believing in science
Replies
-
weightingforgodot wrote: »I explained to a friend that I believe in following methods that have sceintific studies to back them up.
My friend made a couple of points:
1. In the past, many scientific recommendations end up being wrong (eg 'Low-fat' in the '80s). It is reasonable to assume that at least some current scientific recommendations are wrong, too. Even Einstein's theory of relativity is just a theory, after all. Looking back in history, at any given time some of the ideas that were accepted as facts (the earth being flat, for example) have since turned out to be false. It is reasonable to assume that history will look back on the current period in the same way.
2. There are many truths out there which are yet to be discovered by science.
ie I am putting my beliefs in something (namely, 'proven by science') which I know to be both incomplete and inaccurate in parts.
Or to put it another way, I give 'proven by science' an almost god like status. When I make a decision, I consult what 'proven by science' has to say about it and base the actions I take in my life on this. Even though I know that I am following something which is not entirely true.
He then said that I try to convince people that my beliefs are the right way, and that they should follow my beliefs. Also that I consider people who don't follow my beliefs to be wrong.
He added that I enjoy spending time with people who share my beliefs because it gives us a feeling of community and superiority.
I do all this while knowing that my beliefs are not correct. (see points 1 and 2, above).
What do you think ? Is 'proven by science' just another set of beliefs, no different to the many others that are out there ? In fact perhaps its worse because implicit in the belief is the understanding that the beliefs are wrong ???
I generally agree with both of you.
One 1 hand, all we have to go on is the knowledge we currently have. However, the scope of that knowledge is always changing, and the "correctness" of that knowledge is always being evaluated (or at least should be).
On the other hand, we have to realize that we don't know it all, that we could be wrong despite things having been "proven", and we have to realize that the conditions under which something is tested/proven can differ from the conditions under which operate and live. Not all variables can be controlled at all times.
I also agree that, when we believe in something, especially if it's something we are emotionally invested in, we will often try to persuade others to think as we do. And yes, there is comfort, reassurance and sanity in surrounding ourselves with people who think like us and agree with our ideas/principles. However, a lot can be learned from different points of view, and it's often ignorant to think of those points of view as wrong (even though many of us tend to do it, myself included).0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »I believe in science. There is truth in science. But I also believe that scientists can be wrong and have been wrong in the past. Just because a scientist says its true doesn't mean it is (the brightest scientific minds once thought the world was flat).
The fallible scientist argument, while persuasive, doesn't invalidate the process. That's why peer-review exists. As for the bolded part, it's been over two thousand years since the brightest scientific minds thought the world was flat. There are better examples you can use if you want to make that argument.
Exactly this. Also, was the world ever scientifically proven to be flat based on the best information available at that time, or simply accepted as an evident truth because that's what was most readily apparent to the naked eye? I would argue the conclusion that the world is flat was reached following a scientific methodology, so it can't be used as a truly scientific example. Theorizing the world is not flat, however, was scientifically validated.0 -
If the universe expanded what space did it fill?0
-
I love the "It's just a theory" line, ok, gravity is "just a theory" too - good luck with ignoring that one! Also I dont "believe" in science I "believe the evidence" If new evidence comes along that contradicts what I thought I knew I change my view; its the scientific method and its served us far better that blind faith ever has.0
-
-
The factor I like best about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not. There is no vested interest in the individual.
Oh really? I would encourage you and everyone interested in the philosophy of science to read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
There are plenty of vested interests including political agenda, research grants/funding.
0 -
0
-
Cindy4FunFit wrote: »
This was getting a little deep for me so I decided to repost this fabulous picture from page 1!
0 -
enterdanger wrote: »Cindy4FunFit wrote: »
This was getting a little deep for me so I decided to repost this fabulous picture from page 1!
Underrated post is underrated. That was a fabulous picture!
0 -
@tincanonastring
apparently my gif was appreciated by all. *tear* 0 -
The factor I like best about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not. There is no vested interest in the individual.
Oh really? I would encourage you and everyone interested in the philosophy of science to read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
There are plenty of vested interests including political agenda, research grants/funding.
Those factors have nothing to do with science. Science, in its purest form, is an approach to reasoning about our world. You've simply conflated ideas.0 -
Nature of scientific progress according to Kuhn:
Paradigm - A theory based on a new discovery is accepted by the scientific community.
Normal Science - Scientists explore all the implications of theory.
Revolution (Paradigm Shift) - Current theory is found to contain anomalies and the Scientific community doubts its validity. A new theory is selected as the prevailing theory by the scientific community.
0 -
Any chance we can get this thread back to the merit of basing our beliefs/habits on scientific studies? Because, from the little bit that I think I know, the majority of studies in the health/fitness arena involve relatively small populations of rather specific types of people, which makes those findings hard to apply generally, which is also why I try to compare what science makes me think I know to what I'm actually experiencing in real life. I find I struggle with determining correlation vs causation, but in the end, results are then ultimate validation.0
-
Jackie0Marie wrote: »@tincanonastring apparently my gif was appreciated by all. *tear*
Well, I liked it. *kitten* forum rules, how do they work?0 -
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...0 -
Any chance we can get this thread back to the merit of basing our beliefs/habits on scientific studies? Because, from the little bit that I think I know, the majority of studies in the health/fitness arena involve relatively small populations of rather specific types of people, which makes those findings hard to apply generally. Which is why I prefer it when things say "studies suggest" rather than "studies prove".
