# My beef with Science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2000, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479 "2000-05-25T01:42:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![avalongod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/35a633/32.png) [@avalongod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/avalongod)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/21 "2000-05-25T14:05:54Z")
PLdennison: In regards to the “creationists live longer”…this is actually an area of study for some people in holistic medicine and psychology (I am not myself a creationist by the by). I am not sure this research focuses on creationism per se, but rather people who are actively involved in religion in general, and indeed it does appear that those with deeper religious beliefs do live longer and happier lives. You may want to check out the work of : Levin (1994, Goldstein (1999), O’Conner (1995)…I wish I had easy access to more studies on hand, though a search through PSYCHINFO or MEDLINE might bring some up for you. Phobos: Just wanted to correct a mistaken impression. I haven’t had a bad experience with any particular scientist. Haven’t had a bad experience with science at all, in fact I am making science my life’s work, and love it. My point is that science is far from rosy picture many are painting and ought be approached with much more of a grain of salt. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/22 "2000-05-25T14:32:34Z")
Honesty said: > [@](#): > > Studies have shown that people who do believe in creationism live longer, have happier lives than people who don’t. to which pldennison said: > [@](#): > > Please provide a citation for any one of these studies. Thank you in advance. [http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/news/II-6.html](http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/news/II-6.html) > [@](#): > > ``` > In one of the first studies to > examine the specific pathways by > which religion affects health, > researchers at Duke University > Medical Center found that elderly > persons who attended religious > services at least once a week are > only half as likely as > non-attendees to have elevated > levels of Interleukin-6 (Il-6), an > immune-system protein involved > in a wide variety of age-related > diseases. > > Il-6 is a substance in the blood > that impairs the body's ability to > fight off disease. High levels pf Il-6 > seem to weaken the immune > system, making the body more > susceptible to diseases such as > cancer, heart disease, viral > diseases, post-menopausal > osteoporosis, and Alzheimer's > disease. > > The researchers hypothesized that > attending religious services > regularly reduced stress, which in > turn reduced the production of > Il-6. > > The study was conducted among > 1,718 adults age sixty-five or over > living in central North Carolina. > The participants were interviewed > several times over a six-year > period, answering questions about > their physical health, depressive > symptoms, their ability to carry > out normal daily activities, and > their attendance at religious > services or meetings. Blood > samples were taken from > participants at the last interview > to measure levels of > immune-system proteins. > > The researchers found that 15.7 > percent of elderly persons who > rarely or never attended religious > services had high levels of Il-6, > whereas only 8.8 percent of the > people who attended religious > services at least once a week had > high levels of Il-6. Importantly, > the effect of religious participation > on Il-6 remained after controlling > for depression, a common > measure of psychological distress > This report was adapted from an > article by Shelley Dean Kilpatrick, > Ph.D., from Vol 4, Issue 1 of > Spirituality & Medicine, a > newsletter of the National Institute > for Healthcare Research. > > ``` Doesn’t refer to ‘belief in Creation’ specifically, only to ‘religious belief and participation.’ Several other studies are alluded to in articles at various websites that seem to indicate what Honesty said, but I couldn’t immediately find any that linked to the scientific study referenced. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/23 "2000-05-25T14:37:31Z")
> [@](#): > > You have a somewhat naive view of the self-correcting nature of science. … Not that there aren’t ANY scientists that are capable of this…there are a few brilliant souls, but they are the exception not the rule. I believe you misinterpreted me. I thought that my use of the phrase “in theory …” and my paragraph acknowledging the human frailties of scientists was sufficient to indicate that I don’t believe that science is as clean as it is often presented in elementary introductions. I have been involved, directly and peripherall, with scientific processes in and out of academia for 40 years, and my experiences lead me to believe that scientists who don’t question assumptions and are not receptive to new ideas _are_ the rule and the others are the exception. Do you have data to support your assertion? > [@](#): > > Also remember, in addition to the strain of publish or perish on scientists, a good percentage (I am resisting the urge to say most) of scientists have a flair of narcissism in their personalities. this does not render them the most objective. I would go so far to say that essentially all humans have a “flair of narcissism” and that and other things tend to interfere with objectivity. Again my experiences and readings indicate that many if not most scientists do an excellent job of suppressing those tendencies. Do you have a truly objective non-human arbiter of scientific