Science is close-minded

[freeztar]

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

 

NO!!!!!

 

Science has no business in restricting thought.

Science *does not* have an agenda.

Experiments are performed, info is described. Plain and simple.

 

I'm quite tired of those that insist upon scientific bias and manipulation of data.

The scientific community abhors such violations.

 

Do you feel that science is close-minded?

[Thunderbird]

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

 

NO!!!!!

 

Science has no business in restricting thought.

Science *does not* have an agenda.

Experiments are performed, info is described. Plain and simple.

 

I'm quite tired of those that insist upon scientific bias and manipulation of data.

The scientific community abhors such violations.

 

Do you feel that science is close-minded?

No, but the scientific community has institutions the can become compartmentalized in their group think and subsequently become defensive, its human nature. It is true responsibility lies in the individual in society to keep informed…. not only of sciences we support but to utilize it for public benefit.

 

This involves participation, education and direction.

 

However….. If the people are ignorant of science its not just the public to blame as just to dumb to understand, but the lack sensitivity toward the public by the scientific community to take responsibility that science is a public trust not an elite class in itself. This attitude is being amplified on this forum more and more lately.

[freeztar]

No, but the scientific community has institutions the can become compartmentalized in their group think and subsequently become defensive, its human nature. It is true responsibility lies in the individual in society to keep informed…. not only of sciences we support but to utilize it for public benefit.

 

This involves participation, education and direction.

 

Indeed! Well said TB! :shrug:

However….. If the people are ignorant of science its not just the public to blame as just to dumb to understand, but the lack sensitivity toward the public by the scientific community to take responsibility that science is a public trust not an elite class in itself. This attitude is being amplified on this forum more and more lately.

 

Please give an example of where this attitude you speak of can be seen in posts here.

[REASON]

Do you feel that science is close-minded?

 

First of all, science has no mind. Science is a method. I would say that the scientific method is closed to conjecture or speculation as qualifying evidence in support of a theory.

 

The scientific community may appear closed minded in their rejection of certain claims. But I would posit that that arrises out of protectionism of scientific integrity. I mean, consider the vast amount of unsupported conjecture presented as truth or fact that circulates through societies worldwide distorting perception. The scientific community is obligated to demand that information be properly categorized relative to how well it can be substantiated.

 

 

No, but the scientific community has institutions the can become compartmentalized in their group think and subsequently become defensive, its human nature.

 

One's awareness of this is relative to how at odds their position or belief is relative to the general consensus. If your understanding or opinion is consistent with a majority position, concerns of group think are typically unrecognized.

 

The truth is, IMHO, it is the one who is of the minority opinion that is most often taking a defensive stance. It only makes sense considering they are likely to face a greater challenge, have more to prove, and are likely to feel ganged upon. From a scientific standpoint, one with a minority opinion is likely lacking empirical evidence in support of their position. If the evidence were there, they likely would find that they are with the consensus.

 

If someone regularly finds themselves at odds with the consensus, than it may be worthwhile for them to examine whether they are really adopting valid positions, or just resisting the consensus based on personal issues.

 

 

However….. If the people are ignorant of science its not just the public to blame as just to dumb to understand, but the lack sensitivity toward the public by the scientific community to take responsibility that science is a public trust not an elite class in itself. This attitude is being amplified on this forum more and more lately.

 

The scientific community is not obligated to the sensitivities of the general public. They are obligated to producing legitimate, defensible, facts and information to support hypotheses and theories. Their intent is to weed out the conjecture, and falsify invalid calims so as to be clear about what the data and facts imply. The same applies here at Hypography.

 

Charges of elitism in the scientific community, I tend to think, are made by those who find their beliefs rejected by the science. It would seem odd for someone who's beliefs are supported by science to then turn around and accuse the science of being elitist.

[TheBigDog]

Charges of elitism in the scientific community, I tend to think, are made by those who find their beliefs rejected by the science. It would seem odd for someone who's beliefs are supported by science to then turn around and accuse the science of being elitist.

Unless that scientist is a self proclaimed elitist. (where has Uncle Al gone?):Exclamati

 

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?

 

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.

 

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. :thumbs_do

 

There is bullshit in both directions and one must use their own judgment in weighing the presented evidence.

 

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

[freeztar]

First of all, science has no mind. Science is a method.

 

Perhaps I should have asked if scientists were close-minded...

 

I would say that the scientific method is closed to conjecture or speculation as qualifying evidence in support of a theory.

