Should we trust science?

[Strathos]

The first murder as in the Bible was by Cain who was a farmer living thousands of years before science and scientists existed. Unless you have a list of the papers that Cain published?

Agriculture is a science if you want to get technical.

 

[sjastro]

The first murder as in the Bible was by Cain who was a farmer living thousands of years before science and scientists existed. Unless you have a list of the papers that Cain published ?

We should trust "the scientist".
Scientists are educated to be trustworthy. Postgraduate work is about producing research that has good, trustworthy evidence behind it.
Scientists have their work extensively checked. The process of peer review by experts goes thru discussing the work with colleagues, presenting it at conferences, submitting it to a journal where an editor looks at it, formal peer review before publishing and then lots more peer review by people reading the paper. Experiments are expected to be replicated and improved upon. Theory is used in other papers with their own process of review.

You are right, "the scientist does not always do it right, because they are human" which is why we have scientists and other people checking the work. That reduces mistakes to an generally extremely low level (varies according to the subject). There are even scientists who study and publish on those mistakes, e.g. A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature (2012) found "4,449 scholarly publications retracted from 1928–2011" out of several million publications. The checking is a reason why we see cases of scientific fraud and misconduct exposed.

And yet the peer review process occasionally gets it spectacularly wrong such as Eric Lerner's paper published in the peer reviewed MNRAS.
As discussed here the paper is full of holes and it makes you wonder how such a paper which is on par with the Electric Universe nonsense can get through.

 

[durangodawood]

Agriculture is a science if you want to get technical.

By the same token pretty much everything is a "science".

Look! We just made the word "science" meaningless. Arent you proud?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Agriculture is a science if you want to get technical.

The science part of an modern agriculturist does not apply.
Cain is stated to be a farmer not a scientist. Cain lived thousands before science or scientists existed. Thus the Bible states that Doveaman's assertion was wrong.

 

[RealityCheck01]

As discussed here the paper is full of holes and it makes you wonder how such a paper which is on par with the Electric Universe nonsense can get through.

IMO the paper could have been rejected (or at least amended) on the basis of the title alone ! There is no "expanding universe hypothesis". It is an expanding universe theory with an overwhelming body of evidence supporting it.

ETA: I suspect that this paper will undergo the fate of his 2014 paper and be ignored except when debunked:
Cosmological test with the QSO Hubble diagram

The remaining four models (Lambda-CDM/wCDM, the R_h=ct Universe, the Friedmann open universe and a Static universe with a linear Hubble law) all pass the test. However, only Lambda-CDM/wCDM and R h =ct also pass the Alcock-Paczynski (AP) test.

Or mentioned in passing: Alcock-Paczynski Test with Model-independent BAO Data *
Or cited in what looks like a crank preprint

* In the odd statement

The surface brightness (known as the ‘Tolman’) test also depends strongly on the assumption of galaxy evolution, so the results of this test14,15 may vary hugely depending on one’s interpretation.

14 is the series of Lubin and Sandage papers, 15 is Lerner's paper.
Galaxy evolution looks like an astrophysical feature to me, not an interpretation or assumption. Any assumption would be its effect on the test.

 

[tas8831]

Seems to me, the more educated a person becomes, the more difficult it is to own up to committing errors, especially in the workplace, and even more so if it involves criticism from peers.

My experience is the exact opposite.


On this very forum, in the Evolution discussion section, I can show you Christian creationist after Christian creationist, all lacking higher education (or at least not having any in a relevant area), spewing repeatedly refuted proclamations against science, each time ignoring demonstrations of their error, each time proclaiming their certitude, each time engaging in unwarranted condescension, all the while providing textbook examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

It has more to do with 'belief' protection than it does education.



As an aside - had you considered the possibility that the more educated a person is on a subject, the less likely they are to be wrong, and thus less likely to 'admit error'? Why admit to something you are not wrong about?

Not saying that educated folks and scientists don't make mistakes, and that none of them are the sorts of jerks you refer to - but there are more in the ranks of the uneducated, in my experience.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Backreaction: The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of physics is not normal

How long can they go on with this, you ask? How long can they keep on spinning theory-tales?

I am afraid there is nothing that can stop them. They review each other’s papers. They review each other’s grant proposals. And they constantly tell each other that what they are doing is good science. Why should they stop? For them, all is going well. They hold conferences, they publish papers, they discuss their great new ideas. From the inside, it looks like business as usual, just that nothing comes out of it.

