When did science become an opinion?

[guizot]

@GIGObuster

…eventually the ones that are telling us that most scientists are not objective have to show their evidence, and when spectacular failure comes from the ones that claim that, one then should follow the experts that do follow the best evidence,

My point isn’t that so much that “scientist are not objective” as simply that perfect objectivity can’t be realized through the efforts of a single individual. The ends of objectivity, however, come about by a collective commitment to the process, in the same way that democracy doesn’t result in perfect conditions for each individual–nor is it meant to.

[wiredbadger]

Fact or opinion?
http://digitaljournal.com/article/318831
If you state opinion, why?

Your Opinion of Climate Change Depends on Your Social Psychology

-What I experienced yesterday with the fanatic and his followers.
lastly, between these two articles I chose for demonstration purpose. The writing styles and word usage.
THE TOPICS I CHOSE ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF MY POST is that clear enough?

[Beware_of_Doug]

How about this? When science can be turned into industry and engineering and used to make money, it ceases to be opinion.

[kanicbird]

@Beware_of_Doug

How about this? When science can be turned into industry and engineering and used to make money, it ceases to be opinion.

Think full circle:

And when those items constructed and money are used to oppress people to benefit the few

[Beware_of_Doug]

Put it this way: a moneymaking lie is truer than an unmarketable fact.

[wiredbadger]

@wiredbadger

Fact or opinion?
http://digitaljournal.com/article/318831
If you state opinion, why?
Podcasts | Scientific American
-What I experienced yesterday with the fanatic and his followers.
lastly, between these two articles I chose for demonstration purpose. The writing styles and word usage.
THE TOPICS I CHOSE ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF MY POST is that clear enough?

The first one is actually competently well written. a lot of that i learned in university. notice however how the format forces or i should say , at first causes someone to say oh it is an opinion?
The second one by the well respected sci -amer , notice how the opinion is accepted as fact?
The funny thing is the only reason i knew or know that what they are saying in the first one is because I had to study this. To the average person they wouldn’t know any different. follow? so they take it as opinion.
Which brings some scary propositions to the possibility of where science is going in the future. The example about the orca I mentioned yesterday, that we had to release because of the whiny kids and the petition that forced the biologists to release the whale and pretty much speeding it’s death could have been avoided , all they had to do is pull rank and use science for what it was. But apparently a petition can make science an opinion. Which means that in theory if enough people write their name on a paper denoting how they don’t want gravity , we should be able to get rid of gravity. That whale was only released by pressure from petition and the scientists knew for fact that it was not ready.
For those who think i am a radical based on opinion yesterday, Jacques Cousteau’s son makes a strong case for this whale in a video. Which i will link to on request.In it relevant marine biologists state exactly the case i said here.
The truth is i can link and refer to many things that both in journalism and in actual papers that can be shown that people take it for opinion. The whole reason I mentioned the viking lander is not radical nutbar stuff, though it sure brought them out of the woodwork (i regret referring to that). Was to show how even if the result was positive, people would take it as opinion. Makes one wonder why they bothered even putting the machine on. Two possibilities come to mind, one) they didn’t think there was life and therefore were counting on the tests to come negative and thereby making the superstition of martians go to rest and two) were not ready for disclosure if it was found. So they state that the test was wrong. But i may point out it may be the other two were. They have created an ambiguity and in such a case you work with what is real. Which is they found life and then try to figure out how and why. This is how science has always worked. find the positive then work out why. not cloud it with so much sophist rhetoric that it forces those who investigate to formulate an opinion on who has the loudest voice as is seen in the days or this board for that matter.

[wiredbadger]

@Beware_of_Doug

Put it this way: a moneymaking lie is truer than an unmarketable fact.

hi doug, do you think this is because the public has been trained to think of technology as science?

[BrainGlutton]

@wiredbadger

i detest conspiracy. it steals from the inventiveness of the imagination towards greater understanding.

Not clear – do you mean conspiracies, or conspiracy theories?

[mlees]

@sisu

well that’s your opinion, I happen to agree.

One caveat is that we sometimes interpret data differently, so the science may well be “fact” but the conclusions are to a degree polluted by the commentator.

I was gonna mention that.

For example, in the “life on Mars” topic, the Viking probe carried a chemical test kit, and ran those tests on surface samples it dug up. It returned those results as raw data. (Detected traces of “x” in parts per million, etc.)

Some folks assume that “x” got into the sample through “y” process, so they went “Aha! Life!!”. Others went “not so fast… we need to be certain that there is no other explanation.”

