Okay... I did something a bit creative here in order to split the threads.

Short Explanation of the housecleaning
A discussion regarding the validity of science was started in Important Amendments thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138583), so I split it. If anyone was logged into the forum at that time, they saw two of the "amendment" threads for a sec. This was so I could delete partial posts of mine and preserve my post at the top to offer something of an introduction to the topic.

The Validity of Science, and are soft disciplines of psychology, history, anthropology, archaeology, etc. considered to be sciences?

Before addressing this, I think it important for us to agree upon a definition of "science." I like this one,

NOAA's Coral Reef Information website Glossary (http://www.coris.noaa.gov/glossary/glossary_l_z.html)
a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study

But I recognize that entire monographs, dissertations and books have been written on defining science.

In terms of history and archaeology, I believe firmly in the philosophical position of logical positivism, which dictates that there is an objectively knowable past that can be discovered through rigid adherence to scientific methods. A similar approach can likely be applied to other disciplines, such as psychology.

There are many who will argue that one cannot applie scientific method to history and archaeology, but that is false. I will admit that both disciplines are contaminated with failures to utilize scienctific method, but it can, and is applied. Particularly with modern historians and anthropologists (which includes archaeologists).

The methodology employed for research is often referred to as the hypothetico-deductive model:


Observe phenomena
Induce hyptheses that define what results can be expected if the hypotheses are accurate
Test these hypotheses following scientific procedures, usually emphasizing falsification (the attempt to disprove rather than prove a hypothesis, thus encouraging objectivity)
Deduce, based on the results of testing, which hypotheses are viable and which are not
Return to the observation stage and revise the research until such work is no longer possible. What remains is therefore provisionally accepted, and research continues

Individual psychoanalysis to determine maturity would be a little time-consuming. Even though there are enough goddamn shrinks around to do the job already.

Not to mention the fact that psychology is hardly a scientific disciplin.

Not to mention the fact that psychology is hardly a scientific disciplin.You're not a scientologist are you... :¬:

On the whole I agree, but then again, nothing is as "scientific" as scientists would like us to believe. There is no scientific law, merely hypotheses that have not yet been proven to be incorrect. Nothing can be proven to be incontrivertably right.

Hmmm... Philosophically you're right. But consider such examples as the electron's charge. That's measured to nine or ten significant figures. To quote Laughlin (from memory) "You can't argue with ten significant figures. [...] That's equal to counting the number of people in the entire world, and not missing a single person!"

Or such things as Newtonian dynamics. These cannot be downright wrong. They may be incomplete (in fact they are, as has been known since the beginning of the 20th cent.). They may not be fundamental (likewise this has been known for a long time). But they explain so many observations in so consistent, correct and simple a fashion that they cannot be all wrong.

they explain so many observations in so consistent, correct and simple a fashion that they cannot be all wrong.Not being "all wrong" does not qualify something as being "right" in terms as concrete as scientists often use in the press.

Likewise I'm certain that all the ancient forbears of scientists believed that such concepts as "aether" explained so many observations in so consistent a fashion that they could not be "all wrong". And in some ways, they weren't. But that didn't make them "right" enough to be the whole of the law.

Science is the art of increasing humanity's understanding of the universe... but its attempts to be regarded as modern day religious truth are misguided. The effectiveness of science is not in explaining everything to the point of infinite precision (though this is a good motivational goal for scientists), because it's not going to happen. Instead, it is to produce practical applications that improve life and make death more efficiently deliverable. (An even better motivational goal.)

Radio and railguns, such things are what science is good for.

(Grammar Edit)

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I have absolutely no idea as to where you have that from [pyschology not being scientific], but let me ensure you that you are completely wrong.

There are those that view science as only those disciplines that engage in specific, measurable results to tests of hypotheses. They ignore the fact that "softer" disciplines utilize scientific method in reaching conclusions based upon quantifiable results.

Though I would agree that there are many more opportunities for interpretation errors and confirmation bias in disciplines where inferrances have to be made. Psychology/psychiatry are two examples. But neither can the science of survey and study along with quantifiable statistics be ignored or dismissed. This is how we've been able to counter conditions like depression or anxiety with medication after all.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Not being "all wrong" does not qualify something as being "right" in terms as concrete as scientists often use in the press.

Likewise I'm certain that all the ancient forbears of scientists believed that such concepts as "aether" explained so many observations in so consistent a fashion that they could not be "all wrong". And in some ways, they weren't. But that didn't make them "right" enough to be the whole of the law.

You evidently have no comprehension of the vastness of the data material backing these theories.

Science is the art of increasing humanity's understanding of the universe... but its attempts to be regarded as modern day religious truth are misguided.

Science isn't trying to be regarded as a modern religion. In fact for that to happen would be a supreme failure for science.

The effectiveness of science is not in explaining everything to the point of infinite precision (though this is a good motivational goal for scientists), because it's not going to happen.

Of course not. We'll hit our head against the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle long before that... :D

Instead, it is to produce practical applications that improve life and make death more efficiently deliverable. (An even better motivational goal.)

Possibly your gravest mistake yet. One-sided focus on technological applications is foolish and unproductive. Groundbreaking research - research that does not guarentee results (and certainly not immediate ones at that) is the very foundation of technological development. Single-minded focus on technology thus works against your admirable goal of technological development.

Scientific theories are exactly as close to - or as far from - truth as the scientists claim. Only sometimes people don't understand the reservations that the scientists make. And who can blame them. After all, making correct reservations and computing inaccuracies precisely is the very hardest part of science. But it is also the part of science that makes it truely valueable.

There are those that view science as only those disciplines that engage in specific, measurable results to tests of hypotheses. They ignore the fact that "softer" disciplines utilize scientific method in reaching conclusions based upon quantifiable results.

For once you're actually wrong here, Skin. Scientific method calls for not only quantifiability, but also reproducability, a fact that you seem to have overlooked here.

Psychology/psychiatry are two examples. But neither can the science of survey and study along with quantifiable statistics be ignored or dismissed. This is how we've been able to counter conditions like depression or anxiety with medication after all.

You make two crucial mistakes here. The first is equating psychology and psychiatry. The latter incorporates far more of the results aquired from medical science than the former. The second mistake is to claim that psychopharmaca are derived from psychiatric and/or psychological methods, when in fact psychopharmaca owe more homage to neurobiology.

In conclusion, let me suggest that we abandon these discussions or relocate them to other threads.

You evidently have no comprehension of the vastness of the data material backing these theories.Ooooh, good retort, not. If all else fails, call the opposition ignorant. :rolleyes:

The fact that you're unwilling to accept the possibility that the prevailing scientific theories may in fact be merely incomplete hypotheses explaining some of the aspects of the physical universe, (which is undoubtedly what they are) speaks volumes as to your lack of vision, both retrospective and prospective.

Science isn't trying to be regarded as a modern religion. In fact for that to happen would be a supreme failure for science.Oh of course it is, and yes, it is a supreme failure for good science. Science is now laden down with dogma that restricts both scientific advancement and attempts to dictate everyone's behaviour, from what we eat to what we think.

How many scientists with revolutionary theories have been put down as "heretics" by the scientific hierarchy in recent years? Accepted wisdom is the law in the halls of academe, not original thought. This slows down progress abominably.

Possibly your gravest mistake yet. One-sided focus on technological applications is foolish and unproductive.HA! My mistake? Try your mistake. If focus on technological applications is foolish and unproductive, how is it that by far the largest proportion of the major technological advances in history have been predicated upon weapons research, and military application of science to achieve concrete (and lethal) results? How about comfort in and around the home? How many feats of science and engineering went into our plumbing and sewage systems? It's the practical that drives science, because that's where the real money is. (Though not necessarily for the scientists themselves.) Make no mistake.

Scientific theories are exactly as close to - or as far from - truth as the scientists claim.What UTTER tosh. How many scientists do we see on our television screens every week, proclaiming their latest hypothesis as divine truth, and dictating people's actions accordingly? Wodges, that's how many.

For once you're actually wrong here, Skin. Scientific method calls for not only quantifiability, but also reproducability, a fact that you seem to have overlooked here.This neglects the fact that one can reproduce many effects in psychology, but one can be completely mistaken as to the actual cause of these effects. The vastness of the human mind does NOT help matters here.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
For once you're actually wrong here, Skin. Scientific method calls for not only quantifiability, but also reproducability, a fact that you seem to have overlooked here.

Not "wrong," merely incomplete :) I was in a bit of a hurry when I typed that (either at work or between classes). But reproducability is present in disciplines such as psychology and anthropology/archaeology. I'm more qualifed to speak on the latter discipline/sub-discipline, but I believe it holds in psychology as well.

In chemistry, reproducability is clear and immediately measurable. 2 mol of x / 3 mL soln of y x 45.7 mL of z soln = Moles XYZ.

In archaeology, reproducability can be more subtle. If, for instance, I find microlithic remains at a particular strata, which has striations of silica on the cutting edge, I might begin with that observation to infer what it means. Of the many hypotheses I develop, one is that the microlithic burins, a artificially shaped tool, were applied to organic material such as bone, wood, or antler to create a large serated tool. I then recognize that antlers are often curved and the tool would resemble a sickle. A sickle implies agriculture such as the harveting of wheat. Wheat is silica rich, which supports the hypothesis since silica marks are found on the tools.

Here's where the reproducability comes in: I predict that other sites of related cultures will reveal the same burin microliths. Moreover, I predict that evidence of harvested wheat will be found in the form of grain sans hulles or middens of chaff. Perhaps even saddle querns (grinding stones).

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
...when in fact psychopharmaca owe more homage to neurobiology.

I don't discount the significance of neurosciences to development of psychotropic medications, but I also give a lot of credance to the psychologists that evaluate the behavior and effects of the drugs post application to the patient. I also have some good insight into the psychological explanations of concepts of grief, anger, etc. and have been personally successful in offering counseling to at risk teens based upon this information. I recognize that psychology is a very loose discipline and open to far too much interpretation, but I believe that this is a failure of adherence to scientific method and hypothetico-deductive model.

Psychologists that spend the time to conduct studies with control samples and large study samples benefit the greatest. Those that simply regurgitate the paradigms of other psychologists (Freud, Jung, Adler, Fowler, et al) without consideration of evidence are probably more hit/miss in their assumptions.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Oh of course it is ["science" not being regarded as religion], and yes, it is a supreme failure for good science. Science is now laden down with dogma that restricts both scientific advancement and attempts to dictate everyone's behaviour, from what we eat to what we think.


I think it would be more effective of an argument on your part if you could cite an example. I take a different point of view and see science as nothing like religion. The latter relies upon not only dogma, but ritual and unbounded belief systems to explain the observable universe. Science explains with what evidence is available, revises when new evidence is demonstrated, and simply says, "we don't know" when evidence is lacking or incomplete.

There's no religion to science.

Originally posted by Spider AL
How many scientists with revolutionary theories have been put down as "heretics" by the scientific hierarchy in recent years?

Please, do tell.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Accepted wisdom is the law in the halls of academe, not original thought. This slows down progress abominably.

Original thought without evidence is merely speculation. Speculation is fine, but when offered as explanation it is received with criticism that is well-earned. Original with evidence is highly embraced!

Originally posted by Spider AL
What UTTER tosh. How many scientists do we see on our television screens every week, proclaiming their latest hypothesis as divine truth, and dictating people's actions accordingly? Wodges, that's how many.

Not sure what a "wodge" is, but scientists rarely appear on "television screens" in the U.S., perhaps its different in the U.K. Americans don't like their so-called reality TV interrupted. But I have to agree with Shadow T., on this. A theory is merely an accepted set of tested hypotheses (i.e. evolutionary theory, quantum theory, human migration theory, etc.). Science and scientists recognize that they are falsifiable and testable and subject to revisement. Scientists don't make an attempt to suggest that their "theory" is divine truth. Ever. If they do, then they are automatically assigned the term pseudoscientist.

