Do U believe in Science?

[rebrecs]

Somebody asked me today, whether I believed in Science. I was stunned by the question, and recovered slowly. My eventual resonse was, "I can't answer that as a Yes/No question."
A by-stander piped in- bringing the total who had never met before to 3, "aww sure you can, you either do or you don't."
This was taking place at a lunch counter with the News on TV rattling on about something or other- apparently some science related something or another.
Me, "first of all, how is science something to believe in or not believe in. Believe in? You make it sound like a religion or something. I mean, why not Manufacturing, or Farming?
4th person joining from the other end of counter, " 'cause they are full of shit, thats why."
Me, "Farmers?"
2nd joiner, "Scientists."

I did finally respond to that, but, I was a little tongue tied.
What would you have said ?

 

[power1]

I don't believe in anything.

 

[Melensdad]

Last time I checked, "science" really is the study of studying things to a finer point. When something is indisputable it becomes law. Until that time, it is simply a theory. All good scientists ask questions. Constant questions. Constantly needing to defend their theories from counter-theories and using evidence to defend both their questions and to defend their theory.

So science, practiced in its best form, is listening to everything, questioning everything and defending everything with actual study based evidence, while still questioning the validity of the studies.

 

[rebrecs]

Last time I checked, "science" really is the study of studying things to a finer point. When something is indisputable it becomes law. Until that time, it is simply a theory. All good scientists ask questions. Constant questions. Constantly needing to defend their theories from counter-theories and using evidence to defend both their questions and to defend their theory.

So science, practiced in its best form, is listening to everything, questioning everything and defending everything with actual study based evidence, while still questioning the validity of the studies.

Agreed.
responsibility is required. handling the information that comes from theoretical research is a big responsibility. In order to do that, we have to know what it is. meaning, that it is today's best version of the truth given we have 14 conflicting theories on the table, 3 of which all have a high probability of being the winner. That's a day at the office for a theoretical researcher. Research gets a bad rap in part due to the middle men. That is to say, those who bring the information forward to the interested public. That can be a murky world. Consider corporate executives at a large pharmaceutical. They have both theoretical and experimental researchers bought on their payroll. As well as the engineering teams to back them up. They stand to lose big time if consumers are not able to be comfortable with the facts. There is nothing more maleable than a fact- and they will hammer on the researchers information until it fits the corporate interest. I do not say they will maliciously lie - just hammer around a bit shaping things up for public consumption. I dont have anything against Parmaceutical companies. Just an example. All cutting edge companies do that.
Research also gets a bad rap when those same middle men are not only working for corporate interests, but are involved in corporate interests that have strong ties to government interests. They have to have even better hammers.
Hey, I hope that was not too pendantic. And, I appreciate your Rand quote./

 

[PGBC]

Simple answer...not usually, but occasionally.

 

[it's all about downhill]

A problem that I see is the perspective that the “scientist” begins with. Just for example…evolution vs creation: they have the same evidence to observe and come to very different conclusions. And the “climate change issue” same evidence radically different responses that so affect the economy and our day to day lives

 

[FrancSevin]

Whenever you get lost in the "science"

A problem that I see is the perspective that the “scientist” begins with. Just for example…evolution vs creation: they have the same evidence to observe and come to very different conclusions. And the “climate change issue” same evidence radically different responses that so affect the economy and our day to day lives

Just follow the money. It will invariably lead you back to the science.