The motives should be questioned, even if it is independent of the truth value of their statement. Because when you look back at people who advocate such positions, if 90% of the time the person advocating for the truth of such statements is motivated by racism, then there’s a strong chance that the current advocate is as well. Which doesn’t mean that they’re not racist and right: they could be both, or neither, but simple statistics means that they are vastly more likely to be racist if they think that some races are inherently inferior to others (gee, what a surprise.)
No, I don’t think you’re being too picky. Upon reading the OP, my first thought was that grammar had become an opinion.
To the OP, it appears you may be posting from a phone, and I assume that makes it more difficult to see what you’re saying and to use punctuation and capitalization. But you don’t do yourself or us any favors by this approach. I would urge you to find a way to make your posts more readable. Being a fossil, I don’t own a smartphone, so I don’t know if it’s possible for you to type what you want to say and save the file for later posting when you have greater editing capabilities – but if it is possible, I hope you’ll do something like that.
That’s true, and it’s the same type of problem. People will tend to find what they want to find when the subject is important to them. Even in noncontroversial fields, if the scientist is really attached to a theory, he’ll defend it until he’s considered a crank. Funny thing is, our movies and books actually glorify these scientists, while portraying the skeptical ones as hard people with no hearts.
So, the OP offers anecdotes to prove his thesis that science has become an opinion. Or, was that just an exaggeration? Either way, the irony is rather striking.
There’s tons of excellent science out there. Of course you’re going to run into the odd crackpot. And of course many non-scientists are not going to understand science, and often (even worse) pretend as though their folk knowledge trumps science. We see this especially in relation to human genetics and evolution.
Yeah, the title should be “when does science become an opinion”, because generally it’s an extreme minority that doesn’t accept a scientific conclusion, and only in the one field that matters to them. Die-hard creationists who reject evolution out of hand gladly accept the science that led to their cell phones and air conditioners.
But I see the OP’s point. It can be frustrating and maddening encountering someone who refuses to accept what’s been proven, and there are enough of those encounters that it can sometimes seem like it happens more than it does.
The way you have phrased this, that NASA “finally admits” to finding life, suggests that they knew it all along and have been covering it up. Is that what you mean to imply?
I know little about it, but your links suggest that it’s only because of a more sophisticated recent analysis that they’re finally able to conclude that the original conclusion was wrong and that there was evidence of biological activity.
My old cosmology prof told about going to astronomy conferences, for many years. At each conference, they would hold an informal vote. “Is Cygnus X-1 a Black Hole?” Early on, the majority opinion would be, no, it isn’t. But over the years, the opinion gradually shifted, until it pretty much became unanimous that, yes, it is.
Scientists can legitimately have opinions, full well knowing that it isn’t truly “scientific.” Some issues aren’t settled yet.
We watched the same thing with the Higgs Boson. Some people said yeah, and others said nuh-uh. Since no one knew for sure, they had every right to hold and voice their opinions.
for those of you that have responded with legitimate discourse.thanks, i really appreciate the fun and exchange.
so i respond only to you .
adaher:
“The scientific community has never been able to completely be objective when the subject being explored is emotional and controversial.”
is well stated, i have countless times tried to explain how jane goodall is now not to be regarded as an anthropologist, because the second she became emotionally involved with her study subject the information as she presents it now is questionable.imagine the attacks i get!
ludovic:"The motives should be questioned, even if it is independent of the truth value of their statement. Because when you look back at people who advocate such positions, if 90% of the time the person advocating for the truth of such statements is motivated by racism, then there’s a strong chance that the current advocate is as well. Which doesn’t mean that they’re not racist and right: they could be both, or neither, but simple statistics means that they are vastly more likely to be racist if they think that some races are inherently inferior to others (gee, what a surprise.) "
i agree somewhat about the motivation . i have an ex girlfriend who was in sociology and bent on socialism and constantly finding fault with capitalism as failed concept and not even trying to see the achievements. she was from the Ukraine. her motivation and her beliefs were so strong she would use nihilist and Foucault for her main arguments.
deeg:" I think science has always been an opinion to some degree. There is a truism that new scientific revelations don’t get accepted by current scientists; the ones who oppose the science end up dying off and the revelation becomes mainstream. "
you are so very right
to the other two or three who claim i am exaggerating , should i then play a kids game and gather all my marbles and show them to you so you can compare your abbeys with mine? i mean really do i have to? it seems to me that other then grammar Nazis and yourselves no one has really had any problem understanding or identifying with what i am talking about.
I think it’s safe to say that any subject that is highly controversial among the public, the science is not going to be reliable.
Also, controversial subjects tend to make some scientists foray into policymaking, like we’ve seen with climate change. While anthropomorphic climate change is the scientific consensus, it does not follow that their recommended policies are the right ones. If anything, economists might have better insight into how to respond to climate change than climatologists.
