Author Topic: Scientific Method or Fiction: What be they teaching our kids these here days (Read 1408 times)

skarke · « **on:** March 16, 2010, 10:07:11 AM »

Folks, please bear with me. I posted this as a reply to another post, but I really should have started a new thread, because it didn't really relate to that discussion. Here's why: I believe that many science texts are so corrupted by ficticious statements, half truths, and downright malace toward anything detrimental to their leftist, godless agenda that it is virtually impossible to tell who is being truthful. So, here it goes with regard to current practice of "scientific method":

The scientific method does not exist in a vacuum of amorality exempting itself from bias. I've worked my entire life reading the product of "research".

I do not disagree with the scientific method; rather, the fallacy that scientists are above human nature. When a belief system, scientific or otherwise, becomes a religion unto itself, the passion of the "investigator" injects bias.

When that belief system "religion" is commonly worshipped by the so called "peer reviewers", then they will add more bias by overlooking flaws in data, especially when their non-critical review furthers their overall belief system.

A classic case in point is the "scientists" at East Anglia, and their absolute disregard for scientific method to advance their religion of global warming.

Bottom line, a scientist free from the reigns of moral accountability can, and will falsify data, lie, fudge, and anything else they deem necessary to further their cause.

In their religion, "The ends justify the means" Saul Alinsky.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #1 on:** March 16, 2010, 10:18:22 AM »

Great post , I often wonder two things that may be along the same lines , well at least one is . Why do scientist fear religion ? It would seem if they can prove their point religion would present no conflict. The other thing maybe not so much the same . But why do some of those who do not believe get so upset if they hear anything religious ? If they don't believe then it should not matter . The only conclusion I can draw is in both cases they doubt themselves or fear the judgement of GOD.

blind ear · « **Reply #2 on:** March 16, 2010, 11:23:18 AM »

teamnelson · « **Reply #3 on:** March 16, 2010, 03:45:43 PM »

Shootall, you nailed it for certain!

Those who fear the free marketplace of ideas most likely know or are afraid that their idea is flawed.

Hooker · « **Reply #4 on:** March 16, 2010, 04:08:42 PM »

My favorite teacher in school taught my 9th grade science class.
He gave me 2 wonderful chunks of pure wisdom He said " True science only seeks the facts "
Then he said "When science seeks to prove anything, the facts are first victims"

Pat

scootrd · « **Reply #5 on:** March 16, 2010, 04:35:22 PM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on March 16, 2010, 10:18:22 AM

Great post , I often wonder two things that may be along the same lines , well at least one is . Why do scientist fear religion ? It would seem if they can prove their point religion would present no conflict. The other thing maybe not so much the same . But why do some of those who do not believe get so upset if they hear anything religious ? If they don't believe then it should not matter . The only conclusion I can draw is in both cases they doubt themselves or fear the judgement of GOD.

I agree , I have never had a problem believing in Both .. I could never understand why the two can't co-exist ..
I have never understood why others have a conflict between science and religion.

Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is one example , He is a Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world.

"The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan

so where's the conflict ? I personally have never seen it.

littlecanoe · « **Reply #6 on:** March 16, 2010, 04:50:06 PM »

To try to add to the conversation Francis Schaeffer looked at humanistic reason and it's influence on culture as it tries to supplant God. He concluded that when human reason comes to an end it is left with questions unanswered. This leads to despair.

In modern science human reason is sacred. It is the high water mark. It has displaced God in culture to the point of trying to disprove God's existence. God must be disproved or despair is immediate and eminent. To keep worshiping self brings a twisted comfort in that it delays the inevitable despair.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:19:33 AM »

Science is nothing more than learning how God made things . It is the wisdom we seek . Science picks a starting point and then tracks where it goes . Man for example . Science may very well have some of the story correct. But they never can explain the begining . What caused it to start ? Each time they can go back there will be still another unexplained beginning to deal with . Alot of us believe God started things and one day we will get all the way back to mans begining and find Gods way of putting man on earth.
One must be arrogant to cut God out when he has no better explanation !

Victor3 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:23:46 AM »

Bear with me too, as I responded in the other thread. I'll transfer it here as it seems more appropriate...

Skarke - Your post reminded me of some quotes I've saved, written by a scientist I admire for his clear understanding and honest writings about how things really work in the scientific community...

"We say, in our mythology, that old theories die when new observations derail them. But too often, indeed I would say usually, theories act as straitjackets to channel observations toward their support and to forestall data that might refute them. Such theories cannot be rejected from within, for we will not conceptualize the potentially refuting observations."

"I emphatically do not assert the general ‘truth’ of this philosophy of punctuational change. Any attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a grandiose notion would border on the nonsensical."

"Facts do not speak for themselves. They are read in the light of theory. Creative thought in science as much as in the arts is the motor of changing opinion. Science is not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective data, leading by laws of logic to inescapable conclusions."

Let me say here that I do not subscribe to the author's world view; he was an influential evolutionist by the name of Stephen Jay Gould, the father of "Punctuated Equilibrium."

He sure did slam his fellow scientists often times for their inflexibility though, and I like that part of his legacy.

Edit - Anyone wanting to see sources for the above can search the author's name along with his works The Panda's Thumb and Dinosaur in a Haystack

magooch · « **Reply #9 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:59:04 AM »

I try to leave philosophy out of the mix and just look for agendas. If the so-called scientist is hoping for a grant from whatever source to study whatever the subject, I'm skeptical.

If we're talking about the weather, or climate here, I believe climate change indeed is for real, but not necessarily man-caused. Man wasn't around to cause past radical climate changes and as much as some people like to think that we (humans) are in control--we are not. My Grandfather was not a scientist, but I believe his wisdom in regard to our present consternation about the weather was as profound as any. "Some years are colder than others."

Land_Owner · « **Reply #10 on:** March 17, 2010, 07:58:46 AM »

magooch, I liked what you posted. Anyone can "predict" the weather.

As an aside to "Punctual Equilibrium": You can sue me for getting your daughter "in a family way." The fact that you have no daughter will eventually come out in court. In the mean time, sack the house and salt the fields.

blind ear · « **Reply #11 on:** March 17, 2010, 08:32:04 AM »

Science doesn't teach to fear to "think" anything. eddie

Heather · « **Reply #12 on:** March 17, 2010, 08:51:52 AM »

I don't know what the rest of the kids these days are learning, but my children are getting ALL available information their little minds can hold. They are taught to look at the situation from all sides and use the principals of science, math, history, COMMON SENSE, logic, and reason, to develop their OPINION of things. They are learning to question everything until it makes sense to them. If new information goes against their already formed opinions then more research, testing, and reflection is needed on the subject.

No answer is the right answer all of the time. Any FACT is only FACT for as long as it can' t be disproved. I try to teach my children to have an open mind to all possibilities and believe in what supports the facts until if or when they are no longer fact.

Heather

teamnelson · « **Reply #13 on:** March 17, 2010, 10:01:53 AM »

Both my children have been homeschooled; my daughter is a Senior, president of the local chapter of the National Honor Society, gorgeous and intellectually intimidating to most men, and accepted to the USCG Academy starting in June. My son is a Sophomore, also an officer in NHS, speech & debate, TeenPact, competitive sailor, blackbelt in TKD, worship leader at our church ... he's essentially done with High School, but still studying as he wants to get into a University that only takes 20 new students a year. They didn't get there from memorizing facts prioritized by a social engineering agenda, no matter how scientific they might appear.

Our desired endstate for both of them was critical thinking skills ... data, facts, are only useful if you have the skills to process that data in a rational and reasonable manner. And to synthesize those facts to answer the question, what does that mean to me? goes into the other classical sciences of theology and philosophy, which they've also studied. My biggest disappointment in our public school system is that they focus on which pieces of data they want the kids to memorize, and then test them for memorization skills. But the ability to think, question and reason are left on the shelf to give more time for socialization, sex ed, and secular religion.

Whether its Jefferson or Calvin, much of that is sincerely a waste of time since all they're going to know at the end of the day is a name, some dates, and barely a fraction of a percent of who they were. Id rather they study the history of ideas.

wareagleguy · « **Reply #14 on:** March 17, 2010, 11:09:46 AM »

Here is a scenario for ya.

Person A: Believes the earth is only 5000 years old and has a firm belief in Christianity (as he/she sees it).
Person B: Paleontologist with studies in evolution and using carbon dating. Found many things that are millions of years old using carbon dating.

How are these two going to have any kind of common ground on a discussion on evolution/creationism, age of the earth, and anything for that matter?

Sure, everybody is human and makes mistakes.

I had a professor tell me one time that science and religion are not compatible but he looked forward to the day science could prove god existed.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #15 on:** March 17, 2010, 11:21:38 AM »

wareagleguy, how long was the garden of eden was it a day or half a million years ? Where is the missing link ? That scenaro is so broad how could anyone conclude anything ? When God made the world did he make it from nothing or use "things" floating in space giving it an older looking age ? They would spend time debating what is not known more than what is .

wareagleguy · « **Reply #16 on:** March 17, 2010, 11:52:35 AM »

Shoot,
I understand what you are saying. Problem is faith does not make proof. That is why it is called faith. Science tries to find the proof but like everything else people bend the rules and try to fit a "truth" they want reguardless of the facts.

Maybe science will find god one day and can prove it. That would be great but until that day the two should be sperate.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #17 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:02:32 PM »

I don't agree , If a scientist has no faith in his experiment or work he has nothing . The religious person has the same right to his belief . I believe they work to the same end . The biggest problem i see with religion is interpitation of the words . Example kill or murder ? Here one can help the other .

blind ear · « **Reply #18 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:16:35 PM »

The scientist has faith that his experiment will "find" the truth, not that "what he wants to be true" is the truth. eddie

wareagleguy · « **Reply #19 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:19:38 PM »

Faith is not fact.

That is not to say people don't need faith.

Science uses research for form a theory. It is called theory because it is based on SOME facts and the theory could be wrong. Faith in science is useless in the development of theory.

Again, people in science should have faith but it has to have some limits.

I think this is where the two sides (religion/science) never seems to get along. Science is NOT religion and should never be.

teamnelson · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:51:34 PM »

Science once unequivocably proved the fact that the world was flat ... then when we gained more data, we changed our fact. But people believing that fact to be true were reticent to circumnavigate the globe. Faith becomes fact when it changes your life.

All I ask of science is the intellectual humility to admit when they're wrong. To admit when the results they got aren't the results they wanted. To have the integrity to not treat theories as law, and the grace to admit other theories equal time in discussion.

God doesn't need science to prove his existence, but science somehow feels compelled to do so. Given all science is based on the basic limitations of time and space, and God is constrained by neither, its a difficult endeavor at best. Its a control issue - if you can quantify something, no matter how large or powerful, you gain a level of control, and the nature of God requires no control over him.

By the way, THEOLOGY was once the queen of the sciences ... matters of faith were considered fact. Still is to many folks - all that happened was some of the other sciences broke away and claimed supremacy.

blind ear · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:54:49 PM »

Just keep raising your children in fear and everything will work out fine. eddie

teamnelson · « **Reply #22 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:01:31 PM »

If by fear you mean the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, then yes I believe I shall!

My kids aren't afraid of discussions about diverse ideas; both are going into the sciences having taken college science course as teenagers. They're not afraid to talk to adults. They're not afraid for their life, and they're not afraid to give their life for what they know is right. All that fear I've raised them with, I think they're doing fine.

I counsel alot of those secular kids who are raised in the absence of the fear of the lord. They're afraid of the future, they're afraid to talk to adults, they're afraid of people, they're afraid of commitment, they're afraid of rejection, they're afraid of work, they're afraid of pain, they're afraid of death ... science has done so much to give people a reason to be unafraid. Heck if this is all there is to it, pain, suffering, meaningless consumption and then recycled back in the soil, why would anybody be depressed?

blind ear · « **Reply #23 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:13:36 PM »

Quote:
"They're afraid of the future, they're afraid to talk to adults, they're afraid of people, they're afraid of commitment, they're afraid of rejection, they're afraid of work, they're afraid of pain, they're afraid of death ... science has done so much to give people a reason to be unafraid. Heck if this is all there is to it, pain, suffering, meaningless consumption and then recycled back in the soil, why would anybody be depressed?"

This is the fear they are taught by religion, politics and media, not by science. eddie

teamnelson · « **Reply #24 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:25:31 PM »

I don't equate faith with fear; the opposite in fact is true "ours is not a spirit of fear." There are many religions that promote fear, granted. And you and I are in total agreement with politics & the media. The religion of science promotes fear, but science in and of itself does not, just as faith in and of itself does not. Like approaching infinity, I imagine science will continue in its exponential understanding of how the universe works, without ever crossing the line of answering the question, why?

wareagleguy · « **Reply #25 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:42:17 PM »

Nelson,
Funny you bring up that "science" proved the world was flat. I think if you dig into that you will find during that time it was the chruch that believed the earth was flat and that the universe circuled the earth. The church WAS science, government and everything else. Nothing was based on fact only scripture and faith.

Ask Galileo (real scientist) what happened when he went against the "science" of the church.

I am not trying to say anything bad about religion. It is just has no place in science or the other way around.

blind ear · « **Reply #26 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:55:42 PM »

The teaching of fear creates the faith. eddie

teamnelson · « **Reply #27 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:13:10 PM »

eddie, wareagle ... If science is about discovering truth, with no preconceived notions whatsoever, then it is possible science will lead you to faith. But if your presupposition is that the two are mutually exclusive, then of course you've already jaded your science as you've predetermined to remove one possible outcome. If you really have an open mind eager to be informed by science, then there is no doubt you will discover the truth.

I'm not afraid of science and faith mixing as I see no conflict. I use the scientific method all the time, I teach an AP Honors level science class every thursday to very smart young people, its called sytematic theology, and we use a very precise rational method perfected over millenia, published, and subject to peer critical review. We explore hypothesis, develop theories, and test them for consistency, reproducibility, etc.

Sounds to me like you had a taste of bad religion, which would make anyone skeptical. Kinda like global warming?

blind ear · « **Reply #28 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:24:48 PM »

I have read much of the Bible and also much of Darwin, Richard Dawkins, HG Wells (An Outline of history), James George Frazier (The Golden Bough), Anatomy & Physiology and other books on the evolution of man and religions. eddie

skarke · « **Reply #29 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:26:10 PM »

eddie,

Frankly sir, you are mistaken. Faith is a matter of heart, and love. I feel sorry for those who might never know the peace that comes from a personal relationship with a loving, holy God.

But, my post deals with bias, not faith. I can spot it from across the room now, having worked with scientific papers my entire life. The modern scientist is just as prone to the fallen nature of man and his failings as any person. Whether it be fudging the numbers ever so slightly in pusuit of grants to study the in vogue topic of the day, or the ideologue injecting just so much error in his measurements to justify his beliefs, peer review often fails us because the like minded reviewer has a stake.

It is the skeptic who is saving the day, his freedom to obtain information specifically, that facilitates discovery of truth. He is the laser sight toward real science, that person of true opposing opinion.