theories in mind? We do the best we can with the tools and limitations we have; obviously opinions differ on how well we do. So far the only evidence presented, by you or me or others, is anecdotal. I have read Kuhn (some time ago), but I do not recall evidence that _a large percentage_ of scientists fail to practice good science. > [@](#): > > If you were reading carefully you will note in an earlier post I already noted … You are correct. I apologize. > [@](#): > > You seem to poo-poo the problems between Quantum Theory and RElativity. I am glad that things that were and are of great concern to Einstein, Hawking and others, do not bring you pause. Gee, either you misinterpreted me or I _totally_ failed to express my views accurately. I think that the incompatibility between GR and the SM is the most important issue in physics, if not in all science, today. I also think that the acknowledgement of that problem and the efforts to resolve it are an excellent illustration of how the scientific process is supposed to work. My point is that those theories are _useful_ and it is not at all determined whether they are to be _extended_, _modified_, or _replaced_ when we finally do develop a better (and probably not final) model. It’s incredibly difficult to develop a better model _because the existing models are so good in so many situations_. > [@](#): > > This in no way is an indication of the validity of the theory, and no physicist would claim otherwise as you do. Consider that the same statement could actually be made for Newtonian physics…in fact it is Newtonian physics which continues to be applied to most space program missions. Nonetheless, though such observations may have practical use in prediction, Newtonian physics is pretty much considered to be false It may be just a matter of semantics, but Newtonian physics. the Standard Model, and General Relativity are inarguably _useful and accurate_ in a very large number of particular situations, and which situations those are can be accurately determined. None of those theories is satisfactory as a fundamental explanation of what’s _really_ going in in _all_ situations. Whether or not they are “untrue” depends somewhat on your definition of “true”. > [@](#): > > Ultimately I am sure your grade-school teacher would be charmed to note you have such continuing faith in science. A little bit of caution and critical evaluation might be helpful however. I hope that my grade school teacher woudl be charmed to observe that I have moved beyond my grade school education and indeed am cautious and critical. I resent (slightly) the implication that I have not moved beyond my grade school education. FWIW, I have both a BSME and MSME from MIT. I have a very few papers published in referreed journals. I have met, and in a few cases spent very enjoyable time in discussions with, many great and near-great scientists. Doc Edgerton is the most impressive scientist I have met personally. I’ve been at least _exposed to_ a lot of real science, and I dare to say I’ve soaked some of it up. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/24 "2000-05-25T14:40:52Z")
Needs2know said: “Needs2know…I’m with you on this…I think both communities, religous and scientific can be self-rightous and hypocritical.” Hint: You have to change identities before you make your sock puppet agree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/25 "2000-05-25T14:46:13Z")
My apologies. THere is no earlier post to which the agreement is being made. It’s not Sock Puppetry. I am confused as to what that last meant though. Sorry Needs2know. ---
**Author:** ![avalongod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/35a633/32.png) [@avalongod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/avalongod)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/26 "2000-05-25T14:56:08Z")
To JonF: First let me appologize if I misinterpreted your earlier post, your latest one made more sense on a number of issues (which may be a function of my being more awake moreso than anything else) 🙂 I do still find your faith in science a bit naive (and I don’t mean that offensively and hope you won’t take it as such). I was impressed with your credentials, and to return my own: currently MS, working on PhD, have two articles in refereed journals with three more on review, as well as a 8-9 conference presentations. I am also an occaisional journal article reviewer myself (and perhaps here is where I see science at its worst). ☹ So I think it is interesting that two people actively involved in science have such different impressions. As you indicate I also doubt there is any hard/factual evidence to support either the concention that science is objective or that it is not objective…as such this debate is one for scientific philosophy, not science itself (which would be a bit like letting the fox guard the henhouse anyway). Out of curiosity, how would you choose to design such a study to measure the general objectivity of science? you said: “my experiences lead me to believe that scientists who don’t question assumptions and are not receptive to new ideas are the rule and the others are the exception.” Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I think this has been what I was saying too… I would agree wholeheartedly with your current post regarding the usefulness of current physical theories. I would not debate their utility. I was approaching them from a more epistemological perspective…questioning whether they were “true” per se. As I noted Ptolemy’s obervations had great utility for hundreds of years, but were not “true.” So I guess a question we might want to consider is: “Does science seek usefulness, or truth?” I am curious as to your response. ---