Right. The problem comes when ideas are rejected and the science is labeled as "closed" and unwilling to change. How many times have you seen this happen here? Phrases such as "Science needs to keep an open mind. Einstein said that creativity is most important. They persecuted Galileo, but he was right. Science stifles because it holds on to its dogmatic theories...etc...etc..."

 

The scientific community may appear closed minded in their rejection of certain claims. But I would posit that that arrises out of protectionism of scientific integrity. I mean, consider the vast amount of unsupported conjecture presented as truth or fact that circulates through societies worldwide distorting perception. The scientific community is obligated to demand that information be properly categorized relative to how well it can be substantiated.

 

Indeed. This gets to the heart of the matter.

 

One's awareness of this is relative to how at odds their position or belief is relative to the general consensus. If your understanding or opinion is consistent with a majority position, concerns of group think are typically unrecognized.

This is a very interesting point. "concerns of group think" is such a phrase that advocates of "close-minded science" would promote. On the outside, I see how people could perceive science like this. (after all, we're all human...with all the psycho- baggage)

 

The truth is, IMHO, it is the one who is of the minority opinion that is most often taking a defensive stance. It only makes sense considering they are likely to face a greater challenge, have more to prove, and are likely to feel ganged upon. From a scientific standpoint, one with a minority opinion is likely lacking empirical evidence in support of their position. If the evidence were there, they likely would find that they are with the consensus.

Not necessarily. Many scientists have presented great evidence, only to be dismissed. Indeed they are always a minority in the current scientific thought. Galileo *is* a great example of this. It's unfortunate that people so often use his name to decry the injustices of people treating their (usually completely bunk) theories as garbage.

 

If someone regularly finds themselves at odds with the consensus, than it may be worthwhile for them to examine whether they are really adopting valid positions, or just resisting the consensus based on personal issues.

 

Indeed!

 

The scientific community is not obligated to the sensitivities of the general public.

 

That's a great little quote right there.

 

They are obligated to producing legitimate, defensible, facts and information to support hypotheses and theories. Their intent is to weed out the conjecture, and falsify invalid calims so as to be clear about what the data and facts imply. The same applies here at Hypography.

Indeed. It's quite frustrating when this is repeatedly passed-off as 'elitism' etc.

 

Charges of elitism in the scientific community, I tend to think, are made by those who find their beliefs rejected by the science. It would seem odd for someone who's beliefs are supported by science to then turn around and accuse the science of being elitist.

 

Indeed. :Exclamati

[freeztar]

Unless that scientist is a self proclaimed elitist. (where has Uncle Al gone?):Exclamati

 

:thumbs_do

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

There is bullshit in both directions and one must use their own judgment in weighing the presented evidence.

Yep.

 

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?

[nutronjon]

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

 

NO!!!!!

 

Science has no business in restricting thought.

Science *does not* have an agenda.

Experiments are performed, info is described. Plain and simple.

 

I'm quite tired of those that insist upon scientific bias and manipulation of data.

The scientific community abhors such violations.

 

Do you feel that science is close-minded?

 

Ah, I must be misunderstanding something. It appears discussion of God is a taboo subject, and that persistence in discussing this non scientific subject, affirming the existence of God, is risking being banned, because those who presist in expounding from non scientific points of view can be banned, and accepting an abstract (philsophical) or scientific understanding of God, has met with harsh intolerance.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Great thread Freezy!

 

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.

 

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.

 

The scientific community may appear closed minded in their rejection of certain claims. But I would posit that that arrises out of protectionism of scientific integrity. I mean, consider the vast amount of unsupported conjecture presented as truth or fact that circulates through societies worldwide distorting perception. The scientific community is obligated to demand that information be properly categorized relative to how well it can be substantiated.-Reason

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

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Ah, I must be misunderstanding something. It appears discussion of God is a taboo subject, and that persistence in discussing this non scientific subject, affirming the existence of God, is risking being banned, because those who presist in expounding from non scientific points of view can be banned, and accepting an abstract (philsophical) or scientific understanding of God, has met with harsh intolerance.

Trust me it's all in how you approach this touchy subject, and how you present it.

 

"There is a god and the bible is proof of it" is faith not science (this much I've figured out). and wiil therefore be met with resistance.

 

"Christians believe that God created the universe and that the bible is the word of God" will likely be met with much less as you are now approaching it from a (man I hope this is right) more factual preveable standpoint.

[freeztar]

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]

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. :Exclamati

 

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. :thumbs_do

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/14913-o-k-here-we-go.html

[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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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. :doh:

 

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.