For those who "worship" science. Is it really unbiased?
I found this via a post on facebook.
Thought it worthy of reposting here, since so many revere science as being the be-all and end-all for any philosophic/religious argument.
I guess the "scientists" are not all so unbiased as many may assume.
http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/lawsuit-a … nk-scienceBear in mind that no one is entirely above corruption, and that any system, be it science or religion, worth corrupting to meet one's own selfish ends can and will be corrupted. All things considered, the case above seems to have more to do with man's inherently exploitative tendencies (as if we haven't seen enough examples of it already) than science itself.
I find this a debatable statement "since so many revere science as being the be-all and end-all for any philosophic/religious argument."
I think the only thing that I am saying when I bring science into something is that other people have proved something.
I am absolutely and utterly not one bit interested in anything that cannot be absolutely and utterly proven.
If you give me evidence that the human species have live on this earth for 200,000 or a million years and this has been proven through carbon dating (or any other dating system that uses half lives), then I will believe that rather than a book with some fairy tales in it.
I don't particularly care whether it's called science, facts, sight, evidence, or whatever. It's nothing to do with the 'be-all and end-all of any philosophic/religious argument'. I just don't believe anything that I can't see with my own eyes.bias is present as soon as we offer an opinion. Whether it is 'bad' or 'good' depends on whose opinion it is.
Just because my bias agrees with someone else's doesn't make it true (either objectively or subjectively)
I agree that an event that can be predictably replicated through scientific method has a better chance of being objectively true, and reason should prevail in these cases.
However, so much in the god/no god debate is about unique events that cannot be replicated (the 'beginning' of the universe, if there was such an animal, the beginning of life, the creation of a species). Unique events in our past are 'reverse engineered' and a bias is (I think) almost always the beginning of that process. For good or bad.
No?
cheersOf course scientists are sometimes frauds or fabricate evidence, or whatever. They're human and subject to the same faults and foibles as all of us. But that doesn't invalidate science as a whole. Science has an error-correcting mechanism built in, so when a scientist presents fradulent or simply wrong data or conclusions, it is discovered and corrected. That is the beauty of the scientific method.
That is the principle, for sure.
But so are many other disciplines.
I was highlighting the scenario when this process fails.We know the processes fails because these failures are detected and corrected. I'd call that a win.
The guy was sacked for challenging the corruption!!!
I guess the system made a correction.
The dismissal of an untenured researcher (subject to discretionary re-appointment) with a history of taking Big Tobbacco money to testify that smoking is not harmful? I think that action is long overdue. I would take anything he said about ethics with a bucketful of salt. It is equally possible he was a source of harassment and disruption and they decided they were better of without him. The courts will decide if that was lawful.
I find it odd that when a doctor is sacked for misconduct, we don't call the medical profession in question, nor a lawyer, or any other professional, yet when a scientist is sacked for unethical behavior, people will take that to question the behavior of all scientists. Confirmation bias, I suppose.
Maybe we shouldn't stereotype professions at all.
Scientists may not be unbiased but what is objective and unbiased is called science and not the other way round. Consequently, what is subjective and biased is religion, not science!
The problem with biased science is that it's propaganda.
When a scientist allows his own religious, moral or ethical views to influence his or her findings in a given experiment, not only (as I just said) will it then become propaganda, but the experiment will quickly become highly dis-reputed as fellow scientists try and replicate his or her results.All that science really does is to reverse engineere STUFF and tell us what happened.
And sometimes they are right.Jerami, I think you have a good point.
God created the physical universe, and science attempts to "reverse-engineer" the products of God's creation. Not exactly that, but interesting analogy with some applicability.I'm sorry, but claiming that 'God' created the physical universe is simply ridiculous.
'God' can't exist; if anyone genuinely believes that some benevolent zombie is out there somewhere, and created an entire universe just for us, and that we are somehow the superior race which he/she feels the need to save... They're a Nazis at best.
Well now a "zombie" implies someone ordered him to do it which we know is not so and if he came to save everyone how is that a master race? Thinks you have you facts mixed up somewhere.
How is it not a master race? And there's no way I can mix up facts... When it comes to religion, there aren't any. Religion is what people turn to when they're in need, look around the world and see where religion is strongest, you'll see that it's where economics or money is low, or where morals or society is low... Religion is a fall back, and certainly not an explanation for the universe.