**Author:** ![Needs2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5e925/32.png) [@Needs2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Needs2know)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/27 "2000-05-25T15:04:49Z")
Scylla…I’m not sure what a sock puppet is…but if I am one so be it. I am also not college educated or lately very well read. And even if I did read more often it would more than likely be a true crime story or a novel, not a textbook. I did however perhaps interpret the original OP differently than intended. It rather sounded like a rant to me against the science/religous war. It also sounded like Honesty was just a little frustrated with the scientific community because they seem to poo-poo the exsistance of anything they have yet been able to explain. I too am a little puzzled by these things. Not that I have ever really experienced any of the phenomena that is mentioned. I would imagine that patience is needed in this case. Perhaps one day premonitions, and alien abuductions will be explained rationally and not just attributed to “good guess” and “you need medication”. Perhaps some things will never be explained. So since I have stated many times in my pitiful little posts that I am really an uneducated hick…there are some things that I do have a naturally affinity for spotting. That is assholes, whether they be religous leaders, scientists, or everyday joes on the street. There are a lot of them out there. So if our poster was stating that scientists and religous leaders are arrogant and narrowminded then I was simply saying that it looked that way to me too. If that’s puppetry then so be it. Needs2know ---
**Author:** ![Needs2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5e925/32.png) [@Needs2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Needs2know)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/28 "2000-05-25T15:05:15Z")
Scylla…I’m not sure what a sock puppet is…but if I am one so be it. I am also not college educated or lately very well read. And even if I did read more often it would more than likely be a true crime story or a novel, not a textbook. I did however perhaps interpret the original OP differently than intended. It rather sounded like a rant to me against the science/religous war. It also sounded like Honesty was just a little frustrated with the scientific community because they seem to poo-poo the exsistance of anything they have yet been able to explain. I too am a little puzzled by these things. Not that I have ever really experienced any of the phenomena that is mentioned. I would imagine that patience is needed in this case. Perhaps one day premonitions, and alien abuductions will be explained rationally and not just attributed to “good guess” and “you need medication”. Perhaps some things will never be explained. So since I have stated many times in my pitiful little posts that I am really an uneducated hick…there are some things that I do have a naturally affinity for spotting. That is assholes, whether they be religous leaders, scientists, or everyday joes on the street. There are a lot of them out there. So if our poster was stating that scientists and religous leaders are arrogant and narrowminded then I was simply saying that it looked that way to me too. If that’s puppetry then so be it. Needs2know…always thought Jim Henson was a pretty brilliant guy. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/29 "2000-05-25T15:08:43Z")
Gosh, so much has been written about this recently by sources ranging from the Pope, Gould, Skeptical Inquirer … You should have no difficulty locating an authoritative publication supporting just about any viewpoint you desire! IMO, a distinction should be made between the appropriate realms of science and faith. Science is very good at analyzing data, and testing testable hypotheses. If there is an appropriate realm for faith, it must be in that area which is not disprovable by scientific methods. This is not to say there is no room for faith. But just because you have faith that the sun orbits the earth does not make it so. (Sorry, best example I could come up with on the fly.) If you wish to believe there is a heaven and hell, fine. A scientist can state that there is no proof such places exist, but he certainly cannot disprove them. I suggest, however, that your heaven should not exist in a manner that clearly is contrary to current scientific knowledge (unless you also can provide a good explanation why generally accepted knowledge does not apply.) But that certainly leaves lots of room for faith. (Hey, maybe that’s where all the missing mass is! Heaven and Hell! Dark matter my ass!) My problem with the Pope’s encyclical was his conclusion that when faith and science conflict, faith must prevail. I disagree. I feel an accurate use of words must distinguish between knowing in a scientific sense, and believing in a religious sense. I cannot comprehend how religious people can profess “knowledge” about matters for which they have no proof. They certainly can aver a strong belief. And they can note that their belief/faith is not inconsistent with the observable. But that does not make the belief/faith/desire true in a scientific meaning. (Awaiting citation to “Contact” - do you know you love your father?) Also, how do religious folk deal with the fact that devout folk of other faiths believe very different stories than they? Are a billion Chinese and a billion Indians all wrong? Didn’t such an expert as Homer Simpson question, “What if we are going to the wrong church, and every Sunday God is getting madder and