12
   

The American Public vs. AAAS Scientists

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:02 pm
@Kolyo,
... and the point is?

The effectiveness of any treatment can be objectively measured. And psychiatric treatments are objectively measured. You can read the studies yourself (although it does help you understand more easily if you have a scientific background).
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:03 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
When pressed, a scientist should be able to acknowledge that scientific knowledge is always tentative and open to revision with the addition of new data.


Scientists do this. For example in the anti-science Ebola outbreak (an example that obviously frustrated me) the scientists did say that an epidemic in western countries is impossible. They said that it is extremely unlikely. This is the responsible thing to say.

But understand that extremely unlikely accurately portrays the risk as insignificant. This is also correct.



Yep. But creationists and wingnuts sometimes have scientists among them, like Ken Ham. So when Ken Ham-like scientists make claims of absolute certainty, they're not being scientific.

Edit: Ken Ham is not a scientist. I somehow had the impression that he was. Anyway, the principle holds; I just needed a better example.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:05 pm
@Kolyo,
I don't get the point you are trying to make. The acceleration of gravity. assuming a sphere is

A = Gm/(r^2) (where m is the mass of the planet, and r is the radius)

The mass of a planet is 4/3(d(pi)r^3) (where d is density).

It is pretty easy with high school math to come up with your result.

I don't see how this relates to our discussion.
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:05 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

... and the point is?


You said something quite different in another thread. You have a degree in Physics, right?

So who's right? Me or you?
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:09 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Yep. But creationists and wingnuts sometimes have scientists among them, like Ken Ham. So when Ken Ham-like scientists make claims of absolute certainty, they're not being scientific.


Sure. There are always outliers.

Where there is a general scientific consensus among people with expertise in any scientific question, it is very likely to be correct (in spite of a handful of dissenters).

Currently there is such consensus on the safety of GM food, the safety and effectiveness of vaccination, the danger of smoking as well as human caused climate change and evolution.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:09 pm
http://able2know.org/topic/262640-1#post-5842593

Setanta wrote:

Looking more closely with a different orbital telescope, a planet originally found by the Kepler orbital telescope appears to be a rocky, earth-like planet, which is two and a half times larger than the earth.


rosborne979 wrote:

That means I would two and a half times heavier there. At the rate I'm going I don't think I could handle that. Smile


maxdancona wrote:

No it doesn't. It is 17.5 times more massive. You would be a lot heaver than 2.5 times.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:10 pm
@Kolyo,
It is possible I made a mistake or mistyped. If you want to link to that thread, I would like to see it. If I said something different then what we agree on in this thread, then I would say that you are right (unless someone shows me otherwise).

I do have a degree in Physics.
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:10 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

It is pretty easy with high school math to come up with your result.


Right. It's high school math.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:10 pm
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:

FBM wrote:

For me, that means that I don't take what anybody - scientists or otherwise - as 100% certain. I do tend to trust scientific conclusions over those of laymen, though, in the same way that I don't go to a podiatrist for my toothache or to the florist to find out why my motorcycle won't start.


In the past, you would have been better served to seek the help of a florist to cure your hypothetical wife's nervous condition than the help of a trained psychiatrist. Flowers would have done her more good than a lobotomy.


But due to the scientific approach, lobotomies are no longer standard treatment. The scientific approach leads towards self-correction and greater understanding. Flower arranging is still flower arranging. Wink
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:11 pm
@Kolyo,
I am sure you are about to provide a link to prove that I was wrong. I am looking forward to seeing it. I have no problem admitting my mistakes.

Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:13 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

It is possible I made a mistake or mistyped.


Lots of scientists make mistakes.

I'm sure you're as smart as everyone else who got a physics degree from that school.

THAT'S my point. Scientists are made out to be ******* gods and they aren't.
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:13 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I am sure you are about to provide a link to prove that I was wrong. I am looking forward to seeing it. I have no problem admitting my mistakes.


I did. On this page.

http://able2know.org/topic/266429-3#post-5879404
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:19 pm
@Kolyo,
Ok sure. It looks like I was wrong. Congratulations for catching me.

I don't see what that has to do with this current thread.
Kolyo
 
  3  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:26 pm
@maxdancona,
What happened when you made the mistake?

Who in that thread corrected you? None of us.

Consensus said you were right. And if smart people like those at a2k can officially let something like that go, how much easier must it be to miss errors in material on the cutting edge of science? The scientific community is as susceptible to group think as anyone.

If you want to point out actual statistical arguments for why GMO's are safe I'll read them. But don't harp on what the consensus says.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:28 pm
@Kolyo,
Quote:
THAT'S my point. Scientists are made out to be ******* gods and they aren't.


That is not a very good point.

Sure, individual scientists make mistakes. The scientific establishment is very reliable.

There is a scientific process that is transparent and rigorous. Every finding is reviewed and must be reproducible to be accepted by the scientific community. Every conclusion is peer reviewed and open to challenge.

Once you get to the point where there is a general scientific consensus, the conclusion and the data supporting it have been rigorously vetted by the people with the most expertise on the subject.

And there is a very good track record. You can step on your airplane, or drink your water, or sit in the top floor of a sky scraper with and feel very secure that the science keeping you safe is sound.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2015 11:29 pm
@Kolyo,
Quote:
Consensus said you were right. And if smart people like those at a2k can officially let something like that go, how much easier must it be to miss errors in material on the cutting edge of science?


That's not the same at all. I am not writing a paper, I am just shooting off my mouth in an amusing thread on the internet. I bet that if I went to Thomas or Engineer for a peer review, they would have caught it in a second.

You caught the mistake pretty quickly. Doesn't that contradict your own point?

0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 12:24 am
I wish I hadn't derailed this thread.

I was, after all, the one who suggested Max should start more threads like this one.

See you all in April, when hopefully people will have forgotten about this.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 12:49 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
My only point on thread is that there is nothing special about atheists as a group.

I am only saying that other that not believing in any god, atheists are no different than any other human being. On this thread you seem to disagree with that statement.


This is such pure bullshit. You stated your opinion that liberals and atheists would be "overrepresented" among those opposed to GMOs and pesticides. Far from claiming they're like everyone else, you singled them out for a completely unwarranted accusation.

I am surprised that you got a degree in any subject at all, let alone one of the sciences, with rhetorical skills such as that. You realize that the post i quoted is an outright lie, don't you?
Kolyo
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 04:16 am
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:

See you all in April, when hopefully people will have forgotten about this.


I was about to take off for a while, but as Max doesn't seem too disturbed by the thread-derailment I guess I'll stick around. I have an important tack to make in this debate anyway.

Science is becoming increasing privatized, meaning scientists derive their funding from sources other than the government. (Just Google it.) How can we expect studies to expose whatever risks may exist in GMO foods if food scientists have to rely argibusinesses for funding?
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 04:36 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

There is a scientific process that is transparent and rigorous. Every finding is reviewed and must be reproducible to be accepted by the scientific community. Every conclusion is peer reviewed and open to challenge.


Contrast that view of the debate over GMO crop safety with this one from French researcher Nicolas Defarge:

Quote:
We should bear in mind that the studies performed by industry to support the release of GMOs on the market are usually not peer-reviewed at the time the GMO is commercialized.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/there-is-no-scientific-consensus-on-the-safety-of-genetically-modified-organisms-gmo/5428272
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 11:00:32