Cherry picking science

[idav]

Cherry picking science is when people taking what they like of science but don't listen to the parts that don't go with their beliefs or attitudes. Religious people do it a lot as do many people who try and hold onto bigotry. People who deny evolution are also science cherry pickers. Now I'm not talking of stuff that is still being tested and debated but results speak for itself. Multiple tests indicate what the facts are and assuming isn't what science is about.

 

[Willamena]

Well, if studies have shown, then it must be true.

 

[Photonic]

Cherry picking science is when people taking what they like of science but don't listen to the parts that don't go with their beliefs or attitudes. Religious people do it a lot as do many people who try and hold onto bigotry. People who deny evolution are also science cherry pickers. Now I'm not talking of stuff that is still being tested and debated but results speak for itself. Multiple tests indicate what the facts are and assuming isn't what science is about.

You know what peeves me as a scientist?

When people say "it's not science" to refute scientific theory.

Global warming is a good example.

 

[Revoltingest]

You know what peeves me as a scientist?
When people say "it's not science" to refute scientific theory.
Global warming is a good example.

The TOE is even better. (More nailed down.)

 

[Willamena]

Related to this topic, I've been reading '1984.' While watching the news recently (a piece about how "studies have shown" that the decisions we make become harder as the day wears on and in fact we all need to nap in the middle of the day) I came to the realization that "studies have shown" is our modern equivalent of Winston Smith's particular job at the Ministry of Truth. His job was to re-write history, specifically newspapers, to align events considered "inaccurate" after the fact with the reality of the present, and in the process writing the present to make the past entirely unreal. Comparably, "studies have shown" is actively writing our present, dictating what is to be considered real here and now, right before us on the television; and is largely accepted by the compliant masses.

 

[Photonic]

The TOE is even better. (More nailed down.)

Yea but the politics surrounding Global Warming are so intense that all sorts of stupid things are being thrown around.

The common argument to refute is is to say it isn't a science, but it clearly IS a science, no matter what the facts point too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yea but the politics surrounding Global Warming are so intense that all sorts of stupid things are being thrown around.

Plus, "global warming" means greatly different things to different people.

The common argument to refute is is to say it isn't a science, but it clearly IS a science, no matter what the facts point too.

I agree, but it strikes me as a comparatively immature science.

 

[bobhikes]

I deny your version of evolution and I like cherries and love cherry pie. Coincidence?

 

[Photonic]

Plus, "global warming" means greatly different things to different people.


I agree, but it strikes me as a comparatively immature science.

Yes, it is fairly new research compared to something like...say...cosmology.

I think the research is even newer than that which leads to the computer.

But the politics are so intense that even though CERN has done the research, they refuse to release the research on the grounds that it will be left open for politics. I wish scientists did that more often. It would create a lot less cherry picking.

 

[idav]

You know what peeves me as a scientist?

When people say "it's not science" to refute scientific theory.

Global warming is a good example.

If the facts can be repeatedly demonstrated there shouldn't be issue. However if what your saying makes my wallet ache there may be issue. In fact i might suddenly become hard of hearing.

 

[idav]

Well, if studies have shown, then it must be true.

It is only true if it gets enough media attention.

 

[Revoltingest]

I deny your version of evolution and I like cherries and love cherry pie. Coincidence?

[youtube]1WsDtn-feuI[/youtube]
mmmm, floor pie! - YouTube

 

[idav]

I deny your version of evolution and I like cherries and love cherry pie. Coincidence?

As long as you give equal say for biologists and paleontologists we wouldn't disagree on much oh and it needs to be sweet but not too sweet.

 

[outhouse]

Cherry picking needs to be addressed.


Its a common problem regarding many theist.


Solving the problem is easier said then done., first you need to realize that your dealing with people and a culture that brainwash its children from birth. Second, in years past the brainwashing was more severe and its why the USA has such a horrible creationist issue. The elderly right now are unmovable in their faith and belief. With the end of their life coming so soon they will not change tracks no matter how much logic and reason are presented. Its Insanity to even try with this group.

With creation being outlawed from public schools we can only hope the future culture will be more open to logic reason and most of all, education.

 

[Acim]

When I meet a proponent of science who doesn't cherry pick, I'll let you know.

Still searching....

 

[Breathe]

With creation being outlawed from public schools we can only hope the future culture will be more open to logic reason and most of all, education.