madder.” I’m certainly not a scientist, but I did not understand the Big Bang theory to say the universe came out of nothing. (Although I understand that matter and antimatter are understood to appear spontaneously in a vacuum.) I thought the explanation was simply that current science cannot explain what happened before the Big Bang, because our laws of physics as we understand them did not apply. Maybe God created the singularity? Or maybe it was the remnant of a prior universe? At present, it is unknowable. I think most honest scientists will acknowledge that there is a great deal that we do not know, and that science does not explain. I am comfortable with that understanding, and do not need the comfort of a God-story. I believe most organized religions are essentially elaborate stories to “explain” the unknowable. Why are people uncomfortable with simply acknowledging that certain things are unknowable? ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/30 "2000-05-25T15:15:53Z")
Dinsdale, thank you very much, that’s basically what I was going to say. I don’t disbelieve the facts that science reveals (presuming the scientific method is being correctly applied to true observations). I deny the pretensions that are occasionally made about it that it will eventually understand everything. The fact that science can’t or won’t explain something, or doesn’t treat of something at all, doesn’t mean that that doesn’t exist. On the other hand, my faith is just that: faith, not a pretension to objective knowledge of divine truth. Nobody can have objective knowledge of the divine; that’s part of what makes it divine. Part of not being a witless prat is realizing that your understanding of the universe is right for you, and other people being other people, it’s acceptable that they understand the universe differently. In matters of faith, of course I think I’m right. If I didn’t think I was right, I’d believe differently. But I’m not certain I’m right. For that matter, good scientists are never sure that they are right. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/31 "2000-05-25T15:16:27Z")
Needs2know: The fault is mine, not yours. I made a bad misinterpretation, and the courtesy of your reply is more than I deserve. I misinterpreted your signature. I think what you are trying to do with your signature, is end with a quote which you attribute to yourself in the “Needs2know…” format." I mistook this in the following way: I thought that you were addressing yourself. The only reason two do this on a message board is to create another identity (called a sock puppet,) and have it agree with you. I thought you might have forgotten to switch identities, and were engaged in this practice, therefore revealing yourself as a user of sock puppets. Clearly I was very wrong. We know return you to your regularly scheduled Creation, evolution, big-bang, etcetera debate. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/32 "2000-05-25T15:18:07Z")
Needs2Know: he accused you of being an alias for another poster, a shocking allegation which I am glad he retracted. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/33 "2000-05-25T15:30:47Z")
One thing about scientific research that doesn’t get talked about all that much is how big business plays a role by holding the purse strings. If you’re a scientist, and Philip Morris is funding your research (and providing your livelihood), I’d imagine the tendency would be to play up finding in your reseach that supports a position held by your benefactor, and to play down findings that do not. Phillip Morris is an extreme example, but science and scientists generally aren’t funded by altruistic, impartial parties. Are they? ---
**Author:** ![avalongod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/35a633/32.png) [@avalongod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/avalongod)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/34 "2000-05-25T16:01:54Z")
Milossarian raises a good point, and there is no clear answer to that. Most of the “big” research…meaning funded with beaucoup $$$ tends to be funded through private interests. Some of it is funded through the government (NIH or NIMH for example) and they usually have less of an agenda (I know conspiracy theorists will disagree), but in general most private interests “expect” you to produce a certain result, and if you wish to continue to be funded, you had better pony up. That said, to be fair, there are a number of researchers who do not rely on private funding, and as such are not necessarily under the same pressure. Sometime you will hear this referred to as “basic” research, and there is some controversy over whether the government should continue to fund it or not (I believe that they should). While I am thinking of it let me give you an example (And I appologize for being anecdotal) of how scientists sometimes react to “divergent” theories. As many of you may know, for years the predominant psychological theory of alcoholism was the “disease” model…that alcoholics had some genetic disease that forced them to drink. This model has largely been disproven (not that genetics don’t play any role, just not the direct deterministic one of the disease model). But at the forfront of that effort to disprove the disease model was Dr. Linda Sobell, who published an elegant study which suggested that if alcoholics were treated for their deficits in coping skills, they actually could continue drinking in moderate amounts (this is referred to as “controlled drinking”). As you might imagine this research created fervor within the psychological community, which is fine. Controversy is good for science. However, the scientists on the opposing side went so far as to attempt to question her academic integrity, attempt to have her removed from APA, initiated a full blown investigation into her research, alleged sexual and criminal improprieties against her, and even in some cases made threats of physical violence. Dr. Sobell spent over a decade under a cloud of criminal and professional investigation, as well as fear for her own safety. Ultimately the quality of her research was upheld and she is currently considered a pioneer in attaining a more sophisticated understanding of alcoholism. I do not mean to imply this is what happens in every instance that scientific dogma is challenged (obviously this is an extreme example), but it does illustrate the reluctance of many scientists to “self-correct” scientific understanding. ---
