Science is Dogma...

[revelarts]

I started this thread with this guy talking about being banned from the the ted site.
by scientist who didn't like him questioning scientific dogmas.

here's the actual talk

[pete311]

Science as a set of physical laws and principles is what it is. There's no denying that.

yup ok fine

Man's ability to explain the world in which Man lives. I'm fine n dandy with THAT.

yup fine ok

But you can't explain God.

yup fine ok

Scientific THEORY tries to explain Him away

nah, we're trying to, you know, cure cancer and stuff...

but what's the difference between scientific theory and creationism?

The scientific model. Creationism is just fantasy dream making. You have no system other than to follow an old dusty book.

Most scientific theory is crap. Guesswork.

As you use a computer and the internet. Yeah, all that stuff is guesswork. You have no appreciation for what science has done for you.

On the the other hand, every bit of life is perfect. The only thing that intervenes in that is Man.

This is just a personal opinion and philosophy.

But it "just happened"? Out of the entire universe, we just happened to be in the right place at the right time? Some primordial ooze turned into us. That would be the entire universe that is infinite yet expanding, right?

Your ignorance in a subject does not falsify it.

We're no accident and nothing scientific theory has to say is going to explain THAT fact away.

Again, just your opinion. Jump off your soapbox and let's get back to curing cancer. Because when you get cancer, you will be heading to a scientific cancer treatment center, not some shaman in the woods talking about how life is perfect, rubbing chicken grease on your head and chanting with his eyes turned back.

[pete311]

University Silences Scientist After Dinosaur Discovery

because science is NOT dogma?

You just believe anything and anyone that supports your beliefs. Looking at the article the information is all from his lawsuit and are his personal claims. It appears he's just a jaded employee after being fired for who knows what.

Science is not dogmatic. It changes and builds on itself. What a silly assertion. Are you saying that science has not changed and improved over the past 100 years?

[revelarts]

You just believe anything and anyone that supports your beliefs. Looking at the article the information is all from his lawsuit and are his personal claims. It appears he's just a jaded employee after being fired for who knows what.

Do you disbelieve anyone who doesn't follow the party line and ASSUME they are lying and jaded?

Science is not dogmatic. It changes and builds on itself. What a silly assertion. Are you saying that science has not changed and improved over the past 100 years?

What I (and many scientist) are saying there are certain NO GO, forbidden areas, where the scientific establishment actively squashes, suppresses and fights honest dissent.

[pete311]

honest dissent

That it is not. The dissent is marginalized for good reason just like no one pays attention to holocaust deniers. Breakthroughs are made all the time. Discoveries unveiled all the time. Science is progressing at an incredible rate. Nothing is holding back real science which follows the scientific method and is peer reviewed.

[revelarts]

that it is not. The dissent is marginalized for good reason just like no one pays attention to holocaust deniers. Breakthroughs are made all the time. Discoveries unveiled all the time. Science is progressing at an incredible rate. Nothing is holding back real science which follows the scientific method and is peer reviewed.

lol!

[revelarts]

...I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called
consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that
ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first
refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your
wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the
business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be
right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In
science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in
history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it
isn’t consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of.
Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six
died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were
infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver
Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence.
The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually
eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew,
ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever
until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five
years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the
world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of
women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people,
mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was
infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a
brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that
diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger
demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was
not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and
other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules
containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody
contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a
social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that
social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a
twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather
snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The
consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by
the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were
spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild
sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur
and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone
replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is
invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of
scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away.
It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.....

Michael Crichton
From his lecture "aliens cause global warming"


Another Quote from that lecture
"...Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to
support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of
those scientists who won’t get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as
outsiders and “skeptics” in quotation marks—suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry
flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nut-cases. In short order, debate ends, even
though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.

When did “skeptic” become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?..."

............

Aliens Cause Global Warming
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...ichton2003.pdf

[revelarts]

[pete311]

exactly why no one outside this drivel infested rat hole of a community will ever take you seriously. science is a methodology, not an ideology. end of story.

[NightTrain]

I see you're still the sad little hate-filled scumbag you always were, Petey.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That it is not. The dissent is marginalized for good reason just like no one pays attention to holocaust deniers. Breakthroughs are made all the time. Discoveries unveiled all the time. Science is progressing at an incredible rate. Nothing is holding back real science which follows the scientific method and is peer reviewed.

The dissent is marginalized for good reason

-- yes always.

You mean like the way the Obama slavish media marginalizes things. Science as a body is still composed of human beings, not robots or angels--SO- the old adage follow where the power, money and vested interests lead for the truth of the matter still reigns.

