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 ...
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!
I would have added, “preach it, woman!”...: )
> 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....: )
> 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?”
“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.
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.
Is that sort of like sausage and law?? :)
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.
I heard some-place all those evil who perished in that floor were global warming alarmists being punished, just read the above :)
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.