So everyone on the planet? I am saying master race somehow there? Are you good and awake because you make no sense. Saving everyone is surely a good thing.
Firstly, your sentences make little sense, word them better... You're proving my point though, the religion we've made up has only one aim, to save mankind... So what happens to any other form of life in the world? Or universe?
Only man needs to be saved. The animals are going to be just fine.
There we go, the Nazis attitude swings in... I think you'll be ready for your SS badge any day now.
You know I think you just don't like God so you call anything having to do with it Nazi. I say this because you obviously know nothing about it other than what you have been told.
Funnily enough, I took an A-level in R.E, and will be study a liberal art's program in university partly focusing on Philosophy and Religion in the World. I use the term Nazis because they too believed in the ideal and superior race, much as you do. Your clearly very religious, and we'll never see eye to eye on this subject.
You have my curiosity. If the animals are just fine why exactly is that "Nazi"?
I never stated that other animals "are just fine". You did...
Homo sapiens is an ape species, that's just how the category works. A groups is given defining features, anything with the defining features is in the group. It is no diferent than saying humans are bipedal or sexually dimorphic.
And what is wrong with the animals. not the humans, the animals. or is that what you think is Nazi?
Perhaps you just can't grasp why weFTL is calling you a Nazi. I state this because you seem confused by the statement. It's actually very simple, the Nazi's thought that their race was superior. You think the human race is superior. Thus the Nazism.
The reality is we humans are not very special in the Animal kingdom. We are frail and easy pray, that why we build big brick house for protection and that's why we use weapons. Many other animals build houses, which doesn't make us special. We may be the smartest, but we don't know this for sure, which doesn't make us that smart. We are self aware, but we are not he only see aware animals. We are inflicted with all the same deceases as other animals, so we certainly were not protected from any God in that respect.
So, when weFTL calls you a Nazi he/she was not saying you are a race bigot, but perhaps a species bigot and your ape comment proves his/her point.
Many of the other animals are going to be eaten. Is that what you call just fine?
Cheers for the support there! My words clearly weren't clear enough for him....
So what happens when many of the other animals eat us? is that just fine?
Maybe we should try and find a less HATEFUL term than Nazi. in case you don't know it they killed six million Jews. i have no intention of killing six million anythings.
The problem stems from the reference to being saved , which, him being an atheist, refuses to acknowledge I mean spiritually and not corporeally.
Animals will be just fine in the hereafter. That's where I meant. you will notably be confused if you don't believe in a hereafter.Maybe we should use a less Hateful word than Nazi. It was only used to illustrate a point. And it is a good point. Like Nazi's humans do kill million of other animals for our own consumption every day.
Are you suggesting other animals have a soul as well? Because that would be something new to me. The bible says all these creatures are there for our domination.It does not mean that the way you want to characterize it. If you have a beloved pet he will be with you later.
You obviously understand nothing of it.No you understand nothing of it. So my pet has a soul but the chicken doesn't. You wish to believe that our pets come with us, but just because you wish does not make it so.
I just had a chicken enchilada for lunch. I apologize to you and the chicken.
You certainly don't have to apologies to the chicken or me. I'm saying we are as different and no more different than any other animal. We are only special in our own mind.
Wow it must suck to not be anything special. you holding up ok?
You know the animals are special too. Or don't you think so? Or are they the ones who are special and we are the ones who suck?
We are no different than any OTHER animal. We have some advantages that evolution gave us, but so do most other animals. We are not special, just different.
Come on Rad Man. You don't really believe that. Do you? We are uniquely unique. And incredibly special.
I realize we need to learn humility before we ruin this whole planet with our shortsighted greed; but claiming we aren't special probably isn't the route to take in that endeavor.I think you know what I'm getting at. We as humans are physically not very impressive. We are unique in only a few ways.
1. We share our creativity. We are actually not very creative, but our ability to share is great. I didn't invent this computer I'm typing on.
2. We sweet through our skin, so we can run longer in the heat than any other animal. Not faster but longer.
After that... we as individuals are rather pathetic and easy pray.