Originally posted by Spider AL
This neglects the fact that one can reproduce many effects in psychology, but one can be completely mistaken as to the actual cause of these effects. The vastness of the human mind does NOT help matters here.

Indeed, correlation does not automatically imply causation. Which is why studies in psychology must relie on large sample sizes and attempts to falsify their hypotheses. In fact, psychologists readily accept the fact that when dealing with individuals possibilities are endless. They also realize that their explanations are typically post hoc but useful in determing effective treatment strategies.

There's no religion to science.Not really my issue... my issue is that there are prominent elements within the scientific hierarchy that wish to PRESENT their hypotheses as true, instead of representing them more conservatively.

Now, we know that all scientific concepts are merely hypotheses that haven't yet been disproven... but the majority of the public does not. Lie by omission, is what I'd call it.

Please, do tell.I think it would be more effective of an argument on your part if you could cite an example. Well the example I'm thinking of at this moment is the Helicobacter strain that contributes to the formation of gastric ulcers.

Here's a link to the story: http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.html)

And here's my synopsis: In the eighties, a pair of scientists came up with the idea that stomach ulcers were not spontaneously forming ailments, but were at least partially caused by a strain of bacteria. They developed their theory further, acquired samples and cultured them, and presented their idea to the scientific community. The resistance to the new idea was absolutely abominable. Ulcers were DEFINITELY caused by stress and poor diet, and that was all. (On a side note, contemporary anti-ulcer medications were threatened by this new concept, which begs a question about the pharmaceutical industry's stake in scientific dogma) Eventually Marshall, the ulcer-free lead scientist, took the rather drastic step of swallowing a culture of these critters to prove their effect. When this was a success, the scientific community STILL didn't sit up and take notice. It took further years of pressure, studies and research papers to make them believe that this concept was POSSIBLE, let alone plausible.

Now, scientists shouldn't have to DO those sorts of excessive things to prove their theories. Not if the scientific community isn't weighed down with existing dogma.

Original thought without evidence is merely speculation.See the previous example. We're not talking about madmen with mad thoughts here, we're talking about documented and provable theories that are ignored. I've noted several such prominent instances over the years, and will dig them out if possible. Ah, Lorenzo's oil, does that ring any bells? It was recently FINALLY proven to have beneficial/preventitive effects to the scientific community's satisfaction. How long did that take? OOHO! Global warming! There's another example. It's all totally unacceptable.

Not sure what a "wodge" is, but scientists rarely appear on "television screens" in the U.S., perhaps its different in the U.KYes it is. Scientific interviewees appear regularly on our news programmes. And a "wodge" is "a whole lot".

Scientists don't make an attempt to suggest that their "theory" is divine truth. Ever.Once again, I must point out that they don't sit up on stage and say "what I'm telling you is divine truth". They don't have to. They merely rubbish the opinions of not only the public, but other, more junior scientists as well. And nor do they often say "bear in mind that this is only a scientific hypothesis at this point". They present their theories as divine truth by simply failing to acknowledge the existence of any other theory.

If they do, then they are automatically assigned the term pseudoscientist.By whom? If a prominent scientist with influence says something that is unscientific, I doubt the entire community they carry so much weight in would dismiss them out of hand.

Well, I think it's important here to distinguish between the 'pure' philosophy of science, and how science ends up working on the real world.
...two different things entirely.

In the 'ideal' world of scientific thought, it would not be affected by politics or hidden agendas. Scientists would only dismiss claims of other scientists on the theories they proposed and the corresponding evidence, not because they have a lot of 'vested interest' in their own established theories, or their just plain stubborn etc.etc.

But, unfortunately at the end of the day, scientists are human, like anybody else. So they can be - at times - greedy, ignorant, overly dismissive etc.
...in practical terms, no scientist is in fact a 100% perfect scientist! You can come pretty close maybe (and let's be clear, I'm not talking about being 'smart'. I'm talking about being totally objective, clinical and logical and ignoring all possible alteriour motives 100% of the time...)

So to take an instance of a case where a scientist, or even a group of scientists, acted in an 'un-scientific' way doesn't actually tell you that much about the core principles of science itself.
...that just tells you that everybody's human.

You can, however, see the basic philosophy of science in action if you look at science overall, in both a global and historical context.
When viewed in this light, and when compared with say religion, you have to come to the following conclusion...
...Scientific 'communities' are far more willing, overall, to accept new theories (when back up with evidence) which alter or even plain contridict older theories.
And they will be FAR more willing to admit in any given case that even the established theories could be wrong, and not to be thought of as 'infalible'

When Enstein provided evidence that Newton might not have got that whole 'gravity' stuff 'quite' right, he wasn't branded a heritic and threatened with 'ex-communication' ;) (At least not by the majority of scientists anyway...)

So to take an instance of a case where a scientist, or even a group of scientists, acted in an 'un-scientific' way doesn't actually tell you that much about the core principles of science itself.That's the same defence christians have been using to defend christianity for years, and I fear it doesn't wash... no, I don't dislike christians. They are individuals, so no. But do I dislike christianity? Yes, because of its history. Because of its flaws. Because it professes to be exemplary of high ideals and yet consistently fails to achieve them.

This can be said of both the scientific community and organised religion. Do I think that they're both as bad as each other? No, I would prefer one over the other. But do I think that either of them are squeaky clean and lily-white? No I do not.

Your not really concceding my point Spider.

Your judging the core philosophy by the eventual outcome alone.
And since we already know the eventual outcome is always going to be imperfect because all humans are imperfect, your always going to see the basic philosophy as irrelavent.

A religion like Christianity - at it's very heart - embraces ideas of 'infalibility' in particular ideas, which will be adheared to without question and without alteration.

Science is the exact opposite - in terms of it's philosophy.

It can't be helped what people end up choosing to do, no matter what underlying philosophy they may 'try' and adhere to.

Whomever might have suggested Science was ever here to, or was ever gonna be able to, make the world 'squeaky clean' doesn't have much of a grip on reality imo.
Perhaps you mean that the philosophy of science is seen as 'squeaky clean'?
In terms of a method of truth-seeking, I would say yes. (Or I'd like to see someone come up with a better way ;) )
As a method for determing what is 'moral', it can help, since you need to be informed to make a moral choice. But science isn't equipped to actually make moral choices. THat's not what it's for.

Science is about the discovery of truth.
Most religions also 'claim' to have this aim.

Science achieves this aim well overall (when practiced 'properly' of course...)
Religion does not.

That's the only 'judging' bar I hold against Science. Does if help us learn the truth about the facts...

you can't critise 'science' itself for being or encouraging 'immoral' attitudes. It makes no sense. (You can critisise indivudal scientists, or groups of scientists - but this has already been covered. Their just people - just like everybody else)

You CAN however clearly link the philosophies of religion for interfearing with morality, since religion very often sees morals AS facts (God-given facts).
This is what has to be recognised...

Your not really concceding my point Spider.Of course I'm not conceding your point, I'm arguing against it.

And since we already know the eventual outcome is always going to be imperfect because all humans are imperfect, your always going to see the basic philosophy as irrelavent.I've said nothing about the philosophy behind scientific endeavour, Renegade. I don't know where you got that from to be honest. I've been talking about the scientific community worldwide. Like Christianity, many of the principles it's based on are entirely laudable, but I refuse to ignore the deep flaws in the actual organisation and its history just because it's got some good ground rules that it doesn't actually live by.

A religion like Christianity - at it's very heart - embraces ideas of 'infalibility' in particular ideas, which will be adheared to without question and without alteration.Actually, while Christianity does believe in an infallible God, it does not maintain that humans are infallible, quite the reverse. Catholicism may maintain the divinity of papal doctrine, but since everyone knows that's all bluster, I don't see how that's relevant to any discussion of other comparable human organisations.

Science is about the discovery of truth.
Most religions also 'claim' to have this aim.
Science achieves this aim well overall (when practiced 'properly' of course...)
Religion does not.
If you consider the always incomplete hypotheses of science to be "truth" in totality, that's kind of what I've been arguing against all along, isn't it.

A true scientist that lived up to the ideals of science, the core philosophy behind it, well, he would always maintain the idea that there is no truth, but merely continuously improving levels of practical understanding. Very little in science has remained unaltered throughout the totality of history. What then, is truth? In a thousand years we may well have discarded today's incomplete scientific principles for better, more effective ones. We may have discarded today's inadequate terminology for a superior descriptive repertoire. Truth? Something that is ABSOLUTELY proven? I think not.

Maybe you're more likely to find absolute truth in religion, I know I consider some of the precepts of Buddhism to come very close. ;)

you can't critise 'science' itself for being or encouraging 'immoral' attitudes. It makes no sense. (You can critisise indivudal scientists, or groups of scientists - but this has already been covered. Their just people - just like everybody else)Oh of course you can criticise science for the behaviour of scientists en-masse, just as you can criticise christianity for the behaviour of christians en-masse. They too have been saying "It's not christianity, it's individuals" for years, and this defence is both impractical from a remedial point of view, and lowly in its slipperiness.

It's interesting to me that you're using arguments traditionally used to defend organised religion, to defend a group that you're trying to distance from organised religion.

Like Christianity, many of the principles it's based on are entirely laudable, but I refuse to ignore the deep flaws in the actual organisation and its history just because it's got some good groundrules that it doesn't actually live by


I've already said this as well, so we have no point of contention here - at all.
Shame. Rucks are more fun aren't they? ;)


Actually, while Christianity does believe in an infallible God, it does not maintain that humans are infallible, quite the reverse.


Where did you ever get the idea I said that Christians think that any human's are infalliable?
I said that Christianity have 'ideas' that are infalliable (The bible is truth etc. etc.) And since the Bible directly deals with moral issues, this affects morality in ways which Science NEVER can...


A true scientist that lived up to the ideals of science, the core philosophy behind it, well, he would always maintain the idea that there is no truth, but merely continuously improving levels of practical understanding. Very little in science has remained unaltered throughout the totality of history. What then, is truth? In a thousand years we may well have discarded today's incomplete scientific principles for better, more effective ones. We may have discarded today's inadequate terminology for a superior descriptive repertoire. Truth? Something that is ABSOLUTELY proven? I think not.


I think - simply - that there IS absolute truth. But to assume we will or should discover it ALL is pretty nieve.
(I'm not aiming the 'term' nieve at you - at all. I'm aiming it at anybody who does indeed think this...)


Oh of course you can criticise science for the behaviour of scientists en-masse, just as you can criticise christianity for the behaviour of christians en-masse.

Nonsense.
Name me one instance where someone has done something 'bad' (in a moral sense) based on a basic philosophy of science...
Hmm - methinks you may not really understand what the underlying philosophies of Science actually are ;) Or if you do your somehow twisting them beyond all recognition.

The philosophies of science cannot influence the moral 'actions' of those who adhere to them, since they do not have any prescribed notion on any moral issue!
..if you disagree (and assuming you know some scientific philosophies), please name one which has any bearing on a moral issue to prove your point...

Please enlighten me as to how Baconian philosophies have ever affected morality? Or Popparian perhaps? Perhaps you have a stance on how the Bayesian approach is affecting the morality of scientists :rolleyes:


It's interesting to me that you're using arguments traditionally used to defend organised religion, to defend a group that you're trying to distance from organised religion


Woah woah - slow down there. PLease allow me to decide what I am and am not defending please - thanks :)

I specifically said I DON'T defend any group of scientists. (Including any and all organised scientific 'communities'). So why are you saying that I do?! :confused:
What happens if some of the scientists are religious too? Do I have to pick a side or something?! You tell me - I'm unsure of the rules of this little game your constructing here...

You get religious nutcases, a**eholes and sadistic bastards.
You can also get scientific nutcases, a**eholes and sadistic bastards.
You can get combinations of the two, or perhaps s**eholes with no inclination to think about much more than being a**eholes.
...what has this got to do with the underlying philosophies governing scientific thought? (e.g. when do we think of a given theory as 'proven' etc.)

