Science is close-minded

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Mike C

Influence dollars can control the content. This is a form of censorship.
This says about the samr thing.

Mike C

..

While I do not agree with much you say I have to admit this is true, very much true. It has to with with the scientists not science it's self. Any one can be influenced by personal opinion, money, political pressure and even a real scientific result can be interpreted in a way to support yours or any other agenda. I am somewhat trained in statistical analysis, it really is possible to use real data to "prove" almost anything. At the risk of being censured I saw a news report the other day where they said that people who used cannabis for more than five years suffered brain permanent brain damage and used this a spring board to give a reason it should be denied legal status and not be prescribed a s a medicine. Of course no effort was made to put this damage in context in any way. Five joints a day for 10 years was the base line for this study. I won't bore any one with the reasons this was flawed but suffice it to say not only was the premise flawed they failed to show the effect in the context of any other recreational drug that is legal or the context of the effects of other medicines that are prescribed for the same problems. The problems with cannabis was offered completely out of context. Lots of science is quoted this way. Sometimes with out the consent of the scientists who researched and came up with the data. I will be the first to agree that scientists can be close minded. Suggest the possibility of FTL and see how many people will actually even consider the possibility (some will of course but at the risk of being ridiculed by their peers.) all "real" scientists are "required" to accept the premise that FTL is impossible. It probably is, at least virtually all data we have so far says it is but I wonder how fast a theory that suggested other wise could get funding to try and validate it's assertions? Having said that I do not think science is close minded, scientists might be but they are human and humans tend to cling to the status quo. But to say science is close minded really does no one justice and insults both the scientific method and the real scientists that follow it.

[James Putnam]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

...Having said that I do not think science is close minded, scientists might be but they are human and humans tend to cling to the status quo. But to say science is close minded really does no one justice and insults both the scientific method and the real scientists that follow it.

Your right. The title was used loosely. So, I interpreted it to include scientists and their hypotheses. But, this clarification is welcome.

James

[InfiniteNow]

Another useful video which helps with the topic at hand.
Enjoy.

YouTube - 10 - The Scientific Method Made Easy

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I could not agree with that sentiment more!
Cheers, mate.
All the best.

These tiny effects could result from flying through the Earths magnetic fields
since the effects do not match.

Such tiny changes are inconsequencial regarding cosmology IMO.

Mike C

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Mike C

These tiny effects could result from flying through the Earths magnetic fields

Let's see you prove it, instead of simply asserting it.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Let's see you prove it, instead of simply asserting it.

Can you explain what effect this time variance has on the universe?

I just do not see how this would effect the current workings of the universe.

In othr words, whats the point of these tiny abberations?

Mike C

[modest]

Originally Posted by Mike C

These tiny effects could result from flying through the Earths magnetic fields
since the effects do not match.

Such tiny changes are inconsequencial regarding cosmology IMO.

Mike C

Can you please give a source supporting your claim that experiments measuring time dilation are an effect of Earth's magnetic field.

-modest

[alexander]

Originally Posted by James

Make things better for others to the degree that you can.

Thank's for the advise, and don't take me wrong, i'm not depressed, i've been in this dissapointed about society as a whole, mood for many years now, but it doesn't mean that i don't do anything, i have said before, somewhere on these forums, i have a few goals in life, and none of them will ever be accomplished, simply due to the fact that they are non-accomplishable. First one is to never stop learning. I love learning, the more i learn, the more i want to learn, i find myself being pulled in so many directions of things i'd like to know, but i am rather time-constricted, so i end up having to make a choice at some point... Second is i try to educate others. And generally, the smarter the person i educate, the more satisfaction i get out of it, if i get someone who knows a lot about something, something they did not know, then my day was not spent for nothing. My big reason for sticking around here... Lastly, i live to make someone's life better, it doesn't matter who's life either, as long as they are good people, if i can help, i tend to at least try...

So in reply, i stride for that, James, it doesn't stop me from looking at humanity from a third perspective, it doesn't stop my frustration with the social structure, or most people's raison d'etre, so to speak...

But it's still off topic, if you want, i'll discuss this at greater length with you somewhere in philosophy, just PM me the link, plz

Originally Posted by MikeC

Influence dollars can control the content. This is a form of censorship.

Influence dollars is a way to censor "n" scientist's research direction, it's not a way to "hijack" science...

Once again, what do influence dollars do? They will shift the attention of the top-paid scientists in whichever field, to a subject that was not the object of view prior. Fistly this will generally not stop their devotion to their research prior to the influence, generally speaking. Secondly, more money means the more they will spend on trying to do the science, right.

This in no way hijacks's someone's thought, it may hijack "n"s person's attention, for some time, but it does not move the direction of "scientific thought" in any direction in the long run.

Originally Posted by freez

Science is amenable to change.

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Scientist like this are the keeper’s of science as the rational high ground by pointing out the difference between science and faith, but also by not directly attacking religions.

Here's my problem with this thread already. How come, every thread about science, turns into a thread where science is put up against religion. I mean honestly, i ask everyone who picks fights with religious folk, do we seriously have nothing better to do then bash religion? (and by we, i mean scientists, and i don't quite think i make the grade)

Originally Posted by Moon

While I do not agree with much you say I have to admit this is true, very much true.

but do you agree with his wording of that prior to that post, do you think that science can be hijacked (in all seriousness of that word) by influence dollars?

Originally Posted by lots of people

Einstein's theory

you said it yourselves, its a Theory, that word implies that science thinks that it may not be true, and hey if James comes up with a theory that better describes the phenomena that Einstein described, and can be used to more accurately predict the outcome of the same events, then we may very well have a Putnam theory of relativity... Wait, James, do you believe in relativistic reference frames?
You see, science is a beleifistic (meaning beleif-based) as religion is, it's basically philosophy mixed with high-level math, the big difference is that science is prone to constant change in what people believe in, mostly nothing is set in stone, only the constants.... and science sometimes follows strict logic rules.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Alexander; Here's my problem with this thread already. How come, every thread about science, turns into a thread where science is put up against religion. I mean honestly, i ask everyone who picks fights with religious folk, do we seriously have nothing better to do then bash religion? (and by we, i mean scientists, and i don't quite think i make the grade)

I have noticed that I can start a thread or post on an existing thread that deals with aspects evolution theory I find I am enviably and inextricably drawn into a creationist debate, and not usually by a creationists mind you. W.T.F. Science is fascinating, studying religion I also find interesting but they are two separate paradigms. The creationist debate is mental masturbation. It produces nothing and is unfulfilling futile exercise.

[Moontanman]

but do you agree with his wording of that prior to that post, do you think that science can be hijacked (in all seriousness of that word) by influence dollars?

NO I said that people can be influenced by money to interpret science in a particular way. ideally science (if done correctly) should show a reproducible result no matter who is doing the experiment. How that result is presented is what can be influenced by money.