Religion is pretty strong in the USA, one of the richest most powerful countries on earth. You appear to be mistaking your beliefs for facts, which is something you appear to object to in religion.
more bias, I'm afraid.
cheers
Isn't it amazing how believing in God automatically makes you a Nazi?
They like that label way too much.@Goodlands: I never said I wasn't open to the possibility of a higher being, but the 'God' that religion has moulded together can not exist. The 'God' they've concocted is merely an end to their own means.
I would love to agree.. God never created humans and its actually humans who created gods as per their likings. If God created humans and god is all that powerful then tell me why some gods are not even capable of protecting their statues from robbers? or tell me why he never bothers to stop religious turmoils and upheavals in his/her name??
And finally if god created the universe and humans then do you think Darwin and countless other scientists are fools or fakes?
And for those who over genius believers who say god cant be seen by people who dont follow and believe him: If you think so then we believers(understand(ers) of science can say the same.. Only a fool will believe something which he has never seen, felt, or been proved.
Having said that i never wish to say "there is no god" but i wish to say "there is no need for a god" We humans are the most powerful beings of in the universe and if god is actually a reality then he/she is surely inferior to humans, none can stand upto the 6th sense and shear will of humans.
If we humans put aside our religions, castes, creeds and so on and work together there will be no need for a god to govern us. We are our own masters and our own slaves.
If you all still want a god and want to know where is he and who is he then the simplest answer is each and every human is a god: if a person meets with an accident and a person rushes to his aid and donates blood and save his life then he becomes the god for the person who he saved. And if someone just walked away and let that person in distress he will become a demon. So its that simple, and in the end it better to try and become a god(or atleast a human) rather than to waste our time in discussing whether there is god or no.."We humans are the most powerful beings of in the universe and if god is actually a reality then he/she is surely inferior to humans, none can stand upto the 6th sense and shear will of humans."
Surely, tongue in cheek, no?
No god, but there IS a sixth sense? None can stand up to the sheer will of humans? Someone stands up to the sheer will of humans every single day. Every time someone dies in violence, or is deprived of health, or freedom, or comfort their will is being 'stood up' to.
Humans are a beginning, not the be all and end all.
cheers
@aka-dj, there are many scientists who take their work seriously and who really hate corruption and bias.
That said, regrettably most scientists are unknowingly biased. In fact, the paradigm on which their standard operating procedure is based contains a very potent bias: skepticism contains the bias, doubt.
If a hypothesis is raised that contradicts the current, popular way of looking at things, then scientists are skeptical and thus biased against it. They doubt the veracity of it. Now, a scientist may quickly defend skepticism as necessary, but I want to blow that misconception right out of the water.
Restraint and humility can do all of the same heavy lifting that skepticism, but without the toxic bias of doubt.
Let's take a look at this claim in action:
When Einstein came out with his theory of relativity, some scientists thought he was cracked. But what if all scientists felt this way? What if the reception for his ideas was completely cold? That would be in keeping with "skepticism" -- doubt in the veracity of Einstein's hypotheses.
If the condemnation of his ideas was strong enough, then scientists would not perform any experiments to test those hypotheses. Why should they?
Do you see where this is headed? If the doubt is strong enough, it pushes the hypothesis right out the window into oblivion.
Look what happened to anthropology in the Americas. "Clovis First" was the law. Scientists who dug below the Clovis horizon were ridiculed. In order to remove the Clovis dogma barrier, scientists had to brave threats to their careers. Something was entirely distorted, here. The playing field was not level and geared toward discovery. It was biased toward the status quo -- the current dogma.
Another example comes from archaeology. An archaeology professor in Florida was invited to investigate ruins that had been discovered off the coast of Bimini Island in the Bahamas. He declined, stating that his career would be in jeopardy if he went. Why? Because Bimini had already been tainted with its association to Atlantis.
Let me get this straight. Any ruins found near Bimini cannot be investigated by professional archaeologists because of their immediate association with the mythological Atlantis. That legendary island, first mentioned by Plato, is the new "blasphemy." Mention "Atlantis," and your career might well be flushed down the toilet.
So, if scientists will never investigate anything related to Atlantis, because they need prior proof in a peer reviewed article on the subject of Atlantis, then they will never find proof in such an article, because no scientist will ever investigate the subject. This is your classic Catch-22. Atlantis will never catch a break unless a scientist gets slapped in the face with the evidence.
