Why some don't trust science

[crawfish]

This comic says it better than any essay could:

 

[Chesterton]

So Public Relations leads to bad relations with the public, eh?

 

[lucaspa]

LOL! Good cartoon. And, like all humor, carrying more than a bit of truth.

(altho that p=0.56 is a little too far)

 

[troodon]

So tragically true.

 

[Orogeny]

sigh

 

[Willtor]

What will this mean for Obama?!!!1!!eleven!

 

[sfs]

LOL! Good cartoon. And, like all humor, carrying more than a bit of truth.

(altho that p=0.56 is a little too far)

Note: it's a rho, not a p. (I read it as a p-value the first time.)

 

[USincognito]

Note: it's a rho, not a p. (I read it as a p-value the first time.)

Possibly this one?
Spearman's rank correlation coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[metherion]

There is only one solution then... destroy the news wire organizations.

Metherion

 

[Willtor]

There is only one solution then... destroy the news wire organizations.

Metherion

... or start wearing tinfoil hats.

 

[Chesterton]

There is only one solution then... destroy the news wire organizations.

Hey, go to the root of the problem - destroy the PR office. Could there be times where a scientist is over-eager to report a finding in hopes of a little notoriety, or a university is over-eager to release the info in hopes of a some notoriety for the school? What's the purpose of scientific PR?

 

[Willtor]

Hey, go to the root of the problem - destroy the PR office. Could there be times where a scientist is over-eager to report a finding in hopes of a little notoriety, or a university is over-eager to release the info in hopes of a some notoriety for the school? What's the purpose of scientific PR?

Scientists that are eager for a little fame and over-promote their findings quickly cease to be respected scientists. After all, if a cursory look at my work undermines my "findings" I'm building a wall I have to climb next time I publish.

As for the University PR office... I don't know anything about that. That's actually news to me.

 

[YoDude]

Science is the attempt to explain the processes of the universe and to describe them with mathematics. A Christian may find science beautiful, because God created the universe, and its laws have an order and design that speak of a creator, not an accident or chance. I don't find my interest in science as a stumbling block, but rather as a muse and passtime that tend to support the concept of a creator. Funny, the atheist scientist somehow see science as showing there is no creator, I don't understand how they can see this - ultimately it all started somehow, they never seem to have a good explanation for the beginning, but rather only a good explanation for the processes just after the beginning. The beginning is a matter of spirituality and faith, what do they really think will be revealed in the next giant supercollider? Some particle will be identified as the key to the theory of everything, then all of us christians will have to reject the notion of God since they 'proved' how it all began. That is a silly notion.

 

[Chesterton]

Scientists that are eager for a little fame and over-promote their findings quickly cease to be respected scientists. After all, if a cursory look at my work undermines my "findings" I'm building a wall I have to climb next time I publish.

Fair enough.

 

[shernren]

Hey, go to the root of the problem - destroy the PR office. Could there be times where a scientist is over-eager to report a finding in hopes of a little notoriety, or a university is over-eager to release the info in hopes of a some notoriety for the school? What's the purpose of scientific PR?

They tell society that we're doing something useful so that we get to put bread on the table. While we're actually doing this:

 

[Calypsis4]

Why don't some people trust science?

Trusting 'science' per se, is not the issue. Facts are facts.

I can't speak for everyone but I do not trust the Darwinian interpretations of scientific facts because (1) they are at variance with God's Word, and (2) they are so often wrong.

Example:

Another Missing Link Bites the Dust

Is it really any surprise? Another 'missing link' bites the dust.

(March 5) --Touted as "the missing link" between humans and early primates, a 47-million-year-old fossil is more akin to a lemur or a loris, a newly released study says. The debate, however, seems far from over, and it illuminates the often tricky relationship between science and the media.

http://www.aolnews.com/science/artic...ity%2F19383401

Shades of 'Archeoraptor', 'Piltdown man', etc. etc. It's the same old thing again and again and again.

Does any honest person see why we have no confidence in the evolutionist ability to accurately interpret scientific fact? I knew the moment I laid eyes on 'Ida' they were making fools of themselves.

​

 

[crawfish]

Oh, joy.

 

[shernren]

Why don't some people trust science?

Trusting 'science' per se, is not the issue. Facts are facts.

I can't speak for everyone but I do not trust the Darwinian interpretations of scientific facts because (1) they are at variance with God's Word, and (2) they are so often wrong.

Example:

Another Missing Link Bites the Dust

Is it really any surprise? Another 'missing link' bites the dust.

(March 5) --Touted as "the missing link" between humans and early primates, a 47-million-year-old fossil is more akin to a lemur or a loris, a newly released study says. The debate, however, seems far from over, and it illuminates the often tricky relationship between science and the media.

http://www.aolnews.com/science/artic...ity%2F19383401

Shades of 'Archeoraptor', 'Piltdown man', etc. etc. It's the same old thing again and again and again.

Does any honest person see why we have no confidence in the evolutionist ability to accurately interpret scientific fact? I knew the moment I laid eyes on 'Ida' they were making fools of themselves.

​

Oh my goodness, it's a lemur ancestor instead of a human ancestor! I guess that totally invalidates all of the theory of evolution and you can never trust anything an evolutionist says in the media ever again.

Kinda like how people still talk about the Crusades and geocentrism and the Salem witch-hunts and biblical justification for black slave - hey, wait a minute.

 

[Calypsis4]

quote shernren;Oh my goodness, it's a lemur ancestor instead of a human ancestor! I guess that totally invalidates all of the theory of evolution and you can never trust anything an evolutionist says in the media ever again.

No, it just serves to make it look even more stupid than it did after the Piltdowns, Nebraska men, Archeoraptors, and countless other 'proof's' of evolution that were touted by those who believe in that fairy tale.

Kinda like how people still talk about the Crusades and geocentrism and the Salem witch-hunts and biblical justification for black slave - hey, wait a minute.

What do the Crusades or the Salem witch-hunts have to do with scientific theory? Good grief.

You need to go fishing. Hope you catch a Coelacanth.

 

[Mallon]

C4's arguments are easy to refute because they're tired old PRATTs:
CC001: Piltdown Man
CC001.1: Dissertations on Piltdown
CC352: Archaeoraptor Was a Fake
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html