**Author:** ![bantmof](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@bantmof](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bantmof)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/35 "2000-05-25T16:16:15Z")
: It appears that Science has contrued a black and white world, where if it isn’t a book, can’t be explained, then it is obviously false. That’s not even remotely close to being true. OTOH, if it’s been looked into a zillion times and found to be false each time, then science may not bother looking into it the zillion and 1st time unless there’s something obviously new. [talking about people getting abducted by UFOs, predicting the future, etc, Honesty says:] : A) They’re all delusional. It’s not that simple. They’re all _wrong_, but there are more things going on than that. Many are being intentionally deceitful. Many are well intentioned but lack sufficient intelligence or knowledge to properly assess the situation. Presumably there are other possibilities as well. -b ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/36 "2000-05-25T16:52:05Z")
> [@](#): > > I think it is interesting that two people actively involved in science have such different impressions It is possible that there is a tendency to remember the bad and forget the good here. > [@](#): > > Out of curiosity, how would you choose to design such a study to measure the general objectivity of science? Lordy me, I have no idea! What expertise I have is firmly on the physical sciences side. I know barely enough about such a venture to realize that it’s fraught with peril. I have no idea how to avoid those perils … > [@](#): > > you said: “my experiences lead me to believe that scientists who don’t question assumptions and are not receptive to new ideas are the rule and the others are the exception.” Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I think this has been what I was saying too… That is inded exactly what you were saying, but I didn’t mean to say that. I played with different phrasings and wound up with a combination that said the opposite of what I meant. Please substitute “my experiences lead me to believe that scientists who don’t question assumptions and are not receptive to new ideas are the exception and the others are the rule.” > [@](#): > > I was approaching them from a more epistemological perspective…questioning whether they were “true” per se. As I noted Ptolemy’s obervations had great utility for hundreds of years, but were not “true.” So I guess a question we might want to consider is: “Does science seek usefulness, or truth?” Well, I don’t have a particularly profound response. If I had to describe my training and profession on one word, that word would be “engineering”. So it’s not particularly surprising that I tend to focus on practical applications, and much of my interest in science is in its usefulness. Truth is a complex concept … truth to one is certainly not necessarily truth to another. Speaking of capital-S Science rather than lower-case-s science or individual scientists, I think that Science does indeed seek Truth within a finite (but incredibly large) framework. Science (at least today) has limitations that prevent it from meaningfully addressing some questions that are very important to many people. Do we have souls? Is death the end? I have seen a paper in which an investigator measured changes in body weight at or very shortly after clinical death, and ascribed those changes to the departure of a soul; maybe someday Science will address these questions in some meaningful fashion. Today we do not; and I doubt that we ever will. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/37 "2000-05-25T17:06:47Z")
Avalongod: You seem to be extremely focused on how scientists act in the short term. Scientists are human and are subject to the same foibles of every other human. I do not argue this, but I think you allow that to blind you to (or at least to minimize the importance of) the true strength of the scientific method. To use your own anecdote, Dr Sobell’s results have been vindicated. In a relatively short span of time a new idea has taken root and gained scientific prestige. Why? Because science values reproducable results. Yes, scientists can be overly concerned with personal reputations, grant renewals, etc. The beauty of science is that in the long run those things matter less, much less, than good, reproducable results. Linus Pauling was perhaps the most famous biologist alive when he proposed his structure of DNA. Watson & Crick were relative unknowns. But their model produced better, more reliable, more verifiably results. You say science is not good at self-correcting. I say you are blinding yourself to the long-term truth by concentrating on the short-term consequences of human nature. In fact, I am not certain that I even would call the initial