BF2S Forums Why don't people believe scientists?

Harmor wrote:

Scientists are just like us, they all have agendas eventhough many try not to.

Yes, but agendas are easily discarded through the process of peer review in scientific journals.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Scientists are just like us, they all have agendas eventhough many try not to.

Yes, but agendas are easily discarded through the process of peer review in scientific journals.

They why haven't we had a concensus on Global Warming?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Harmor wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Yes, but agendas are easily discarded through the process of peer review in scientific journals.

They why haven't we had a concensus on Global Warming?

We do, some people just refuse to believe it.  And others use psuedoscientific rationalization to try to refute it.  Read any scientific study that has been peer reviewed at large by the scientific community (and not 'researchers' with political agendas) and you will understand this.

As the data starts to accumulate, its getting more and more like that, however, I would point out that just a few years ago there was not enough data to justify some in the community from calling it a sure thing.  However, this is the way science works, its just that people here in the US are coming down with something I call "socially induced mental retardation".  It is prevalent in people with dogma based religious beliefs, low socioeconomic status, and those with a condition I call "corporate dementia".  Unfortunately, those with these conditions rarely realize they have it.  Worse yet, there is no cure. 

It would help if a stop was put to this "In your face!" approach to scientific issues by politicians as well.  Science is quickly getting tainted by the politicians, and as more and more science is politicized, you will see more people lose trust in science just as they have lost trust in politicians.

Skorpy-chan wrote:

oug wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, it does, but less so than religion and politics.  For example, I can't see electrons, but I can logically infer their existence.  That is a form of belief, but it is far more empirical in nature than things like religious faith.

Yeah well maybe one can't experience electrons with any of his senses, but he can prove their existence. I think that is the main difference.

Actually, the 'proof' of electrons is about as shaky as the bible is for proof of god. The best we have on atomic structure is 'well, we aim this beam of what is very likely to be electrons at it, and see what bounces off onto this here screen. Oh, and it only works after a few hours of carefully tweaking it to show what it's supposed to. Indicated by the clearest picture we can get of it.'
(Or at least, this is how I understand it from a few years of physics and from my sister's bitching about electron microscopy. Before you go doubting HER, she's doing a doctorate at Cambridge, so nyeer.)

Quantum mechanics has even LESS proof. Can't even whack it with electrons, because it's what they're MADE off.

erm so you dont believe that the TV works then ?

DesertFox- wrote:

You're comparing them again!

Which puts the lie to your statement that they are incomparable.

PureFodder wrote:

V1king wrote:

oug wrote:

No its not!

If it is, then prove it!   Currently it's a belief, has been for centuries and nothing more than just that.

It's called chemistry, the science of valence electrons. No electrons means no chemistry. No chemistry means no industry. No industry means no modern society. Believe me, to go through all of the many proofs that electrons exist would be a few years of work. No you can't see them with light, but the sheer scale of number of ways you can proove they exist is stupifying.

Ah, but how do you know it's electrons? It could be something else entirely. The electron is merely the best explanation for it, currently.

Skorpy-chan wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

V1king wrote:

If it is, then prove it!   Currently it's a belief, has been for centuries and nothing more than just that.

It's called chemistry, the science of valence electrons. No electrons means no chemistry. No chemistry means no industry. No industry means no modern society. Believe me, to go through all of the many proofs that electrons exist would be a few years of work. No you can't see them with light, but the sheer scale of number of ways you can proove they exist is stupifying.

Ah, but how do you know it's electrons? It could be something else entirely. The electron is merely the best explanation for it, currently.

spoken like a half true scientist. as of right now, electrons are the ONLY explanation for it. certainly it could be something that exists on the subsubatomic level, but as of right now electron activity is fact, and therefore is the only explanation.

Wasn't there a lot of comments in the 70's about a global cooling coming?  That was done by scientists wasn't it?  Or was it not?  I am just wondering.  Science is never exact that is why some people don't believe.

Last edited by Deuceman (2007-07-01 08:26:49)

It´s as stupid to believe in science as it s to not believe in it i choose a path in the middle i don´t care ( or try to not )

Deuceman wrote:

Wasn't there a lot of comments in the 70's about a global cooling coming?  That was done by scientists wasn't it?  Or was it not?  I am just wondering.  Science is never exact that is why some people don't believe.

No that was nothing to do with science, that was just bad reporting. There never was a scientific theory of global cooling, just a media theory of global cooling.

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Nowadays, people only believe the "scientists" that come up with conclusions that they already agree with.

Global warming is a perfect example.  It can't possibly have anything to do with man's actions, if a scientist says it doesn't.  Nevermind the fact that he might be funded by Exxon or the American Petroleum Institute.

Then again, it's always been this way...  People generally believe what they WANT to believe is true, rather than what makes the most logical sense.  Religion is often a good example of this....

That and the fact that if you don't take the blame for screwing the Earth, then you won't have to change your living habits and your conscience will be clean.  Denial is a win-win situation for ignorant people.

COULD NOT OF SAID IT ANY BETTER GUYS

Skorpy-chan wrote:

Ah, but how do you know it's electrons? It could be something else entirely. The electron is merely the best explanation for it, currently.

There are two possibilities:

1)  Everything we know about electrons is wrong, yet somehow through pure dumb luck we've succeeded in creating a number of devices which use what we think we know about electrons and which work

2)  We're right, hence explaining the successful devices

Do you really believe the first?

ShaitanArba wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Not true.  Religion is based on belief, which is based on a lack of knowledge.  Science is the pursuit of knowledge.

Numerous of existing religions are based on knowledge. But belief in science is not a constant.

Scientist is designed to be questionable, testable and have the possibility to be disproved. Many religions are by their nature infallible (the word of God) which makes it interesting when they turn out to be blatantly wrong about something as something that cannot be wrong, is.