• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

House Science Comm. member calls science "Lies straight from the pits of hell"

Junebug said:
Depends on the theologian, but many see it as a metaphor for the rise in faith in the Christian church.
Click to expand...

Oh, this is just fucking bullshit. The belief of Jesus rising from the dead is a principal part of Christianity. It isn't a damn metaphor! Fuck off with that nonsense. Not to mention the Christian Church didn't even really rise as a power until at least a few decades, if not centuries, later.

What a cowardly fucking thing to say for a person taking the position that you have. You fucking epic twat.
 
One hundred years ago racism was considered to be scientific and much preferable to old-fashioned religious bigotry, which was not scientific.

Evolution is a theory, the best current theory for explaining biological life on earth, but still a theory.

There is a conflict between what the history of science tells us and what scientists have to believe about their own discipline. Indeed, a scientist probably could not function as a scientist if he was properly aware of the history of his branch of science. As has been noted before, the history of science is subversive to science.
 
First of all, a biological theory remains theory as opposed to law not because it has failed to meet a threshhold of factual proof but because it cannot be universally applied. That is to say we have no way to observe other life in the universe and thus cannot prove that evolution through accumulation of genetic mutations is the basis for development/diversity of life on other planets. You seem to treat a theory like its a fucking hypothesis and it isn't. No amount of evidence here on Earth will ever make evolution a law but that doesn't means it is a fad that is going to pass. Our understanding of how evolution occurs is increasing but nothing is pushing us farther from the concept of evolution. Quite the opposite in fact.

And look sailor, you are just way off base if you think real scientists don't know the history of their fields. We aren't talking about some lab tech who has a B.S. because they aren't the ones driving science forward. Academic researchers, with Ph.D.s, have an exquisite knowledge of the history of not only their own specific fields but their greater branch of science. I can only assume the subversive part of scientific history you refer to is the fact that our "facts" change over time. Well that isn't subversive at all, it is actually the entire basis for science. Scientists actually accept few observations with absolute certainty because we understand that as the capacity to observe phenomenon increases over time, our observations can change. Doesn't mean we don't view current scientific fact as true or that a scientist won't vigorously debate somebody who opposes those facts because we will. We just do so knowing in a matter of years our understanding will have grown or even changed. I know the history of my field, including its use to attempt to justify terrible things like eugenics but nothing in the history of science is subversive to scientific goals. Holding steadfast to dogma from thousands of years ago because it made a scientist feel all warm and fuzzy about their place and their future would be subversive but thankfully we aren't the ones guilty of that line of thinking. The ability for scientific facts and theories and the likes to change over time is actually what drives scientific discovery as opposed to being somehow detrimental though to John Q Public it is an obvious target to discredit science. If you were talking about some other aspect of scientific history being subversive feel free to share and I will discuss it with you. I think you will find your idea of what a scientist is is vastly different than what a real scientist actually is.
 
Junebug said:
It is a theory that humans evolved from non-human ancestors. There may be more empirical observations that are consistent with this theory than the theory of the ether, but, before the latter was discredited, we are talking about differences in degree, not kind.
Click to expand...

There was no evidence of the theory of ether. It was speculation based on speculative properties of light. It was rightly rejected when experiments designed specifically to test for its existence failed. Pretty big difference in "kind" of evidence.

But whatever makes you happy. I know nothing you've read here is going to change your mind that it is just the THEORY of evolution and should be taken with a grain of salt. In fact, you're more likely to hold your beliefs even more strongly because they've been challenged in this thread, according to previous scientific experiments. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
 
Also, it is logical to believe that as our understanding exponentially grows, the distinctions between what we know now and what we will know in the future are going to be much more precise than the distinctions of what we know now versus what we knew then.
 
BigTree:

I am certainly not treating theory as a hypothesis, fucking or otherwise. There is a considerable difference between the two, as everyone knows. A theory would certainly have a considerably greater amount of proof than a mere hypothesis, which is still waiting to be demonstrated convincingly.

Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis, and there is nothing denigrating to science in noting that it is a theory. I have no quibble with science, and I have the greatest respect for it. But I try not to have any illusions about it.

The concept that scientists don't understand the history of their own branch of science is based on Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and his followers.

