Conservatives' Trust In Science Has Fallen Dramatically Since Mid-1970s

[kvrdave]

They laughed at him initially as well.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I can envision a day when the brains of brilliant men can be kept alive in the bodies of dumb people." - Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr

Well, technically, they murmured.

[Navinabob]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

It's called 'scientific dogma' and it's rampant.

The reality is more like religion than the 'unbiased' ideal many mistakenly hold such to be. A number of people who eventually won a Nobel, or changed an entire understanding of a matter, found it almost impossible to even get their studies/ideas/theories published for consideration. We will never know how many groundbreaking ideas or findings never were published or made known, but it's obviously a large number of them. There are many, many examples of scientific dogma in action. It even occurs in the lab when an unexpected finding is found, which is most often the basis for the greatest discoveries. As Asimov famously stated "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka" but "That’s funny...""

"Many discoveries must have been stillborn or smothered at birth. We know only those which survived." - William Ian Beveridge, The Art Of Scientific Investigation

This is all sorts of silly and, quite frankly, rather unbecoming of a doctor. There is no similarity between science and religion outside of any superficial observations that sound great as a quote. Science works off of facts are falsifiable and theories are subject to change. Religion, on the other hand is static and dogmatic. Science must survive peer-review before they are given any sort of legitimacy in the greater scientific community, I'm not sure how that is a weakness really. Yes, it can be an uphill battle that some researchers go through when suggesting a radical hypothesis, but rarely does something radical, that is ultimately proven true, stay on the fringe long in modern times.

You are making an argument from ignorance here ("We will never know how many... ") that can't be every verified, and using it as evidence. Where did you get that "our basis for our greatest discoveries", whatever that really means, most often comes from unexpected findings? I'm sorry, but research does not work the way you think. Most of our research breakthroughs comes from ideas that work off of previous research. "That's funny..." stories may make for a better news item in the Huffpo, but you don't see that very often when you read research papers or in research journals. Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson were one team where this happened, I'm trying to think of another with little luck. Dark energy is an important discovery that took people by surprise I suppose... but even then they were still looking for a way to explain observed anomalies so that doesn't count. Were you counting really early science?

I'm not saying that cognitive biases or group-think do not happen in science, but what I am saying is that most often the person shouting "scientific dogma" are the fringe yelling to be heard and wondering why anyone won't listen to their perpetual motion or cold fusion machines. Environmental science is the only legitimate field where you could even argue this is still happening... but again, this comes from the fringe with the much smaller body of evidence. While the strength of their scientific work should be relatively objective, politics have made the issue rather subjective instead with zealots on both sides. The scientific debate before politics got involved was very different then afterwards.

[Dr Mabuse]

Another lengthy post that reveals there is not even a slight, superficial grasp of the subject matter...

[The Bus]

I blame the twin cancellations of Mr. Wizard's World and Bill Nye the Science Guy.

[Rockmjd23]

Originally Posted by The Bus

I blame the twin cancellations of Mr. Wizard's World and Bill Nye the Science Guy.

3-2-1 Contact!

[Josh-da-man]

I trust science as long as it tells me what I want to hear.

[Navinabob]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

Another lengthy post that reveals there is not even a slight, superficial grasp of the subject matter...

As opposed to making generalized claims without the support of facts? Yes... very convincing. What you did what steal a play out of the Intelligent Design playbook and cite their BS "scientific dogma" crap that they have used for years. Why you thought that it would now either appear insightful, or somehow not crumble under the weight of reality, is a mystery.

If you care to justify appealing to ignorance to make your point, I'm all ears. But be careful, I may counter with my own fact: We will never know how many groundbreaking ideas or findings never were published or made known that would have ended up being crap, but obviously a large number of them would be. In fact, if I counter with all the bad ideas, poor proofs, and faulty designs that were never published, I'm certain that the imaginary number I come up with will obviously be larger then yours.

[kvrdave]

Why did it take plate techtonics so long to catch on? Do you believe that things that eventually won Nobel Prizes were denied publication for scientific reasons? What is that if not dogma?

