Suspicion Against Scientists?

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

No matter what the context, appeals to consensus and/or authority are fallacious.

This is only true from a purely philosophical standpoint, and is divorced from reality.

I would agree that data is of higher importance than scientific consensus, but expert consensus - in science, or any other field - is undeniably important.

Distrust of scientific consensus is potentially extremely harmful. When the general populace is faced with decision like “should I vaccinate my child?” they often don’t have the data in front of them, nor the ability to interpret the data if they did. Quacks like Andrew Wakefield can start movements based on false data that can endanger the health of millions.

[Guest shiloh357]

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 4:00 PM, siegi91 said:

I am not a Christian, so I cannot say.

However, if I were a Christian, I would probably also be skeptical of science. It is perfectly understandable. For obvious reasons.

Tschüßchen

 sieglinde 

 

Not skeptical of science, as science isn't the problem. But there is a prevailing assumption that scientists wear a mantel of infallibility and to question them is to be against science.   We are, evidently, expected to simply defer to them uncritically, as if they are above question and scrutiny.  

And anyone who thinks that scientists don't manipulate data to force the outcome they want is pretty naïve.   When you are the gatekeeper of the information and you get to control what the populace gets to see, and it is to your advantage to be able shape public thinking a certain direction, then it is not surprising that some will use that to cause popular consensus to go in that direction.  This is particularly true of those with an atheistic worldview and given the way that atheism has hi-jacked science it would not be surprising at all.

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

We are, evidently, expected to simply defer to them uncritically, as if they are above question and scrutiny.  

No one enjoys having their work questioned, particularly by people that have no idea what they are talking about. But scientists are used to having their conclusions questioned by others that have actual data that shows when a scientific conclusion has been wrong. Longstanding assumptions in science have been discarded repeatedly when new data shows that the assumptions were in error. It may take some time for the paradigm to be shifted, but new data has a great track record for changing scientific assumption.

[justme007]

On 10/29/2018 at 7:43 AM, thomas t said:

Dear community,

recently we discussed a science topic here on worthy*, and then it turned out that someone said scientists "manipulate" data, and everyone seemed to be perfectly fine with this claim.

 

So, do we really think scientists are evildoers manipulating the data coming from their own research - their daily bread?

The problem that I see with this is that scientists may take offence.

 

If ever someone wants to accuse scientists here again, please back up your claim by using data and sources. Please use one example and be specific. Explain which exact data you think was manipulated. Please indicate your source and explain why you deem your sources to be more trustworthy than the scientists accused. "google this and that" is not enough to back up a claim, I think.

 

-----

DISCLAIMER.

Personally, I do believe that God created the earth in six literal days some 30 generations before king David, as Bible sais.

But I'm aware of the fact that scientists claim otherwise. For me personally, I reconcile these two thinking that scientists reach the wrong conclusions from the data.

However, I would never go as far as to say that they collected the wrong data or even manipulated them.

I believe the world to look older than it really is, very much in the way it looked older right the first day of it's creation (Genesis chapter one).

I also believe Adam to have looked older than he was in Genesis chapter 2 (one day old only).

 

Regards,

Thomas

 

* https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/227835-climate-change-and-the-end-times/?fbclid=IwAR3m_kQ1FZbRjHC_QpHaqyQi0FT7wJAC5toSFxfpuQb_OQv15GvZJJR_IdY

How about this?

http://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm#debunk

[Tristen]

20 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is only true from a purely philosophical standpoint, and is divorced from reality.

I would agree that data is of higher importance than scientific consensus, but expert consensus - in science, or any other field - is undeniably important.

Distrust of scientific consensus is potentially extremely harmful. When the general populace is faced with decision like “should I vaccinate my child?” they often don’t have the data in front of them, nor the ability to interpret the data if they did. Quacks like Andrew Wakefield can start movements based on false data that can endanger the health of millions.

Appeals to consensus and/or logic are fallacious as a point of simple logic. The whole reason to criticise them is because they logically fail as arguments. It has nothing to do with trust or “Distrust of scientific consensus” - but recognition of the fact that consensus is meaningless in terms of rational support for a position.

 

Regarding vaccines, the scientists should be saying; “Based on these studies, here are the risks associated with your child catching the disease, and based on the research, here are the risks associated with giving your child the vaccine”. It's not 'rocket-surgery'. Given the simple facts, the contrast between these options is clear to sensible parents. And that way, we give parents the information they need to make the best decisions for their own children. The job of science here is to provide that information.

 

But if all we have is scientists saying, “We are the experts. Do what we say because we know what is best for your child”. Firstly, that is not their job, and secondly, it is little wonder that many parents seek answers elsewhere. If the “Quacks” can get their information to the “general populace”, why can't the scientists?

 

So the true danger in this situation lies in scientists appealing to their own sense of self-importance, rather than providing the information parents need to make informed decisions. If there is a danger here, it is in the appeals to consensus/authority.

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

But if all we have is scientists saying, “We are the experts. Do what we say because we know what is best for your child”.

This is a gross exaggeration and you know it.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

So the true danger in this situation lies in scientists appealing to their own sense of self-importance, rather than providing the information parents need to make informed decisions.

And you think that scientists have not been doing this for years?

But sure, stick with your complaint against the use of logical fallacies...

[justme007]

On 10/31/2018 at 5:00 PM, siegi91 said:

I am not a Christian, so I cannot say.

However, if I were a Christian, I would probably also be skeptical of science. It is perfectly understandable. For obvious reasons.

Tschüßchen

 sieglinde 

 

Obvious reasons such as "science" being flawed and biased and overwhelming evidence to back that up.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Cletus said:

every single study done by scientists to prove homosexuality is genetic has either used manipulated data, fsalsified data, or no controls were used.

Do you have examples to support this statement? I'm not claiming that science proves anything about sexual orientation, but I'd just like to see support for this rather bold statement.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Cletus said:

and even today these false scientists, whom most were openly homosexual, have found their way into childrens science textbooks giving them credit for "proving it"  the first major public study started back with a man by the name dean hammer(i think in the 90s), who was later found out and stripped of his credibility.  since then, many more have come... and lied. 

My apologies, my computer must have been glitching because I did not see this entire portion of your post although I saw the next post.

[one.opinion]

Just now, maryjayne said:

I tend to think of it as a glitch in the womb, when the embryo is changing definitively to female or male something goes wrong. Given the complexity of the process, its not wonder there are problems for some.

It is tremendously complex, with lots of things that can go wrong. I think some of these things can contribute to same sex attraction. But it is the choice of the individual whether or not to act upon those attractions.