That's remarkable. Science by intimidation, innuendo and slander.
What's remarkable about Atlantis is that we have proof of an Atlantis-like event happening right when Plato said the legendary island subsided -- 9600 BC. Three pieces of evidence, each from a different scientific discipline point to one world-changing event.
Scientists had a hard time overcoming their bias against the myth of Troy, so it took an amateur to break through that logjam over a century ago. And nearly 20 years ago, another long-rejected myth was finally found to be based upon fact when an American and several Russian scientists uncovered the remains of women buried with armor and weapons, while the men were buried separately alongside the children. The Amazons mentioned in the Trojan War myth were real, after all -- found in the burial kurgans of Southern Russia.
Recently, scientists were livid with ridicule when NASA scientists discovered what may be arsenic-friendly microbes. Why the ridicule? Why not simply debate or create an alternate hypothesis?
Why is science so chaotic? Because humans with their egos are involved.
So many here at HubPages condemn religion for the troubles of the world, but miss the very real fact that not all troubles have anything to do with religion. But behind every evil is ego.You shouldn't use terms like "do you see where this is going" or "let me get this straight" in a post this arduous. There was nothing 'straight' or 'going'
I'll repeat what I previously said, science influenced by self means, or ego, is not science. It's propaganda.You speak of doubt as if it is a poisonous thing.
Doubt, taken to the extreme, becomes ignorance, which is no more different than what most systems of religion preach, and an entirely different matter. A healthy measure of skepticism, on the other hand, gives one more room for thought, more perspectives to explore a particular issue.
I think the words 'restraint' and 'humility' as you mentioned should be used more appropriately to convey that you should restrain from claiming that you have all the facts, and that you are obliged to be humble in knowing that that which one holds as fact is no more vulnerable to change as one's doubts are. Before there was Einstein, there was Newton, whose inferences of the way the world works are applicable in real world terms even today, and still, who's to say we won't find a better way of understanding the universe than what Einstein had endowed upon us in the near future?
Religion, or most systems of it anyway, teaches that it is alright to indulge in your own ignorance, to reject progress in favor of dogma only because it's too mind-numbingly simple. I highly doubt that without skepticism, we would not still be mired deep in the god-fearing world of the Dark Ages.I do however agree that we are our worst enemies and that all of us have the means to accomplish whatever we deem necessary to the content of our egos.
Interesting example, as that study turned out to be full of methodological errors. The "arsenic-friendly" microbes turned out to be not so arsenic-friendly after all. The scientists who criticized the study were correct in doing so.
That is an argument from incredulity. It shows a lack of understanding of how science works while using the argument to erect false accusations against scientists and their motives.
Before Einstein released his theories of relativity, many other scientists and mathematicians already knew about it, some were working feverishly to release it themselves. It was only a real surprise to the general public.
And of course, it is the welcoming of all skepticism to the hypothesis, no matter how critical. Theories must have the capacity to be fallible and it is the duty of scientists to see if they can "push the hypothesis right out the window into oblivion." That's what happened to the Aether hypothesis.
Whether Atlantis exists somewhere within the realm of Poseidon or not, it is only evidence that will offer any form of proof, like it or not. Wishing it were real doesn't make it true. That said, it was evidence that brought out the real story behind the Clovis diggings, forever embarrassing those who stood their ground in ridicule.
Again, that's how science works, it brings forth evidence to crush myths, like the ones told in religions, for example.
True, not all troubles can be linked to religion, but many can and have. Referring to a few cases of ridicule being exposed with evidence does not equate anywhere near to conflict initiated by religions nor does it show an evil at work. That is sheer over-exaggeration
And, if you actually believe science is so chaotic, step into any laboratory to see for yourself. Science and it's results quickly crush egos.I agree with most of your point, and first of all i dont want to be labeled as a non follower. I do believe that there is something above humans, say for instance Nature is always powerful and is far beyond the reach of humans. Then mother's love: there is no greater god and care than my mother and this applies for all living beings not just humans.
