dre > science

 

Obviously you didn't hear about last year's repremands for falsified findings from Lawrence Berkeley Lab, let alone other similarities at other scientific institutions around the country. Once or twice a year we have required attendence lectures on ethics - this isn't about stealing paper clips from the storage room or getting to work late or leaving work early. These lectures are largely about honesty in findings and reports. When I went to the first one, I couldn't believe it myself! I thought were going to be lectured on all the then-current financial mishaps at Los Alamos National Lab. Nope. It was about honesty in science - and that has always been the main topic of these lectures.

Again, I'm not saying these practices are the standard... but this is more prevalent than you think. The fact is, this sort of behavior is rarely a highly publicized event because the faith and hope put into science is certaintly a religion-like phenomenon. Just like the Church cannot admit when its wrong, neither can scientists... without great refutation. Remember when the Sun revolved around the Earth? The whole basis for Modernism is that Scienta est Potentia. If scientists do not keep the public interested, no one will care. And no layperson cares about the drudgery of daily science. They want the big ideas and the big findings. This is true for the scientist as well. No one wants to to spend their whole lives doing something the world finds unimportant, no matter how important it really is. Scientists have the religious power to alter the worlds perception of what they do, and unfortunately many seem to abuse that power.

jason

 

I disagree completely. Faith (and therefore religion) has nothing to do with it. The general public TRUSTS science. And there's no reason they shouldn't. You are correct that it is not highly publicised when a scientist gets caught falsifying data. But within the scientific community, they are ostricized and often left without careers. This is the reason the scientific community CAN be trusted...because it is self-policing. Peer reviews for publications, symposiums, national groups, etc all contribute to the honesty of the community as a whole. Every once in a while, one selfish scientist (who usually also has an MBA...) falsifies data. But they are so quickly caught and dispatched from the community that the impact is small. In general, if a scientific finding makes it to the media it has already been under much scrutiny from many many scientists, and can therefore be trusted. I'm not saying science is infallible. However, even in the case that published findings are latter found to be wrong, the scientific community always admits when it's not correct. That's the biggest difference between religion and science. Science is mutable, adapts, and changes as new evidence is found. Religion cannot change because there is never any new findings regarding religion.

 

Are you just arguing because you want to argue, or do you actually think about what you say?

Ah faith and trust, those utterly unrelated ideas.

From dictionary.com:

Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Trust: 1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.

I suppose you think that religious people do not trust God and ministers, they only have faith?

Could we please stop the bull****ting for the sake of argument?


IF they get caught. How do you "catch" someone when there is no real evidence either way? This is the case with these morons on Discovery channel.

What you do not understand is that this happen only when the scientific community has an imminent effect on the world outside the scientific community, or when there's direct competition. These idgits on the Discovery channel do not have those safeguards... unless of course Discovery produces decide to produce shows with alternative views... don't hold your breath. They only want to publish what will excite the public.

Which religion is that? Over the last two thousands years Christian theology, soteriology, ecclessiology, among other religious studies have grown dramatically, and not just interdenominationally but within denominations as well. The Seven Ecumenical Councils as well as intradnominational Councils and Synods have unconvered and formed new and radical ideas about such studies. Understandings of the nature of God, of man, of the relationship between, of the meaning and use of religion, etc, etc have changed and grown all around. You statement is not ubiquitously true (if at all) and is not as profound as you think.

Can you just stop talking out of you *** for the sake of having something to say in opposition?

jason

 

First images from Titan are out.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cassini-Huygens/index.html

 

How much ground has been made within that religion as to it's true historical origins? How many of it's stories, deities and holidays were either stolen or pasted over the religions it stamped out? You would think if they payed any attention to this they would realize somthing. The religion is only growing within its own self defined boundries, therefore nothing with ever change it radically. No great bounds have been made, and if anything we are far less spiritual since science took the magic out of everything. Religion Limits itself as to what is possible - it is all spelled out, and unlike scientists - there is no large group within it trying to disprove itself.

 

Science took the magic out of everything? Heh. Ask your mom to explain how the microwave oven works. When she put you into the microwave oven when you were a baby for a few seconds, she knew what would happen, but she didn't know how.Science has no boundaries? Its called the human intellect. It isn't boundless. If it is, please prove it to me.

I used to be a fan of Michio Kaku, until I realized all he does is sensationalize. I like my imagination to be tantilized just like any other science geek. But it gets old. I'd rather read science fiction that is honestly just that.

jason

 

Well, you're doing good - you've got the pretentious ***** part down pat. You've been paying attention.

Yes, science did take the magic out of everything - once you could logically explain what would have previously been thought of as a sign of god or magic - thats when it happens. It's not the spirit of your ancestor, it's ****ing hail. The gods aren't mad at you, it's lightning. Once you can logically explain these things away, religion gets a bit miffed. The earth 6000 years old? Yes, maybe Dinosaurs were "Jesus horses"...maybe.

I doubt the real meaning will ever be understood, but at least they are still trying to find it and make it tangible. And if you think the complexities of our universe are explained by a 2000 year old mythological text, then I'm sorry - i seriously doubt it's that simple. As much as i would like to think a big ghost in the sky created everything, IT'S ****ING CRAZY.

 

Consellation: Thanks for continuing the argument while I was gone.

Mmbooze: We got a little mixed up in the argument. I agree that Discovery gets some quacks to say stupid theories sometimes. But they always say where the scientist works. If it says "The Universal College of Humanoid Creatures and Quadripeds", then don't listen to them. But if it says "Stanford" or "UCLA" or "Harvard", etc...then those scientists are subject to the many checks and balances I was talking about earlier and, for the most part, can be trusted. To be honest, though, I think the reason you don't trust science is because it scares you that somebody else can understand something that you don't.