Believe in science & ethics

last SG · 2007-08-17T14:02:49+00:00

The scope of science is very wide.It includes social sciences such as sociology,psychology and politics.

Herzog_Zwei SG

It's still correct to apply it to the our environment,

Herzog_Zwei SG

You forgot the last statement to make your logic correct:
5)Humans can always experiment to verify whether their theories of science is accurate.

soul_rage SG

I din forget to add the last statement. Your point above is moot, since its already addressed in (2) that not all humans can be trusted

And how will you ensure that their verified experimental results are correct, since humans are not 100% trustworthy?

Again, I will refer you to reports of past scientific discoveries being found to be incorrect several years later.

No matter you do 100 or 1000 or 10000 different experiments to verify a theory, what it is doing is to MINIMIZE the possibility of the result being wrong, but rigorous testing can NEVER guarantee that the result will NEVER be wrong.

If you guys are so into Science, then you should understand logic mathematics better. There is NO WAY to guarantee a 100% correctness. All we can do is to minimize errors

soul_rage SG

Eh, I thought someone was arguing that Science is the Absolute Truth, now you guys are arguing with new assumptions?

In scientific experiments, you must state your assumptions first. Similarly, there should not be last minute addition of assumptions, since you guys stated so clearly that Science is the absolute truth?

It shows then that Newton laws are only applicable to a tiny Earth, and Earth is NEGLIGIBLE compared to the entire universe.

So where is the talk that Science is 100% correct and believable, when this is shown right now to be only applicable to a negligible portion of the universe?

PRP SG

If Newton's Theory is just an approximation,why don't recent scientists make it more accurate?

PRP SG

Even if a scientist or a professional says his opinions or research are scientific, you cannot believe him 100% because he may err or cheat.So it is good that Soul_rage brings out the issue of doubting on science.

Xephone_xenon SG

From my understanding
Ethics are just studies about how moral values can bring the greatest benefits out in humanbeings life.
So lets say, killing and raping each other can bring the greatest benefits out in humanbeings life. Then its correct under the law of ethics.
Thus there is no FIXED ethics for us to follow.
So being righteous, respecting others, showing good moral values arent really ethics what. Ethics is just a study, not a set of moral values for us to follow.
And up till today there is no philosopher that is able to confirm any "ethics" that would bring the greatest benefit what.

Am i wrong Question

soul_rage SG

Originally posted by PRP:
Even if a scientist or a professional says his opinions or research are scientific, you cannot believe him [b]100% because he may err or cheat.So it is good that Soul_rage brings out the issue of doubting on science.[/b]

good that you accept this.

All I want to say is, always keep an open mind. Science is a good tool to explain many things in this universe, but its too limited to be considered the holy grail. If one insists on always having a scientific explanation before accepting that a certain thing exists, then he would be depending too much on his 5 senses, and closing off his 6th sense, which is the most powerful sense of all.

Remember the korean scientist whom fabricated data on cloning. If he was not caught, then this would have been the 'truth' for as long as he was not caught.

Ibram Gaunt SG

Your view reminds me of this:

Contrarian

A contrarian is someone who poses as a skeptic, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty. As Chris Mooney writes:

That doesnt mean that scientific consensus is right in every instance. There are famous examples, in fact, of when it was proved wrong: Galileo comes to mind, as does a lowly patent clerk named Einstein. In the vast majority of modern cases, however, scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism.*

Contrarians are particularly active in the areas of climate change and other environmental issues, but they have been active in many other areas as well, such as tobacco and health issues. Contrarians demand endless analysis of issues to prevent any action from being taken rather than to ensure that the most reasonable conclusion be arrived at. Polluters and anyone else opposed to government regulations are well served by the contrarian's paralysis by analysis. Contrarians often refer to their endless demands for more study and their claims that doubts still remainno matter what the consensusas "sound science," a bit of doublespeak that is the scientific equivalent of the filibuster.

Rather than demanding we dig deeper in order to clarify issues, the contrarian simply wants to throw dust in people's eyes so they can't see what's really going on. The function of contrarians is to arouse fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) and promote the false notion that "sound science" is science where you can't find a contrary view. The contrarian philosophy is Orwellian doublespeak at its best: Some of the best science available is labeled "junk science" by contrarians simply because there are contrary views that may be held by a very small minority.

http://www.skepdic.com/contrarian.html

soul_rage SG

I am a person who lives life with philosophies, and I can tell you that what you are saying is not wrong.

