Science is close-minded

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Ah, I must be misunderstanding something.

It seems so. I did not mention God and this thread is not about God, it is about Science.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

I must say I don't feel that science (scientists, physicists, etc. in general) is closed minded. As you know from my thread I'm still trying to figure out how, why, and where they "draw the line" when it comes to topics of study.

Hopefully this thread will help you understand better.

Granted there are probably those that latch to a specific hypothesis and refuse to accept any other thus contaminating their work but it's likely a very small percentage.

There are those, yes, but as you point out, it's not a majority.

Here lies a source of my own confusion with regard to science.

We can talk more about that in your thread.
O.k here we go...

[Galapagos]

Science differs from the alternative methods of inquiry in that it has several unique safeguards intended to preserve objectivity and openness to good ideas. Statistical analysis, peer-review, and the demand for repeated experiment are tried and true ways of getting results and making predictions that are useful, clearer reflections of reality.

Of course we must be wary of pet theories, or individual institutions or universities becoming isolated(as mentioned by T-bird above), but I think there is a line between a healthy, warranted skepticism and paranoid distrust.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by freeztar

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.

The binding is often admired as persistence in the face of adversity when that person finally proves they are right.

Originally Posted by freeztar

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.

I am venting there a bit. Consider the focus as being the dismissal of anyone who is being paid by someone who's scientific conclusion matches the needs of their employer being dismissed as being bought and paid for, while the opinions of scientists without corporate sponsorship are deemed to be completely objective. I am simply pointing out that when it comes to pushing an agenda payment is not always in the form of money.

Originally Posted by freeztar

So how do you suppose we reconcile this natural tendency towards "internal agenda", with science?

I think we live with it, and continue to debate ferociously. I think that the internal agenda has led to breakthroughs that would never have happened by accepting overwhelming consensus. It causes waste and confusion and lifetimes of wasted effort, but that is a small price to pay for finding the truth of things.

Good thread Freeze!!

Bill

[REASON]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

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.

Bill

I just want to echo Mr. freez and highlight this quote of yours, Bill. I believe this is an excellent statement and something I see as "truth."

This condition is so often far easier to recognize in others than in ourselves.

This is why it is important for science keep the focus where it belongs - "Just the facts, Ma'am"

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by freeztar

It seems so. I did not mention God and this thread is not about God, it is about Science.

Assuming I understand the intent of this quote: What do you or anyone else think is the scientific reasoning for declaring that God and science are mutually exclusive? I am not asking for a description or descriptions of stereotypes of God. I want to know what is the cause or are the causes for the operation of the universe? Names, alone, of theoretically proposed causes, for me, do not fullfill this request. What is it that you or anyone knows, scientifically, about 'cause' that makes clear the nature of the cause or causes for the operation of the universe? My opinion is: We do not know what are 'causes'. It is a matter of philosophical preference and not of science to declare that one knows what is the cause or causes for the operation of the universe.

James

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Assuming I understand the intent of this quote: What do you or anyone else think is the scientific reasoning for declaring that God and science are mutually exclusive?

Who said they are mutually exclusive?
I was merely pointing out that this thread's intent is of science. For discussions of Science and God, there are other threads.

I am not asking for a description or descriptions of stereotypes of God. I want to know what is the cause or are the causes for the operation of the universe? Names, alone, of theoretically proposed causes, for me, do not fullfill this request. What is it that you or anyone knows, scientifically, about 'cause' that makes clear the nature of the cause or causes for the operation of the universe? My opinion is: We do not know what are 'causes'. It is a matter of philosophical preference and not of science to declare that one knows what is the cause or causes for the operation of the universe.

The "cause" of the universe is a very interesting question of philosophy, but science does not address this. Science can not answer how the universe was created (if it was created). Since there is no data from the "creation", there can be no falsifiable predictions, and no legitimate scientific studies thereof.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by freeztar

The "cause" of the universe is a very interesting question of philosophy, but science does not address this. Science can not answer how the universe was created.

Yet...


We do have some theories though, and work on this subject continues.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Yet...

We do have some theories though, and work on this subject continues.

Yes, very true, thanks for the qualification IN.

[alexander]

Actually i will reply to the original message, if you guys don't mind, i didn't ignore your posts, but i feel the greater emotion on the original thread, therefore i shall express it (i will touch on reply discussions)

This claim appears in various forms around here. Is science close-minded?

You know, i was about to make this thread too, because lately, i've been reading more and more about this topic, and it seems that its almost to every other thread, every thread in the strange claims forum, where people have been posting that science is close-minded. And i'm tired of being turned away from the original intent of a topic when this get's discussed.

But before i say that science is NOT close-minded, and the fact that i partly agree with Reason, on the fact that science is a method, i would like to first describe the people who post comments in question.

First category of which falls on people with overactive imaginations. And i don't mean that in a bad way, but just because you like to read science fiction, it does not mean that you have any right to insult scientist, nor that you can easily question their motivation in responding the way they do (and that is because i don't think i'm a scientist... at least i dont think i can justify the title to myself). Listen, scientists don't mind that you believe in little green man-like creatures that visit us on these circular ships that spin and wobble in the sky, the dwell just beyond that focus area on the camera, and sometimes in the dark sky near an airforce base. There is nothing wrong in your beliefs, i don't think that i would be overgeneralizing this, but i truly think that there are other life forms out there, and i bet scientists would agree. But when you present us with a crop circle, and say, here is evidence (i know now i'm speaking on behalf of scientists), you can not assume that we will simply look at it, say "Looks good to me" and consider it a fact!!??!! Scientists try to disprove things by default, to us it is not true, until every possible other explanation is exhausted, so we laugh, because we are simply not willing to examine the evidence. Why? we have better things to do, there is only so much time to do so much stuff, if we waste it on things that are highly probably not true anyways, we won't have time to find things that may help humans, and honestly we have more prominent problems on hand, now, our supply of oil is ever-so-dwindling away, pollution is very high, we are on the brink of another evolutionary break, honestly, little green men, are not on our top list of priorities, atm.

Second people that say this, are the religious folk. Once again, we have no problems with you guys, if you want to think that the world is flat, we care little for it; my biggest problem is your stoopid need to preach things you believe, especially if it contradicts the math on my paper! And the more my math is correct, the more you tend to preach about what you think the right solution is. I have no problems with religion, at all, but why do you not follow the scriptures yourselves. Christians, why do you blatantly believe in Christ being God, but don't follow any of real teachings, why do you think that the Bible, undoubtably being written by people, and plagiarized in parts, and having a clear history of change, why do you insist that it's a straight word of God? You complain about being banned, but you are not willing to be open minded about your world, why should we listen to you if we know what your response is going to be; ignorant of anything of what we have told you that has REAL proof, mumbling away the scriptures, and still trying to call US?! close-minded? WTF, you believe in a handful of books, written over a few hundred years by people trying to control promitive human beings outside of law enforcement, scriptures that have time and time again proved to be wrong, scriptures that have predicted things that have never happened, and shed blood of more people then any of the major conflicts have killed? We have thousands of years worth of books, calculations, observations, explanations, backed up by sometimes not-so-simple math, and shown to work in real life, by prediction and further observation.

Science is not close minded, it is a methods by which an open minded individual, has to keep on being open minded, in order to describe what he observes, in an attempt to accurately predict the behaviour of his currently investigated phenomenon.

Stop calling us close minded, you are doing so, because your world, the world you live in, that does not follow logic, and is powered by imagination of others, seems to not comply with what we observe...