Having said that lets get to the point, Just like the confusions in Science and with Scientists religions to have their own share of confusions and commotions. One simple question is if "God is one"(that is all gods are same) God loves humanity and want us to live in peace and if he has the power to alter things on the planet including humans to make betterment for human welfare then why the hell did 3 gods(religions) choose the innocent lands of Jerusalem and Palestine? Just to make sure the dry soil there will get wet with the blood of humans in the name of God??? Or was that to play a game with humans to help reduce population??
Note: We all have our own beliefs and ideas, but in the end all the Roads leads to Rome" Even for those who say there is no god their objective is to seek a peaceful world, and calm soul(or mind) so if religion is what you think the best way to achieve it then you can follow it. But i think i dont need such to be a good human, i dont want someone policing me to be a good human i wish and believe in self discipline.Like Bill Clinton said on the DMC Convention, "arithmatic". The existence of god doesn't add up. Then throw in physics, chemistry, along with mathmatics, the existence of god falls apart real fast. Modern science didn't exist 2000-3000 years ago. If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Scientists are people, and science is like any other human activity. I can't think of a single working scientist who would dispute that. And I don't understand why it is being presented as surprising.
God is mean to to be without fault, science is just meant to eventually find and correct errors--not to never make them, Making mistakes is actually a part of the process.By far, without synthetic a priori {technology} emphatically establishing empirical knowledge the sciences would not even exist. Technology is worshiped by the equation side of Theos as equally as ancient technologies are worshiped by the sensational side of Theos.
This issue and error is simple: Reason {collective thinking, knowledge} is but to observe and report. As soon as either step beyond observation, they immediately create propaganda.
Kurt Godel had it right.- Emile Rposted 12 years ago
0Certain avenues of scientific inquiry will always be biased. Which is the point of peer review. Unfortunately, good ole boy systems abound. I would think the fact that this lawsuit exists is evidence that the system isn't broken.
Hi Every one,
It is far more debatable topic, The creation of man and the science both are two complexities, that could not be explored yet. Hence we can say that science is unbiased, but in most of the points where ever the science could not reach then why it is neglected, for example the creation of man itself is a mystery and science have different point of view about it. So we only say in this case that science is unbiased and biased both at a time.Me thinks science academia also has a strong bias and an agenda.
It is not always impartial, nor does it always seek "truth", only that which fits the philosophy of the day.
I suggest people do their own due diligence, make up their own mind, and not just swallow everything scientists dishes up. Let alone what the media propagates.
Thanks to all for posting. Sorry, but I have been way too busy with life to be more involved.That's probably something you believe because if any thought were given we would find your claim to be specious at best.
Baloney. We therefore call cancer a philosophy, research into cerebral palsy is not seeking the truth and trying to cure Alzheimers and Autism is biased.
I would agree with you. But, it must be put into practice and not just given lip service.
Related Discussions
- 27
Religion and Science
by seatle67 13 years ago
Why are this two always incompatible on each other? And why they dont correlated on each other? For what reason.
- 321
Religion and Science--- Complementary or Exclusionary?
by Alexander A. Villarasa 11 years ago
That religion and science are irreconcilable comes from the atheistic/secularist notion that like oil and water, religion and science would and should never mix. This belies the historical/factual perspective of say, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein being guided by metaphysical thinking. The...
- 609
Einstein and atheism
by just_curious 13 years ago
Einstein said 'The fanatical atheists are liked slaves who are stil feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who-in their grudge against traditional religion as the' opium of the masses' cannot hear the music of the spheres.'What...
- 81
Scientist describing how science (reprehensibly) suppressed Religion
by Horvath György 12 years ago
How did science get so focused on the material, and why is materialism on shaky ground? Here is Bruce H. Lipton (Curriculum Vitae - http://www.brucelipton.com/curriculum-vitae/) , talking on the felonious suppression of religion, by science. "Science originated to challenge the faith-based...
- 69
Who is your greatest scientist of all time?
by Eugene Geminiano 15 years ago
For me its Isaac Newton, the father of Physics is considered the best scientist ever by many. He formulated the 3 Newton's Laws of Motion and Newton's Law of Gravitation to name a few.
- 22
Atheism, Agnosticism and Skepticism are religions of doubt;
by paarsurrey 13 years ago
Atheism, Agnosticism and Skepticism are religions of doubt;is it normal to start doubting when there is no reasonable ground to doubt?