Jumping to conclusions introduces the “Opinion” in science.

[GIGObuster]

@wiredbadger

The first one is actually competently well written. a lot of that i learned in university. notice however how the format forces or i should say , at first causes someone to say oh it is an opinion?

It is not, what you are missing is that the facts are not allowing us to be conclusive yet on the causes of the little ice age, this is why the report does start with a “**may **have been caused by four massive volcanic eruptions” More research is needed to say how much sensitivity should be added to models thanks to this and other related research, at it is, climate scientists do indeed check things like this, the denialism comes by assuming that scientists are missing or ignoring this item.

Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age

Summary

Miller et al. suggest that a period of anomalously high volcanic activity at the end of the 13th Century could have triggered Arctic sea ice and ocean circulation feedbacks sufficient to cause the centuries-long cooling associated with the LIA. The authors conclude by noting that while the decline in solar activity associated with the Maunder Minimum in the 17th Century contributed to the LIA cooling, a decline in solar irradiance is not necessary to explain the initial triggering of the LIA cooling.

"The coincidence of repeated explosive volcanism with centuries of lower-than-modern solar irradiance (Figure 2a) [Schmidt et al., 2011] indicates that volcanic impacts were likely reinforced by external forcing [Mann et al., 2009], but that an explanation of the LIA does not require a solar trigger."

However, it’s also worth noting that it took four closely-spaced large volcanic eruptions to trigger these feedbacks and LIA cooling. In most cases, the effects of volcanic eruptions on the global temperature are limited to a timespan of a few years.

Additionally, while the data supporting the volcanic trigger of the LIA in the paper are fairly convincing, the modeling suggesting that the associated feedbacks are sufficient to sustain cold temperatures for several centuries is less conclusive. In another paper, Zhang et al. (2011), only two simulations out of four show the proposed feedback. In an interview with Science magainze regarding this paper, NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt agreed that too few model runs have been performed to conclusively demonstrate that the cooling feedbacks sustained the LIA by themselves.

"I think it is likely that the abrupt start to the Little Ice Age in the late 13th century is volcanic in origin...I'm far less convinced that this is the cause of the subsequent centuries of climate change."

@wiredbadger

The second one by the well respected sci -amer , notice how the opinion is accepted as fact?
The funny thing is the only reason i knew or know that what they are saying in the first one is because I had to study this. To the average person they wouldn’t know any different. follow? so they take it as opinion.

Apples and oranges, the opinion that is being investigated there is the one of the lay people not the ones that are coming from experts.

Listen, on this you will have no complaints from me in saying that the media is affecting those opinions, I’m saying that that does not change the science one bit, I’m also saying that it is clear that there is a lot of this global warming subject that you are assuming that it is an opinion when it is not, as soon as Al Gore and the boiler plate denial points were mentioned by you, it made clear that you are also depending on media whose mission is to turn facts into opposite opinions.

Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.

As for who is the media that is actively turning facts into opinions (and even you are not immune to it as it is clear so far), it is not hard to figure who are the most likely candidates:

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/02/15/fake-science-foxperts-funny-finance-tax-free-for-the-one-percent/

[Beware_of_Doug]

@wiredbadger

hi doug, do you think this is because the public has been trained to think of technology as science?

No, it goes far beyond our topic here. Money can create truth in much the same way it can buy speech.

[Voyager]

@kanicbird

IMHO the OP’s attitude is one of ‘don’t think for yourself, don’t question things, just accept my god called science’, then when questioned further you came up with psychobabble about how you have ‘facts’ which are different. You sound like a religious zealot to me who can’t deal with questioning their beliefs.

The history of science has been itself proving itself wrong and the collection of ‘facts’ to make a opinion, which then are ‘adjusted’ when evidence proves them wrong.

First, you have to distinguish between an “opinion” (also called a hypothesis and then theory) which is rigorously supported by evidence and a real opinion which may or may not be. When someone writes an opinion column for me, no one peer reviews it.

As for religion, consider how many people out there misunderstand the concept of Papal infallibility. One hope that you wouldn’t trust some random guy about this as much as you would a teacher at a well respected seminary. True understanding of any deep field is not won easily or quickly.

[Sailboat]

@wiredbadger

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.

You know, correct usage is not an opinion, any more than science is. You’re not helping your own cause with this argument.