Where did you ever get the idea I said that Christians think that any human's are infalliable?Basically because the issue of human fallibillity is the only relevant fallibillity-issue to this argument. Thus, I felt you were probably referring to the supposed divinity of papal doctrine. If you weren't, you weren't.

And since the Bible directly deals with moral issues, this affects morality in ways which Science NEVER can...I dispute this. Science pervades all aspects of our society these days. The ramifications of the things science has GIVEN us, are moral in nature. Weaponry has been done to death as an example, so... ummm...

Science gave us processed and microwaved food, and thus has presented parents with a moral dilemma that they never had before... Whether to be mentally lazy and feed your children processed crap, or to be moral and take better care of them even though it costs more and takes more time. You get the idea.

The word of the scientific community is also important in presenting us with moral choices. We have a moral decision to make as regards the environment: Do we pay extra for greener products? For... errr... non-CFC hairspray? Well if the bulk of the scientific community (As they did) tells us that there's no such thing as global warming, why bother? They have an incredible moral impact on the world. They are a priesthood of a different shade, preaching that which they think we should know, and restricting the proliferation of that knowledge which does not further the aims of their masters.

Emotive language, I know, but I can cite examples to support it.

I think - simply - that there IS absolute truth. But to assume we will or should discover it ALL is pretty nieve.I too believe that there is ultimate truth that the human species will never discover.

But I will. :evil2:

The atom bomb wasn't dropped by a scientist in the name of science.
THe crusades, however were acted out in the name of Christianity 'for' christianity (in their minds).
Oh yes, I know the crusades were also about power etc. But the war WAS waged in the name of religion.
...name me one war that has been waged in the name of science..?!
...no - didn't think so...Sorry, but this doesn't wash. Deities are intangible, so ALL you can do with them is "do stuff in their names."

Science is nebulous in its identity, and tangible in its effect so it can ACTUALLY GIVE US WEAPONRY.

Both have a similarly destructive result, so the difference in approach is moot in that respect.

Wars may not have been fought in the name of science, but actions have certainly been fought to test weaponry. And how many people have been tested on in the name of science, to their detriment? Military testing, Nazi experimentation (which modern scientists have referred to to further their goals, so don't start thinking they're completely separate from the herd,) How many animals have been tortured for their entire lives, lobotomized, eviscerated and killed, all in the name of science?

Don't start asking me to weigh the evils of two shambolic entities. I can't do it. I can't separate them in that way, though I do in other ways, aforementioned.

Woah woah - slow down there. PLease allow me to decide what I am and am not defending please - thanks

I specifically said I DON'T defend any group of scientists. (Including any and all organised scientific 'communities'). So why are you saying that I do?!If you're not defending the scientific community from my criticism of it, why are you opposing only the points in which I criticise science?

This whole debate began when I stated that the scientific community, as a composite entity, likes to present its theories as fact through lying by omission in the press...

...what has this got to do with the underlying philosophies governing scientific thought? Well since I've been discussing the merits of the scientific community as it actually exists, and not the merits of its "core philosophy", why don't you tell me? I thought we'd settled the issue of my stance on the philosophies of both science and religion fairly quickly and painlessly about two posts ago.

:confused:

Look - let me get this straight.
When I say 'philosophies' of Science, I'm talking about the philosophies discussed by people like Francis Bacon and Karl Popper. (THe philosophy of how [and if you indeed can] determine what is true, and what isn't)

If that's not what your talking about, then I guess I'll apologise for any misunderstanding (alhtough I don't think it's fair to blame it all on me, but what the hey - I'll take it ;) )
But I'm very confident that those are accurately termed the 'philosophies of science'.

So let's move on from that.

I guess your argument is:

'Since science can create the microwave and make us lazy, and create the atom bomb and kill millions of people, then science 'itself' should be to blame for those lazy people and those dead people'.

Is this about accurate?
Well, if this is your argument, I'd say it's very subjective. And if we wanted to disagree, we'd find plenty of ways to do so...
It all depends on your definition of 'Science'...

For my part, I don't see that 'Should microwaves be built' has ANYTHING to do with science.
HOW do you build a microwave and HOW does it work has everything to do with science.

Science is just a tool. If you want to see it as more in terms of organisations etc., then that's your call.
However, I call a scientific community 'group of men who (are attempting to) wield the tool of science'.

They coudl wield that tool badly. (Scrappy, bad science - like a crappy carpenter using a hammer and nails. It's not the hammer's fault the carpenter is crappy :) )
They can also use that tool to do harm, and for evil (Immoral science - like the gun in the hand of a tyrant).

But I don't see a reason to blame the tool.

If you see it that way, then fine. No point in discussing that really - it's up to you how you view it..


The word of the scientific community is also important in presenting us with moral choices.


I would never accept that any scientific comunity has the right to offer me a moral 'standing' which I should follow - and if I was presented with on from such a group, I'd tell them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine. :)
..and if you profess to having your own mind and have any ounce of sense, you will do the same...

Their job is to try their best to tell us what IS and what ISN'T - using the tool of 'science'.
You cannot use the tool of science to come to moral conclusions - it's a complete misnomer.

Again, if scientific commmunities are producing 'morals' and trying to push them onto anybody, then that's the community 'wielding' the tool of science badly.
...dont' blame the tool, blame the tool user :) (Who could also accurately be described as a 'tool' ;) )

But I don't see a reason to blame the tool.

If you see it that way, then fine. No point in discussing that really - it's up to you how you view it..What I've been criticising throughout this debate, is the scientific community as a whole. They are not a tool, they are a group of people. A group of people, with much hypocrisy and many flaws, collectively. That's what I've been talking about, since my first post. Clearly.

If that's not what your talking about, then I guess I'll apologise for any misunderstanding (alhtough I don't think it's fair to blame it all on me, but what the hey - I'll take it )
But I'm very confident that those are accurately termed the 'philosophies of science'.I think we both agree upon the definition of "the philosophies of science". What we do NOT agree on is whether you should keep going on about them.

:confused:

I guess your argument is:

'Since science can create the microwave and make us lazy, and create the atom bomb and kill millions of people, then science 'itself' should be to blame for those lazy people and those dead people'.Don't misrepresent. ;) My argument is (and always has been) that the scientific community should take responsibility for their PART in such events. Just as Christianity should take responsibility for its part in evil doings, and its failings.

I would never accept that any scientific comunity has the right to offer me a moral choice - and if I was presented with on from such a group, I'd tell them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine. The group in question presents you with information, correct? And the information they present to you influences you, correct? So of course they can affect your life, your moral judgements, whether you have the OPPORTUNITY to make moral judgements... pretty much anything. Unlike organised religion however, they don't do it through telling you what is moral and what isn't, they do it indirectly.

Governments have a history of using this to further their ends, just as religion has been used to further their ends.

dont' blame the tool, blame the tool userThis, once again, is "don't blame christianity, blame the christians". I say that if you're part of a group, profess to be part of that group and are accepted as part of that group, the group must collectively share responsibility for your actions. Heck, they take CREDIT if one of their members does something great, so they HAVE to take some blame if they do something wrong. It's the same in religion, science, governments,.. you name it.

I think we both agree upon the definition of "the philosophies of science". What we do NOT agree on is whether you should keep going on about them.


Ehem, the fact is this definition has everything to do with it, because it's obvious you've been subconsiously adding 'community' to any instance where I've used the word 'Science'.
..why do YOU have to keep deciding what I say? If I want to say 'scientific community', I'll SAY 'scientific community'...

...It's one thing to disagree with me. It's another thing to alter my very arguments in your own head and then make sarcastic comments because of misunderstandings YOU yourself have created. :rolleyes:


Scientific philosophies have nothing to do with morals, so any moral standing of any given scientists or group of scientists comes from 'elsewhere'. (Religion, politics, other social pressure, personal greed - take ya pick)

Whether you accept or understand this doesn't change this simple, irrefutable fact.

Again, my challenge to you is to describe a moral desision made according to the scientific philosophies of - say - Karl Popper...
...until you can, the philosophy of science continues to have no bearing on whether some scientists are a**sholes...

I can, however, introduce you a Christian who believes Homosexuals are fundementally less worthy than him.
And this can be directly attribitutable to the fact that this is what his 'philosophy' teaches him. A philosophy which he 'believes' has come from God himself...

I can, however, introduce you a Christian who believes Homosexuals are fundementally less worthy than him.
And this can be directly attribitutable to the fact that this is what his 'philosophy' teaches him. A philosophy which he 'believes' has come from God himself...Actually it's "hate the sin, not the sinner", so there shouldn't be any malice involved.

That being said, so what? Scientists (on the whole) believe that homeopathic alchemists, faith healers, psychics, farseers, scryers and withinlookmen are less worthy than them. This is directly attributable to the fact that this is what their "philosophy" teaches them.

Ehem, the fact is this definition has everything to do with it.No it doesn't. Nobody's said that the "philosophies of science" somehow magically cause evil to happen from within their dusty books, any more than the bible "makes evil happen". So why do you keep going on about them? Who knows. That's a mystery even science may never unravel. ;)

Again, my challenge to you is to describe a moral desision made according to the scientific philosophies of - say - Karl Popper...I can describe a moral decision made according to the information dispensed by the SCIENTISTS who profess to follow those philosophies.

Actually it's "hate the sin, not the sinner", so there shouldn't be any malice involved.


Again, you seem to read my words and then create your own :rolleyes:
Read back and comprehend I didn't use the word 'hate' :rolleyes:
..you think hate (or malice) and worth are the same bloody words?!


any more than the bible "makes evil happen".


The Bible HAS been directly involved in influencing 'evil' actions. It is every day.
Some good ones too, granted. But doesn't exuse the evil ones...


Scientists (on the whole) believe that homeopathic alchemists, faith healers, psychics, farseers, scryers and withinlookmen are less worthy than them. This is directly attributable to the fact that this is what their "philosophy" teaches them.


Yes!! Haha - indeed. In the famous words of Karl Popper:

'Scientists are the best! Other people are less worthy! Woohoo!'

Wow - your right - this Karl Popper was a right c**t :confused:

Your looking at the attitudes of some scientists and calling that 'philosophy'! Heh, hilarious.
..what's next? 'I like wearing loud shirts' philosophy? 'I like pointlessly starting and fueling online arguments' philosophy?! (of which both you and I are proud followers of btw)


I can describe a moral decision made according to the information dispensed by the SCIENTISTS who profess to follow those philosophies.


Well done. You can provide something which I didn't ask for, and doesn't add anything to your argument. Thanks, but no thanks ;)

Some bloke asks me where a certain street is. I give him that information. He then goes to someone's house on that street and kills them.
...well of course I'm to blame for giving out the information! Silly me! OK - before I direct anybody again, I'd better get a full background check.
...hmm - maybe not. Maybe I'll assign blame where it actually belongs instead... Yeah - that sounds much more sensible to me...

Again, you seem to read my words and then create your own
Read back and comprehend I didn't use the word 'hate'
..you think hate (or malice) and worth are the same bloody words?!Don't start getting flippant. :tsk: I noted that there would be no hate involved, to ENSURE that you and everyone that read the thread, knew it. I'm not leaving you any back doors to scuttle out from.

The Bible HAS been directly involved in influencing 'evil' actions. It is every day.Rubbish, the bible's philosophy (bearing in mind that there are different versions of the bible, and different testaments therein) is a good philosophy. If christianity lived up to its principles, it would be a better institution. Likewise, if scientists lived up to scientific ideals, the halls of science would be brighter and more moral.

To echo your defence: "It's not the bible, it's christians!" :p

Your looking at the attitudes of some scientists and calling that 'philosophy'! Heh, hilarious.No, I'm looking at philosophy. The philosophy of science is that the best way to accurately research is to collect empirical data through reproducable testing, right? Right. So anyone who goes about their search for truth in a less organised, shamanic way, would be less of a seeker after the truth, more misguided, less accurate. Obviously, a researcher of less worth.