And--" peer reviewed" you say!! Well, golly that magic set of words seals the deal, right?
"peer reviewed" is not a magic bullet that shows either perfection, accuracy and/or a lack of bias.. Give me a break. You talk as if we are all 6 year old kids..

Remember , the "Big bang" theory was accepted as gospel for over 60/70 years, now its cast aside with a casual flippant o'well, that was wrong , lets just move on.
Trust us , we are scientists and we peer review this shit.- --Tyr

[revelarts]

exactly why no one outside this drivel infested rat hole of a community will ever take you seriously. science is a methodology, not an ideology. end of story.

you haven't been reading the quotes from scientist, or looking at the videos.

Science is suppose to be methodology, but it takes on all the aspects of an ideology in many ways.

i began this thread and have referred to several times Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, international science speaker and cell biologist from Cambridge university as well as other scientist like the Micheal Crichton, the Science philosopher Carl Popper and others. I've piled on other issues broght up by intelengent design and creation scientist observations that lay bare specific false beliefs and overall positions of science holds to not because of the data but because of various paradigms.

the idea that science is dogma is not some idea i just came up with, it's been an issues for some time an it's now being well discussed among the scientific community because of Dr, Sheldrake.

you should take it seriously as well.

[revelarts]

Here's an except from an article written by Dr. Sheldrake .
the article is entitled The 10 dogmas of modern science.

.... In this book, I argue that science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The sciences would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and more fun.
The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers. The details still need working out but, in principle, the fundamental questions are settled....

The scientific creed

Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.
2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).
4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever.
5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Together, these beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of materialism, whose central assumption is that everything is essentially material or physical, even minds. This belief-system became dominant within science in the late nineteenth century, and is now taken for granted. Many scientists are unaware that materialism is an assumption: they simply think of it as science, or the
scientific view of reality, or the scientific worldview. They are not actually taught about it, or given a chance to discuss it. They absorb it by a kind of intellectual osmosis.....

that's his list.

Here's a quote from Michael Crichton
From his lecture "aliens cause global warming"
"...Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won’t get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and “skeptics” in quotation marks—suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nut-cases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done. When did “skeptic” become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?..."

Here are quotes from Karl Popper
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve."

'Normal' science, in Kuhn's sense, exists. It is the activity of the non-revolutionary, or more precisely, the not-too-critical professional: of the science student who accepts the ruling dogma of the day... in my view the 'normal' scientist, as Kuhn describes him, is a person one ought to be sorry for... He has been taught in a dogmatic spirit: he is a victim of indoctrination... I can only say that I see a very great danger in it and in the possibility of its becoming normal... a danger to science and, indeed, to our civilization. And this shows why I regard Kuhn's emphasis on the existence of this kind of science as so important.
'Normal Science and its Dangers', in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (1970), 52-3.

My thesis is that what we call 'science' is differentiated from the older myths not by being something distinct from a myth, but by being accompanied by a second-order tradition—that of critically discussing the myth. … In a certain sense, science is myth-making just as religion is.
Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge (2002), 170-171.

.....................
So people do take the concept VERY seriously outside of this board Pete?

[revelarts]

Consensus positions clearly may only represent the group opinion at one instant in time, and may not represent the true range of uncertainty about the issue at hand.... This is disturbing because consensus is often used in the geosciences.
— Andrew Curtis, "The Science of Subjectivity," Geology (40:1), Jan. 2012

[revelarts]

An educator defends science while an astrophysicist undermines it.
Two articles on the Conversation website, put together, ask us to promote science because it can’t prove anything. That’s an odd combination. Let’s take a look.
On The Conversation article #1 (4/15/15), Rod Lamberts of the Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science presents a typical science-as-progress, science-as-truth argument for why people should value science and support it through government largesse. ...

...A more reasoned presentation of science is in The Conversation article #2, by astrophysicist Geraint Lewis. You can tell where he’s going by his headline, “Where is the proof in science? There is none.” He ends with a quote from Nobel physicist Richard Feynman, “I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.” Lewis shows himself keenly aware of the principle that scientific views are tentative at best.So, science is like an ongoing courtroom drama, with a continual stream of evidence being presented to the jury. But there is no single suspect and new suspects regularly wheeled in. In light of the growing evidence, the jury is constantly updating its view of who is responsible for the data.
But no verdict of absolute guilt or innocence is ever returned, as evidence is continually gathered and more suspects are paraded in front of the court. All the jury can do is decide that one suspect is more guilty than another.....

http://crev.info/2015/04/scientific-proof/

great article and site