The Earth stands on the brink of its sixth mass extinction and the fault is ours

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To flatly insist that there is no bias in science is to hold a very shallow view of human nature, not to mention history.

Biased science is bad science. Unbiased, objective science is good science.

[paulgiamatti]

Like, I can't believe I'm nauseatingly repeating this for the hundredth god damned time.

"Science" done by people to further an agenda doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It isn't allowed to progress. Look at Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent work. You can see this happening right now, in real-time, as the anti-vaccination movement is continually ridiculed by people who understand how legitimate science is done.

[stormlord]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Biased science is bad science. Unbiased, objective science is good science.

Science is the best methodology we have to understand the natural world, but I wouldn't be a fool and throw my faith behind it without always keeping a healthy dose of skepticism. But when does skepticism become unhealthy? I'm sure it can be.

Here's an article about the streetlight effect in science:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jul...etlight-effect

Like someone else here said, humans are by nature flawed and potentially immoral. It makes sense our natural traits will carry over into the sciences. What science does better than any other methodology is to limit the carry over. But does it perfectly limit our nature from infecting our science? I doubt it.

If I HAD to put faith in any methodology which examines reality to produce value, it'd be in science. So if that what you want from me, you'll get some. But do not expect me to hand over my heart and soul and complete trust to it.

Back to the OP, I have to say since it's never been easier to get at the information in this world, it's easier than ever to bury yourself in the concerns of the world. How much of a danger is it? Can people worry too mcuh about the fate of the world? There're so many problems. One wonders how the world evne survives, given all its problems.

One needs to bury themselves in optimism and hopeful stories sometimes too. And behind all of this needs to be action and planning. People have to back their concerns and their dreams with actions, or it's wasted emotion.

Personally, I think w'ere doing great, being humans y'know. If we become extinct, oh well. We had a good run. It may come across as apathetic, but what can I say? Life is hard. Always been hard. I don't hate or blame people. And it's not like I haven't researched this. Years ago, I researched it enough to want to end my life, or at least forget everything. Even during the best of times when I was in school, it was drilled into us how dreadful things were. I remember I was in a physics course and we were watching some video about population growth, building on coursework which had already damaged our perspective on life. My classmate turned to me and said "I don't htink I'm going to have any children, unless I have to." True story.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by stormlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science is the best methodology we have to understand the natural world, but I wouldn't be a fool and throw my faith behind it without always keeping a healthy dose of skepticism.

And that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. By doing so, you would be encouraging better science. Faith in science is simply faith in skepticism, and therefore by extension - and by definition - isn't faith at all.

[paulgiamatti]

And by the way, I'm always going to completely ignore any piece of literature that uses the word "scientism", unless it's for the purpose of ridiculing its use as pseudointellectual jargon, which it is.

[Luminari]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Like, I can't believe I'm nauseatingly repeating this for the hundredth god damned time.

"Science" done by people to further an agenda doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It isn't allowed to progress. Look at Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent work. You can see this happening right now, in real-time, as the anti-vaccination movement is continually ridiculed by people who understand how legitimate science is done.

Only problem with this is the fact that vaccines are being intentionally laced with known poisonous chemicals making them completely unsafe. Also there's the fact that actual evidence shows that all of the diseases that vaccines supposedly cured were already cured before the vaccine was introduced. For instance, the death rate of measles had declined by 90% before the vaccine was introduced but vaccines took the credit. Wakefield isn't the fraud, it's the pharmaceutical companies that are. Wakefield isn't the one with billions of dollars to gain by making fraudulent claims and yet morons like yourself take the side of the people who clearly have an agenda.

Also I find it extremely hilarious that you claim that biased science is bad science and yet you believe in evolution which has no actual scientific evidence supporting it. Anyone who subscribes to evolution has no clue how science actually works. Science REQUIRES observable and experimental evidence and evolution does literally neither of these things. Yet because a lot of scientists believe it, it MUST be true, obviously! Because that's how you think science works, where as long as enough people believe, to hell with the scientific method!

[paulgiamatti]

Oh right, yep, my bad. Vaccines are bad. God did it. How foolish I've been.

Anyone have some tin foil?

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Like, I can't believe I'm nauseatingly repeating this for the hundredth god damned time.

"Science" done by people to further an agenda doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It isn't allowed to progress.

Depends on who is doing the scrutinizing, and how dearly the ideas behind the science are held. Progress doesn't always have to mean an increase in knowledge or proof. Sometimes progress is about how many people you can get to agree with you.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sometimes progress is about how many people you can get to agree with you.

Acceptance into academia doesn't always mean progress. Bad ideas can be readily accepted by a lot of people. This isn't something that needs to be pointed out.

Progress, on the other hand, is simply progress. Progress doesn't care how many people agree with it. If everyone came to a consensus that we should decapitate a small child and roll its head down a pyramid every Sunday as an offering to the gods, that would not be progress.

[paulgiamatti]

I'll just leave this here for now: https://youtu.be/3oH0ReL3Cew