believing in science

Timshel_

Science is devoted to the "How" something occurs. Religion/Philosophy helps define the "Why".

I believe he's pointing out how the purity of science can be corrupted by vested interests.

Ironically, science could only statistically prove that man corrupted research often, but it would never be able to answer why.

Personally, I love both. To me they go hand in hand. I have no vested interest in being right though.

Would make me a terrific scientist, but a crappy organized religious leader.

CSARdiver

In my grad program I took a seminar series - the irrationality of western science. This focus on key foundational concepts were taken on faith in order to advance science at that time. There are several key points in history where experiments were tainted and just happened to be correct; however unprovable at that moment in time. Absolutely fascinating course and completely changed how I view scientific dogma.

ninerbuff

CSARdiver wrote: »

Science is nothing more than a system explaining how something occurs. It is constantly dynamic in nature and scientific theories are continually proven/dis-proven.

The problem with science are individual's interpretation and use of knowledge. Whether used in marketing campaigns, political endeavors, etc. it is rarely the "science" behind the subject, but an incorrect assumption or overreach by an individual or group - e.g. the low-fat/no-fat movement, eggs are bad, carbs are bad, and so on...

Actually I think more along the lines that people that try to use science to back their claims for a program or product, cherry pick scientific evidence that verifies their claims. One that's naive to scientific method fall for it all the time. A great one is MuscleTech. In many of their products they say "clinically tested", which by in far (if peer reviewed) is one of the best ways to back a product. However they word their "clinically tested" as the KEY ingredient in MuscleTech was shown to be blah, blah, blah. People unfamiliar with actual scientific method then buy the product telling everyone, "Hey, at least it was clinically tested!".
And of course there's pseudo-science too. Don't get me started on people who do paranormal "hunting".

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

CJisinShape

CSARdiver wrote: »

In my grad program I took a seminar series - the irrationality of western science. This focus on key foundational concepts were taken on faith in order to advance science at that time. There are several key points in history where experiments were tainted and just happened to be correct; however unprovable at that moment in time. Absolutely fascinating course and completely changed how I view scientific dogma.

Me too, except mine was a biology course taught by a professor who was in the race to map the human genome. He said that the theory of evolution had enough holes in it to "throw a turkey through."

It is a very politicized subject, one that is "taboo" to touch in scientific circles. So, if you see the holes, like they all do, you don't study them and you for sure don't write papers about it.

If anyone is truly interested in knowing how much of "scientific evidence" is actually faith, they could examine:

Iatrogenic disease
And
The Sokal Affair

tincanonastring

CJisinShape wrote: »

CSARdiver wrote: »

In my grad program I took a seminar series - the irrationality of western science. This focus on key foundational concepts were taken on faith in order to advance science at that time. There are several key points in history where experiments were tainted and just happened to be correct; however unprovable at that moment in time. Absolutely fascinating course and completely changed how I view scientific dogma.

Me too, except mine was a biology course taught by a professor who was in the race to map the human genome. He said that the theory of evolution had enough holes in it to "throw a turkey through."

It is a very politicized subject, one that is "taboo" to touch in scientific circles. So, if you see the holes, like they all do, you don't study them and you for sure don't write papers about it.

If anyone is truly interested in knowing how much of "scientific evidence" is actually faith, they could examine:

Iatrogenic disease
And
The Sokal Affair

sofaking6

Science is simply the best process we have for determining truth. Come up with an idea, figure out how to test it, do the tests, learn about your idea. Use that knowledge to modify the idea, test the modified idea, learn more. Repeat forever.

What else do we have? Religion - just accept some other person's idea as true? Philosophy - whoever argues better knows the truth? Spirituality - you can feel what's true? It seems clear to me that the scientific method is far superior to the others as far as actually distinguishing fact from fiction.

Need2Exerc1se

Haven't read any responses but "proven by science" is not as common as many people think. "Suggested by science" is much more common.

CJisinShape

TheVegthlete wrote: »

I will believe in science when the imaginary creator in the sky tells me too.

I think science is supposed to examine what has been created by the glorious incredible, amazing genius that is the Creator.

CJisinShape

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Haven't read any responses but "proven by science" is not as common as many people think. "Suggested by science" is much more common.

And I think you'd be right.

CJisinShape

.