Well done. You can provide something which I didn't ask forI'm not interested in what YOU want, I'm telling you what I'm talking about, what I'M debating and what MY points are. You can go and play with your philosophy till the cows come home, I wasn't discussing it before you arrived and I'm not going to get any further into it.

Some bloke asks me where a certain street is. I give him that information. He then goes to someone's house on that street and kills them.
...well of course I'm to blame for giving out the information! Silly me! OK - before I direct anybody again, I'd better get a full background check.Let me give YOU an example. An injured man comes up to you, a scientist, and asks for directions to the hospital. You tell him that you haven't accurately determined that yet, and that the current theory on the hospital's location conflicts with accepted scientific principles.

Thus, you're not going to tell him the location of the hospital until at least three more years of animal testing and seven more study papers have been completed.

He bleeds out while pleading with you. Whose fault is it? Yours, yes, DARN YOU TO HECKFIRE YOU MURDERING DOG!

But dogmatic science is also to blame, and therefore the character of the scientific community shares certain responsiblities in the matter.

Rubbish, the bible's philosophy (bearing in mind that there are different versions of the bible, and different testaments therein) is a good philosophy. If christianity lived up to its principles, it would be a better institution. Likewise, if scientists lived up to scientific ideals, the halls of science would be brighter and more moral.

To echo your defence: "It's not the bible, it's christians!"


The biggest piece of b*ll**** you've written thus far.

The Bible contains many hideous, barbaric and downright inhumane concepts, alongside - fair enough - some good concepts too, and some indifferent concepts.
..and it doesn't take 'bad' Christians to translate these concepts into 'bad' deeds. In fact - sadly, GOOD Christians end up doing those 'bad' deeds, often in the most misguided fashions possible...
...I suggest you actually try reading it sometime before deciding what moral value it contains. :rolleyes:
You obviously haven't, or you wouldn't have made such a dumb statement...

If scientists consistently lived up to scientific ideals 'properly', then the world's moral standing could very well be NO different at all. The only thing you COULD say for sure is that we'd know far more about the universe around us by now...
We could still be using that knowledge to f**k the world up. Lots of scientists are contributing to that right now. And yes, they are in the wrong.
...but there is no scientific ideal which says 'F**k up the planet, or feel your better than everybody else blah blah'
...this is all in your head... (you know, where I say something and the words get altered)


Let me give YOU an example. An injured man comes up to you, a scientist, and asks for directions to the hospital. You tell him that you haven't accurately determined that yet, and that the current theory on the hospital's location conflicts with accepted scientific principles.

Thus, you're not going to tell him the location of the hospital until at least three more years of animal testing and seven more study papers have been completed.


Wow - I'm amazed you think this is a good example for your argument.

If I know where the hospital is, I'll tell him where it is. The ideals of science are all about gaining knowledge and making that knowledge avaliable.
...so if I weren't to tell him where the hospital is when I knew where it was, I'd be going against scientific principles.
To further clarify the point, NO scientific princpile would encourage me to lie. TO think otherwise is perposterous.
I'll let scientists come up with their own exuses why they lie, but the fact is it's got nothing to do with scientific ideals...

If I DON'T know where the hospital is, I'll tell him honestly I dont' know where it is. Wow - am I the wanker! Hopefully I'd be man enough to try and find out for him, using another one of sciences evil tools - the telephone :rolleyes:

If I think I 'may' know, I'd make it clear I wasn't sure, and then I'd have to make a judgement call. Probably I'd assume I didn't really know where it was at first and try and find out.
...but if this guy WAS in real trouble, then I might decide I have to risk it and hope I recalled the location of the hospital correctly, and waste no more time trying to track it down conclusively.


I am against animal testing. I always have been. THere is NO scientific ideal that says 'Cut up and torture animals to find out stuff'.
That's a 'moral' desision individual scientists make, and scientific ideals CAN'T help them with it...

What animal testing has to do with this 'particular' senario of finding a hospital I suppose only you can make sense of (in a mind so able to change words and make hypocritical acusations, I'm sure bringing in irrelavent side issues as if they have any bearing is part of the course...).


and seven more study papers have been completed.


Jesus. OK - let me make this very clear for you...

If a scientist says to you 'I'm not sure whether with the current studies that 'x' is true', THIS indeed has to do with scientific ideals.

...but first of all, this statement describes NO COURSE OF CORRECT, RIGHT OR MORAL ACTION! To assume it does is your own idiocy, NOT the scientists.
Secondly, if he's lying, and he is sure 'x' is in fact true, and he's using the cover of 'more reserch needed' to justify his lie, then he's abusing his position as a scientist. But what the f**k has this got to do with scientific princpiles?! THe guy's lying not because a scientific princpile told him to, but because he's a lying f**khead!

If you then ask the scientist 'So considering you think you need more time to know for sure 'x' is true, what should I do'?
If the scientist were to give you that answer. he is no longer speaking as a scientist. He's just Mr.Joe Bloggs now, giving his own opinion. He can make a very informed opinion, granted. And if your not able to understand the ramifications of what 'x' means or it's consequences, then the scientists view may be all you have to go on. (But the scientist is NOT to blame for your lack of comprehension - only you are...)
...but deciding a course of action based on truth ISN'T science. That's all kinds of other stuff - on a global view, I would say mainly business, politics and religion...


Don't start getting flippant.


Wow - you wagged your finger at me! ...and in such an auhoritive manner too :D

So now you not happy with forcing different 'content' on what I say, your now happy to start enforcing a 'tone' on it too.
Not sure where you think you got the right to do all this, but let me fill you in on something - you DON'T have the right. You only think you do.

I thought the scientists were suppost to be the power-mongers here...
I guess there is some truth in the term 'takes one to know one' :rolleyes:


I'm not leaving you any back doors to scuttle out from.


Ohhh. Handbags at dawn eh?! Heh - sounds like you think your trying to engage in some military campain or something. lol
Again, you think you have the right to change my words to fight your little 'imaginary war'. Why you think you have the right to do this is beyond me. (Well, it's getting clearer actually).

A few posts ago you accused me of misrepresenting you even though I actually made it clear I was only asking you IS this what you beleive?. i.e. I was only asking a question to clarify your position...
...now you think you have the right to mis-interperet practically EVERYTHING I say just so I dont' have a 'hole to scuttle out of'?!

Hypocrisy at it's most pure. I love it :)

There is a very big difference between 'hating' someone, and thinking someone is 'less worthy'
If I want to say 'hate', I'll say hate. If I mean 'less worthy', I'll say less worthy.
This is all very simple.
Just read my words and then reply to them. Ignore the little voices in your head changing the meaning of my words.
Thank you.

The biggest piece of b*ll**** you've written thus far.Oh, that's mature. And I note you have no examples of "evil" in the bible to show us. The fact is that poor interpretation by fanatics of some of the bible's more obscure and subordinate passages has lead to evil being done, and the text itself (and certainly core christian principles) has little or nothing to do with that evil.

...I suggest you actually try reading it sometime before deciding what moral value it contains.
You obviously haven't, or you wouldn't have made such a dumb statement...
You're becoming increasingly abusive, I'd tone that down if I were you and try coming up with some actual rebuttals.

If I know where the hospital is, I'll tell him where it is. The ideals of science are all about gaining knowledge and making that knowledge avaliable.
...so if I weren't to tell him where the hospital is when I knew where it was, I'd be going against scientific principles.
Just as you'd be going against christian principles. But you would NOT be going against the culture of the scientific community, which is what we've been discussing, isn't it. ;)

...but first of all, this statement describes NO COURSE OF CORRECT, RIGHT OR MORAL ACTION! To assume it does is your own idiocy, NOT the scientists.IT doesn't have to directly describe morality in order to have a moral effect, or to offer a moral choice, my young fellow. Which was my whole point.

And I'm tiring of your abusive tone. "idiocy"? I hope you realise how childish you're sounding at the moment.

Just read my words and then reply to them. Ignore the little voices in your head changing the meaning of my words.I quote things you've actually typed in, I don't alter a thing. Just because you're not clear on what you yourself want to say, don't blame it on me. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Spider AL
Now, scientists shouldn't have to DO those sorts of excessive things to prove their theories.

In that case, ShadowT. was correct in stating that your comprehension was lacking in regards to science. Specifically with regards to science as a culture.

Science is peer-reviewed and peer monitored. This is the most effective method of filtering the kooks whilst allowing the evidence to speak for itself. It is true that Marshall didn't receive an initially warm reception when he suggested that H. pylori was the culprit for ulcers. It had been long accepted that the environment of the stomach was far too hostile to any bacteria. On top of that, it didn't help Marshall that he was (at the time) an inexperienced researcher as well as brash.

But in the end, the preponderance of evidence spoke for itself and H. pyrori is now accepted as the principal cause of stomach ulcers, and has also been implicated in gastric cancer.

Did Marshall need to go to the extreme that he did (ingesting the bacterium) in order to prove his point. I'd say not, since any number of equally legitimate experiments could have sufficed. The scientific community didn't suddenly accept Marshall based on his stunt, it was the growing body of evidence that he had accumulated. The stunt was the final bit needed and an artificial environment or perhaps a chimpanzee/swine experiment would have served the same purpose and with more credibility.

Originally posted by Spider AL
See the previous example. We're not talking about madmen with mad thoughts here, we're talking about documented and provable theories that are ignored.

Not many. In fact, very few. In fact, these theories that aren't initially accepted are usually due to some missing factors. Take Alfred Wegner, for instance. He proposed that the continents moved about the surface of the planet and collided with one another and had considerable evidence. What he lacked was the mechanism that allowed the sliding. It wasn't until the 1960's that his work was supported by an improved body of evidence as well as evidence for the mechanism: the continents spread apart from oceanic ridges and the plates themselves rested on a viscous layer like ice sheets on a river.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Ah, Lorenzo's oil, does that ring any bells? It was recently FINALLY proven to have beneficial/preventitive effects to the scientific community's satisfaction. How long did that take?

I don't know... I thought the jury was still out on just how effective "Lorenzo's Oil" was. Hugo Moser demonstrated that about 40% of patients treated with Lorenzo's Oil develop thrombocytopaenia since the triglyceride (Lorenzo's Oil) disrupts platelet membranes. Cinimatically, the movie was good, however. But this still demonstrates that the culture of science is working as it should.

While I think that Augusto Odone and his wife did good science, I think it is still the scientific community's job to be skeptical of those that work outside of the box. It's true that many advances have come from type of research, but many, many more frauds and kooks have proliferated (and still are), taking advantage of the unsuspecting public with their sales of snake oil and flim-flam.

Originally posted by Spider AL
OOHO! Global warming! There's another example. It's all totally unacceptable.

I'm not sure if you're in the camp that believes the evidence for Global Warming is anthropogenic or non-anthropogenic by that statement, but I've seen compelling evidence for both arguments. Again, the problem here is that there's more intuition at work than science, though there are some very clear anthropogenic effects such as the addition of chloroflourocarbons in the upper atmosphere that interfere with ozone production. The only viable source of these CFCs was man. On the flip-side, there is also significant evidence that warming trends on the planet are natural.

Originally posted by Spider AL
They present their theories as divine truth by simply failing to acknowledge the existence of any other theory.

Poppycock. You've not demonstrated this to be common or even infrequent. At best, this type of behavior among scienctists occurs rarely. When "alternate theories" exist, it is usually in the form of garbage like Intelligent Design or ancient civiliations on Mars or ancient astronauts. None of which are supported by anything more than speculative or spurious evidence.

Originally posted by Spider AL
By whom? If a prominent scientist with influence says something that is unscientific, I doubt the entire community they carry so much weight in would dismiss them out of hand.

Not true. I believe that if Feynman had made an unscientific pronouncement, he'd have had a plethora of scholars jumping at the chance to point it out. His prominence and signficance as a physicist prior to his death would have given even Hawking pause to consider he may be right, but the lack of evidence would speak for itself. Prominence and influence have little bearing in the peer reviewed culture of science when it comes to allowing pseudoscientific practice or simply bad science.

In that case, ShadowT. was correct in stating that your comprehension was lacking in regards to science. Specifically with regards to science as a culture. You are incorrect. I am merely more critical of the culture than you appear to be.

Science is peer-reviewed and peer monitored. This is the most effective method of filtering the kooks whilst allowing the evidence to speak for itself.It is also the most effective method of allowing glorified office politics and vested interests to rule the path of the scientific community.

It had been long accepted that the environment of the stomach was far too hostile to any bacteria.You further prove my point. It had been accepted. It was regarded as truth by those who rubbished the new theory. If they are truly living up to their high ideals, scientists should not regard their hypotheses as truth, merely favourably weighted hypotheses.

On top of that, it didn't help Marshall that he was (at the time) an inexperienced researcher as well as brash.I'm glad that you admit that the factor of personality is an important one in the equation of whether a theory is accepted by the supposedly unemotional and inviolate scientific community. ;)

Did Marshall need to go to the extreme that he did (ingesting the bacterium) in order to prove his point. I'd say not, since any number of equally legitimate experiments could have sufficed. Come come, if he hadn't gone to such extreme measures, it might have taken even longer to bring this valuable theory to fruition. Who knows how long? They could still be blocking it, if it weren't for ALL the extreme efforts of Marshall and his compatriates.

Not many. In fact, very few.Just because I have cited three examples, that does not make them the totality of all examples.

If I have cited three from memory, how many more are there? Would you like me to submit seventeen case-studies and drink one of my own cultures down to prove it? ;)

Must I cite every example that I can find? I suppose if I am to convince YOU, I must. Oh well, off to the search engines after this. How many examples would prove to you that this was not merely a flash in the pan? Hmm. The single wakeup call of the beating of Rodney King led to the entire police force being regarded as institutionally racist, because it exposed flaws in the structure of the police culture. How many examples would prove to you that the scientific community as an entity doesn't live up to its own lofty principles?

I tell you now in all honesty, give me a reasonable number and I will do my best to find that number for you. But until you give me SOME vague idea of what will please you, I cannot be expected to live up to it, can I? Be fair.

I don't know... I thought the jury was still out on just how effective "Lorenzo's Oil" was.Incorrect, though possibly not your fault. There was a major study publicised just recently in the UK, don't know how well it was publicised in the US.

It showed (as I recall) A very high rate of prevention among those children who had not yet manifested the symptoms of the disease. The jury is apparently still out on whether it benefits advanced cases to any appreciable degree, or merely arrests progress, however. Either way it would appear to be a truly effective substance.

I think it is still the scientific community's job to be skeptical of those that work outside of the box.What? I thought the expansion of the breadth of human knowledge and thinking (the box) was what science was supposed to be about? Did Einstein think "inside the box"? Does Hawking? Have many great discoveries been made by thinking "inside the box"? A most confusing sentiment. Lateral thought must surely be encouraged in science if science is to advance in any meaningful way...

Poppycock. You've not demonstrated this to be common or even infrequent.I should have thought I'd at least demonstrated that it was infrequent through my three examples.

Also, poppycock? emotive language... Very much like the language the old established scientists who appear on our TV screens use to defend their outmoded theories from being completely disproven by new ones. ;)

In actual fact though, your language is mild. Some of the personal attacks made against the progenitors of revolutionary theories are ASTONISHING. Really personal! Very unscientific. Marshall's a good example as I recall, I'll check that, and I'll try to find some others.

On the flip-side, there is also significant evidence that warming trends on the planet are natural.
Ooohhh-kay. It is my opinion that the evidence to support the claim that we as a species have a definite and measurable detrimental effect on the progress of global warming, is overwhelming. But if we're going to get into a debate over that, I'm sure we can ressurect some old thread or something.

It will suffice for now that you accept the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly sided with the vested interests of government and big business to rubbish the theory in its early days.

I doubt you will accept that, but once again, evidence shouldn't be too hard to come by.

When "alternate theories" exist, it is usually in the form of garbage like Intelligent Design or ancient civiliations on Mars or ancient astronauts. None of which are supported by anything more than speculative or spurious evidence.If I were examining you as a scientist, I would question your commitment to true scientific philosophy if you did not weigh alternate theories based on the EVIDENCE present to support them. There are no bad hypotheses, merely hypotheses without sufficient evidence to make them probable. Just because an idea sounds idiotic, doesn't mean it won't be proven to a scientific standard. The basic concepts of quantum physics would have sounded insane to seventeenth-century scientists, for instance. I'm not saying that the ideas you've cited are true, merely stating that the possession of a totally open mind is a scientist's RESPONSIBILITY.

And even you have been forced to use the word "usually" there. I therefore can take it that you accept the fact that there are at least some alternate theories that are NOT "garbage" that are looked down on by the establishment of the scientific community. Which is what I've been saying.

Not true. I believe that if Feynman had made an unscientific pronouncement, he'd have had a plethora of scholars jumping at the chance to point it out. You can believe what you will, naturally. But history is, as I have said before, replete with exceptional scientific thinkers who have been rubbished by the scientific establishment.

The establishment must therefore have been unscientific during their rubbishing of the thinkers. It didn't affect their pensions, however... ;)

Originally posted by Spider AL
It is also the most effective method of allowing glorified office politics and vested interests to rule the path of the scientific community.

Perhaps if they all worked out of one office. Scientists live for the moment to call each other on their claims. Indeed, they accept criticism and either discard hypotheses or revise them. Science is about falsifying hypotheses, not attempting to prove them.

It seems clear that you're confusing the culture of science with other human cultures such as those that rely on belief systems to perpetuate or motivate them.

Originally posted by Spider AL
You further prove my point. It had been accepted. It was regarded as truth by those who rubbished the new theory. If they are truly living up to their high ideals, scientists should not regard their hypotheses as truth, merely favourably weighted hypotheses.

Only if your point and mine were the same. My point was that when the best available evidence suggests X and then an inexperienced researcher suggests Y, the latter needs to be able to demonstrate it clearly and effectively as well as supply the necessary evidence.

If you can show me a citation to Marshall's paper prior to his stunt, we can both examine the evidence for ourselves. I'm betting there were still questions to be answered via experiment before the original paradigm could be abandoned.

But it is apparent that you miss the point repeatedly: it is unwise for science to easily accept new paradigms or theories whilst abandoning the old without careful examination. Otherwise it would give quarter to the multitude of crackpots, kooks, pseudoscientists, and flim-flam artists just waiting their moment.

Originally posted by Spider AL
I'm glad that you admit that the factor of personality is an important one in the equation of whether a theory is accepted by the supposedly unemotional and inviolate scientific community.

I'm confused. Whoever supposed that the scientific community was to remain unemotional? Scientific method can flourish easily amidst the emotions of researchers. I suspect frustration and disappointment are frequent feelings. But if Marshall wasn't "brash," perhaps he could have eased his discovery by creating a political alliance that might have facilitated a research partnership. I won't pretend that there aren't political motivations and behaviors related to politics in research environments. But evidence will speak for itself. Marshall had only submit his findings to the correct Journal for peer review.

Indeed, we have only your statement that Marshall and Warren encountered undo reception to their discoveries. I recall Marshall being "young and brash" but not that he had any persecution from colleagues. Perhaps you can cite a source.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Come come, if he hadn't gone to such extreme measures, it might have taken even longer to bring this valuable theory to fruition.

If he hadn't been so concerned with stunts, he might have devised a more effective experiment. In fact, if memory serves me correct, Marshall's experiment failed. He only got gastritus, not the ulcer he'd hoped for.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Who knows how long? They could still be blocking it, if it weren't for ALL the extreme efforts of Marshall and his compatriates.

Conspiracy theory poppycock.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Just because I have cited three examples, that does not make them the totality of all examples.

Three that I've refuted as examples of science/scientists attempting to exclude new ideas from new people. I readily concede that there are humans in science and, as such, they have human falibilities: greed, corruption, etc. But what I don't concede is that the culture of science is unable to deal with this minority.

Originally posted by Spider AL
How many examples would prove to you that the scientific community as an entity doesn't live up to its own lofty principles?

More than 1% of all scientific paradigms and theories considered valid in contemporary times. I should think this number would involve an exponent. You've yet to show one, much less three.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Incorrect, though possibly not your fault. There was a major study publicised just recently in the UK, don't know how well it was publicised in the US.

Perhaps. But it doesn't invalidate my argument. It is only recently that the evidence has been able to support the Odone hypothesis to a significant degree. If you could supply the citation to the peer-reviewed journal, I can retreive the article for you in primary source (rather than the secondary/tertiary sources of popular media).

Originally posted by Spider AL
The jury is apparently still out on whether it benefits advanced cases to any appreciable degree, or merely arrests progress, however. Either way it would appear to be a truly effective substance.

We can be hopeful. We can also be hopeful that Moser's observation of the thrombocytopaenia is negligible.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Did Einstein think "inside the box"? Does Hawking? Have many great discoveries been made by thinking "inside the box"? A most confusing sentiment.

My mistake. By saying "in the box" I'm refering to the boundaries of scientific method. You obviously are considering something more esoteric. By my definition, Einstein and Hawking are, indeed, well within "the box."

Originally posted by Spider AL
Also, poppycock? emotive language...

Not for me. It merely means... poppycock. Nonsensical. Without merit. etc. This paragraph is about as much time as I'll waste discussing the technical nature of grammar and word choice, but I do note that you tend to mention it with others on a frequent basis. It appears to be an effective distraction for those whom you debate, "emotive, flipant, emotional, mature, etc." used to distract their main argument. You can point those out with me if you wish. I'm not distracted. Beyond this paragraph, that is.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Some of the personal attacks made against the progenitors of revolutionary theories are ASTONISHING. Really personal! Very unscientific. Marshall's a good example as I recall, I'll check that, and I'll try to find some others.

I'd like to hear more. I'm interested in the history of science and an avid reader on the subject. I still don't recall the undo criticisms of Marshall and Warren. I'm not being pretentious when I as for a citation or source to read about this. Although, I do admit to be pretentious on occasion when asking for citations or references :cool:

Originally posted by Spider AL
There are no bad hypotheses, merely hypotheses without sufficient evidence to make them probable. Just because an idea sounds idiotic, doesn't mean it won't be proven to a scientific standard.

I wasn't referring to hypotheses, but rather theories. But there are bad hypotheses, these are the ones that are discarded when falisified. But then, I'm not attempting to become abstract in my definition.

Originally posted by Spider AL
You can believe what you will, naturally. But history is, as I have said before, replete with exceptional scientific thinkers who have been rubbished by the scientific establishment.

We're discussing prominent scientific thinkers, so perhaps you can name three? And by "rubbished," I'm assuming that you mean "unfairly and unjustifiably criticized" by their colleagues. I can think of many examples, but they usually involve Victorian or pre-Victorian figures that answered to religiously controlled establishment.

And I note you have no examples of "evil" in the bible to show us...


Well, I'm frankly surprised I even have to point out stuff this obvious to you, but all you have to do is ask, and ye shall recieve...


The lives of heathens and anybody else who aren't Biblical god's 'chosen' are as cheap as chips

Joshua 6:20-21 - the Lord commands his little minions to slaughter ALL the inhabitants of the city, including women and children. Why? For nothing more than not being god's chosen people. God apparently loves ALL his mortal children, not just his chosen ones. The only problem is the word 'love' in the biblical sense is pretty cheap. You can do all kinds of horrific things to people you love - apparently...