In the first place, ethics is a very subjective thing. My wife in her upbringing thinks that its not ethical to take a sibling's clothing without asking him/her that you are borrowing it.

In my family, our upbringing is to share everything, so its not an ethic issue to just go and take your bro/sis's clothes and use it, just need to inform him/her.

So what is ethical/unethical may not be true for the next person.

Ibram Gaunt SG

Quote
A valid argument may have false premises.
Being valid is not the same as being sound. Validity is determined by the relationship of premises to conclusion in a deductive argument. The premises of a valid argument are said to imply their conclusion. Thus, a false premise can lead to a false conclusion. An argument may seem valid, but at the end of the day if it is built upon false premises, it is not sound
With ref to: http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson2.html
About how argumentative sophistry can blind one to reason.

You may give a "valid argument" but it is built upon false premises and lead to false conclusions. You automatically assume that just because science (and indeed all bodies of knowledge) is not 100% correct (what do you mean by "correct"? Do you define it as "verifiable"?) due to it being driven by "imperfect" Man, it is inherently untrustworthy.

No field of knowledge in this physical plane of existence is 100% verifiable. However, this doesn't mean we get "paralysed by analysis" and begin to doubt the soundness of existence. In the case of science, yes indeed it is not 100% "perfect" but it is the best methodology available to Man to study the natural world. It may not be 100% "foolproof" but it certainly is the most trustworthy of all the thinking tools available to Man. The greatest strength of science is its lack of dogmatism and its ability to correct its body of knowledge upon discovery of errors.

Some important features of the nature of the science that shows its strength and trustworthiness:

Scientists think critically about claims. Empirical evidence is their ultimate standard.

Scientists use a variety of methods: hypothesis, for instance, as well as analogy and induction. Some collect observations; others creatively recognize patterns in data. Imagination, logical reasoning, chance, and interdisciplinary thinking can all be important.

Observation is sometimes enhanced by quantitative measurement, by comparisonespecially with controls that isolate the effect of individual variables or help distinguish correlation from causationand by graphical representation and statistical analysis summarizing patterns in the data and the chances for error.

Data does not speak for itself. Rather, scientists interpret findings, and sometimes those interpretations are biased by theoretical or cultural perspectives.

Scientific claims vary in their level of certainty. No method guarantees answers or absolute certainty, yet multiple lines of evidence help reinforce many claims. Even important problems may remain unresolved. In some cases, scientists may justifiably disagree.

Science is a human enterprise. Some scientists are motivated by curiosity or a passion to solve problems, others by profit or ambition. Some collaborate; others compete.

Knowledge develops historically. Sometimes concepts change dramatically.
Science resolves only problems of fact, not values. Nonetheless, the practice of science and its results have moral dimensions.

Science generally aims to map and explain the world. Technology differs in that it aims to adapt that understanding of the world.

With ref to: http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/allchin2.html

Ibram Gaunt SG

May I point out that that unethical Korean scientist (Hwang Woo-Suk) was caught in the act by other eithical SCIENTISTS. This shows the self-correcting nature of the scientific process in dealing with errors and falsehoods. A close examination of Hwang Woo-Suk's case shows that he committed this ethical breach more out of human weakness rather than because the process of science is untrustworthy. This case is more about moral ethics and should not be used as a chopping board to indict the scientific process. In fact it is downright spurious to condemn the scientific process just because of a mistake due to an ethical lapse (that is due more to the pressure-cooker success-driven Confucian society like Korea).
With ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

BTW, what is this "6th Sense" (This sounds too much like a M Knight Shyamalan's movie.....) which you claim is so "most powerful of all"? Please define it (is it instinct, pineal gland, second sight, gut feel, etc) and tell me what makes it so that "powerful"?

Surely something that "most powerful of all" must have a name of its own. Even each of the other "less powerful" 5 senses (taste, smell, touch, sight, hearing) have names and properties of their own.....so how about this wondrous "6th sense" that you seem to exalt so highly?

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Do you want to learn multivariable calculus in Secondary school or in Junior College?

Do you want to learn Lagrangian mechanics in Secondary school or in Junior College?

General Relativity requires a deep understanding about mechanics, and at a very high level, topology, which I don't even want to touch for fear of burning my hands and brains off, which isn't taught at the Secondary school level or Junior College level. Hell, even undergrad Physics merely skims this topic. The rest is left to graduate Physics students pursuing a PhD to figure it out.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Finally, someone comes along and repeat what I said pages ago.