This is not a problem that will go away by itself.
​

Many people say they don't trust Saints Peter & Paul, who gave their lives for generous charity & feeding the poor. Not trustworthy. Bad.

Then they say the trust scientists, who not infrequently scratch their own backs at public expense.

And they say Science is a holy endeavor, that will benefit mankind. But when holy science is corrupted, for money, no "righteous indignation" ?

Personally perceive lots of "overlapping hypocrisies" which "stack on top of each other" simultaneously. People who gave their lives for charity, feeding the poor and ending the Roman empire's gladiatorial blood sports... are NOT trustworthy... Whilst they who contrariwise grant themselves public funding ARE the holiest of holies? How much of their grant money and theorizing time do they donate to charities or spend in soup kitchens ?

Anyway, you're welcome to read the article and ponder what the professional says.

 

[SkyWriting]

The science part of an modern agriculturist does not apply. Cain is stated to be a farmer not a scientist. Cain lived thousands before science or scientists existed. Thus the Bible states that Doveaman's assertion was wrong.

So you consider scripture to be historically accurate then.
That's interesting.

Though any farmer would be the founder of all science
compared to hunter/gatherers. Farmers systematically
work to get consistent results time after time in the most
orderly fashion possible, rather than wandering around
looking for food. Though I imagine H/G also developed
patterns based on results.

 

[SkyWriting]

The science part of an modern agriculturist does not apply.

agriculture
[ag-ri-kuhl-cher]

1. The science, art, or occupation concerned with cultivating land, raising crops, and feeding, breeding, andraising livestock; farming.
2. the production of crops, livestock, or poultry.
3. agronomy.

 

[JackRT]

Though I imagine H/G also developed
patterns based on results.

You mean like:
Genesis 30:37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban’s animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and female and male servants, and camels and donkeys.

 

[Zoii]

They review each other’s papers. They review each other’s grant proposals.

Who are you recommending would review a paper on quantum physics? Hey, this stuff is affecting satellites and my life, so I sure wouldn't want anyone reviewing a paper that didn't have the requisite scientific qualifications - Who are you suggesting would review the paper - A priest? They wouldn't know what they were reading. Absolutely ridiculous statement!

And they constantly tell each other that what they are doing is good science.

They do if its good science and are cut-throat when its poor science.
Just like Christians pat someone on the back if its good theology and are quick to say so when its not.

They hold conferences, they publish papers, they discuss their great new ideas.

Then they say the trust scientists, who not infrequently scratch their own backs at public expense

Instead of obtuse unfounded statements, how about some detailed fact.... what on earth are you talking about here and give us some facts

Science is a holy endeavor, that will benefit mankind

No science would never claim to be holy...quite the contrary - they certainly benefit mankind as evidenced by the fact you are posting this using your computer on the internet - thanks to science and scientists.

 

[Erik Nelson]

@Zoii please don't confuse my own personal frustrations with the reasoned first hand knowledge of the Professor "insider" i quoted

your post contradicts what Professor Sabine Hossenfelder reported... You can't possibly know more than SHE ... SHE stated what you tried to disagree with

============================

everyone makes fun of Christian scholars for wasting everyone's time and money throughout the Dark Ages speculating wildly about "how many Angels could theoretically fit on a pin head?"

well, ironically enough, many modern scientists are speculating wildly about theoretical particles, "spinning theory tales" to quote the AUTHOR

you are correct, however, that they have a MONOPOLY on credentials, with no good alternatives

300 million Americans all hate John D. Rockefeller for giving them jobs, shipping them oil for less than anyone else, and building their economy and infrastructure, with his Standard Oil MONOPOLY

"bust the trusts!"

but yes now others are also a monopoly cartel, costing people MORE money for LESS product...

and they are heroes, glowing with haloes evidently

 

[Zoii]

don't confuse my own personal frustrations with the reasoned first hand knowledge of the Professor "insider" i quoted

The professor you mentioned has sound credentials. But it seems you misunderstand what shes saying. She is criticising the research outputs in recent times which she blames partly on the selection of research topics.