Genesis 19:24-25 - Sodom and Gomorrah. I assume even you knew about this little bonfire. Since you think the bible is such a beacon of morality, you must think this was one of Biblical god's finest moments... :rolleyes:

Hosea 13:16 - the ripping open of pregnant heathen females. Oh yes, indeed an example of gleaming white morality if ever I heard it...


For anybody who's jumping up and down yelling 'Hey hey - Mosaic law dude. That was back when God was a grumpy old b**tard. Jesus was all white and fluffy and would NEVER do anything like that...'

First of all - newsflash. Jesus and God are one in the same. Therefore, it was Jesus who ordered and / or personally carried out all those massacres. For him to come to Earth and self-righteously wag his finger at people (like Spider
self-righteously wagged his finger at me earlier - heh, still makes me chuckle) only demonstrates one more layer of biblical god's schizophrenia. ...well, let's face it, it's gotta be hard being a mindless death and destruction God, a loving, kind carebear god AND an indifferent fuzzy-feeling Holy Ghost god all at the same time...

Secondly, the Bible also specifically states that God is unchanging. So to think that Jesus couldn't call a holy war on anybody he likes if he gets out of bed on the wrong side tomorrow morning is utterly preposterous.
(whether he'd have many followers willing to jump to his battle cry anymore is neither here nor there. If he was so inclined, there would be nothing in Christian ideals or philosophy which would stand in his righteous way... man, he's gotta be counting the days to Armageddon...!)

Thirdly, the Mosaic law only held direct weight for those who actually believed in Moses and his 'god'. Obviously to everyone else it's irrelevant. So they can be slaughtered just as easily before OR AFTER the mosaic law was fulfilled...


...you really think the Crusades and the Spanish inquisition had nothing to do with this basic clear-cut black-and-white Biblical principle?

God had called them to war against disbelievers and heathens. And if morally perfect God can slice and dice those kinds of people up without batting an eyelid, why would you expect any of them to - regardless of what moral fibre they might or might not have had otherwise...?!


Holding to Christian 'values' is more important than family relationships

A misnomer? Surely Christians are for family values!

..oh yes, indeed they are - so long as religious freedom is stifled and all the family remain nice, happy, cuddly Christians!

But what if a member of the family veers from God's chosen path? What if they decide they *shock* don't really believe in God? Or *shock horror* want to join another religion? What if *horrors of all horrors* they profess to being a - gasp - homosexual?!!!

Well, then all bets are off. The family may have no choice but to separate themselves from one of their own. What if the other members of the family are seduced by the lies and deceit of this 'enemy from within'?

..oh sure, they still love the family member. Ahhhh - how quaint. But as we already know, the Biblical concept of love allows burining the loved ones to death and ripping them apart, along with their unborn children!
...surely keeping a safe distance isn't out of the question ;)

Where's the biblical basis for all this you ask?

Matthew 10:34-36

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.


(also read Luke 12:51-53)

When the Lord says he is going to get personally involved in all this, let's assume he doesn't literally force relationships apart with divine intervention
...there is the whole 'mankind has free agency' thing to consider of course...

Of course it will be the 'word' or the 'truth' of God (Christianity) which will be the impetus for the breaking up of these families.

...it's not just an available moral possibility for Christians. Hell - it's prophesied to happen!

Oh yes, I can almost hear you now...

'But .. ermm ... if a family does this, it's their fault. Their just being arses. So there - meh'.

Nice try ;) In many, many cases the parents truly feel regret for being 'forced' to take such a drastic course of action, but it must be understood that they simply can't put the eternal salvation of the rest of his family at risk. (Not my words, their own...)

I'm also sure that they hope and pray that being cut off like this will teach the young lost sheep the error of their ways and that they will come back to the fold...

...i.e. the action taken - in MANY cases - most definitely stems DIRECTLY from the Christian teachings they have dedicated themselves to, NOT because they are a**eholes. They are only trying to do what they truly believe the 'right' thing is with the moral code they have been presented with...

...if you don't get this Spider, you don't get much about Christianity, or any other religion for that matter...

Well, I could move on to the 'sexual discrimination' section if you'd like...
Ohh - and the 'sins of the parents passing on to the children'. NOw that's a great one :)

But honestly, I'm not sure how much I need to insult your intelligence before you'll concede that to claim the Bible contains nothing but 'good' teachings is at best ridiculous, and at worst purposefully ignorant...

I'm guessing mass slaughter and wrecking homes should be enough for now. If you need more, just holler :)


You're becoming increasingly abusive, I'd tone that down


Pot... Kettle ...Black.

If there is one thing I can't stand, it's people who love to dish it out whenever they have an opportunity, and then whine about it when it comes back at them. :rolleyes:
I know I can get a bit heated sometimes. Which is why I wouldn't tell someone else to 'tone it down' if they were getting heated as well because that would be - guess what...
...yeap, that's right. Hypocritical.
Hmm - I think I see a pattern emerging...


Just as you'd be going against christian principles. But you would NOT be going against the culture of the scientific community, which is what we've been discussing, isn't it.


Oh I've got no doubt you want to dumb this argument down into a 'Do some scientists do naughty things' debate...
...but the conclusions of such a debate wouldn't tell us anything we don't already know.


The actual debate here is whether established scientific ideals and philosophies inflence scientists towards certain immoral attitudes which then manifest themselves within the scientific community...
...or whether immoral behaviour in the scientific community in fact comes from elsewhere (e.g. the commonly held human ideals of greed, hatred, lazyness etc. etc.)

To help think it through, were comparing this with the influence of established Christian ideals and philosophies upon Christian communities...

Now, to show this link, you need to do 3 things...

1. Establish the behaviour of the community
2. Identify established underlying ideals and philosophies which this group 'says' it adheres to.
3. Look for the obvious patterns between 1 and 2.

Pretty simple eh? Well, obviously not simple enough, because you seem to think you can just skip over step 2 like it doesn't even exist :rolleyes:

Don't see the point of step 2?
If you were to notice a particular behaviour in a particular group and instantly conclude that this behaviour identifies an established underlying ideal or philosophy for that group, then you gonna be able to pin a whole plethera of ideals or philosophies to ANY group you like (assuming it's reasonably large), since you will always be able to find 'many' examples of 'many types of behaviour...
...this is especially true for such basic behaviours as greed, deciet and lazyness...

...I'm guessing your being a 'little' smarter than that (but not much smarter to be honest) and deciding that if you can demonstrate an extraordinarily large 'percentage' of a given group seems to follow a particular behaviour, THEN you can proclaim that this indicates an established underlying ideal or philosophy.

Well, Skinwalker has already touched on this, so I won't repeat his already elequantly put objections.
..let's just say that I too am waiting for this 'magic' evidence which suggests scientists - on the whole - are more prone to immoral behaviours in certain areas than other groups...
..I won't hold my breath...


IT doesn't have to directly describe morality in order to have a moral effect


You mean the truth is to blame for the wrong-doings of this world?! Ahh - of course. It all makes sense now... :rolleyes:


...I don't alter a thing. Just because you're not clear on what you yourself want to say, don't blame it on me.


Heh.

I said:
I can, however, introduce you [to] a Christian who believes Homosexuals are fundementally less worthy than him.

You said in reply:
Actually it's "hate the sin, not the sinner", so there shouldn't be any malice involved.

You managed to bungle the words less worthy into hate / malice all by yourself ;)
In fact I very carefully DIDN'T use the word 'hate', beacuse I know that is the favourite Christian defense...

Hey - it's OK to discriminate as long as I don't hate them - right?! Daaarrrrr

...why do you think it helps your argument to claim I was to blame for your blatent misrepresentation of my point?!! You are truly a piece of work...

Duuh - why do you keep banging on about - ermm - Scientific filosofies - duuuh - meehh - That's a mystery - meeehheh - even science may - *snort* never unravel. Mahhaaa

... Jeez - give me strength :rolleyes:

Phunk, that had to be one of the funniest posts I've ever read - mainly because its all true.

Hoooohohhh-kay. I've been doing a fair old bit of research, and I've found some good stuff. Pertinent to the following quoted paragraph, Skinwalker, I have some sites that contain examples of what I've been talking about. There are quite a few, though I doubt they will go any way towards convincing you if you persist in denying not only the existence of examples, but the very examples you receive:

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/history.htm) - Very nice essay listing almost fifty examples of the type we have been discussing... the tone's a little too politic for my taste, I have little time for the middle of the road.

http://www.amasci.com/weird/vindac.html) - Quite a nice list of scientists whose theories have been rubbished by the establishment... and who have later been vindicated.

http://amasci.com/supress1.html) - Long article on the subject of entrenched resistance to new theories, esp. in recent (industrial) history. Cites examples.

http://www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm) - Interesting site on the subject, cites several examples. A little militant, perhaps.

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/History/forgotten.htm) - Extensive article on the possibility that many of the classical experiments that shaped the view of today's scientific elite... were flawed in the first place.

http://science-education.nih.gov/Snapshots.nsf/story?openForm&rtn~SB_Hpylori_Marshall) - Detailed article concerning H. Pylori and Marshall, mentions the ridicule he suffered.

http://www.centurytel.net/tjs11/bug/ewald1.htm) - Article discussing the possibility of cancer being caused by infectious agents, mentions Marshall and the ridicule of him in passing.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030128/05/) - Article on the flaws of the "peer review" process.

http://amasci.com/tesla/ballsci.txt) - Short article on the dismissal of the phenomenon (largely believed to be non-existent) of "ball-lightning". Surely researchers should be allowed to research whatever they like in peace, in a scientific community that conforms to the ideals you say it does?

I'd like a detailed response if possible, though I'd understand if it takes time. I barely have enough time to type this. ;)

On to the points.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

More than 1% of all scientific paradigms and theories considered valid in contemporary times. I should think this number would involve an exponent.Oh do be realistic. I am one man with access to google. :rolleyes: Since you know this, what you've just said to me here is: "There is no way that you can prove your point to my satisfaction." Well, I'm glad you're keeping an open mind, at least.

Give me a realistic number I can actually work with, not a probably astronomical figure of one percent that I have to calculate myself AFTER determing exactly what time-period you're referring to when you say "contemporary times", and how many paradigms and theories have been considered valid during that period before. It's silly!

Maybe I should swallow one of my bacterial cultures, that would get your attention. ;) Anyway, what do you say to the slightly smaller set of examples cited in my research, that's what I'm most curious to know.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

You've yet to show one, much less three.You're exhibiting exactly the kind of dismissive closed-mindedness I've been talking about... We haven't even finished discussing my first three examples and you're already ignoring their very existence. It's astonishing.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

But if Marshall wasn't "brash," perhaps he could have eased his discovery by creating a political alliance that might have facilitated a research partnership. I won't pretend that there aren't political motivations and behaviors related to politics in research environments.This proves my point pretty well, actually. Far from your initial claim that the culture of the international scientific community is based overwhelmingly (so overwhelmingly as to be almost entirely) upon the dry, logical, laudable principles of science, you're now admitting that the wheels of the scientific community are greased by rank politics, and that the theories of researchers are judged, not merely upon the merit of, or evidence behind, their theories; they're judged on their personality and who they know. You even seem to think that this is acceptable in some way. In ANY way, it is unacceptable in the extreme.

QED Skin. QED.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

I readily concede that there are humans in science and, as such, they have human falibilities: greed, corruption, etc. But what I don't concede is that the culture of science is unable to deal with this minority.Ah, so now that we've established that you admit that there is a corrupt minority in the scientific community, let's examine your assertion that they can be "dealt with" by the rest. Let's ask if there were any penalties for the government scientists who toed the government line and denied the existence of global warming. Let's ask if there were any penalties for the scientists who ridiculed Marshall. Were they drummed out of the community for their mercenary behaviour that hindered the progress of a valid new theory into acceptance? Not as far as I know. Do you know better?