Science is by no means infallible, but it is the vigorous proof, the peer review process, and the repeatability of results that demonstrates whether or not a hypothesis can be accepted as fact. Even if it is accepted by fact, the community, in general, encourages people to think out of the box and question existing theories and to attempt to disprove them.

An example would be Quantum Mechanics. There are some ... 3 ways to approach Quantum Mechanics. One was first derived by Heisenberg, then Schrodinger, who didn't fancy Heisenberg's interpretations and preferred something more classical, came along with his. Dirac wanted a more mathematical basis and rederived the whole lot again. Decades later, we have Feynman coming along with his own ideas and interpretation on Quantum Mechanics. In the end, Dirac, Schrodinger and Heisenberg all came up with the same thing.

soul_rage SG

Again, someone fails to see my point.

You posted so many replies about me, but I will just summarize what I say, instead of replying to your misconception of me

1) I in no way openly declare and claim that Science is 100% untrustworthy (which is what you imply of me). I merely am using Discrete Mathematics, which is one of the areas of Science, to prove that Science cannot be 100% believable. This, no matter how much you post, you cannot deny

2) Science is human-driven. Therefore, there is always room for error, and thus you cannot say that its 100% trustworthy.

3) Please read up on the 6th sense. Being a person who goes about quoting so many articles, I am very sure you can find out some info on the 6th sense.

4) Its not my business at the end whether you want to think Science is the holy grail or not. I merely just wish to remind everyone of the possibility of that 1% or 0.1% or 10% or how many % possibility that Science can be wrong. And this possibility can NEVER be 0%, given points (1) and (2)

And to your point above on the Korean scientist, its NOT a matter of WHO catches him, or WHEN he is caught. Its a matter of WHAT IF he is not caught for a period of time? Let us assume that what if he is not caught for a period of time (one month, one year, one decade, etc), that his proofs are so solid that other scientists are not able to locate the lie?
Then during this period (one month, one year, one decade), his study would be acknowledged by the scientific community that its correct and valid, and this will result in what I mention, a 'lie' or 'incorrect science', that will be considered as correct and as a fact.
Do not forget that before he was caught, he had won numerous awards, and being honoured by many in the scientific community.

And yes you are correct, I like to question, because I like to find out more. I do not think there's anything wrong with keeping an open mind. You cannot deny that Science was wrong in many counts during the course of history. Its part and parcel of what Fingernolin mentioned, but because of that, its also not 100% believable then.

soul_rage SG

Note that I do not disagree with you, but you indirectly support what I am highlighting. That Science cannot be 100% believable exactly because of the scientific process.

Even though the scientific community encourages people to think out of the box, how many of the laymen (you, me and all here who are not scientists) ever have that sort of energy or time to do that? Most people would just trust what Science says.

soul_rage SG

Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:

Your view reminds me of this:

[b]Contrarian

A contrarian is someone who poses as a skeptic, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty. As Chris Mooney writes:

That doesnt mean that scientific consensus is right in every instance. There are famous examples, in fact, of when it was proved wrong: Galileo comes to mind, as does a lowly patent clerk named Einstein. In the vast majority of modern cases, however, scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism.*

http://www.skepdic.com/contrarian.html

[/b]

By the way, do you know that you are a contrarian yourself, because you refuse to accept that Science is not 100% trustworthy, even though its a consensus that Science is human-driven, and therefore there is always the possibility of an error, no matter how rigorous the testing and validation is performed?

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

I won't particularly consider myself layman, but that aside, the trouble is the "6th sense" is particularly unquantifiable, and thus it is not trusted within the realm of Science which bases itself upon evidence and not something particularly "unquantifiable".

Ibram Gaunt SG

Where in my postings did I say that science is 100% foolproof? You are using a strawman argument in which you create/misrepresent another's position in which you refute a position of your own creation rather than address the position of another.

My position is that the methodology of science is self-correcting, and is certainly the most trustworthy compared to other methodologies (i.e. philosophy, religion, gut instinct, etc) of understanding the natural world. Science is a tool and though the humans who use this tool may not aways get things right, this does not invalidate the greatness of science in bringing illumination in an otherwise blinkered word of supersition and "6th sense (please illuminate me, I have no idea what this is?) "

AndrewPKYap SG

Only stupid people believe that science is 100% correct and only people that are more stupid believe that there is anything else more believable than scientific discoveries.

« Previous Page Next Page »