Horizon:Science under attack
Discussion
Personally I loved the "Would you be treated by Doctors with a consensus or some wacky other treatment". Well if the "consensus" is I'm dying but the "Wacky" treatment might work I'd try it!!! Let's not forget Ignaz Semmelweis whose discovery was ignored and ridiculed by the "consensus".
telecat said:
Personally I loved the "Would you be treated by Doctors with a consensus or some wacky other treatment". Well if the "consensus" is I'm dying but the "Wacky" treatment might work I'd try it!!! Let's not forget Ignaz Semmelweis whose discovery was ignored and ridiculed by the "consensus".
I thought the whole point of science was always to challenge the consensus, not just sit back and blindly believe that the consensus must be correct!youngsyr said:
telecat said:
Personally I loved the "Would you be treated by Doctors with a consensus or some wacky other treatment". Well if the "consensus" is I'm dying but the "Wacky" treatment might work I'd try it!!! Let's not forget Ignaz Semmelweis whose discovery was ignored and ridiculed by the "consensus".
I thought the whole point of science was always to challenge the consensus, not just sit back and blindly believe that the consensus must be correct!youngsyr said:
telecat said:
Personally I loved the "Would you be treated by Doctors with a consensus or some wacky other treatment". Well if the "consensus" is I'm dying but the "Wacky" treatment might work I'd try it!!! Let's not forget Ignaz Semmelweis whose discovery was ignored and ridiculed by the "consensus".
I thought the whole point of science was always to challenge the consensus, not just sit back and blindly believe that the consensus must be correct!If it's done the other way round then I guess it's called research for a documentary
durbster said:
Jasandjules said:
And I was shocked that the chap went with "consensus" in terms of science. Ignorance at it's highest point there I felt.
Don't understand this viewpoint. How can going with the concensus be ignorant? What was the scientific cosensus before Copernicus/Gallileo/Darwin?
Therefore, a show attacking science ought not to use consensus as justification - unsurprising on the BBC, but not accurate.
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
Jasandjules said:
And I was shocked that the chap went with "consensus" in terms of science. Ignorance at it's highest point there I felt.
Don't understand this viewpoint. How can going with the concensus be ignorant? Jasandjules said:
What was the scientific cosensus before Copernicus/Gallileo/Darwin?
A perfect illustration of my point - what was the scientific consensus before the climate change stuff?durbster said:
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
Jasandjules said:
And I was shocked that the chap went with "consensus" in terms of science. Ignorance at it's highest point there I felt.
Don't understand this viewpoint. How can going with the concensus be ignorant? Jasandjules said:
What was the scientific cosensus before Copernicus/Gallileo/Darwin?
A perfect illustration of my point - what was the scientific consensus before the climate change stuff?I recorded this and turned it off about half way through. The interviewer was simply starting to piss me off. For me he went way past challenging and simply came across as biased. Shame really as it's an interesting subject and one I believe I don't know near as much about as I think I do (if that makes a jot of sense!).
durbster said:
That's not correct. As telecat said above, science is never wrong or right, as its entire point is to continuously question itself. Science never reaches a conclusion, they can only reach a concensus.
Science can most definitely be wrong, and indeed it has been proved to be so very many times on many different subjects. In some cases it can be completely disproved eg. theories of the "aether" to carry radio waves, or it can be shown to be wrong in more subtle ways. For example, Newton's laws of motion are "wrong" - Einstein calculated as such in his special theory of relativity. They are still a useful enough approximation within every day experience, however, for them to be used by engineers to build functioning machines.Richard Feynman said:
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
The whole point of science is that the results are repeatable by anyone with sufficient knowledge - you can derive Einstein's theories of relativity with a little knowledge of mathematics (Brian Cox's book Why does E=mc^2? shows you how - it's well worth a read). Anyone with the requisite engineering skill can test them - the GPS system is a pretty good example that does this.The problem I have with climate scientists is they claim some form of elitism that should not exist in science. "Oh, you can't possibly understand this, you aren't a climate scientist." or "I am right because I have 20 years experience stroking my beard an you don't".
Until they produce a properly documented theory that is consistently testable, then they are pissing in the wind. There are serious questions over the handling of data, and the veracity of the collection of data that any predictions or models based upon it need to be treated with extreme caution, not held up as some gospel truth.
durbster said:
That's not correct. As telecat said above, science is never wrong or right, as its entire point is to continuously question itself. Science never reaches a conclusion, they can only reach a concensus.
Actually, science is (as I was taught it) correct at the time. However it is subject to change when someone comes up with something better or disproves existing scientific theories. For example what was long thought to be the smallest particle changes when people discover atoms etc. Jasandjules said:
What was the scientific cosensus before Copernicus/Gallileo/Darwin?
A perfect illustration of my point - what was the scientific consensus before the climate change stuff?But then realistically, AGW is not science, but is founded upon forecasts. A best guess. Not only that, but in science one holds out the data to all others in your field so that others can try and fail to disprove it. You don't refuse to provide the information. This is not continuously questioning itself, quite the reverse, it is a direct attempt to ensure that the lies cannot be questioned.
And I am unclear why Copernicus illustrates your point, before him the scientific consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth. And indeed IIRC it was also held to be so for many years due to the Catholic Church "scientific" consensus. The same is true with Gallileo, what the scientific consensus was show to be utterly untrue.
And before the Climate change stuff? The consensus on what? It has always been the case that the climate is changing. My understanding however is that in the 70s the consensus was that it was going to be a mini ice age (but I was not around then so could be wrong).
However, this is all off topic. If you want to know the truth, read up on it - there is plenty of information out there which undermines the lies and shows AGW for what it is.
telecat said:
youngsyr said:
I thought the whole point of science was always to challenge the consensus, not just sit back and blindly believe that the consensus must be correct!
The whole point of Science is that no theory should be unchallenged!!! Unlike religion a conclusion is only as good as the last experiment performed to prove or disprove it. If something works find out why, if it doesn't then that equally needs to be investigated. If a scientist cannot take the heat of investigation then they need to work elsewhere as that is the proof of genius and/or hard work.One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority. - RA Heinlen
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff