild H. anomalus indicates that artificial selection and natural selection both selected many genes for fertility rather than adaptations to the environment.

The fact that all 3 hybrid lines converged to nearly identical genetic content and these matched the wild type (a 4th hybrid line) shows that several paths of evolution in this case reach the same point.&nbsp; As Jerry Coyne says in discussing the research&nbsp; "In Helioanthus, however, the sequence of evolutionary change is largely repeatable over both the long and short term:&nbsp; When this tape is rewound, it plays pretty much the same program."