[kaylasdad99]

@wiredbadger

Maybe i should put an example to demonstrate what i am leading on about. Yesterday i read that NASA finally admits to the viking lander finding life and the problem is we may have killed it in the process of the test.
http://news.discovery.com/space/did-we-encounter-martians-36-years-ago-120720.html
Well, aside from the fact that as those of you familiar should remember the guy who created the experiment has sworn for years and released competent papers demonstrating beyond reproach that it was life that was found. An example paper is here http://ijass.org/PublishedPaper/year_abstract.asp?idx=132
Where it is stated with no uncertainty that the viking lander did find life. One is left wondering a simple question. why isn’t this front page news? Why is this fact so obscure and underneath it the covers? One can only surmise that somehow the public is made to believe that it is only opinion. See what i mean?

I did a little quote-mining from the abstract that you linked to. Here is what they say are their conclusions:

We conclude that the complexity pattern seen in active experiments strongly suggests biology while the different pattern in the control responses is more likely to be non-biological. Control responses that exhibit relatively low initial order rapidly devolve into near-random noise, while the active experiments exhibit higher initial order which decays only slowly. This suggests a robust biological response. These analyses support the interpretation that the Viking LR experiment did detect extant microbial life on Mars.

Educate me, please. Is it the case in scientific circles that terms such as “strongly suggest”, “suggest”, and “support the interpretation” are interchangeable with “stated with no uncertainty”?

Thank you for your time.

[Voyager]

@kaylasdad99

Educate me, please. Is it the case in scientific circles that terms such as “strongly suggest”, “suggest”, and “support the interpretation” are interchangeable with “stated with no uncertainty”?

Thank you for your time.

I don’t know about other people, but when I was a grad student my adviser went over my draft papers and made sure I replaced anything that could be considered as “stated with certainty” with “suggests” - unless I had, really, really good evidence for my statement.
The use of these terms is no accident.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Beware_of_Doug

How about this? When science can be turned into industry and engineering and used to make money, it ceases to be opinion.

I’m inclined to agree. Theoretical science is fair game for creationists and such (well, to the extent that creationist beliefs should be taken seriously) but applied science is bluntly incontrovertible.

Of course, the spheres of applied science continue to expand, and the combination of genetics and geology pretty well destroy creationism utterly.

[GIGObuster]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’m inclined to agree. Theoretical science is fair game for creationists and such (well, to the extent that creationist beliefs should be taken seriously) but applied science is bluntly incontrovertible.

Of course, the spheres of applied science continue to expand, and the combination of genetics and geology pretty well destroy creationism utterly.

Indeed, currently there are avenues of medical research that do use evolution to develop new medicines and treatments.

Medicine

The problem here is that there are a good number of doctors that still think evolution will never be useful for medicine, and they usually think that thanks to reasons that are unrelated to science.

[Frylock]

Related quick question–can they go back and look at the Mars Rover samples now (40 years later I guess) to see if they can find some dead microbes in it?

[GIGObuster]

@Frylock

Related quick question–can they go back and look at the Mars Rover samples now (40 years later I guess) to see if they can find some dead microbes in it?

Sadly, the robotic mission that will arrive soon to mars will not look for life, but for the ingredients of life.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/if-there-were-life-on-mars-curiosity-wouldnt-find-it/260302/

“Curiosity is not a life detection mission,” says John Grotzinger, a project scientist for NASA’s Curiosity mission. “We’re not actually looking for life; we don’t have the ability to detect life if it was there.” Instead, as he and Ashwin Vasavada discuss in the video above, Curiosity is a “robotic geochemist” that is looking for “the ingredients of life” – water and carbon that could have once supported micro-organisms.

As I can see for the tools and instruments the probe will use,

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/science/

It is not likely to be able to investigate the inside of the Viking probe even if they land next to it; I do think, if we are optimistic, that it will be around mid century when humans will replicate or make a better experiment like the Viking did in other locations on Mars.
– *Crossing fingers for a successful landing of Curiosity in a few days on Mars. *

[Saint_Cad]

Let me take a different approach.

One issue I have with medical doctors is that they are so locked in to thinking inside the box that they miss a key point in being a scientist, that of being an empiricist. If you go in and claim that everytime you do A then B happens and B only happens when you do A they rarely explore any relationship (causal or correlative) between A and B if it runs counter to established medical knowledge - and all of this even if the evidence points to a solution outside of the box and the inside-the-box thinking doesn’t solve the problem. To me that is opinion outweighing science.

Isn’t part of science the idea that knowledge is growing and we should never assume our current knowledge answers every question? To paraphrase Verbal Kint:
To a doctor, the explanation is never that complicated. It’s always simple. There’s no mystery to the condition, no mysterious disease behind it all. If you got a illness and you think overeating did it, you’re gonna find out you’re right.