Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 201 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
11/20/19 02:22 AM
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 4
True 1
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#46333 - 11/26/12 06:59 PM Why do some people resist science?
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Since we have some people on SAGG who apparently don't understand about science and the scientific method I thought I would post a link to this discussion of why some people resist science.

The Edge:WHY DO SOME PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE?
By Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg


I'm not going to do much discussion of the subject, I will just post a few judicious quotes from the Implications topic in the paper.

Quote:
In sum, the developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy.


Quote:
But this rejection of science would be mistaken in the end. The community of scientists has a legitimate claim to trustworthiness that other social institutions, such as religions and political movements, lack. The structure of scientific inquiry involves procedures, such as experiments and open debate, that are strikingly successful at revealing truths about the world.

Quote:
Given the role of trust in social learning, it is particularly worrying that national surveys reflect a general decline in the extent to which people trust scientists. To end on a practical note, then, one way to combat resistance to science is to persuade children and adults that the institute of science is, for the most part, worthy of trust.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
.
#46350 - 11/27/12 08:47 AM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: Bill]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
So, he's saying: there's little or no room for reasoning with people who have been brainwashed by religious bigotry at an early age; science is cool, suck it and see, and don't let myths stand in its way.

Conclusion: An erudite communication directed at the rational, scientifically inclined, eloquently informing them re what they already know. As for the rest, they don't want to know.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#46352 - 11/27/12 11:10 AM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: redewenur]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
he's saying: there's little or no room for reasoning with people who have been brainwashed by religious bigotry at an early age


Undoubtedly true to a great extent, but don't give up; there are exceptions, even here on SAGG. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#46357 - 11/27/12 03:43 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
The community of scientists has a legitimate claim to trustworthiness that other social institutions, such as religions and political movements, lack. The structure of scientific inquiry involves procedures, such as experiments and open debate, that are strikingly successful at revealing truths about the world.


LOL

science cant even figure out what a force is.

science doesn't even know the definition of force.

science uses experiments / clinical trials to falsify data for large pharmaceutical companies.

science has become non-scientific.

science is a poser

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#46358 - 11/27/12 04:34 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: redewenur]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: redewenur
So, he's saying: there's little or no room for reasoning with people who have been brainwashed by religious bigotry at an early age and don't let myths stand in the way

This is true to a degree, but that does not mean bigots are hopeless. Usually there is a way to bring truth forward if there are not two who have their shields up and fighting for a universe that can only be seen one way.
Myths by the way have truth in them if one is open to view and not closed by their own bigotry towards any subject.
Originally Posted By: redewenur
So, he's saying: there's little or no room for reasoning with people who have been brainwashed by science and don't let myths stand in its way.
Reminds me of the story I was told by a doctor, regarding the reception given to a young doctor regarding a procedure he thought might help prevent the development of cancer in the uterus. The idea was laughed at and rejected during the first discussion. Now however the procedure is standard. The young doctor's name was Georgios Papanikolaou, and the procedure was name after him and is called the Pap smear.
Originally Posted By: redewenur

Conclusion: An erudite communication directed at the rational, scientifically inclined, eloquently informing them re what they already know.

What about that which they stand behind without direct experience as knowledge? God for example. The scientifically inclined have often shown as much prejudice towards spirituality as the religious do toward science due to a simple lack of experience or proof.
Originally Posted By: redewenur
As for the rest, they don't want to know.
I might add the don't want to know's are in and amongst the crowds who claim they have an open mind, when something does not meet their expectations or beliefs.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#46359 - 11/27/12 07:47 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
TT, you are, of course, absolutely right.

There is a motorway (freeway) that runs along the top of "the fence". I wonder if we will ever find out where it leads. As a regular user, perhaps you know.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#46362 - 11/28/12 02:45 AM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.


There is a motorway (freeway) that runs along the top of "the fence". I wonder if we will ever find out where it leads. As a regular user, perhaps you know.


Choice...
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#46365 - 11/28/12 03:35 AM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
Choice...