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

Why did it take plate techtonics so long to catch on? Do you believe that things that eventually won Nobel Prizes were denied publication for scientific reasons? What is that if not dogma?

Plate tectonics (note the spelling, Doctor Science) took so long to catch in because when it was first proposed, there was no evidence for it and there was no model took explain the mechanisms behind continental drift. So the scientific community did what the scientific community does (and by that, I mean "gather evidence, refine theories, and debate," not "throw a shit fit because the theory didn't jibe with their preconceived political and/or religious views") and eventually, the theory was accepted. Maybe, if the people who support the theory work really hard at the whole science thing, and if -- and this part is very important -- the facts actually support the theory, the same can someday be said of intelligent design.

But I wouldn't hold my breath.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Plate tectonics (note the spelling, Doctor Science) took so long to catch in because when it was first proposed, there was no evidence for it and there was no model took explain the mechanisms behind continental drift.

Note the grammar, Doctor Butthole.

[JasonF]

Originally Posted by kvrdave

Note the grammar, Doctor Butthole.

I use an iPad to surf when I'm at home and the autocorrect sucks on this thing. But I'm sorry I called you Doctor Science.

[Superboy]

Originally Posted by Navinabob

This is all sorts of silly and, quite frankly, rather unbecoming of a doctor. There is no similarity between science and religion outside of any superficial observations that sound great as a quote. Science works off of facts are falsifiable and theories are subject to change. Religion, on the other hand is static and dogmatic. Science must survive peer-review before they are given any sort of legitimacy in the greater scientific community, I'm not sure how that is a weakness really. Yes, it can be an uphill battle that some researchers go through when suggesting a radical hypothesis, but rarely does something radical, that is ultimately proven true, stay on the fringe long in modern times.

You are making an argument from ignorance here ("We will never know how many... ") that can't be every verified, and using it as evidence. Where did you get that "our basis for our greatest discoveries", whatever that really means, most often comes from unexpected findings? I'm sorry, but research does not work the way you think. Most of our research breakthroughs comes from ideas that work off of previous research. "That's funny..." stories may make for a better news item in the Huffpo, but you don't see that very often when you read research papers or in research journals. Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson were one team where this happened, I'm trying to think of another with little luck. Dark energy is an important discovery that took people by surprise I suppose... but even then they were still looking for a way to explain observed anomalies so that doesn't count. Were you counting really early science?

I'm not saying that cognitive biases or group-think do not happen in science, but what I am saying is that most often the person shouting "scientific dogma" are the fringe yelling to be heard and wondering why anyone won't listen to their perpetual motion or cold fusion machines. Environmental science is the only legitimate field where you could even argue this is still happening... but again, this comes from the fringe with the much smaller body of evidence. While the strength of their scientific work should be relatively objective, politics have made the issue rather subjective instead with zealots on both sides. The scientific debate before politics got involved was very different then afterwards.

Have you ever read up on great scientific minds?

Almost all of them were absolutely batshit insane.

That's why their ideas were dismissed as idiocy - because almost everything they said, and did, really was idiocy.

I know the argument you were making was that the scientific process is flawed and all that, and how it still yields results, and blah blah blah... but seriously, the real reason why science tends to be dogmatic is because the people making the claim are mind-boggling fucked in the head. No joke.

[The Bus]

Originally Posted by Superboy

Have you ever read up on great scientific minds?

Almost all of them were absolutely batshit insane.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by JasonF

I use an iPad to surf when I'm at home and the autocorrect sucks on this thing. But I'm sorry I called you Doctor Science.

Oh, it's okay that you call me that, but you didn't mean it.

[Navinabob]

Originally Posted by Superboy

Have you ever read up on great scientific minds?

Almost all of them were absolutely batshit insane.

That's why their ideas were dismissed as idiocy - because almost everything they said, and did, really was idiocy.

I know the argument you were making was that the scientific process is flawed and all that, and how it still yields results, and blah blah blah... but seriously, the real reason why science tends to be dogmatic is because the people making the claim are mind-boggling fucked in the head. No joke.

Yeah, the link between insanity and IQ has been debunked for years. Almost any psych book that relates to personality, IQ tests & measures, or abnormalities will tell you that. We get a slight uptick in schizophrenia, but not by much. Basically, you fell for TV cliches. Think about for a second. Most of our high IQ people are working physicians, doctors, professors, engineers and lawyers. Which one of those professions allow for much room for bat-shit-insane?

Louis Terman tested the IQ's of children in a famous in the 1920s and tracked them for the next 30 years. He found them to be better adjusted socially then children with average IQ. We've had several hundred Nobel prize winners, how many of them were bat-shit-insane? One or two? Then we get followed by 4 or 5 "maybe" or "relatively"?

John Nash is the one everyone thinks of (A Beautiful Mind). William Shockley invented the transistor, but also happened to believe in eugenics. Kary Mullis invented PCR, but also thinks that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Phillipp Lenard was Nazi and Brian Josephson (also physics) thinks that telepathy and cold fusion is real. Does Gunter Grass hating Jews count?

Josephson is a funny case because he is one of the biggies that quacks quote when they need someone with credentials to say things like "science is closed-minded."

So Josephson brings us full circle. We finally get someone with strong scientific credentials who says that the biggest weakness in science is the dogma of scientists, but he also happens to be one of the people that may actually be a bit crazy.

[Pharoh]

Originally Posted by dork

Meh, I think that whole controversy was a bit overblown. Yes, there was a disparity in funding and hiring, but the string theorists were getting good results, whether or not they will ultimately give the right answer. And it's not like the non-string-theorists were producing groundbreaking work that was being silenced.

First, let me say that my original comments were in no way meant to imply anything about scientific dogma, it equaling religion, plate tectonics, or the craziness of scientific pioneers.

However, I was merely pointing out that the seemingly pollyanna view of science isn't exactly true. And while I think the problems with string theory was a bit worse than you do, I wouldn't argue with what you stated above. It's also interesting that now the pendulum appears to have swung completely the other way, with stringers having difficulty finding work or funding.

[Supermallet]

Originally Posted by Navinabob

Where did you get that "our basis for our greatest discoveries", whatever that really means, most often comes from unexpected findings? I'm sorry, but research does not work the way you think. Most of our research breakthroughs comes from ideas that work off of previous research. "That's funny..." stories may make for a better news item in the Huffpo, but you don't see that very often when you read research papers or in research journals. Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson were one team where this happened, I'm trying to think of another with little luck.

I think you're forgetting a little scientific marvel known as "Silly Putty."

Case closed!

[Superboy]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

It's called 'scientific dogma' and it's rampant.

The reality is more like religion than the 'unbiased' ideal many mistakenly hold such to be. A number of people who eventually won a Nobel, or changed an entire understanding of a matter, found it almost impossible to even get their studies/ideas/theories published for consideration. We will never know how many groundbreaking ideas or findings never were published or made known, but it's obviously a large number of them. There are many, many examples of scientific dogma in action. It even occurs in the lab when an unexpected finding is found, which is most often the basis for the greatest discoveries. As Asimov famously stated "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka" but "That’s funny...""

"Many discoveries must have been stillborn or smothered at birth. We know only those which survived." - William Ian Beveridge, The Art Of Scientific Investigation

I love this argument.

"They're just as dumb as we are, so we must be good!"

I guess that's the problem with cults these days (and all religions are cults, btw). They're not interested in being good, they just want everyone else to be bad.

[Superboy]

Originally Posted by Navinabob

Yeah, the link between insanity and IQ has been debunked for years. Almost any psych book that relates to personality, IQ tests & measures, or abnormalities will tell you that. We get a slight uptick in schizophrenia, but not by much. Basically, you fell for TV cliches. Think about for a second. Most of our high IQ people are working physicians, doctors, professors, engineers and lawyers. Which one of those professions allow for much room for bat-shit-insane?

Louis Terman tested the IQ's of children in a famous in the 1920s and tracked them for the next 30 years. He found them to be better adjusted socially then children with average IQ. We've had several hundred Nobel prize winners, how many of them were bat-shit-insane? One or two? Then we get followed by 4 or 5 "maybe" or "relatively"?