I’m really not trying to be a grammar nazi here, but I’m having difficulty following you due to the lack of punctuation and capitalization. I can’t tell where one sentence ends and another begins, nor where you’re switching from one thought to another. But if you want to tell yourself I’m just being a picky old fossil, then you’ve basically shut me out of participation. I’m not going to work that hard to figure out what you’re saying.
sorry vinyl i missed your question in between the grammar nazis.
yes, i am relaying the information that NASA has known since they got the initial results. honestly the man who created the process and has stuck by the lander’s results has sworn to this day that it was correct. he also was once questioned as to why is NASA holding this back from us. he speculated that he thinks NASA thinks we are not ready and that the religions of the world couldn’t handle it. that was an old interview back in the 80’s . in the same article i think he also states that every single trial and experiment with the device was positive in the different soils and mock ups on earth. that the spacecraft was guaranteed to be sterilized.
if you follow his progress since that day and see how he has constantly met every attempt aimed at causing doubt by anticipating not only what may be wrong but trying to get more cooperation from NASA . believe it or not there is a link where NASA states not too long ago with no mistaken words that there is no life that was found on that lander , this was written after that paper i linked the abstract to. however NASA and lack of transparency is always a fodder for conspiracy. which is disappointing on NASA’s part but they do create paroxysms from things that are pretty tough to prove otherwise.
haha yea, you know that god particle thing, is that the higgins boson ?
i was saying to my friend when i heard about it that that is just a setup for failure. never call a thing a god thingy, it is dependent on other physics and other things to exist.
of note or remark on your intention in the response though. one can surely admire Hawking for after years of teaching about black holes having the true love of science and recanting out of the blue at that one conference stating that they have to start over. now that is responsible science, which should demonstrate to the public that as best as we know science is not an opinion but a fact.
some could argue some sciences are opinion based, but falsifiability is the fail safe of that isn’t it?
you must find it hard navigating in a world of signs then ruby. most traffic signs and most newspapers don’t even use real punctuation or grammar. context is a lost cause when it comes to many news items.
oh another good point. the constant reference to wrong authority. perfect example, is al gore and the meteorologists. how somehow the real science that deals with climate was considered not worthy of reference and he created a climatology.
i remember in one documentary a meteorologist had used a weather balloon and no one would accept his data because it wasn’t modern enough!
so far those of you that offered opinion towards my topic are excellent. i find a wealth of contemplation in your ideas, thank you very much. when i get back from getting some pop (it is hot as heck in here) i intend to list out the ideas so we can reference them. see, the second part of my question or rather my concern is how this will affect our progress in the future. thanks again for your contribution.bbiab.
i may point out that the policy making foray that adaher mentions is probably a good indicator.
That one is a sound caveat based on experience.
Including recent experience in this Forum.
Things are getting better, so I think we’re doing fine. Science has always been politicized, but fortunately we aren’t having religious authorities subject scientists to torture and imprisonment anymore. At least not in the West.
Humans are human, that’ll never change.
And all these years I thought she wasn’t an anthropologist because she studied chimps, not humans! Whatever faults she may have had, she revolutionized our understanding of chimp behavior in the wild.
I’m having a hard time figuring out if you’re a champion of science or a peddler of folk science. Are you trying to tell us that NASA is conclusively saying that Mars has or had life? That’s what it sounds like to me, but if so, you are mistaken.
True, but chilling scientific inquiry is never a good thing. Just because the motives of most people who explore that question are impure doesn’t mean that the questions shouldn’t even be asked. There’s also sex differences to consider, and unlike race, sex is not a social construct. But any research that is un-PC is unlikely to be warmly embraced, to put it mildly.
anthropology is a multidisciplinary science . broken up into five categorizes. physical (which includes primatology and therefore makes primatology applied anthropology, do not argue with me, argue with my professor . here is his name john steckley . good luck i didn’t stand a chance when it came to Neanderthals).
archeology, cultural, psychology and lingual. all those are part of anthropology.meaning they are all applications of the science of anthropology. when she began going on the crusade for the animals. she reneged her position as a anthropologist. (yes primatologist = anthropologist , since it is applied anthropology) .
which means that any application of her studies she had made before she began her crusade , that she uses to forward her crusade are now biased and skeptical in nature. this doesn’t mean that her work on primates before that is invalid , just that her application of it now is non scientific. although i have to admit that a lot of it is being made questionable by follow up studies. she at least provided a basis for exploring the possibilities.
as for trying to tell you that nasa withholds information and only comes clean after pressure from the public. are you really asking me that? that is a whole different debate. i was merely stating that they finally came clean that they found life on mars with the viking lander 30 years after the fact with a procedure that wasn’t really necessary considering about ten or so years ago the guy that created the device did a much more detailed analysis to reprove that there was life in the findings. however, if you are say that nasa has never said there is life on mars then..here you go
or if you are that picky about the question mark here you go.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4255990/Nasa-Scientists-find-life-on-Mars-and-kill-it.html
i could of course go back into the news archives and do a load of lists which will all drag that to a pile of redundancy. the whole point of me stating that there is to show how due to something which remains intangible, science is being made into an opinion. see, look at it this way, if that viking spacecraft had found bipedal green cheese eaters with green bay packers shirts on , then yea i think they would admit to it. however, since they had no real idea of what they would find out there. any positive off of three radically different tests would be momentous and certainly groundbreaking. plus for the record when nasa finally yesterday admits that there was life in that test, thereby renouncing the very doubt it created , you would think that to would be earth changing news. however, i suspect that because science has been forced into an opinion gamut no one really gets the significance or magnitude of this event. i am not trying to be anything other then a person who lives on earth and sees things that make me question why they happen. things like this are highly questionable and the reason why should be addressed.