Well said.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#46366 - 11/28/12 03:49 AM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
Since we have some people on SAGG who apparently don't understand about science and the scientific method


and you are one of those people , Bill

like it or not.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#46367 - 11/28/12 03:59 AM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
So, he's saying: there's little or no room for reasoning with people who have been brainwashed by religious bigotry at an early age


just because scientist or ( posers ) do not agree with religion , it surely does not make religion wrong.

show me where physics can calculate religious beliefs.

what about the brainwashing by sciences poser bigotry , I say
poser because true science does not even recognize religious beliefs.

show me one example where evolution was proven , surely you can easily accomplish that simple task because you place so much trust in it.

if science can't prove it , then scientist or ( posers ) really need to shut up about it because until you have a grain of proof, then claiming evolution is true is just sinking science deeper into the mire its been sinking into.

BTW

evolution is just a theory.










_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#46369 - 11/28/12 02:58 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
just because scientist or ( posers ) do not agree with religion , it surely does not make religion wrong.

show me where physics can calculate religious beliefs.

what about the brainwashing by sciences poser bigotry , I say
poser because true science does not even recognize religious beliefs.

show me one example where evolution was proven , surely you can easily accomplish that simple task because you place so much trust in it.

if science can't prove it , then scientist or ( posers ) really need to shut up about it because until you have a grain of proof, then claiming evolution is true is just sinking science deeper into the mire its been sinking into.

BTW

evolution is just a theory.

Gentle readers, Here he goes again. The same old arguments. In general I agree that just because (some) scientists don't agree with religion doesn't make religion wrong. But when science has determined that they cannot make scientific facts match what religious documents say then I feel that the scientific method has to be used to determine how the world works.

Paul says "show me where physics can calculate religious beliefs". But religious beliefs are not physical, so physics doesn't address them.

Then he goes on about not being able to prove evolution. I suggest he try one of the books that does explain about evolution with copious examples. Richard Dawkins has written several. There are also plenty of resources on the web.

He says "evolution is just a theory". True, but it is a scientific theory which has been tested and shown to explain many things about the relationship of living things. So far nobody has come up with any other theory that can do as much.

And of course he may come up with the "theory" of Intelligent Design, which has been shown in court (Kitzmiller v Dover) to be just a rehash of the creation story in the book of Genesis, which is not a scientific book, and which doesn't match what many observations have shown to be the way the world works.

And as such this discussion should be moved to the NQS forum, where discussions of creationism belong.

I wasn't sure when I started this topic whether I should put it in the General Science forum or the NQS forum, but decided on General Science because the paper that I linked to was more of a science oriented paper than a religious paper.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#46370 - 11/28/12 03:28 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
I suggest he try one of the books


I guess that's a good way for scientist to make money.

Quote:
but it is a scientific theory which has been tested and shown


I haven't noticed that , since you know about it could you link to some small obviously mostly invisible well hidden web site that
shows the test and how the test was performed and with the test results.

I would love to see it.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#46371 - 11/28/12 04:03 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: Bill]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill

Gentle readers, Here he goes again.
This guy really bugs you doesn't he. Still trying to rally a force against this force that seems to invade your peace of mind..
Originally Posted By: Bill
The same old arguments. In general I agree that just because (some) scientists don't agree with religion doesn't make religion wrong. But when science has determined that they cannot make scientific facts match what religious documents say then I feel that the scientific method has to be used to determine how the world works.

Scientific instruments do not measure the world in the same way the human senses do, yet science can measure and qualify the unity of all that is relative to space time and particles of measure.

Religion is often a twisted version of spiritual sciences which are founded on repeatability of that same unity of mind body and spirit that physics has determined exists between the human consciousness and matter. The difference being that spiritual sciences don't use a physical instrument outside of the human nervous system to qualify what the nervous system can reproduce on its own.
Religion fantasizes about reality but spiritual sciences practice and maintain a lineage of historically recorded methods and results.
Within those results are cognitive understandings regarding the universe that physical sciences such as physics is matching in information that was recorded by spiritual masters thousands of years before physics began to establish itself as a science of relative measure separate from spiritual sciences.
Originally Posted By: Bill

Paul says "show me where physics can calculate religious beliefs". But religious beliefs are not physical, so physics doesn't address them.

Beliefs are physical, they just can't be measured. However beliefs are constantly changing and often derived from information not experienced. Here both scientists and religionists are guilty of accepting the written word without having done the calculations, or deriving the direct experience from a specific functioning practice or approach to the subject. What a man takes for granted as it is taught by those who have assumed the written word and passes it on to his friends family and the like, gets run thru the filters of the personal imagination and stresses of the human nervous system. The Truth gets convoluted in the same way a sentence gets twisted in a game of Chinese Whispers after being passed down the line. The story is never the same story.
Originally Posted By: Bill

Then he goes on about not being able to prove evolution. I suggest he try one of the books that does explain about evolution with copious examples. Richard Dawkins has written several. There are also plenty of resources on the web.

There are also plenty of resources that substantiate the missing factors in evolution that seem to punch holes in Darwins theories.
Originally Posted By: Bill

He says "evolution is just a theory". True, but it is a scientific theory which has been tested and shown to explain many things about the relationship of living things. So far nobody has come up with any other theory that can do as much.

Scientifically speaking this leaves room for evolution of theory regarding evolution. Seems you're just having an issue with Paul at the moment.
Originally Posted By: Bill

And of course he may come up with the "theory" of Intelligent Design, which has been shown in court (Kitzmiller v Dover) to be just a rehash of the creation story in the book of Genesis, which is not a scientific book, and which doesn't match what many observations have shown to be the way the world works.

Science doesn't study the relationship of spiritual science with creation nor does it delve into the facts. It simply ignores what doesn't fit into its box o' facts. And since science is coming to understand Consciousness and its relationship to matter it is getting closer to finding out what Genesis was derived from.
The Bible as it stands, is grossly inadequate in its translations and interpretations, being that it has been passed thru the filters of those who want to limit the truth and disguise it for personal use. Religion has done a great disservice to its contents.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````And now for something completely different:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dd2hnVRCn8
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#46372 - 11/28/12 05:14 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
show me one example where evolution was proven , surely you can easily accomplish that simple task because you place so much trust in it.


Does science actually claim to prove anything? I have always thought not. To some extent, that puts it in the same box as religion. All we, as rational beings, need to do is decide what makes the best sence to us.

Who then has the right to say to anyone else: "I'm right and you are wrong"?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#46373 - 11/28/12 05:56 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: Bill S.]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Does science actually claim to prove anything? I have always thought not. To some extent, that puts it in the same box as religion. All we, as rational beings, need to do is decide what makes the best sence to us.

Who then has the right to say to anyone else: "I'm right and you are wrong"?

In a way you are correct, Science doesn't "prove" anything it just provides rules that can be applied to cause specific things to happen. In theory any scientific law can be invalidated by another observation. At that point scientists change the law to reflect the new observations. The big difference between science and creationism and other crackpot so called sciences is that science answers questions in ways that unarguably work. The crackpots just keep claiming that they are right without advancing any repeatable experiments/observations to conclusively demonstrate they are right.

So, if the creationists want to believe that there is no such thing as evolution as a religious belief that is fine. But since there is no supportable theory of creationism that does not conflict with the evidence that is widely available then they do not have the right to claim that scientists must also follow that belief. This particularly follows due to the fact that creationism is a Judeao-Christian religious belief and insisting that it is true for everyone will cause clashes with the beliefs of other religions.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#46374 - 11/28/12 05:59 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
Does science actually claim to prove anything? I have always thought not. To some extent, that puts it in the same box as religion. All we, as rational beings, need to do is decide what makes the best sence to us.


basically evolution is a belief then.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#46375 - 11/28/12 06:13 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
The big difference between science and creationism and other crackpot so called sciences is that science answers questions in ways that unarguably work.


then answer this question.



roaches eat dead roaches , and so do other insects and animals.

above are four species or variations of roach.
there is no telling how many species or variations of roach
have became extinct.

looking at the picture its easy to think of these four roaches
as a example of evolution.

however none are extinct.

now suppose that three of the species went extinct years ago.
and 1 specimen of each of the three was trapped in amber.

darwinist would claim that the evolution of the roach is
clearly visible in the three extinct specimens as compared to the surviving roach species.

and I truly believe that that is what evolution uses as a foundation.

do you believe that evolution could be wrong?



