How reliable are the findings of science? (blood, experience, Christianity)

[tomspug]

Not having a lot of experience in the scientific world, it seems that scientific "findings" and "conclusions" tend to be in constant flux. For example, the Atacama desert is deemed inhospitable for life and is believed to have been that way for approximately 23 million years (a number determined by the findings of a few scientists) only to find later that there is evidence in the desert of hunter/gatherer civilizations. Now the number is 120,000 years of dryness (according to Wikipedia).

But this kind of process is inevitable, right? It's just the way science is. You look at what you know, you draw conclusions, and you assume that those conclusions are right until they are conclusively proven wrong... like the medicinal removal of "bad blood".

But that's where the problem is. The criteria for drawing a conclusion is very little, but the criteria for DISPROVING a previous conclusion is incredibly high. Shouldn't we then be constantly taking the "findings" of science with a grain of salt? Who is to say that what is "popular" science now will be popular later (the point at which your career no longer benefits from the former? I'm not implying that scientists intentionally draw incorrect conclusions for their own benefit... but I kind of am.

I think that we have, to a fault, a need as a race to explain EVERYTHING. With this drive, we see the inability to draw a conclusion as a kind of failure. You are only successful if you establish a "truth". But what is wrong with inconclusive findings? What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

[Willamena]

Depends on what you are "relying" on science to give you. If you're relying on it to give you the constant flux, then power to you.

If your "grain of salt" tastes good, enjoy it for all its worth.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by tomspug

You are only successful if you establish a "truth".

Science is exceptionally good at finding data, facts, and useful, testable theories about how our world works that enable us to make predictions about material outcomes. It is not about finding Truth. It is about finding what is useful.

You should, and scientists do, take their findings with a grain of salt. That's the whole underlying approach of science. I understand how it can be easy to be confused about this because the findings of science have been Sooooooooo incredibly useful and allow us to do things like treat cancer and land on the moon. But, all scientific theory is and should be constantly tested against results. The exciting stuff happens when you find the execption to the rule that opens up a whole new realm of investigation.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by tomspug

But what is wrong with inconclusive findings? What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

What's wrong with that is that generally if there's not enough data to support it, they don't think it. In other words, they base their conclusions on the data there is, not the data there isn't.

[tomspug]

Lunamoth, I think that that is an idealistic view of science, as principle, not as fact. Scientists are human too, and they can be selfish and make mistakes. And science is often used as a tool by people in power.

The problem is not the scientific process, but WHAT we choose to research and TO WHAT END it concludes...

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by tomspug

What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

I have to laugh. I have heard this statement so many times from scientists, and I bet PW has too. If you don't hear it it's because scientists (try) to be very very careful about the process called "peer reivew." You can't get those things you think are plausible published unless they've been verified and vetted by your strongest competitors in the field. Because of the nature of this process, the bigger the potential of a new idea, the more it is tested before it is made public.

That is also why scientists who release their ideas and data too early, such as to magazine and such, in order to gain the spotlight can end up in ruins if they are wrong.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Lunamoth, I think that that is an idealistic view of science, as principle, not as fact. Scientists are human too, and they can be selfish and make mistakes. And science is often used as a tool by people in power.

The problem is not the scientific process, but WHAT we choose to research and TO WHAT END it concludes...

Yes, I presented the idealist view and there are politics and greed in science as in any endeavor. But, having spent a good portion of my career working in science I also know that science only works if it follows that basic strategy. You really can't cheat for long and maintain your credibility.

Seriously, even in industry where probably the most advanced progress is made, because of the money, it simply can't work if scientists fudge their results intentionally. If you intentionally or out of lack of ability put forth weak and outright incorrect ideas these will be vetted...if they are of any importance.

There are tons of things that qualify as pseudoscience, and they are carried out by the whole gamut from outright con artists and charletans (penis enlargement products anyone?) to scientists who really are being motivated by honest but incorrect premises (Linus Pauling and Vitamin C). I don't even know where to put ID on that scale because there are no testable hypotheses coming out of ID, nor are any possible (the whole idea of the supernatural is that it defies scientific inquirey). Memes are an equivalent form of pseudoscience coming from the opposite side.

You can make a wrong conclusion but it won't make headway unless there is strong political force behind it. And yes, this is clearly possible. That's why ID is something worth fighting against IMO. It is a perfect example of something with no scientific standing but being pushed into education by shear political force. It is the same kind of mistake that put genetic research in the USSR behind by decades.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Memes are an equivalent form of pseudoscience coming from the opposite side.

If you don't mind, Luna, I'd like you to elaborate on this. To avoid derailing this thread, I've replied in an old one of mine: Memetics Questions. Thanks in advance!

[MindHunter]

Originally Posted by tomspug

Not having a lot of experience in the scientific world, it seems that scientific "findings" and "conclusions" tend to be in constant flux. For example, the Atacama desert is deemed inhospitable for life and is believed to have been that way for approximately 23 million years (a number determined by the findings of a few scientists) only to find later that there is evidence in the desert of hunter/gatherer civilizations. Now the number is 120,000 years of dryness (according to Wikipedia).

But this kind of process is inevitable, right? It's just the way science is. You look at what you know, you draw conclusions, and you assume that those conclusions are right until they are conclusively proven wrong... like the medicinal removal of "bad blood".

But that's where the problem is. The criteria for drawing a conclusion is very little, but the criteria for DISPROVING a previous conclusion is incredibly high. Shouldn't we then be constantly taking the "findings" of science with a grain of salt? Who is to say that what is "popular" science now will be popular later (the point at which your career no longer benefits from the former? I'm not implying that scientists intentionally draw incorrect conclusions for their own benefit... but I kind of am.

I think that we have, to a fault, a need as a race to explain EVERYTHING. With this drive, we see the inability to draw a conclusion as a kind of failure. You are only successful if you establish a "truth". But what is wrong with inconclusive findings? What is wrong with saying "we think this, but there is not enough data to support it"? Have you EVER heard that from a scientist? No, because those scientists don't get to go on TV shows or get federal grants...

Bolded part: No, they say that quite often. Take a look in various research papers. They'll have done an experiment or review, and at the end, it tends to be (varying on the specific area of science), that they think something but don't have a lot of evidence. Such as in genetics or neuroscience. They still do get grants despite this in order to figure out the more uncertain parts. Everything is going to start from knowing very little, and that's what science is also. We've come a long way, however, in the grand scheme of things, we haven't.

Explaining "everything" is part of the basis of science. Are you complaining about science following the basis of science? That's like me complaining to a Christian that they're following Christianity; it's what is expected of them to do, if you're a scientist doing an experiment or review, you follow the basis of science, simple as that. Otherwise, if you attempt to publish an article filled with your opinions and little proof, no journals will even want to touch it, they'll just throw it in the garbage.

Yes they tend to be in flux because as we learn more, we have to look back and see if what we proposed before is correct. It's foolish to learn more then simply troll forward without considering "is this previous stuff correct?".

[painted wolf]

LOL... if I had a dime for every time I've heard or had to say that, I could pay for my education out of pocket!

Not having a lot of experience in the scientific world, it seems that scientific "findings" and "conclusions" tend to be in constant flux. For example, the Atacama desert is deemed inhospitable for life and is believed to have been that way for approximately 23 million years (a number determined by the findings of a few scientists) only to find later that there is evidence in the desert of hunter/gatherer civilizations. Now the number is 120,000 years of dryness (according to Wikipedia).

I'm not sure where you got this idea... but the length of time the Atacama has been a desert hasn't changed. Just the length of time it's been inhabited.

wa:do