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

Perhaps if they all worked out of one office.What do you call the international scientific community then? It's one big macrocosm of an office, full of natural, human politics, self-interest and sundry failings that are as incompatible with scientific ideals as the failings of christianity are incompatible with their core principles.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

It seems clear that you're confusing the culture of science with other human cultures such as those that rely on belief systems to perpetuate or motivate them.Actually, far from confusing the two I am equating them. Science is merely another group, the fact that the defenders of the scientific community in this thread are attempting to hold their preferred group above others on the basis of the purity of its ideology instead of the quality of its behaviour in the real world, speaks volumes as to its status as the purveyor of modern dogma.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

Only if your point and mine were the same. My point was that when the best available evidence suggests X and then an inexperienced researcher suggests Y, the latter needs to be able to demonstrate it clearly and effectively as well as supply the necessary evidence. One piece of evidence can prove two divergent points, of course our points didn't have to be the same.

My point was that those with unfashionable theories, inexperienced or not, have had to produce an UNUSUALLY large amount of evidence to convince the static, entrenched scientific elite of the validity of their ideas. Disproportionate to their fellows with ideas that agree with the status quo.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

But it is apparent that you miss the point repeatedly: it is unwise for science to easily accept new paradigms or theories whilst abandoning the old without careful examination.Oh? I thought that in science one should choose a hypothesis as being most probable because it had the superior weight of evidence behind it, not because it was the current theory, or had been around for the longest time. That being said, why should new theories be examined more carefully than the old theories? When presented with two opposing hypotheses, surely the ideal scientist you believe populates the world should weigh the two as if they were BOTH new, or both old.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

If you can show me a citation to Marshall's paper prior to his stunt, we can both examine the evidence for ourselves. I'm betting there were still questions to be answered via experiment before the original paradigm could be abandoned.Betting? Pre-conceived notion... very unscientific. :p I'll do my best, what I've found so far are a bunch of articles with the words "Marshall was ridiculed by the medical establishment" and suchlike, in them. I hope that some of the original articles written by his detractors are still online, though they were probably published in scientific journals... I'll keep looking for EXACT copy, but the weight of circumstantial evidence has piled up so far.

Either way, the articles and the documentaries I've seen in the past describing Marshall's trials and tribulations are enough to convince me, if not you.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

Not for me. It merely means... poppycock. Nonsensical. Without merit. etc. This paragraph is about as much time as I'll waste discussing the technical nature of grammar and word choice, but I do note that you tend to mention it with others on a frequent basis. It appears to be an effective distraction for those whom you debate, "emotive, flipant, emotional, mature, etc." used to distract their main argument. You can point those out with me if you wish. I'm not distracted. Beyond this paragraph, that is. Oh come come, "poppycock"? It's derogatory and we both know it.

As for my desire to have a debate unmarred by first emotionally charged language, and then the inevitable personal attacks that follow, of course I desire that. I freely admit that I desire that. When asking for that, I'm not attempting to distract anyone from anything. I'm trying to obtain a civilised debate. Hopefully my lack of colourful metaphors will prevent escalation.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

Conspiracy theory poppycock.Still getting emotional about the whole thing eh... and it wasn't a theory, it was a statement of fact, since it was merely a statement of possibility.

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

If he hadn't been so concerned with stunts, he might have devised a more effective experiment. In fact, if memory serves me correct, Marshall's experiment failed. He only got gastritus, not the ulcer he'd hoped for. "Stunt"? Derogatory. Marshall, under fire from his unwelcoming peers, used himself as an advance human test subject. It certainly grabbed attention, no? So it worked well and was a good gamble.

As for what he hoped for, you'd have to ask him what he hoped for. ;) As for what it actually proved, that was that the bacteria had a detrimental effect upon the gastric area, and could survive the hostile environment. I've read pieces that call what Marshall contracted "ulceration" and others that call it merely inflammation. Irrelevent either way, as it made the necessary points to the people who had ridiculed him, and it makes the necessary point now.

How many patients have suffered because the scientific community ridiculed Marshall, severely slowing down research into Pylori and its effects?

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

My mistake. By saying "in the box" I'm refering to the boundaries of scientific method. You obviously are considering something more esoteric. By my definition, Einstein and Hawking are, indeed, well within "the box."Okay, we were talking at cross purposes, no problem. Now, let's examine what you mean by "the box". Wait a mo, I remember reading recently that many of Hawking's theories are so high in the air that only a small minority of physicists can actually understand them fully... surely being "in the box" (to use your definition) would require that one prove one's theories to a wider scientific audience than a small group that purport to agree with you... How then do they stand up to peer-review? How does the average scientist evaluate them?

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

We're discussing prominent scientific thinkers, so perhaps you can name three? And by "rubbished," I'm assuming that you mean "unfairly and unjustifiably criticized" by their colleagues. I can think of many examples, but they usually involve Victorian or pre-Victorian figures that answered to religiously controlled establishment.See my bibliography for the three names. And you say... USUALLY involve Victorian figures? Well let's hear your examples that DON'T involve victorian or pre-victorian figures! You can do some of the work too! :p

Originally posted by Skinwalker:

I'm confused. Whoever supposed that the scientific community was to remain unemotional? Scientific method can flourish easily amidst the emotions of researchers.How are scientists supposed to be as objective as their science requires, if they are ruled by emotion? And not only by emotion, by vested business interest, entrenched hierarchy, all these things? Science is NOT a squeaky-clean community, end of story.

I especially like this quote from one of the sites I cited above:

"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein

-----------------

Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk:

Joshua 6:20-21 - the Lord commands his little minions to slaughter ALL the inhabitants of the city, including women and children.Does he tell his people that in many many many years' time, they can go on a holy crusade to slaughter thousands upon thousands in rampant butchery in the holy land and it'll be okey-dokey with him? Does he tell his people that in 2003, they can go to Iraq and take the fight to the evil infidels, pot-shotting at innocent civilians along the way?

Nope. I don't see any instructions to his priests to defend child-molesting priests or neo-nazis in there either.

So how exactly can you blame all those acts on this passage of the bible? Especially when the central INSTRUCTIONS FROM GOD of the old testament, the ten commandments, preach things like "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? If you go around killing people, you'll go to hell. Seems fairly clear-cut to me.

Those are the core principles of the old testament. You like to talk about the core principles of science for some reason, so let's talk about the core principles of the bible for a change. As violent as it is, I find it hard to see how the old testament incites people to murder, when it tells them that murdering people sends you straight to hell without passing "Go".

Sure, God told a few people to chop other people to ribbons in the old testament. But that was while daddy was around to supervise. He didn't say "now go and chop up whoever you feel like when I'm gone, eh?", did he.

Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk:

Genesis 19:24-25 - Sodom and Gomorrah. I assume even you knew about this little bonfire. Since you think the bible is such a beacon of morality, you must think this was one of Biblical god's finest moments...And do you think that because God in the old testament goes around smiting places for sinning, and turning people into pillars of salt, that means that his people can do the same without his blessing, and without repurcussions? Ever heard this one: "Vengeance is mine, saith the lord"?

Even the old testament god, a god of smiting and blighting, and chopping and squishing, reserves unto himself, the sole right to mete out vengeance, whether that's through his own power, or telling his homeboys to cut off someone's head. So where's your point now, abusive one? :D

And of course, all of this is neither here nor there. The old testament was as I've said before, a hebraic piece of propaganda. AND EVEN IN THIS, some rather nice non-violent christian laws can be seen taking shape.

Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk:

First of all - newsflash. Jesus and God are one in the same. I'm glad you said this, saves me the trouble. So can you say the bible is intrinsically evil and directly incites people to evil, when god himself tells his people to "turn the other cheek" and to "overcome evil with good", and to love their enemies, and feed those who do harm unto their chickens and geese and giraffes and ANY NUMBER of other kewl buddha-esque things. By your principle, these are words direct from God.

God says be cool. You, be cool.

Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk:

You mean the truth is to blame for the wrong-doings of this world?!Oh, so you believe science is truth eh? You wouldn't make a good scientist then. ;) Science is about disproving hypotheses, not proving them. There is no absolute truth in science, and any good scientist would be the first to admit it.

Need I any more proof that Science is viewed as dogma by some people? I think not.

Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk:

I said:
I can, however, introduce you [to] a Christian who believes Homosexuals are fundementally less worthy than him.

You said in reply:
Actually it's "hate the sin, not the sinner", so there shouldn't be any malice involved.

You managed to bungle the words less worthy into hate / malice all by yourself
In fact I very carefully DIDN'T use the word 'hate', beacuse I know that is the favourite Christian defense...I'm no christian, but even I can admit that a GOOD christian, a person who truly lives by Christianity's core beliefs, would invite a man to a dinner party on one day, find out he was gay, and would not hesitate to invite him back for another dinner party the next day. THAT's what "hate the sin, not the sinner" means. It means you DON'T discriminate against people because of their sins, because we all sin. It means to despise the act, not the person who's committing the act. It's very simple.

I wish all christians lived by it.

But then, I wish all scientists lived by the core principles of science.

Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk:

Pot... Kettle ...Black.

If there is one thing I can't stand, it's people who love to dish it out whenever they have an opportunity, and then whine about it when it comes back at them. What? When have I ever sunk to your level of abusive, immature language in this thread? Find a quote. Go on.

You can't, there isn't one. I have not insulted you. You, on the other hand, have posted things like this:

Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk:

Hey - it's OK to discriminate as long as I don't hate them - right?! Daaarrrrr

...why do you think it helps your argument to claim I was to blame for your blatent misrepresentation of my point?!! You are truly a piece of work...

Duuh - why do you keep banging on about - ermm - Scientific filosofies - duuuh - meehh - That's a mystery - meeehheh - even science may - *snort* never unravel. Mahhaaa

... Jeez - give me strength :rolleyes:


---

...I'm guessing your being a 'little' smarter than that (but not much smarter to be honest)

---

Just read my words and then reply to them. Ignore the little voices in your head changing the meaning of my words.

---

The biggest piece of b*ll**** you've written thus far.How DARE you? What makes you think you have any right to belittle ANYONE like this, when they haven't done it to you first.

Still, I have the moral high ground. Always nice, the air's better. Kind of nullifies any arguments someone who doesn't have the moral high-ground might offer, too, doesn't it. :¬:

Guys, this is a validity of science thread, not a validity of religion one. If either of you create a post that relates only to the latter without the former, I'm inclined to edit it. If you're interested in a thread on the Validity of Religion, please feel free to create one and I'd even be willing to copy posts from this thread to the new one if genuinely interested.

But let's keep the thread on-topic.

By the way, I haven't abandoned my contention, Spider_Al. I'm just busy with full time work and college classes.... I've an exam in Near Eastern Archaeology Thursday and a paper on Deluge myths of Mesopotamia that I'm working on..... busy, busy. But I'll be back. [/Swarzenegger voice]

OK Skin, accepted.

Well, let's get back to the real issue here, and let me clearly demonstrate where your argument is going wrong Spider.

Hree are a couple of examples of where your argument is coming from...

Statement A:

What I've been criticising throughout this debate, is the scientific community as a whole.


Statement B:

Oh of course you can criticise science for the behaviour of scientists en-masse, just as you can criticise christianity for the behaviour of christians en-masse.


Statement A is fine. (As I've always said it is) Whether it's quite as corrupt as your making out is a different matter. But of course I can see where your coming from...

Statement B was nonsense when you said it, and it's still nonsense now.
(Well, to be very specific, the FIRST part of Statement B is utter nonsense.
The second part of Statement B of course is perfectly true - at least for much of Christian behaviour...)

Christianity has plenty of established immoral ideals at it's very core which undoubtedly has lead to immoral behaviour.
(if you want to start arguing against that again, start up a new thread as Skin has rightfully requested).

I've shown the immorality in the underlying ideals and linked it to the resulting behaviour.

...now it's your turn.

Show me even ONE established scientific ideal which can then be linked to a known 'immoral' behaviour in the scienfitic community, perhaps one you've already mentioned...

