Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do We Always Believe What Scientists Say?
Institute for Creation Research ^ | 7-16-2014 | Brian Thomas

Posted on 07/16/2014 9:54:13 AM PDT by fishtank

Do We Always Believe What Scientists Say?

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Many Americans are convinced that mainstream narratives are true—like humans descended from ape-like ancestors or that burning fossil fuels causes global warming. But many times large contingents totally disagree with these popular ideas. How can equally intelligent and educated people arrive at such opposing conclusions? Conventional thinkers often assume that those who diverge from mainstream narratives simply need more science education. However, a new study shows why some other factor must be to blame.

Kan Kahan, a professor at Yale Law School, studied the way people reason as they access scientific knowledge and compared it with the way they reason when protecting their distinct cultural identities. His transcribed lecture will form the basis for a publication in the journal Advances in Political Psychology.

He found that diverse cultural groups agree "on what science knows about climate change."1 That is, they agree that most scientists agree about man-caused climate change, but they don't all believe what those scientists are saying. And Kahan found similar results when testing belief in human evolution.

(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: agw; creation; scientists; warming

ICR article image.

1 posted on 07/16/2014 9:54:13 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank

The ICR photo looks like this guy....

2 posted on 07/16/2014 9:54:45 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

One thing I learned years ago. Even experts, despite all their educaion, experience and training can be completely wrong on just about any given subject.


3 posted on 07/16/2014 9:55:55 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

In the office (Programming department) we have a sign hanging on the wall that says ‘Experts Suck’.


4 posted on 07/16/2014 9:58:23 AM PDT by the_boy_who_got_lost (Real men scare liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Yes, Ben Kingsley made a very convincing Gandhi.


5 posted on 07/16/2014 9:58:40 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Science is about evidence, not belief. This is how this outfit fails out of the gate.


6 posted on 07/16/2014 10:02:20 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
One of Bill Clilnton’s 1000 scientists in consensus on global warming was a barber. People generally believe the first liar.
7 posted on 07/16/2014 10:02:51 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

LOL, that sounds so good until you realize scientists make mistaken assumptions all the time. Accepted facts are often proven to be wrong later on.

Those who challenge scientists are none the less always shouted down, because scientists are... well... scientists using scientific processes. Fail!


8 posted on 07/16/2014 10:07:08 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Think how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are stupider than that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Video: Douglas Ell at MIT on Counting to God
9 posted on 07/16/2014 10:07:35 AM PDT by Heartlander (We are all Rodeo Clowns now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

Many scientists will do anything to get grant money...including faking their data.


10 posted on 07/16/2014 10:08:45 AM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DManA

...and “scientists” inject a great deal of belief into their evidence. They like to say they’re all evidence all the time, but in reality they’re beginning with a number of assumptions for which they have no proof.

Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. They just interpret that evidence differently.


11 posted on 07/16/2014 10:14:52 AM PDT by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

In the 1700s scientists all pretty much agreed on the Noah’s Ark theory, but when Darwin found hundreds and hundreds of new species that where unknown in Europe (as was the true size of the earth), that sunk the Noah’s Ark scientific paradigm.

And a new one arose.

They still wont all ‘fit’ on the Ark (together).

no matter how many bones the ICR claims are missing.


12 posted on 07/16/2014 10:30:36 AM PDT by sickoflibs (King Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hal ogen
Many scientists will do anything to get grant money...including faking their data.

So preachers never look for money? They take a vow of poverty? Priests, preachers, rabbis, and Muslim clerics never diddle in little boys? Religion is all pure. It's only science that teaches evil.

13 posted on 07/16/2014 10:31:04 AM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

but if you read all of his sayings, he was somewhat of a nut case...


14 posted on 07/16/2014 10:40:43 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
So preachers never look for money? They take a vow of poverty? Priests, preachers, rabbis, and Muslim clerics never diddle in little boys? Religion is all pure. It's only science that teaches evil.

Rough day so far?
15 posted on 07/16/2014 10:43:54 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Do We Always Believe What Scientists Say?

Of course not! These days that would be quite foolish. Listen but VERIFY!!!!


