Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigDog
Unless that scientist is a self proclaimed elitist. (where has Uncle Al gone?)  |
Quote:
|
The problem is that everyone follows scientific method to a point; they have a hypothesis and they then go about finding support for it. The issue comes down to each person's ability to accept that their hypothesis is wrong. There are fantastic scientific minds who are also people of faith. There are areas of science where they are the leading thinkers and researchers, and have played enormous historical significance. Yet their faith always drove them to include God's existence in their hypothesis of the universe. Was Newton closed minded?
|
I don't see faith as a problem, unless it is applied to the scientific method.
Quote:
|
Take the issue of Global Warming. There is strong correlating evidence of a link between carbon emissions and global temperature. But there is no certainty that the global temperature today would be any different if the industrial revolution had never happened, and that no other natural phenomena had occurred. Some people bind their judgment to the correlation and dismiss the intelligence of anyone who disagrees. Others bind their judgment to the gaps in conclusiveness of the supporting evidence and express their doubts about the causes of Global Warming.
|
Yes, that's a good, concrete example. The problem there is in the "binding". Scientists should never bind. If they do, then separation must always be an "if-then" fail event that is always considered and used when necessary.
Quote:
In all things there are personal agendas, even in the hearts of scientists. An environmental scientist who happens to work for an oil company is often dismissed as being biased. But an environmental scientist who states that they chose that career because they were outraged by the depletion of the rain forest and works for a non-profit organization is considered the guardian of objective thought. 
|
Considered the guardian by who?
I suppose you are referring to way-left-field liberal environmental activists. True scientists will analyze the data regardless of the source. The most overlooked part of any scientific study that is brought to the public is the methodology. This is a grave concern of mine because the methodology is the basis of any particular study. That is where you can find discrepancies which statistics will often belie.
Quote:
|
There is bullshit in both directions and one must use their own judgment in weighing the presented evidence.
|
Yep.
Quote:
|
In the end my opinion of what is factual does not change the laws of nature or the powers of an almighty God. The truth is the common thread in all things observed and measured. We all have an internal agenda, a vision of the universe that pleases us and we look for support of that in our observations and in our reasoned sorting of what we observe. Our emotional attachment to a pleasing hypothesis, or to being right, or to not being wrong, prevents us from letting go in the face overwhelming contradiction. The most poetic of dreamers and the coldest of scientific minds are subject to that same particular human flaw.
|
Wow, that was beautiful, Bill. So how do you suppose we reconcile this natural tendency towards "internal agenda", with science?