The idea that the history of science is subversive to "doing" science comes from an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education - IIRC - from way back. The article was meant to be provocative, and I suppose I was being a little as well. The point was that scientists needed to believe that their theory - their overall understanding of their field and its various explanations of phenomena - was proven fact in order to do ordinary scientific research, which for the most part consists of experiments to elaborate the original theory and to help provide further proof that it is correct. At the same time the history of science appears to show us that often what is assumed to be proven fact is - in fact - a theory, and that when enough unsolvable problems arise in an accepted paradigm, then the bolder members of the scientific community will begin the search for a new paradigm, which may eventually replace the old paradigm.

In any event, I think the scientists should stick to doing their scientific research and perfecting their existing theories within the currently accepted paradigm. They are very good at that. Too sophisticated an understanding of their own history might get in their way. On the other hand, the historians of science are better at understanding the history of science than the scientists themselves. There is nothing chiseled in stone that says that the two have to agree. If we wish, however, to understand science as a whole, then we also need to give due consideration to the views not just of scientists but also the historians of science.
 
sailordeac said:
BigTree:

I am certainly not treating theory as a hypothesis, fucking or otherwise. There is a considerable difference between the two, as everyone knows. A theory would certainly have a considerably greater amount of proof than a mere hypothesis, which is still waiting to be demonstrated convincingly.

Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis, and there is nothing denigrating to science in noting that it is a theory. I have no quibble with science, and I have the greatest respect for it. But I try not to have any illusions about it.

The concept that scientists don't understand the history of their own branch of science is based on Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and his followers.

The idea that the history of science is subversive to "doing" science comes from an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education - IIRC - from way back. The article was meant to be provocative, and I suppose I was being a little as well. The point was that scientists needed to believe that their theory - their overall understanding of their field and its various explanations of phenomena - was proven fact in order to do ordinary scientific research, which for the most part consists of experiments to elaborate the original theory and to help provide further proof that it is correct. At the same time the history of science appears to show us that often what is assumed to be proven fact is - in fact - a theory, and that when enough unsolvable problems arise in an accepted paradigm, then the bolder members of the scientific community will begin the search for a new paradigm, which may eventually replace the old paradigm.

In any event, I think the scientists should stick to doing their scientific research and perfecting their existing theories within the currently accepted paradigm. They are very good at that. Too sophisticated an understanding of their own history might get in their way. On the other hand, the historians of science are better at understanding the history of science than the scientists themselves. There is nothing chiseled in stone that says that the two have to agree. If we wish, however, to understand science as a whole, then we also need to give due consideration to the views not just of scientists but also the historians of science.
Click to expand...

All fair points. However since Kuhn, a great thinker by the way, proposed the idea of paradigm shifts the way your average scientist views science has evolved. As I said, I know of few of my colleagues who think current fact is stuck in certitude but conviction must be the public front if we are to ever convince people our observations are true at this moment. Much like most religious people I know question whether there faith is right privately but are much more reluctant to discuss such matters publically. Conviction of "belief" is not the same as absolute certainty. In fact as I noted research science is more driven, these days, to cause paradigm shifts than it is to provide further evidence of current lines of thought. Paradigm shifts are what make a scientists ultimate reputation and what we all seek. The evolution of scientific thought is a subject that fascinates me quite a lot. I underestimated your understanding and I am sorry for that. You seem to have a good grasp of the history of science and so do most research scientists today. Most have come to accept that the only real truth, scientific or otherwise, is that truth is contextual and not absolute.
 
Thanks BigTree. Your statement that scientists today have accepted Kuhn and seek themselves to contribute to paradigm change is fascinating. The idea that Kuhn may have changed the way practicing scientists view their work is also really interesting. No doubt there are many ambitious people doing scientific research these days, and who knows? Work currently being done may contribute significantly to some paradigm shift in the future.
 
sailordeac said:
Thanks BigTree. Your statement that scientists today have accepted Kuhn and seek themselves to contribute to paradigm change is fascinating. The idea that Kuhn may have changed the way practicing scientists view their work is also really interesting. No doubt there are many ambitious people doing scientific research these days, and who knows? Work currently being done may contribute significantly to some paradigm shift in the future.
Click to expand...

That is the hope. You are correct that a set of scientists dedicate their lives to proving a current paradigm as true normally because they have a personal interest in it being the truth (they proposed it, are disciples of the proposer, etc). The rest of us work tirelessly within the framework of accepted paradigm to change said understanding. Above all else, high level research scientists are prideful and true scientific notoriety and fame comes from changing understanding rather than confirming it. I think the work of Kuhn and the widely available nature of scientific work has forced scientists to come to terms with what a scientific fact constitutes. Before it was easy to not acknowledge paradigm shifts as proof that scientific truth isnt really truth because few outside of science ever knew such shifts occurred. Now they do and that change in thinking has, IMO, been the most important scientific advancement of the last century. No longer is ones work immediately refuted and rejected outright because it doesn't fit prior understanding. Rather it is heavily scrutinized and if reproducible and real, eventually replaces previous thinking. It is really a great time to be be a researcher, minus the whole lack of adequate funding but that is a whole other topic.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
All fair points. However since Kuhn, a great thinker by the way, proposed the idea of paradigm shifts the way your average scientist views science has evolved. As I said, I know of few of my colleagues who think current fact is stuck in certitude but conviction must be the public front if we are to ever convince people our observations are true at this moment. Much like most religious people I know question whether there faith is right privately but are much more reluctant to discuss such matters publically. Conviction of "belief" is not the same as absolute certainty. In fact as I noted research science is more driven, these days, to cause paradigm shifts than it is to provide further evidence of current lines of thought. Paradigm shifts are what make a scientists ultimate reputation and what we all seek. The evolution of scientific thought is a subject that fascinates me quite a lot. I underestimated your understanding and I am sorry for that. You seem to have a good grasp of the history of science and so do most research scientists today. Most have come to accept that the only real truth, scientific or otherwise, is that truth is contextual and not absolute.
Click to expand...



Einstein gave a famous lecture at Leiden where he talked about the application of mathematics to science. His own view was that the more exactly known the math applying to a situation is, the more "ideal" and less "real" the situation is. And, of course, vice versa. Maybe truth is not contextual as much as it is impossible to completely know, leaving room for faith.
 
BigTreeDeac said:
Pathology. I've hopped around within that field but have mainly focused on inflammation as the main etiological component (an emerging shift in our understanding of disease over the last decade) of human diseases, both microbial based and sterile.
Click to expand...

That's pretty interesting. My older son was here over the weekend. He's currently a medical student and wrestling with - guess what? - pathology, which from what he says is pretty challenging (there is an awful lot to learn) but on the other hand pretty interesting. It's actually kind of funny too because all of the medical students in the class are trying to diagnose themselves based on what they are learning about disease.
 
deacvision7 said:
Oh, this is just fucking bullshit. The belief of Jesus rising from the dead is a principal part of Christianity. It isn't a damn metaphor! Fuck off with that nonsense. Not to mention the Christian Church didn't even really rise as a power until at least a few decades, if not centuries, later.

What a cowardly fucking thing to say for a person taking the position that you have. You fucking epic twat.
Click to expand...

What a truly bizarre post.
 
There's nothing bizarre. He's right and you are wrong. Jesus rising from the dead is a core belief of hundreds of millions of Christians around the world.This is especially true of evangelicals.
 
RJKarl said:
There's nothing bizarre. He's right and you are wrong. Jesus rising from the dead is a core belief of hundreds of millions of Christians around the world.This is especially true of evangelicals.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying it is bizarre that he is getting his panties in a wad and calling me a coward for holding that view.
 
Last edited:
I didn't call you a coward. You are simply making shit up out of whole cloth to fit your bizarre concept.
 
RJKarl said:
I didn't call you a coward. You are simply making shit up out of whole cloth to fit your bizarre concept.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about you, dumbass. I'm talking about dv7.

Making shit up? Why don't you use some of your free time and google this issue. You might learn something.
 
First time you get challenged you have to name call. Yep you sure have class.
 
The non-christians on this thread are way fucking off on their assertions with respect to Junebug's thoughts on theology. He's right, and the rest of you dipshits are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top