16 posted on 07/16/2014 10:45:19 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

:: Many Americans are convinced that mainstream narratives are true—like humans descended from ape-like ancestors ::

If I, as a WASPy male in the heart of America, were to ask Eric Holder whether or not he confirms this (commonly accepted scientific) evolutional statement, what would be his response?

(a) He would discuss the merits of science, evolution and the common relationship of “homo erectus” in today’s world, or,
(b) he would call me a racist for equating him with an ape.

Now, contrast the same situation only, I am posing the same question to Thomas Sowell.


17 posted on 07/16/2014 10:53:54 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alteration: The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
It seems as there is a great deal of misunderstanding about science. It exists not only on FR but also in the group of atheists who want to disprove any god or any "moral" basis for behavior.

First, basically what is science: Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding1. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions. What Science Is.

Second, what is not science: 1. Science is not a process that can solve all kinds of problems and questions. The realm of science is limited strictly to solving problems about the natural world. Science is not properly equipped to handle the supernatural realm (as such), nor the realm of values and ethics. What Science is Not.

Science is neither an invention of satan to tempt believers not is it a means of disproving beliefs and values, yet it seems doomed to constant misuse. Scientific examination begins with an observation and proceeds to an attempt to explain the observation in the natural world.

Science done improperly is not really science. Piltdown Man is often used as an example of the inability of science to come to objectively valid conclusions and why nothing science says can be believed. Actually, Piltdown Man was not science, it was and was intended to be a hoax. It was an intentional hoax and was proven to be so by scientific investigation of the fraud. All it illustrates is that scientists are capable of dishonesty and of being tricked. The answer to bad science is not to give up all attempts to make sense of the world around us, the answer is good science critically reviewed. Today's climate czars are often no more than the Piltdown hoaxers trying to force a consensus in place of peer review.

18 posted on 07/16/2014 11:08:09 AM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

If people knew how scientists and professors make their money, they would question all scientific studies.


19 posted on 07/16/2014 11:08:26 AM PDT by vpintheak (I will not comply!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

On a planet that is billions of years old, we have less than 10,000 years of recorded history so in spite of how little it is, most of what we “know” is wrong.


20 posted on 07/16/2014 11:13:42 AM PDT by Phlap (REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

When I was in college in the 1980’s I had a class with a “scientist” a “man of logic...” who was a “DOCTOR” to you peasant and don’t you forget it. He class after class would lecture and then get questions he couldn’t answer or wouldn’t answer except with sneering contempt for non-scientist or professionals.

One day before class a large group of students were there early talking about his antics and how many had their bubbles bursted about university doctors and phd’s with this class. Finally one older black lady spoke up and said “look he’s nothing but an educated fool, he ain’t anything special, just use commons sense when you deal with the likes of him and you will do fine because he doesn’t have any” The group cracked up when she said this with laughter and a chorus of you got that right!


21 posted on 07/16/2014 11:18:10 AM PDT by sarge83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sarge83

I would have added, “preach it, woman!”...: )


22 posted on 07/16/2014 11:21:58 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DManA

> Science is about evidence, not belief. This is how this outfit fails out of the gate.

True. But scientists confound that concept when they create a hypothesis and decide whether they want to evaluate the evidence at hand or align it to fit the hypothesis they want to prove....: )


23 posted on 07/16/2014 11:26:15 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

> In the 1700s scientists all pretty much agreed on the Noah’s Ark theory, but when Darwin found hundreds and hundreds of new species that where unknown in Europe (as was the true size of the earth), that sunk the Noah’s Ark scientific paradigm.

Who’se to say some of the animals didn’t swim alongside the Ark during the Floox...: )

The new species might have been adaptations that evolved over time after the Flood.


24 posted on 07/16/2014 11:30:54 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
It is done through observation of natural phenomena . . .

Who decides, and on what basis, what constitutes "natural phenomena?" Is it merely the frequency with which an event occurs that it somehow becomes "natural?" It it because it is observable to the human senses or by way of instruments that extend those senses? I firmly believe the word "natural" to be one of the most arbitrary ascriptions ever produced in human thought and language, much like the word "racist."

How does science know gravity is not an ongoing "miracle?" It doesn't. It chooses language that avoids such a word, but it has no scientific basis for doing so. It often operates under assumptions which it does not have the prerogative of asserting as wholly objective, not unlike certain Senators who believe it is wholly lawful to target conservatives under the tax code.

25 posted on 07/16/2014 11:34:38 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew (Even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Under your cosmology, no learning independent of the express wording of scripture is possible. There is no basis for any sort of scientific inquiry, just refer to the Bible. That has been the position of many religions. None of them have gone to far.

Are you willing to give up all advancements derived through science?


26 posted on 07/16/2014 11:51:44 AM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

Given the biblical texts, which express the nature of creation and Who is behind it, my cosmology allows me to expect an ordered world, wherein any exception may occur at any time. Reality from my perspective has been in perfect accord with the same. The biblical texts are my starting point and present a reasonable foundation upon which to do science. Are you willing to reject all science done by those who use the biblical texts as a starting point?


27 posted on 07/16/2014 11:55:33 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew (Even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: afsnco

To the extent that scientists bring belief into their work, they fail.

Whereas with creationists, belief is the core and every thing they do is aimed at reinforcing that belief.


28 posted on 07/16/2014 11:57:16 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Those “exceptions” happen extremely rarely, like God prefers not to interfere with the Order He set up from the beginning.

It also seems that those exceptions caused the least scope of disruption as possible in order to accomplish His ends for the people He loves.

That being said, The Flood was MASSIVE.


29 posted on 07/16/2014 11:59:08 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MrB

From the perspective of a creature I find it preposterous to suggest I would know when there is, or is not, and “exception” when it comes to created order. Why should a perceived “exception” qualify as such any more or less than gravity be called an exception. It seems to me gravity is an exception insofar as it militates against the law of entropy.

There have been certain signs pointing to exceptions that some people arbitrarily call “miracles,” but the biblical texts do not use that word. Many of these are documented in the biblical texts. Quantum physicists suggest it is hardly extraordinary for two things to be in the same place at one time, or for physical substances to pass through one another, although to common experience it does not happen.

OTOH, who of us is to say for certain whether most of what we observe is not an “exception” of some kind? It is not because of absolutes in history that we are invited by the Creator to call upon Him in prayer and ask for anything. You are precisely correct in asserting the He will accomplish His ends for a creation He loves dearly. The lion’s share of that purpose is hidden under a cross.

But my original questions have gone unanswered, namely: On what basis and by whose authority, is science granted the knowledge to assert what is, or is not, “natural phenomena?”


30 posted on 07/16/2014 12:17:29 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew (Even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

“Are you willing to reject all science done by those who use the biblical texts as a starting point?”

As a starting point, perhaps but not as a conclusion. If the Bible mentions a person or a place, I’d certainly look for evidence of them using Biblical accounts. If the Bible says Sodom was consumed in fire and brimstone, I’ll look for a volcano to have delivered the ash and lava.

I’m certainly not comfortable as a critic of the Bible as my values and beliefs come from it. I don’t use it as a “how to” guide for the manufacture of semiconductors.


31 posted on 07/16/2014 12:19:24 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

Understood. Science uses what tools it has to arrive at the nuts and bolts; the whats and hows. The biblical texts treat chiefly of cause and purpose, but also lend a credible foundation for anyone exploring order as we know it. I think more scientists would do themselves and others a favor if they would be less artificial and arbitrary in using the word “natural.” It does not help their cause, but introduces a philosophical distinction beyond their purported objectivity.


32 posted on 07/16/2014 12:27:58 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew (Even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak

Is that sort of like sausage and law?? :)


33 posted on 07/16/2014 1:11:25 PM PDT by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

It is one thing to try to get grants...it is quite another to fake your data (and undermine science and integrity) in order to get grants.


34 posted on 07/16/2014 2:29:26 PM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001
RE:”Who’se to say some of the animals didn’t swim alongside the Ark during the Floox...: )”

I heard some-place all those evil who perished in that floor were global warming alarmists being punished, just read the above :)

35 posted on 07/16/2014 7:09:47 PM PDT by sickoflibs (King Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson