Quote:
Originally Posted by chipmunk
You liked Irace's comments, so I take it as you affirm his arguments.
I'm not even gonna comment on your post about crude industry lobbying and the wars that started as a result. That's Tcoat's department.
No hard feelings buddy! I don't treat you as an enemy. If I visit your area any time, I'll be happy to stop by and we'll have a drink together.
This is where I'm coming from: Science doesn't stand alone by itself. Reason and Logic are key to its existence. I can't blindly believe in anything labelled as "science". If it doesn't stand the test of logic, it's just another opinion to me. Especially there is a huge fallacy that surfaced up in modern scientific community these days: "Experts say...". Modern scientific communities to a great extent are void of critical questioning.
|
Science is fallible. Experts are fallible, as the two videos discuss. Scientists tend to underestimate their knowledge and abilities, as it pertains to the Dunning-Krugor Effect, even less than people who only have a little bit of knowledge. So who do we trust? We can look to dogmatic ideology or cling to the past, ignorant why it is the way it is. We can apply philosophy and reason, but without testing our observations (science), just reasoning isn’t enough. Reasoning alone leads to answers that sound like political squabbling. For instance, if I ask a person if it is more true that opposites attract or similarities attract, either position can be argued until people are blue in the face, and no one could say what is best for the individual, but only through science will we get to an answer that means anything people could apply to the general population (I think the evidence suggests similarities are far more successful than the idea of opposites attracting, just saying). The point: we can reason to a false conclusion and a true conclusion. Ultimately it is science that resolves disputes, or we learn truths the hard way, after the events unfold, good or bad.
When I hear the news quoting a new correlation study saying seven eggs a week increases my risk of heart disease by 40%, but six eggs wasn’t statistically significant, I question the validity of the claim, regardless of the strength of the correlation and the degree to which they account for confounding variables like eating eggs with bacon or seven eggs also correlating to larger meals or excess fat. But, when a large, robust, multidiscipline, body of evidence all points to a single conclusion, then my ears perk up. As science shines its light, the object becomes more and more clear. For instance, the evolutionary tree of life is already brightly lit with a huge spot light; we know the theory is demonstrably true, yet this doesn’t stop scientists from arguing about the details on the tiny branches and leaves of taxonomy trees. Likewise, scientists are already telling us the world is in an oven, and now they are just honing in on the settings and details of how bad we are going to cook, yet many people still think we aren’t in the oven when that part of the science is already well established.
Check out the videos. I’m sure you will like the science and expert bashing.
https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=493