Whilst I agree creationism is a silly concept, I don't know if outlawing it would work. Would it not just marginalize people into one of the "we're right and they're trying to oppress us" mindsets?

IMO, best bet is to remove the antagonistic attitude many atheists have who use evolution to disprove God-concepts, and explain evolution says nothing about the existence of any deities (not its job).

As there is no evidence at all for creationism, would it not be in evolution's interests to show its "rival" philosophy's cards? Only problem is, then it's giving it attention when it doesn't deserve it - but outlawing it, I get the feeling it will make things worse. As has been said by some here, the denial of evolution is quite a recent phenomenon. We need to address why that is, because if we don't, it's going to stay a clung-to concept.




As to cherry picking science - sadly, a lot of people do it regardless of whether they want to admit it or not. Why does everyone do it? There's not enough evidence to support it (for example, superstring theory), or, more frequently, there's not enough knowledge for the person denying it (as is the case of a creationist).

 

[Photonic]

If the facts can be repeatedly demonstrated there shouldn't be issue. However if what your saying makes my wallet ache there may be issue. In fact i might suddenly become hard of hearing.

Oh I can certainly understand that, but it's far from the point I'm making. Claiming something isn't science just because you disagree with what it could potentially prove in the future is stupid.

 

[idav]

Oh I can certainly understand that, but it's far from the point I'm making. Claiming something isn't science just because you disagree with what it could potentially prove in the future is stupid.

I was thinking along the lines of people letting money decide whether cars will continue to contribute to global warming. I don't know that anyone will disagree that it is actually warming or they disagree that humans are causing it. I've probably seen a combination of those reasons and money seems to have a louder mouth.

 

[outhouse]

Whilst I agree creationism is a silly concept, I don't know if outlawing it would work

its working to stop the brainwashing of our children in a school.

Would it not just marginalize people into one of the "we're right and they're trying to oppress us" mindsets?

it may in extreme cases. For these nothing will work or help.

this is a cultural illness, giving the disease any room for growth is wrong in my book.

explain evolution says nothing about the existence of any deities (not its job).

and that is exactly what science does at this moment

best bet is to remove the antagonistic attitude many atheists have who use evolution to disprove God-concepts

I never use evolution to disprove god. I use it to disprove creationism.

As there is no evidence at all for creationism, would it not be in evolution's interests to show its "rival" philosophy's cards?

there are NO other cards to be shown. Science and theology are two different things and methods.

but outlawing it, I get the feeling it will make things worse

you have to stop the disease in its tracks, USA has a cultural illness that brainwashes childrens minds to accept myth and theology over known valid science.

By stopping it, and it has been stopped by the court system. You are opening minds up that theology closes as a normal practice

the denial of evolution is quite a recent phenomenon.

NO theology has faught this from its beginning.

theology has faught mankinds advancement's, even if indirectly.






There is no middle road here, if you have a problem you fix the problem because ifyou dilly dally the problem fester's

 

[Breathe]

its working to stop the brainwashing of our children in a school.

However, by it becoming a no-no, it's going to appear to creationists as if:

a) "evolutionists" are afraid of debate or can't answer
b) they are being marginalised by "Satan's forces"
c) it will still be a concept in private, religious schools

I mean, in all honesty creationism could be disproved no time at all. Without scriptural evidence, the only thing we have are things like "the banana fits in the hand magically, it must have been created" "Um, no. Wild bananas don't." Comparing the masses of evidence of evolution to the few claims from ignorance of creationism leaves little room for argument.

I never use evolution to disprove god. I use it to disprove creationism.

Unfortunately, many people do attempt to use it to disprove God. It is laughable in itself, but for some, it's going to make them distrustful of it. The antagonistic, anti-theistic attitude that some hold, with pejorative words being thrown around aren't helpful either.

NO theology has faught this from its beginning.

I'm doubtful. Not all of them. There were some who refused it, but many did accept it quite easily, many of whom were theists. Literalism is not the be-all-and-end-all of theology.

theology has faught mankinds advancement's, even if indirectly.

Even though you mean adherents as opposed to followers (I'm guessing)... no, not all of them.

You speak far too much from an Abrahamic mindset. Show me some evidence of some things Sikhism has fought mankind's advancement from, or stop coming out with such broad statements.

There is no middle road here, if you have a problem you fix the problem because ifyou dilly dally the problem fester's

Thing is, do you treat the problem clumsily, or do you expose it so it can be better purged?

Seems like a heavy-handed, fanatic-inducing approach, tbh.