+1 I've also noticed that.0 -
The sad thing, i think though, is that the majority of people never contemplate the implications of General Relativity. 4-dimensional space-time, gravitational time dilation, time traveling twins.0
-
0
-
Any chance we can get this thread back to the merit of basing our beliefs/habits on scientific studies? Because, from the little bit that I think I know, the majority of studies in the health/fitness arena involve relatively small populations of rather specific types of people, which makes those findings hard to apply generally. Which is why I prefer it when things say "studies suggest" rather than "studies prove".
And, since we're on the subject, I'd be interested in any studies on HIIT, specifically different ratios, max heart rate calculations, activity types, etc. If you've come across any, I'd appreciate any links you have.0 -
-
I "believe" in science. I don't know if believe is the correct way to put it.
I think science is the path to truth, but it's a path that's never finished. We get closer every day, but with new discoveries come new paths.
Just because a theories are discredited doesn't mean non of it is correct and you can just ignore it because some day it may just be proven wrong.
We use what we learn the best way we can so we can get closer to the truth in the future.0 -
HIIT article: http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200232010-00003
This article caused a major shift in the SOCOM training methodology. XDU conducted a massive 10 year study tracking the vitals of candidates - seeing a dramatic reduction in injuries and increased cardio profiles.0 -
1. In the past, many scientific recommendations end up being wrong (eg 'Low-fat' in the '80s). It is reasonable to assume that at least some current scientific recommendations are wrong, too. Even Einstein's theory of relativity is just a theory, after all. Looking back in history, at any given time some of the ideas that were accepted as facts (the earth being flat, for example) have since turned out to be false. It is reasonable to assume that history will look back on the current period in the same way.
The scientist who came up with the low fat study didn't use a scientifically rigorous method like using all the data to make his findings so actually the study was flawed and the results misreported. It has been widely discussed and a little googling will bring up lots of articles and comment on this.
Probably some scientific recommendations are wrong now as science is a process of getting closer to the right answer.
Theory when used by scientists does not mean the same as colloquial usage, theory here means the best possible fit for the facts but I am still open to the possibility that with further observation there are modifications required.
Ideas are different to theories, some people way back when may have (I say may as I haven't ever seen an example of where people did actually think the earth was flat as opposed to our assumption that they did) have thought the earth was flat. Some people here think juice fasts/ketones/it doesn't count if I don't track it is a viable approach, doesn't make it right.
Nothing in your first paragraph makes your assumption reasonable. Howver that being said science will go on to adapt to the data presented and make new recommendations. That's what science does.
0 -
-
It bothers me when someone uses the saying "well, it's just a theory" as a way to disprove something. Theory is not an opposite of truth nor is it a synonym of opinion. Theory is a model that best explains a truth of reality. No one knows the full "truth" of gravity, however, we have the theory of relativity that best explains it so far. A scientific theory is based on years of gathering evidence and evaluating it using various tools such as technology, mathematics, etc. Newton's theory of gravity didn't suddenly become "wrong" when Einstein came along. If Newton's theory is "wrong" we would all be in a lot of trouble.
Beliefs are just opinions that are tied to strong emotions.0 -
There are plenty of vested interests including political agenda, research grants/funding.
Those factors have nothing to do with science. Science, in its purest form, is an approach to reasoning about our world.[/quote]
Interesting, because the same could be said about Philosophy, religion, or spiritually, which is an approach to reasoning about the meaning of the world.
0 -
There are plenty of vested interests including political agenda, research grants/funding.
Those factors have nothing to do with science. Science, in its purest form, is an approach to reasoning about our world.
Interesting, because the same could be said about Philosophy, religion, or spiritually, which is an approach to reasoning about the meaning of the world.
[/quote]
There is nothing scientific about the search for meaning.0 -
There are plenty of vested interests including political agenda, research grants/funding.
Those factors have nothing to do with science. Science, in its purest form, is an approach to reasoning about our world.
Interesting, because the same could be said about Philosophy, religion, or spiritually, which is an approach to reasoning about the meaning of the world.
[/quote]
Nope. All those reach conclusions based on opinions and beliefs. Science takes opinions and beliefs (e.g. hypotheses) and tests them using empirical evidence.0 -
There are plenty of vested interests including political agenda, research grants/funding.
Those factors have nothing to do with science. Science, in its purest form, is an approach to reasoning about our world.
Interesting, because the same could be said about Philosophy, religion, or spiritually, which is an approach to reasoning about the meaning of the world.
[/quote]
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.0 -
There are plenty of vested interests including political agenda, research grants/funding.
Those factors have nothing to do with science. Science, in its purest form, is an approach to reasoning about our world.
Interesting, because the same could be said about Philosophy, religion, or spiritually, which is an approach to reasoning about the meaning of the world.
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.[/quote]
Agreed... whenever people are involved, the potential for corruption of the Ideal exists.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions