ICR article image.
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 ...
ICR article image.
The ICR photo looks like this guy....
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.
In the office (Programming department) we have a sign hanging on the wall that says ‘Experts Suck’.
Science is about evidence, not belief. This is how this outfit fails out of the gate.
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!
Many scientists will do anything to get grant money...including faking their data.
...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.
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.
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.
but if you read all of his sayings, he was somewhat of a nut case...
Do We Always Believe What Scientists Say?
Of course not! These days that would be quite foolish. Listen but VERIFY!!!!
:: 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.
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.
If people knew how scientists and professors make their money, they would question all scientific studies.
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.
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.