resistance that any new hypothesis must overcome a weakness. Some amount of conservatism is necessary to prevent resources from being wasted on untenable ideas. If the work is good, if the results are reproducable, then they will be able to stand the test. You compare science to religion in dogmatism. Again, I suggest you pull back and examine a time scale longer than a few years. The Catholic Church was formalized as the Church of Rome in the 4h century. Compare the changes in church dogma to the changes in scientific knowledge over that period. Do you truly see them as similar? Pick another time scale: the Protestant Revolution, Islam, Mormonism? Science changes and adopts new ideas **MUCH** faster than religion. Compare also the means in which science and religion resolve conflicting ideas. Religion schisms, declares heresies, divides communities an almost never achieves a reunification. Science argues, criticizes results, propoes alternative, and can get extremely ugly. But eventually one model/hypothesis/explanation will be perceived as superior. Why? Reproducable results on testable criteria. The Big Bang, by which you seem so underwhelmed, is a good example of this. You insinuate that “what we may be having here is scientist coming up with a theory, then interpreting the evidence to fit the theory”. That is disingenuous for someone who claims to be well versed in the history of cosmological theories. The Big Bang was one proposed model, in competition with others, used to explain teh present state of the universe. It has, to date, accounted for observed phenomenon more successfully than competing models. Therefore, it is generally accepted as the best working model for cosmological origin. If a better model comes along, it too will be required to account for the evidence. You also use the cold fusion “debacle” as supporting evidence for your attitude. I say, rather, that cold fusion is an excellent example of science working properly. A radical idea was proposed. It garnered great popular attention. A couple of scientists were immediately made famous. Other scientists doubted the results. Experiments were replicated – results were not. The new idea was determined to be incorrect. All of this in the space of less than a decade. Science worked. What would you have preferred: that science dismissed the idea immediately without ever testing the results or that science accepted the idea unquestioningly without testing the results? ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/38 "2000-05-25T17:40:42Z")
> [@](#): > > As has been already said, at least implicity, evolution has nothing to do with “how > something came from nothing”. It’s about how things changed after they came to exist, > no matter how they came to exist. I understand evolution, I think it’s rediculous and completely unfounded, but I do understand it. I want have looked at both sides, and I need one question answered: Q) How did this all began? \*\*Religion[b/] answers, “God came down and crafted this universe” \*\*Science[b/] answers, “It was blackness, and suddenly a bunch of something spewed out from nothing.” They both sound rediculous, unbelievable, and overall too cosmic to ever take place. You can’t place a marker at evolution that proclaims, ‘Science starts here!’ it must delve further than that. That is why both Science and Religion are failures when it comes to the origin of mankind. Their efforts would be appropiately suited in eradicating diseases, pestilence, hunger, and other assundries that plague society. > [@](#): > > At least in theory, scientists do not claim that something that is known to exist is false > or impossible. If it’s unexplained, it’s just unexplained. Take your first example, a > scientist should not claim that there are no reports of people seeing “visons of the Virgin > Mary on the adobe towers of Jerusalem”. Conversely, people who attempt to explain > such occurrences (scientifically or otherwise) should not claim that there is only one > explanation (scientific or otherwise) for these phenomena without some evidence. For > some, their faith is evidence enough; for a good scientist testing scientific theories, faith > in anything (Supreme Being, IPU, Science, or whatever) is not sufficient evidence. > > ``` > It's worth restating what has already been said; possible scientific explanations have > already been offered for all of your examples, and in some cases there are more than > one possible explanation. On what basis do you reject those explanations? > > ``` You’re the first person to put it like this. In my experiences, I’ve seen science advocates/fanatics claim that it is wrong. They are too shameful to say, ‘Hmm Science can’t prove this, so maybe it does exist, but we don’t know’ instead they claim that it is _impossible_. Look at Cecil’s columns for goodness sakes when it deals with this. > [@](#): > > If you don’t believe in either then why would it anger you that someone would say it > didn’t exist? You seem to have a lot of strong feelings for someone who doesn’t hold to > faith or science. Well, I tend not to believe that we’re some mundane animals who by ‘luck’ were able to build a society. I also entirely reject that death itself is the end of existance. Just curious, but how to Scientist deal with death of a loved on? Do they shove it off and say, ‘That’s nature!’ or do they start counting down the steps from Ross’ stages of grieving? Serious question. Regards, B. Williams ---