She is NOT criticising the fact that a scientist is peer reviewing a scientific paper for example - far from it.

everyone makes fun of Christian scholars for wasting everyone's time and money throughout the Dark Ages speculating wildly about "how many Angels could theoretically fit on a pin head?"

well, ironically enough, many modern scientists are speculating wildly about theoretical particles, "spinning theory tales" to quote the AUTHOR

I think you are referring to quantum physics. Just remember you wouldn't be using the internet and accessing a satellite without the knowledge we have gained on quantum physics. So if you are using the practical output of that research, its a bit rich to criticise the fact research in the area is continuing.

you are correct, however, that they have a MONOPOLY on credentials, with no good alternatives

A monopoly? Well no - I wish they did. You can get some crackpot person handing out degrees....but that doesn't make them credible. That's why there is, in most countries, a credentialing system. What possible complaint can you have with that? If someone says they have a degree in civil engineering, you'd want to be assured that degree meant something or your bridges and dams will all collapse.

300 million Americans all hate John D. Rockefeller for giving them jobs, shipping them oil for less than anyone else, and building their economy and infrastructure, with his Standard Oil MONOPOLY

"bust the trusts!"

but yes now others are also a monopoly cartel, costing people MORE money for LESS product...

and they are heroes, glowing with haloes evidentl

Ive no idea what this has to do with anything or how it relates to the OP or even where you get your facts.

 

[Erik Nelson]

The professor you mentioned has sound credentials. But it seems you misunderstand what shes saying. She is criticising the research outputs in recent times which she blames partly on the selection of research topics.

She is NOT criticising the fact that a scientist is peer reviewing a scientific paper for example - far from it

.

she was criticizing the circular reciprocal reviewing in the small tight knit community, where one reviews another, and the other reviews the one

they're scratching each other's backs

it's not unbiased anonymous reviewing from a large pool of possible reviewers

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The problem isn’t trusting “science” it’s sorting out the science from the pseudoscience.......

The problem is 95% of what they call science today is the later, not the former....

 

[Job 33:6]

Seems to me, the more educated a person becomes, the more difficult it is to own up to committing errors, especially in the workplace, and even more so if it involves criticism from peers. Pride is so common to mankind, and it is often disguised, under grins and smiles. Btw, this is not intended as a criticism towards education, rather more of a criticism towards the innate nature of mankind. Despite this criticism, Science is a gift from God, it is the study of His Creation, and what a wonderful world He has made, full of awesome wonders. With Scientists though, the mileage varies, despite errors, countless discoveries and advances have been accomplished through Science. Personally, I am especially thankful for advances in chemistry and medicine and the technology to perform complicated procedures that only a hundred years ago were not only not possible, but inconceivable. So it's a give and take thing, like marriage. lol

I work as a geologist and for me I think I'd say it's been somewhat the opposite.

The more experience someone has, the more in power they are. And with more power, I can openly admit my mistakes with more ease, because I know that nobody is going to have a problem with it.

Before, if I made a mistake, I might have feared being fired for being a financial liability.

Now, if I own up to mistakes, I'm more than likely benefitting the company because I am engaged in corrective actions which are financially beneficial.

So with experience, it's actually in my best interest to acknowledge and own up to mistakes. And nobody is perfect, so I think doing so also builds trust as long as you aren't constantly making poor decisions.

 

[plugh]

This is what happens when people cherry-pick sections of -- in this case a blog post -- that cover topics that they don't understand.

Sabine Hossenfelder is narrowing in on how the theoretical physics community isn't producing output that helps people like herself who are working on quantum gravity and extensions to the standard model.

It's not a comment on peer review or science in general. And then what if it was? It still wouldn't make any of biblical fairy stories true.

 

[ianw16]

The problem isn’t trusting “science” it’s sorting out the science from the pseudoscience.......

The problem is 95% of what they call science today is the later, not the former....

Nope, that is just the usual whinge of pseudoscience believers who have no scientifically viable ideas of their own.

 

[ianw16]

Well, good old regular science just got InSight to Mars! Good job we used the gravitational constant and Newton's laws, rather than electric universe woo, or we'd now be on the way to interstellar space.

 

[ianw16]

Well, good old regular science just got InSight to Mars! Good job we used the gravitational constant and Newton's laws, rather than electric universe woo, or we'd now be on the way to interstellar space.

Not worth starting a new thread, so, for anybody interested;

The reaction as the InSight probe approached landing on Mars. Yaaaay, science!

Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is why people get into science. Real science.