|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:45 am
Yes, but we have a stable worldview because of it. Thanks to such scientific non-endeavors, people now don't freak out about demons and such until their nearly dead anyway! Isn't it a wonderful world!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:32 pm
Starlock Yvaine I am also frequently irritated by many scientists' refusal to allow for controlling variables that they feel aren't necessary, especially when investigating claims about which they are skeptical. I'm not sure which is worse... what you just mentioned our the general outright refusal and stigma there is about even attempting to study things which smell even a whiff of pseudoscientfic or paranormal. A GOOD scientist doesn't dismiss investigating something on such a knee-jerk reaction. Nor does a good scientist do what you mentioned in your example. Another issue then is that of methodology. This was brought up in one of the podcasts I follow... it was discussing the recent publication of Deborah Blum's "Ghosthunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death" and how often scientists just put up a methodological brick wall. We can't test these things using our conventional methodology so then we just give up instead of developing NEW methodologies. Exactly. As a general rule, I don't crap on science for this, I crap on the multi-degreed scientists who mistake lack of current supporting evidence for proof against. That right there tells me they lack the true scientist's thirst for new possibilities and inventive ways of testing the previously unprovable. I consider myself lucky to have been allowed to attend lectures by scientists of an inquisitive turn. They were all practically salivating at the idea of giving a presentation to people who wouldn't just dismiss them out of hand. Though yes, Laren, I suppose it *is* a handy way to avoid worrying about "non-scientific" matters until you're old enough to realize that "non-scientific" is not the same as "unimportant".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:00 am
Laren Yes, but we have a stable worldview because of it. Thanks to such scientific non-endeavors, people now don't freak out about demons and such until their nearly dead anyway! Isn't it a wonderful world! There are those who believe a superstitious world is a terrible one. I don't quite understand that sentiment. If it was so terrible, we wouldn't be around to be whining about it, would we? confused It worries me to think of a trend where anything that is non-science is seen as false or lacking value. Such an attitude is little better than a theocracy where the Bible is seen as absolute truth and everything else is false. I like a mix of ideas and ways of seeing... becoming too complacent with one's own critera of evaluating truth can be dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:16 am
*nods* Well said, well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:12 am
Yvaine Starlock Yvaine I am also frequently irritated by many scientists' refusal to allow for controlling variables that they feel aren't necessary, especially when investigating claims about which they are skeptical. I'm not sure which is worse... what you just mentioned our the general outright refusal and stigma there is about even attempting to study things which smell even a whiff of pseudoscientfic or paranormal. A GOOD scientist doesn't dismiss investigating something on such a knee-jerk reaction. Nor does a good scientist do what you mentioned in your example. Another issue then is that of methodology. This was brought up in one of the podcasts I follow... it was discussing the recent publication of Deborah Blum's "Ghosthunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death" and how often scientists just put up a methodological brick wall. We can't test these things using our conventional methodology so then we just give up instead of developing NEW methodologies. Exactly. As a general rule, I don't crap on science for this, I crap on the multi-degreed scientists who mistake lack of current supporting evidence for proof against. That right there tells me they lack the true scientist's thirst for new possibilities and inventive ways of testing the previously unprovable. I consider myself lucky to have been allowed to attend lectures by scientists of an inquisitive turn. They were all practically salivating at the idea of giving a presentation to people who wouldn't just dismiss them out of hand. Though yes, Laren, I suppose it *is* a handy way to avoid worrying about "non-scientific" matters until you're old enough to realize that "non-scientific" is not the same as "unimportant".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:20 pm
Josh, that is possibly the simplest, most eloquent observation of the state of modern scientific observation I have ever seen. I...I think I love you...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