John Nash is the one everyone thinks of (A Beautiful Mind). William Shockley invented the transistor, but also happened to believe in eugenics. Kary Mullis invented PCR, but also thinks that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Phillipp Lenard was Nazi and Brian Josephson (also physics) thinks that telepathy and cold fusion is real. Does Gunter Grass hating Jews count?

Josephson is a funny case because he is one of the biggies that quacks quote when they need someone with credentials to say things like "science is closed-minded."

So Josephson brings us full circle. We finally get someone with strong scientific credentials who says that the biggest weakness in science is the dogma of scientists, but he also happens to be one of the people that may actually be a bit crazy.

Okay let's backtrack.

I don't mean like, literal insanity here.

I mean "Thomas Edison wanted to be a Ghostbuster" level of insanity.

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by Superboy

I love this argument.

"They're just as dumb as we are, so we must be good!"

That had absolutely nothing to do with my point. Literally nothing. It wasn't even an ancillary implication. You, like other posters, are reading your own prejudices in to a post and point you hardly understand.

Since I haven't noticed anyone besides kvr who is even slightly informed on the basis of my point in the post you quoted, it would be silly to continue further with discussion on that assertion, after all the music is nothing if the audience is deaf. But my point and post are entirely factual and accurate. The 'dogma' of science, and the 'heresy' of new discoveries and theories, has been studied and discussed for decades, including by many of the people who have won the most prestigious prizes in various areas of science and mathematics, and are some of the best-known names in science throughout history. The majority of major discoveries come from unexpected findings, not targeted studies and endeavors. Many of the unexpected findings are often dismissed and discarded in the lab since they disagree with existing dogma. That too has been studied to some depth and it's fascinating stuff that's rooted in human psychology and neurology. It's very common, and we will never know how much has been lost or at least delayed for centuries or even millenia.

If you are a blank slate, utterly ignorant on this topic, I guess all you can make of it is something silly like 'oh yeah well them creationists!!1!'... or silly, superficial comprehensions of what religion or dogma in humans actually is, or what those words or concepts actually means beyond 'dictionary facts' or 'them there Christians and Muslims and stuff that goes on in churches'.

It's at least been amusing for me in some small way, so it wasn't a total waste of time reading the replies that fancied themselves to be 'rebuttals'.

[Navinabob]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

That had absolutely nothing to do with my point. Literally nothing. It wasn't even an ancillary implication. You, like other posters, are reading your own prejudices in to a post and point you hardly understand.

Since I haven't noticed anyone besides kvr who is even slightly informed on the basis of my point in the post you quoted, it would be silly to continue further with discussion on that assertion, after all the music is nothing if the audience is deaf. But my point and post are entirely factual and accurate. The 'dogma' of science, and the 'heresy' of new discoveries and theories, has been studied and discussed for decades, including by many of the people who have won the most prestigious prizes in various areas of science and mathematics, and are some of the best-known names in science throughout history. The majority of major discoveries come from unexpected findings, not targeted studies and endeavors. Many of the unexpected findings are often dismissed and discarded in the lab since they disagree with existing dogma. That too has been studied to some depth and it's fascinating stuff that's rooted in human psychology and neurology. It's very common, and we will never know how much has been lost or at least delayed for centuries or even millenia.

If you are a blank slate, utterly ignorant on this topic, I guess all you can make of it is something silly like 'oh yeah well them creationists!!1!'... or silly, superficial comprehensions of what religion or dogma in humans actually is, or what those words or concepts actually means beyond 'dictionary facts' or 'them there Christians and Muslims and stuff that goes on in churches'.

It's at least been amusing for me in some small way, so it wasn't a total waste of time reading the replies that fancied themselves to be 'rebuttals'.

I love how you go on-and-on about how you have countless facts (yet haven't named any names) and numerous studies for years (yet haven't cited a single number or study). For someone who has studied "the dogma of science" for so long you sure do mix up the two separate concepts of dogma and confirmation bias a lot and seem to think that they are the same thing at times.

