We all believe in evidence-based science, and that's why we're agnostic/atheist, right? But what about when the evidence isn't really true? [aeon.co]
If the "evidence isn't really true," then it was only mistaken for evidence, in the first place. Recognizing that error is one of the ways science grows.
@ExculpatoryLover I have a red pill I'd like to give to the Empty Orange! No, we certainly do not know everything, and skepticism is valuable, but it needs to be honest skepticism, not made up fairy tales posited as alternative facts. I would not be one to call someone with evidence based counter arguments a denier.
There are physicists out there who are working with a hypothesis that all matter is conscious, called Panpsychism. They are not presenting it as fact, and I do not have a problem with them, though I am quite skeptical of the idea.
@BirdMan1 ~ Well, when it comes to cosmology, the mother of all sciences, we have the older plasma cosmology with an electric universe (Arp, Birkeland, Tesla) and the newer gravity only model (Einstein) with no empirical evidence, just mathematics to support it. All these years and they still can not prove black holes, dark matter or dark energy outside of mathematical means. Their gravity only model needs constant fudging such as the introduction of black holes, then dark matter, then later dark energy as our advancement in telescope technology proved Einstein was wrong so they invented some new exotic gravity source to keep the gravity only model alive. Nikola Tesla publicly mocked Einstein for this which really pissed him off by his public responses. LOL ~ [thecoli.com]
@BirdMan1 ~ If you are not aware, the I.E.E.E favors the superior Electric Universe model over the standard gravity only model. The International Electrical and Electronics Engineers has over 4 million members making it the largest professional organization in the world, not just a fringe group of scientists. That is a lot of brain power scoffing at Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as mathematical substitutes for real physics!
@BirdMan1 ~ Now try to make a science based critique of anthropogenic climate change and you are immediately called a heretic if you hold a science degree in the subject, or a denier which is strange for any science discussion. If you understand the Scientific Method, you realize you win no points by claiming a consensus, particularly when it is a substitute for actual evidence. Most are unaware there still is no empirical proof that mankind is significantly altering the natural variation this planet's climate has cycled through for hundreds of millions of years according to the climate proxies that paleo-climatologists study to reconstruct our past climates. Those who are versed in the Electric Universe model have a much more open mind to the science, while others are indoctrinated and reject all science proving them wrong. Cognitive dissonance on steroids, proving these people created a new religion they call science. It is a real danger in our society today, much more so than 30 or 40 years ago.
@ExculpatoryLover Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, but, what you have described sounded a bit out of this world. You point out tat consensus does not make a truth, but you emphasize the 4 million member size of the IEEE, and Google says it is over 400,00. then there is the point that you make that Einstein has been disproven, with which I wish to differ.
Please see the following, if you believe in an "open mind," which is not the same as accepting just anything. [michaelshermer.com]
Yes, gravity, as per Newton and Einstein, are "just" theories, but gravitational waves provide actual evidence for Einstein, once again. And if these are just theories, are you willing to test gravity's gravitas, personally?
@BirdMan1 ~ I am not just accepting anything, I am accepting the work of Nikola Tesla, who gave us the 20th Century, far more than Einstein. I also provided sources to follow up on. Thank you. I also said there are no consensus in science, you PROVE IT. When you can not prove it, then you play this consensus crap like they do with anthropogenic climate change. No empirical evidence, just opinion that time and again has been proven incorrect. Al Gore has predicted the North Pole would completely melt decades ago, but the ice is thicker and more volumous than it has been in 40 years. Oy Veh
@ExculpatoryLover I do not know where you get your information from, but you are slipping into that warming, but still cold, water.
@ExculpatoryLover I think we ought to just let this be, as we are not living in the same universe.
You are free to do as you please and believe what you will, while electrical engineers will use this to continue to develop cutting edge technologies. For those who do not know everything in existence and continue to learn, look into the Thunderbolts Project as they have a YouTube channel.
Here is part 2 of the Safire Project, which is the first reproducible experiment to PHYSICALLY PROVE the viability of the Electric Sun model. There still is no such test for Einstein's gravity only model, just mathematical proof, which can prove anything when you just keep adding variables when you are wrong. LOL
Whenever we discover we're wrong about a thing, we have to reset our belief about the thing. Evidence-based science makes no assertion as to the actual truth of it. Rather, science is just a process, and so far the best one we've devised for the purpose of finding truth.
The social sciences, (i.e., the so-called 'soft sciences' of psychology, sociology, anthropology, poli-sci) don't always apply the same scientific rigor as the natrual sciences (physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry, etc.) and thus, in my view, do not occupy the same rung on the ladder of knowledge.
Though to be fair, the disciplines related to ourselves present challenges for maintaining rigor that subjects more distant from ourselves do not.
I took a bunch of psych courses about 40 years ago and one thing I learned is they are one of the hardest areas in science to devise tests for. Of course there will be errors made and many more than in other studies where tests are much more falsifiable. Everything is measured in probabilities and some areas of science is going to be able to be tested with higher probability . Evidence is information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid and some evidence is naturally going to have a higher probability of being sound. That's how science works. It's the religious folk who are never wrong at least in their own minds. Scientists should and usually do admit when they are.
Coming, as I do from never ever having had a belief in god, my disbelief was never actually science or evidence based. From the earliest age, I never found a good enough reason to ever believe in god, based solely on logic. As a child I was told by my parents to read everything and question everything, when I read the bible I didn’t believe it was true, it fell foul of my child’s reasoning very early on...in the very first book of the OT in fact. Genesis tells us the story of Adam & Eve, their fall from grace in the Garden of Eden, the talking snake etc..just like many other child’s fairy tales..okay so far. Then Adam & Eve begat two sons Cain & Abel...and lo and behold Cain slew Abel, again so like many other blood thirsty story books. Next we hear that Cain took a wife, and that is where my logical brain, even at age eight or nine, said...wait a minute, where did this wife come from? Later when I studied science at high school and learned about evolution it made much more sense than anything I’d read earlier in the bible, and it merely confirmed my disbelief in creation and a creator.
This was exactly like my late partner. From the time she could reason she thought religion was silly. Her ideas were also fostered by her mother getting her to question everything. However, for most of us raised under usual circumstances we did adopt the religion of our parents. For me, religion was benign and really didn't effect my life. Only after much education and a specific event did I question and leave.
Problem is, that people as you and my late partner can't fully understand how others may feel or be brought under the spell of religion and how difficult it is for some to shake it off. Please, this is just an observation and she and I also discussed it many times.
@JackPedigo I can’t have first hand experience of it...but I can certainly empathise, and do.
This is rather tunnel-visioned. The article is based on one particular, rather specific science and one of it's rather specific models. The results can't be juxtaposed to any other model.
So I don't really understand what you are asking? If we should question evidence in all science?
Yes. Always. That is the nature of science.
But of course you're forced to choose something in every case. That's a rule too. Choosing not to decide is still a choice (hat tip to Rush).
and this is the question I keep asking people on this site about their ignorant demands for "scientific evidence" et al for proof. when you cannot subject an experience to meter deflection for measurement then you have to go to an entirely separate set of standards to validate subjective reports in an objective manner. this is an issue we address in court constantly and I have a very hard time getting the laypersons here to grasp their conceptual error regarding consciousness analysis and the scientific method as their standard.
Evidence used to tell us that the earth was flat, and that the sun rises and sets. We could see this with our own eyes; but, science shows us that not everything that looks like evidence is evidence. And, when dealing with humans (who have agendas and egos) so called "evidence" might only look like evidence.
Although not perfect, science, and the scientific method, are the best way we have to try to understand/learn what is "true." If someone makes an inaccurate or false claim/assumption/hypothesis, it will come to light if the scientific method is strictly adhered to.
Is Psychology (the topic of the article) as it is today following scientific principals? Is what the psychologist call evidence, real evidence. For that matter is Psychology a real science? Psychology may be just an area of interest. Brain chemistry and microbiology may be the real sciences. Therapy includes motivation and too many other factors.
That makes sense. Psychology is like the philosophy to understand and improvise neuroscience. Since neuron links are nothing but our neural pathways to our belief systems, thoughts, feelings n behavioural patterns formed over a long period of time......therapeutic styles rely on psychology, which is the philosophy supporting neuroscience......in order to understand n improvise faulty neural pathways leading to faulty thoughts, feelings n behavioural patterns.
Like they said - therapy is in the process of REFORM , and it lists benifits to the public. Science believes all disciplines
should rely on facts ; and those facts be REVISITED and upgraded as new info becomes available . I applaud the advance in revising thier emphasis on stuff that may not be
effective- long OVERDUE.
richard dawkins says that science is always challenging and testing itself, so when things are found to be wrong, then the results will change. Also, the findings must be published and repeatable to be accepted. But it seems the believers are either afraid or reluctant to challenge the bible after so much has changed and been learned in 2000+ years.
The Aeon article concerns psychology and opens with Over the past decade, many scholars have questioned the credibility of research across a variety of scientific fields. Some of these concerns arise from cases of outright fraud or other misconduct. More troubling are difficulties in replicating previous research findings. Replication is cast as a cornerstone of science: we can trust the results originating in one lab only if other labs can follow similar procedures and get similar results.
Aeon could use the same paragraph to open an article about cosmology.
Is it that we believe evidence-based science, or do we basically trust it more than the alternatives? As was pointed out in a couple discussions from the Creation vs. Evolution board I once participated in, science has made a number of error over time but the errors were caught and corrected by the scientific method and when the evidence no longer supports (or is discovered to have never supported) a previously believe theory. Religious believers on the other hand often holds onto their religious dogma even way past any evidence or common sense to the contrary.
I also like SeaGreenEyez thought; the lief in Gods may or may not be related to evidence. Plenty scientists of various disciplines are still religious.
Mankind flails around in its efforts to learn about nature and make money at the same time.
For me that has nothing to do with the God question or with the staggering implications of existence as a consciously aware being. Science can’t even begin to address the deep questions of reality.
i don't think so. i mean, many of us, yes. but i think we all came to the conclusion that there either definitely are no gods or probably are no gods in many different ways. i knew nothing of science when i was 15, which is when i realized there were no gods. and if the evidence isn't true, it's not evidence.
Fraud isn't evidence. And even if it's not fraud it could be mistaken. One of the hallmarks of science is falsifiability. If the 'evidence' isn't really true, throw it out and get better.
Aside -- I thought I was wrong once but it turned out later I was mistaken. Ha, ha.
Then you adjust your framework to fit the evidence you can count on and be much more rigorous in your testing of such information.
I agree, but we have a serious problem today with pseudoscience. That would be any subject where the slightest skepticism is met with accusations of being a denier. That is not science, because man simply does not know everything in existence, there is still much to learn. Everything taught in science classes, universities was initially rejected in this manner from Evolution to plate tectonics, every subject in fact. Calling people with science based counter arguments deniers is never a winning argument and if you find yourself playing this game, your mind has been colonized. Take the red pill already!