Jump to content
IGNORED

Suspicion Against Scientists?


thomas t

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  944
  • Content Per Day:  0.22
  • Reputation:   170
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/05/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/20/1980

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
 
Edited by thomas t
the link didn't open
  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, 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
 

Thanks, Thomas. This is an important topic. There has been a fairly recent trend toward distrust of the scientific community. The two primary areas we see this happening right now is on the topics of climate science and vaccines. Distrust of scientific consensus in these areas can frankly become quite dangerous. The anti-vax movement was based on fabricated results and anecdote, rather than solid science and has led to serious outbreaks of preventable diseases and threatens with much more harm. The distrust of climate scientists has not had the same short-term impact, but has led to a lackadaisical attitude to the issue that will likely have a significant impact on future generations.

That's why scientific consensus is important. Scientists are people, and are indeed prone to error. But when a group of experts study a particular topic and can reach consensus, that tends to take care of single studies that are in error and even for those outright fabrications, as in the anti-vaccination case. By and large, scientists are just as honest and interested in truth as anyone else, but there will always be some that are more interest in fame/fortune/other motives, to the point of dishonesty.

I appreciate the frankness of your disclaimer, so I will respond with my own. I believe the point to Genesis 1-3 is not to establish an exact timeline of God's creation work, but establishment of God as sole creator and controller of the universe and His special creation of humanity that is unlike anything else He made. It also teaches us of the fall of humanity into sin (I believe through the rebellious choices of Adam and Eve) and introduces the promise of the Christ, that would pay the penalty for that sin in order to allow humanity the opportunity to accept a relationship with the Creator again. I accept the scientific conclusion of an ancient earth and universe and of the evolution of life, but accept that God chose humanity specifically to be His image-bearers, granted that special opportunity for communion with Him.

I say this not to argue with you (I do enough arguing here already!), but to offer my viewpoint with the hope that we can agree with the important issues like the sinful nature of humanity and the overwhelmingly beautiful love of God and the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, as well as his glorious resurrection, even though we may have different convictions about smaller issues like the timeline of God's creation.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  35
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,735
  • Content Per Day:  1.18
  • Reputation:   249
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/04/2015
  • Status:  Offline

On 10/29/2018 at 12:43 PM, 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
 

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 :)

 

Edited by siegi91
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  944
  • Content Per Day:  0.22
  • Reputation:   170
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/05/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/20/1980

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

I would probably also be skeptical of science. It is perfectly understandable. For obvious reasons.

Hi Siegi,

interesting what you wrote - and personally I'm as sceptical towards scientist's work as I am towards craftsmen's. I trust them almost blindly.

For me, Bible trumps science in only one area:

as soon as the Bible announces a miracle, I trust Bible more.

For me, God is almighty and an almighty God can of course perform miracles any time he wants to do so.

 

Let me give you one more example:

Let's just assume a scientist was present at the wedding feast of Cana and was getting asked the question how old the drink was he was having.

Of course, the alcoholic content of it would have counted as evidence that the wine was at least 6 months old, since this is the minimum timespan that it takes for wine to become wine.

But Jesus made it in the twinkling of an eye ? let's see John 2, verses 3 to 10 (ESV).

When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”
5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
6 Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.1
7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it.
9 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom
10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.”

 

 

Tschüßilein,

Thomas

 

Edited by thomas t
clarity (word order), and highlighting the Bible passage
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/3/2018 at 8:48 PM, Abdicate said:

There's some guy right now running around on this site making scientific claims that are directly opposed to the word of God and he claims to be a "christian."

I would like to have a talk with this "christian" guy if he is denying that God is Creator and that mankind is sinful and in need of a Savior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  3,776
  • Content Per Day:  1.29
  • Reputation:   4,746
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/31/2016
  • Status:  Offline

There are some scientists, researchers, and more who manipulate data to say what they want.  It's VERY easy to manipulate numbers - just ask anyone who posts the results of a "poll" - you know, "most Americans say.....", "Studies show.....",  etc.

There are also lay Christians and alleged Bible scholars who manipulate scripture to teach their personal belief system.  I see this all of this time.

The best way to decide if someone is telling or teaching the truth is to know the truth yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Online

Hey Thomas,

The phrase “manipulate data” is very vague. Scientists absolutely manipulate data – that is their job. But you mean manipulate data in a way that misrepresents it. That happens as well. But that's because scientists are people who face a variety of vocational pressures. For example, most modern scientists are in a constant fight for funding. Among those who provide the majority of research funding, there is a known bias towards researchers who have a lot of recently published papers. And so there is a temptation for researchers to fabricate and/or exaggerate their results. Scientists are just people like the rest of us. In most cases, most scientists do the right thing, but others succumb to the temptation to push dodgy papers to bolster their CV. You were right to suggest the issue is about “their daily bread”.

 

I totally agree with you that if someone makes a claim, they should “back up” their claim. That is true for any claim. But the common trust people have for science is, ironically, unscientific. The idea that we should simply trust experts because they are experts is the opposite to critical thinking. To do so is a technical logic fallacy. Scientists are not supposed to be trusted – not because there is anything wrong with them, but because the scientific method make no provision for such trust. Scientists are expected to support their conclusions with evidence and arguments.

 

So I think I find myself opposing both sides. Of course, making an accusation without rational support is, if nothing else, fallacious. But presupposed trust based on expertise is equally erroneous.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Online

On 10/29/2018 at 11:36 PM, one.opinion said:

Thanks, Thomas. This is an important topic. There has been a fairly recent trend toward distrust of the scientific community. The two primary areas we see this happening right now is on the topics of climate science and vaccines. Distrust of scientific consensus in these areas can frankly become quite dangerous.

...

That's why scientific consensus is important.

Hi One,

Fallacious appeals to consensus is the main reason for the distrust over “climate science and vaccines”. The people who should be representing science are demanding our uncritical trust; berating and denigrating anyone opposing as “science deniers” etc. - when what they should be doing is unemotionally presenting the scientific case. When someone says, “trust us, we are the experts”, all sensible people know to push for more information. Holding back information is suspicious behaviour. Even now, on both of these issues, there are people suggesting that only one side of the debate be heard - so as not to give legitimacy to the other. Rational people know that that is not how debates work. Imagine a court system where only the prosecutors were permitted to make their case. People know intrinsically that is unfair. If their case is so unequivocally strong, then what the “scientific community” should be doing is presenting those ideas in a fair contest.

 

But as it stands, those looking for information are largely encountering two positions; 1) the “trust us, we are scientist” argument, or 2) the anti-climate change/vaccine arguments. That gives the false impression that only the 'anti' position has a case. It's the appeal to fallacy instead of argument that puts the mainstream position on the back foot from the get-go. They loose the argument early by appealing to consensus and expertise, then have to try and claw their way back after the opposing position has had the free opportunity establish confirmation bias in a large portion of the population.

 

No matter what the context, appeals to consensus and/or authority are fallacious. So when the experts go there, people think they are being snowed – and look for information elsewhere. That's where the danger lies.

Edited by Tristen
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  46
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  944
  • Content Per Day:  0.22
  • Reputation:   170
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/05/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/20/1980

6 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Even scientists agree that climate records were manipulated.

Hi Saved One,

thank you, also for the link. But your linked article does not claim that "scientists [plural] agree that climate records were manipulated", as you say.

There it says that only one retired scientist made this claim. 

But thank you for providing at least a link.

 

Regards,

Thomas

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...