* Rubbishing alternate theories without proper inspection
* Lying or hiding evidence and or conclsions
* Telling someone the words they utter are infaliable
* Telling someone they MUST take this course of action - as a scientist
* Think your better than everyone else - as a scientist
* Build a microwave [so you can make everyone fat and lazy] (implied by you)

...or another if you'd like.

If you ARE able to provide an established scentific ideal / philosophy which can reasonably be expected to lead to any of these behaviours, then please specify it and we'll discuss it.
...until you can, any blame is isolated ONLY with the communities and cultures, NOT science in and of itself (the culture of science has MANY other factors bearing down on it besides plain 'Science' - the 'scientific' culture Galileo was part of is a perfect example...).

In short, ...we ...all ... KNOW Statement A is relavent. We KNOW there IS stuff to be talked about there just as well as you do. So stop trying to shove it down my throat...
(...the only point of contention can be how deep the corruption goes...)

Statement B is the one you REALLY need to defend here - and to be frank, you've got your work cut out for you on that one...

Originally posted by SkinWalker:
If either of you create a post that relates only to the latter without the former, I'm inclined to edit it.
Very well, I will always make sure to point out the relevance to the issue of the validity of science in my posts from here on in, whenever equating science with religion.

Originally posted by SkinWalker:
By the way, I haven't abandoned my contention, Spider_Al. I'm just busy with full time work and college classes.... I've an exam in Near Eastern Archaeology Thursday and a paper on Deluge myths of Mesopotamia that I'm working on..... busy, busy. But I'll be back. [/Swarzenegger voice]Oh, that's okay. Unlike many scientists, I won't disregard any new evidence you have to present just because my point of view has been accepted as correct for some period of time. :D

------------

Remainder of Renagade... and Spider... bicker-match deleted. Approximately 4 posts including two-thirds of this one. --SkinWalker

All bickering ends.

Posts and rants on how you don't like what the other member says or how are off topic. Take it to PM, email, or PM me and I'll look into it.

Personally, I subscribe to the view that there are those for whom it is one's duty to offend when the occasion warrants, but I also have a disdain for ad hominem remarks and comments.

But it also has to be noted that some people don't like condescension in debates either, which is likely to cause them to respond more harshly than they might ordinarily.

Let's watch our tones, calm our sarcasm, and avoid the kitchen if the heat is too intense.

Bickering about how one debates is off topic and will be dealt with according to policy.

Originally posted by Spider AL
The fact that you're unwilling to accept the possibility that the prevailing scientific theories may in fact be merely incomplete hypotheses explaining some of the aspects of the physical universe, (which is undoubtedly what they are)

Eh. Of course they are incomplete. That's the whole point. Well, half the point. The other half of the point being that they are a hell of a lot more solid than anything previously seen in the history of Mankind - save perhaps brick walls.

Science is now laden down with dogma that restricts both scientific advancement and attempts to dictate everyone's behaviour, from what we eat to what we think.

Blah. If people are really going to take dictates from a guy in a white dress, then they deserve it, IMO. Anyway, they'll be better off than taking dicates from a guy in a black dress.

How many scientists with revolutionary theories have been put down as "heretics" by the scientific hierarchy in recent years?

Revolutionary ideas, my friend. Revolutionary ideas. Not theories. It takes decades for an idea to become a theory.

If focus on technological applications is foolish and unproductive, how is it that by far the largest proportion of the major technological advances in history have been predicated upon weapons research, and military application of science to achieve concrete (and lethal) results? How about comfort in and around the home? How many feats of science and engineering went into our plumbing and sewage systems? It's the practical that drives science, because that's where the real money is. (Though not necessarily for the scientists themselves.) Make no mistake.

Notice the words single-minded. While it is true that the need for engineers outstrips the need for - say - physicists by at least twenty to one, this does not mean that groundbreaking science can be discarded. There would, for example, have been no TVs or computers without Faraday's and Maxwel's groundbreaking research on electrodynamics. Or, for that matter, Newton's dabbling in Mechanics. None of which had any immediate applications.

What UTTER tosh. How many scientists do we see on our television screens every week, proclaiming their latest hypothesis as divine truth, and dictating people's actions accordingly? Wodges, that's how many.

You get quacks in every size and shape. Unfortunately some of them manage to get a degree in something or another. Nobody's ever promised that that would stop them from being attention-seeking gits.

Personally I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about the lack of scientists on your average TV screen on an average friday afternoon.

This neglects the fact that one can reproduce many effects in psychology, but one can be completely mistaken as to the actual cause of these effects. The vastness of the human mind does NOT help matters here.

Not even nessesary. Psychology fails already on the 'quantifyability' clause.

But reproducability is present in disciplines such as psychology and anthropology/archaeology.

Reproducability in results. I'm talking about reproducability in experiments. Two different things. You cannot design an anthropological experiment and then run it a couple of times the same way you can design and run a biological or physcial experiment. Thus, it is nearly impossible to validate a hypothesis to the precision that is required in science.

I also have some good insight into the psychological explanations of concepts of grief, anger, etc. and have been personally successful in offering counseling to at risk teens based upon this information.

Which is all well and fine, but how do you know that your advice was sound because of the employment of psychological method? Can you put a finger on where in your counsiling you actually used a technique that is specific to psychology? What makes you think that the effects you observed were not "simply" the effect of a much-needed conversation with an intelligent, mentally stable person?

Now, we know that all scientific concepts are merely hypotheses that haven't yet been disproven... but the majority of the public does not. Lie by omission, is what I'd call it.

Equally, the general public does not understand the difference between the uncertainty in a scientific theory and f.eks. a political statement. The vast majority of the people you see on TV are either politicians or aspiring politicians. When they say something along the lines of "we're still looking into certain uncertainties in the matter," it usually means "I know full well that this is BS and I want to leave a back door open." Basically what you ask of scientists is that they say something similiar - which would be all well and fine if the general public was a little more inclined to believe that their politicians are shifty bastards and a little less inclined to believe that doubt is a sign of shiftyness on general principles.

And again: If the general public doesn't know the first thing about scientific theories or critical thinking, then they are going to get bossed around anyway. And if that's the case, they are probably better off being bossed around by their doctor than some lunatic on a pulpit.

Well the example I'm thinking of at this moment is the Helicobacter strain that contributes to the formation of gastric ulcers.

This is actually a case that has left me with a bad taste in my mouth as well. Medicine isn't what it used to be, although personally I think that has more to do with the fact that doctors are sponsored by big pharmaceutical companies in much the same way that American politicians are propped up by big oil companies.

I've noted several such prominent instances over the years, and will dig them out if possible. Ah, Lorenzo's oil, does that ring any bells? It was recently FINALLY proven to have beneficial/preventitive effects to the scientific community's satisfaction. How long did that take?

Eer, I seem to have missed that headline. Could you fill in the gaps please?

OOHO! Global warming! There's another example.

Which part more specifically?

Anyway, the only scientifcally correct answer to the question of global warming is - I believe - "we don't know, 'cause it's too damn complicated." Or "we need more data. As in 10000 years' worth of more data."

The real issue is: Are we brave (or stupid) enough to wait and see?

There are lots and lots of reasons to want to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses and aerosols and stuff even without global warming. IMO we should leave global warming to the warming halls of academic discussion until we have more data. Plenty of good reasons to start doing something about air pollution anyway.

such as the addition of chloroflourocarbons in the upper atmosphere that interfere with ozone production. The only viable source of these CFCs was man.

This being a perfect example of the above: I personally don't give squat what effect CFC has on the climate - I'm not a geophysicist as you've probably gathered by now. What I do care about is the bloody big hole in the ozone layer.

Big companies - even whole industries - 'leaning on' (read: Bribing, blackmailing and otherwise coercing) the scientific community is hardly news. Yes, it is a bad trend, and yes it should and must be fought. But slandering science as a whole doesn't help.

Once again, I must point out that they don't sit up on stage and say "what I'm telling you is divine truth". They don't have to. They merely rubbish the opinions of not only the public, but other, more junior scientists as well. [...] They present their theories as divine truth by simply failing to acknowledge the existence of any other theory.

[...]

If a prominent scientist with influence says something that is unscientific, I doubt the entire community they carry so much weight in would dismiss them out of hand.

Sometimes they do. But in general you are right, of course. However what you forget is that even the most - quote unquote - "immortal" scientists take dirt naps sooner or later.

Many of the prominent scientists we know did this sort of thing. Lord Kelvin comes to mind immediately, Newton went and became a grumpy old fool, a couple of the more prominent mathmaticians in history stole results from brighter but more junior colleagues, and any biochemist with a grasp of his profession's history will get all riled up if you mention Niels Bohr.

Does this cast a shadow over my admiration for them? Certainly. Does it cast a shadow over thier achivements? Absolutely not. The whole point in science and math is that the achivements trancend the person. A scientific theory is - in a sense - an achivement of all Mankind. And this is the very reason that science can recover from such people as Kelvin and Newton. After a couple of generations you are able to examine their work critically - and you'll usually find that most of what they did and said was rubbish. But you can cling on to the important parts, and that's the point.

There are stagnant old idiots in any organisation. But science has proven to be more capable of cleaning up the mess they cause than any other human endevour to date.

You can, however, see the basic philosophy of science in action if you look at science overall, in both a global and historical context.

My words exactly (only I can't seem to be able to boil it down as neatly.

That's the same defence christians have been using to defend christianity for years, and I fear it doesn't wash

No, it's actually not the same thing. What Phunk said was that you need to look at the bigger picture. What Christian apologitics say is that you need to look at the intend rather than the outcome.

Science is about the discovery of truth.
Most religions also 'claim' to have this aim.

Or perhaps rather:

Science is about the search for truth.
Religion claims to have found it.

Oh of course you can criticise science for the behaviour of scientists en-masse, just as you can criticise christianity for the behaviour of christians en-masse. They too have been saying "It's not christianity, it's individuals" for years, and this defence is both impractical from a remedial point of view, and lowly in its slipperiness.

Aha, but as has already been pointed out scientists have - when considered en bloc - paved the way for considerable progress and understanding, whereas religion - again en bloc - has done nothing but degrade and derange and derail.

Prominence and influence have little bearing in the peer reviewed culture of science when it comes to allowing pseudoscientific practice or simply bad science.

While I would certainly like to believe this to be true, Skin, even I must concede Spider's point as to the status of prominent scientists. However, the point is that after a generation or two, a prominent scientist stops being prominent and starts being history. Whereas a prominent Pope stops being prominent about the time he starts being dogma.

Did Einstein think "inside the box"?

As a matter of fact he did - most of the time. Einstein was a well respected scientist long before relativity was a well respected theory - in fact when he took the Nobel Laurels it was specifically pointed out that they were not given for his work on relativity, because that was certainly not popular. Relativity was a truely earth-shatteringly novel idea (actually the idea isn't too earth-shattering and was pretty much confirmed by the time of Einstein, it's the results that are interesting), and so had to be subjected to truely earth-shattering tests.

Have many great discoveries been made by thinking "inside the box"? A most confusing sentiment.

Well, Kepler's laws for a start. Most of Newtonian Dynamics. Pretty much all of Electrodynamics.

Lateral thought must surely be encouraged in science if science is to advance in any meaningful way...

Much as we yearn for the sudden leap of genius, I am of the opinion that we must acknowledge our debt to the slow, methodical investigation that characterises mainstream science.

Many great ideas have come from people working 'outside the box'. Most have failed. Miserably - and sometimes colourfully. But failed nonetheless.

It seems clear that you're confusing the culture of science with other human cultures such as those that rely on belief systems to perpetuate or motivate them.

Having close relatives that work "inside the box", I'm afraid that I'll have to disappoint you on that one. In fact, scientific communities are just as faulty as every other kind of communities when it comes to cleaning out the rubbish of the present. But they are a hell of a lot more effective when it comes to cleaning out the rubbish of the past.

I might get back and do the last few posts. For now, though, I've got an urgent appointment with my Physics homework.