**Author:** ![bantmof](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/96bed5/32.png) [@bantmof](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bantmof)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/39 "2000-05-25T17:43:30Z")
: Science is actually very poor at self-correction … It’s actually quite good at self-correction. If you do something of any significance, other researchers will try to duplicate your results. Sometimes, instead, they find flaws in your research. Once in a rare while, they find that you falsified your results, in which case your reputation is ruined. Yes, scien_tists_ are human and sometimes cling to things well beyond reason. But then they are marginalized and nobody pays much attention to them any more (case in point: Pons and Fleischmann). Scientists doing it, is not the same as science doing it. : You seem to adhere to a very naive veiw of science… : that scientists are noble objective dispassionate : finders of scientific truth. And of course scientists : work very hard to project this image, but it is simply : not the case. Although I am employed as an engineer, I have a degree in a hard science (physics) and have worked with probably hundreds of scientists over the course of almost 40 years now. I have seen experimental error, but have never personally seen intentional falsification of results. In fact, products I have designed _would not function_ if the science behind them had serious flaws. That they do function is a compelling argument that the scientists are producing useful theories. When all is said and done, the planes have to fly, the computers have to compute, the CDs have to play, the bridges have to stand, and so on. : Scientists do not wait for rigorous testing of their : theories before presenting them as “truth”. Big Bang : theory is actually one of these, but a better example : is the “Cold Fusion” debacle of 1986(?) The BB is well established as the best current theory; since there is no better one, and the BB model has stood up very well and made accurate predictions, it is accepted as the best available knowledge. With cold fusion, the initial positive results were prematurely announced under pressure from the university. (Far more common is the press getting ahold of results not intended for mass consumption and grossly misinterpreting them to the public). But in no way, shape, or form did science consider cold fusion “the truth” at any time. That you think it did, betrays a colossal misunderstanding of how this actually works. In fact, that you would lump CF in the same bucket as the BB model is quite something, because the situations are not even remotely similar. The intial CF results generated a furry of interest, but were reasonably well debunked within 6 weeks. Nothing that significant becomes “truth” after a single result with large opportunities for experimental error - exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and as far as physics goes, CF was a fairly exceptional claim which talked the talk but did not walk the walk. In fact, this is an excellent example of science self-correcting, something you claimed above that it is poor at. (Contrast this with high temp superconductors - another fairly exceptional claim which actually did walk the walk and is now firmly accepted in mainstream physics). -b ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2000, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479/40 "2000-05-25T18:06:07Z")
> [@](#): > > You’re the first person to put it like this. In my experiences, I’ve seen science advocates/fanatics claim that it is wrong. They are too shameful to say, ‘Hmm Science can’t prove this, so maybe it does exist, but we don’t know’ instead they claim that it is impossible. Look at Cecil’s columns for goodness sakes when it deals with this. Well, if I dare say it here, Cecil’s columns are intended to have a noticeable amount of entertainment value, and he’s limited in the amount of words he can use in a column. These are complex questions. I don’t have any good references, web or otherwise, for suggested reading; maybe someone else here does? > [@](#): > > Religion answers, “God came down and crafted this universe”. Science answers, “It was blackness, and suddenly a bunch of something spewed out from nothing.” As is so often the case, it’s more complex than that. I suggest [What is Creationism](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html) for what appears to me to be a reasonably neutral taxonomy of “scientific creationists”. Of course, there are many people who beleive in Divine Creation without believing in “scientific creationism”. [In Search of the Big Bang: The Life and Death of the Universe](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140269894/o/qid=959277332/sr=2-2/103-1035161-8517414) is a highly-regarded book on the Big Bang; I haven’t read it. However, there’s a fundamental question you should honestly ask yourself; _is there any reason that the universe should make sense?_ It’s definitely uncomfortable to consider that the universe might not make sense, it’s difficult to imagine how it could not make sense, but we have very good reason to believe that it doesn’t make sense. Our intuition, common sense, and everyday experiences lead us to make incorrect predictions when we apply them to the Big Bang and quantum mechanics. > [@](#): > > Just curious, but how to Scientist deal with death of a loved on? I don’t know if I’m a “Scientist” with a capital S {grin}, but I can characterize my personal reaction. When a loved one dies, I grieve, often for a long time. After some time, my grief abates, but never completely disappears. I doubt that we will ever be reunited in an afterlife, and that increases my grief. But my grief does not affect my doubts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-beef-with-science/20479.md?page=3)