looking at the picture its easy to think of these five
as a example of evolution.

all but one species is extinct.

four of the species went extinct years ago.
and suppose 1 specimen of each of the four was trapped in amber.

darwinist would claim that the evolution of the species is
clearly visible in the three extinct specimens as compared to the surviving species.

a 40 - 50 million year old cockroach , looks like one you
would find today.



how are fossils ages determined?

by the age of the surroundings they are found in.

how is the age of the surroundings they are found it determined?

by the age of the fossils found in the surroundings.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#46378 - 11/28/12 09:29 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Paul, you now show your dedication to the refusal to accept science. You talk about differences between "things trapped in amaber" as if they didn't show significant differences. We don't have for example people trapped in amber. But we do have bones found in rocks. they are called fossils. We have a fairly good selection of intermediate forms between the earliest proto-human fossils and those of modern humans. Wikipedia has a list of various human fossils. Notice the changes in the fossils as time gets closer to the present. They mostly show a family resemblance, which is what you would expect from an evolutionary succession. Notice also the difference in ages. There is no inter-mixture between the older and newer species until you get to the Neanderthals. They were clearly different from us, but still bear the family resemblance. And they are no longer with us.

So now you complain about the ages of the fossils.
Originally Posted By: Paul
how are fossils ages determined?

by the age of the surroundings they are found in.

how is the age of the surroundings they are found it determined?

by the age of the fossils found in the surroundings.

Your last statement is almost completely wrong. The ages of fossils are found by a number of different techniques. Most of the ones that give actual dates, rather than relative dates, use various scientific techniques based on the radioactive decay of various elements. Since the decay of radioactive elements is extremely well understood it can be used to very accurately date the age of the fossils.

Here are some references for how fossils are dated.
http://www.factmonster.com/dk/science/dinosaurs/dating-fossils.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm

Of course according to Paul these are completely wrong because they use science and science is a tissue of lies. This despite the fact that science is the basis of our modern life.

And now gentle readers I leave you on this topic. I have made my best effort to show that Paul is once again wrong and hope that you will take his writings with a whole shaker full of salt.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#46380 - 11/28/12 09:32 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
basically evolution is a belief then.


Of course it is, but that does not necessarily mean it is wrong, nor does oversimplifying the evidence on which it is based make it go away, however badly anyone might want it to.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#46381 - 11/28/12 10:43 PM Re: Why do some people resist science? [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Quote:
use various scientific techniques based on the radioactive decay of various elements.


and I suppose that since a fossil isn't actually the genuine
part of the animal but is only a shape that makes up what
the animal used to look like.

then the dating of a fossil is based on the radioactive elements
that replace the genuine part of the animal that the fossil represents then.

or is the fossil dated by the radio active elements found surrounding the fossil?

which is it?

or is it both?

is this how they determine the age of the radio active elements?



so they simply find the degree of radio activity remaining
in the rock surrounding the fossil then , am I close?

and the degree of radio activity of the rock is how the fossil's age is determined?

and , here is something else that I was wondering about.

Quote:
The half-life of potassium-40 is 1,310 million years


how did they determine what the half life of potassium-40 was?

let me just toss this in and see what it looks like.

we know that there have been floods in the past , mostly small floods and some that covered very large geographical areas.

one that covered the entire earth.

flood waters and erosion from rain even tend to cause erosion
some times on a very large scale.

this could mix everything up a bit.

maybe noah didnt have time to build an ark big enough to
carry the dinosaurs so they drowned.

they settled to the bottom , then the sediments from the flood waters settled mixed in with elements from all the melted ice that was at the poles...are there any radio active elements in that ice?

wouldn't that mix things up a great deal?

I think it would.

and I wonder why (not really ) science also denies that a global flood ever took place.

of course if all the ice at the poles melted durring the 6-12 months that the waters were receding then that would
have erased the ice core record.

Quote:
Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood.


seem's like a plan to me.
now when science uses the word "rocks" arent they really speaking about sediments?

I mean after all a dinosaur couldn't really climb inside a rock and die could it.

and why is it that most dinosaur fossil's are found in a
clump of dead dinosaurs , did they plan that or did the flood waters cause that?































_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.