The "dogma of science" is something rarely referred to by scientists because it doesn't really exist in real science. You may get an ignored or explained anomaly, but that research needs to be replicated for it to be real. Real science is rooted in skepticism and evidence, bullshit science stays the same regardless of evidence (dogma). Does that make sense? I really can't speak much clearer then that...

Confirmation Bias on the other hand is constantly talked about, but it is also something that scientists are aware of, and have built in safe-guards (peer review, falsifiability, ect) against. Just today a great article was written on the topic:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...an/#more-20299

Not only that, but scientists actively look for unexpected (or "serendipitous") results and are trained to recognize, interpret, and place value on this sort of unexpected data. It isn't passive! The very idea scientific method in research isn't only to be able to lower the amount of random results, but to be more able to accurately spot unexpected results while we look for them. When we learn Research Methods we have it drilled into us that we need to plan for the unexpected and actively set controls and conditions for them to occur!

Stating that the "majority of major discoveries come from unexpected findings", as you state many times, is incorrect. Nobody doing research in this area thinks that; you will not be able to cite anyone credible, nor find any study suggesting that. The best you'll get is 30%-50% of research have some element of serendipity be useful. But even to get that number you also have to include methodological errors in with anomalies and lump discoveries in with simple methodology revisions in research (unexpected data may just result in adding another collection category for comparison), and unexpected results that rule out potential discoveries to get that 30%-50% so high. Does it happen? Very rarely in the way you are suggesting it does. If you want further reading for the best argument you could be making if you care to debate this is:

http://repo-nt.tcc.virginia.edu/scit...g/Dunbar_3.pdf

Your math is wrong. You concept on how science works is wrong. And "we will never know how much has been lost or at least delayed for centuries or even millenia" is ridiculous thing to say. I'll let you work out why. ( Hint: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html?ref=nf )

[Tommy Ceez]

My faith in continuing to read threads where every post is minimum 3 dense paragraphs is essentially 0

[arminius]

Originally Posted by Navinabob

I love how you go on-and-on about how you have countless facts (yet haven't named any names) and numerous studies for years (yet haven't cited a single number or study). For someone who has studied "the dogma of science" for so long you sure do mix up the two separate concepts of dogma and confirmation bias a lot and seem to think that they are the same thing at times.

The "dogma of science" is something rarely referred to by scientists because it doesn't really exist in real science. You may get an ignored or explained anomaly, but that research needs to be replicated for it to be real. Real science is rooted in skepticism and evidence, bullshit science stays the same regardless of evidence (dogma). Does that make sense? I really can't speak much clearer then that...

Confirmation Bias on the other hand is constantly talked about, but it is also something that scientists are aware of, and have built in safe-guards (peer review, falsifiability, ect) against. Just today a great article was written on the topic:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...an/#more-20299

Not only that, but scientists actively look for unexpected (or "serendipitous") results and are trained to recognize, interpret, and place value on this sort of unexpected data. It isn't passive! The very idea scientific method in research isn't only to be able to lower the amount of random results, but to be more able to accurately spot unexpected results while we look for them. When we learn Research Methods we have it drilled into us that we need to plan for the unexpected and actively set controls and conditions for them to occur!

Stating that the "majority of major discoveries come from unexpected findings", as you state many times, is incorrect. Nobody doing research in this area thinks that; you will not be able to cite anyone credible, nor find any study suggesting that. The best you'll get is 30%-50% of research have some element of serendipity be useful. But even to get that number you also have to include methodological errors in with anomalies and lump discoveries in with simple methodology revisions in research (unexpected data may just result in adding another collection category for comparison), and unexpected results that rule out potential discoveries to get that 30%-50% so high. Does it happen? Very rarely in the way you are suggesting it does. If you want further reading for the best argument you could be making if you care to debate this is:

http://repo-nt.tcc.virginia.edu/scit...g/Dunbar_3.pdf

Your math is wrong. You concept on how science works is wrong. And "we will never know how much has been lost or at least delayed for centuries or even millenia" is ridiculous thing to say. I'll let you work out why. ( Hint: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html?ref=nf )

I read the bolded parts but don't get the point.