Get a load of this:
1.) Put an end to the “false equivalence” game. It is a fundamentally misinformative act to present multiple sides of a controversial issue equally when the scientific consensus overwhelmingly favors one perspective. Appeals to common sense, our gut instincts, a single piece of evidence, our internal moral compasses, or the opinions of influential members of society might be persuasive tactics, but are meaningless when it comes to a scientific matter. If something can be decided by evidence — and the full suite of collected evidence is decisive in nature — then and only then will we achieve a scientific consensus.
We have this dangerous myth in our society that science is often wrong, and that listening to mainstream science is restrictive and locks us into what will someday be an archaic way of thinking. That is completely false, and sorely misrepresents how science actually works. Only in the presence of decisive evidence can consensus be achieved. Consensus is not “the end goal” of science, but rather a starting point for future advances. Consensus is what the overwhelming majority of professionals have concluded has been strongly established by the existing evidence so far.
Ethan Siegel, “Is America Finally Ready To Become A Scientific Nation?” at Forbes
Quite apart from the fact that science IS often wrong—for the same reasons as other types of judgment can be wrong—there is usually science on both sides of contested questions but consensus may be arrived at by ignoring one side.
Consensus is achieved in many ways, including some that contribute to the likelihood that the consensus will be wrong, no matter how many experts believe it. In fact, the surest way to often be wrong is to adopt the very attitude Siegel displays here.
It is this trite that I was indoctrinated in and it is nothing but trite
I would love for Ethan to try to prove that right to me in my face and I have a whole slew of things that he needs to explain
We could start with the overwhelming amount of dishonesty behind the hormone oxytocin and then we’ll go from there
And will also talk about the overwhelming amount of dishonesty and psychological fields and the failure to replicate many of their experiments but were scientific consensus
I really want him to comment unless he needs to answer to this crap and I am so tired of people like him getting to Dictate reality for others if the professionals want to have a scientific consensus they better get their crap together maybe some of These professionals need to start getting fired for the crap science
Oh and by the way evolutionary psychology I don’t need to say much more about that
Glad we didn’t listen to his “advice” when it came to the consensus surrounding eugenics.
How about the science of “racial hygiene”?
Are eggs bad for you?
What about continental drift? That was considered the domain of crackpots until Jack Oliver’s 1968 paper, Seismology and the New Global Tectonics.
No, we’re supposed to worship the high priests of what passes for “science” and swallow whatever they happen to say today. Hook, line, and sinker.
-Q
Darwinists have no evidence. The consensus, which isn’t a consensus, has no merit. Lack of evidence does not stop the belief in the idea.
Yes, exactly. Pseudo scientists have faith in the vindicating evidence that’s obviously there but just not yet found. Any day now, but more funding is needed.
And that’s why the common reference is to the “missing link” as if all the links are there but one.
-Q
Scientific opinion of complex issues such as origin events is sometimes wrong and agenda based. We know this from our experience with the grand claims of evolutionary theory. Science is a powerful tool for hypothesis testing of observed phenomenon. It is a very poor tool for understand the ultimate origin of matter and living organisms. When you get consensus around these issues skepticism of an ideological agenda is warranted.
Good point, Bill.
In my opinion, academics and the science press needs to respect an informed “science don’t know.” And even when science thinks it knows, it should always be qualified, and never “the science is now settled.”
As to science education, children are far more stimulated when they learn about the things science isn’t sure about. As for me, I still remember when the science was settled that there are exactly nine planets and that Jupiter has 12 moons and Saturn 10. These absolutes make easier multiple choice questions.
-Q
Excellent comments thus far.
If I might add, in regards to ,,,, “Finally” Making The United States A “Scientific Nation”
I think this piece of trivia is interesting to that topic,,
In fact, despite what atheists may falsely claim to the contrary, not only is science not at war with Christianity, but science itself would be impossible without science adopting an “essentially theological worldview.”
Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
In fact, adopting an ‘essentially atheistic worldview’, as mainstream science currently does today, drives science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure.
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
As soon as I see appeal to alleged scientific consensus, I red flag. Collective opinion, especially in an ideologically polarised or dominated era is worth not even the cost of the paper it is written on. As for feelings and demands for modesty in the face of the new magisterium acting as life-tenure super legislature . . . the corruption of the US Supreme Court is metastasising . . . that is a negative value, it extracts a cost to put it down. The only sensible view is that scientific knowledge claims, especially those that are explanatory rather than direct observation, are at best weak form, provisional knowledge claims and should be held with a modicum of understanding of limitations. I used to imagine updates arriving at the door in High School Chemistry classes. As for computer simulations and other modelling exercises, such must not be confused with real world experiments and should be calibrated against same for reliability. KF
Gotta love seeing how the power struggle continues in the modern Sanhedrin.
“Science” is not extractable from the humans involved in every aspect of it. This is why people don’t trust “science,” and rightly so.
Can anyone guess the earliest recorded scientific experiment, one that follows the scientific method?
-Q