Science Is Not Democratic

a reply to: eisegesis


Well no. Science is science. I just saw a program last evening about Montessori schools of learning begun by Marie Montessori in the early 1900s. They flourished being that they encouraged free thinking and discovered children will learn for learnings own sake, without need for either reward or punishment, if you allowed them to be free thinkers, if you let them alone. Founders of Google and other notables were Montessori school students.

She began teaching special ed students, developmentally disabled and when she was able to get many of those students on a level surpassing normally developed children, children who were not handicapped, it made her question the entire system of education up until that point. What are they doing in schools to these normal children if I can get mentally disabled students to top them in exams? She asked herself.

It is rigid indoctrination that makes little soldiers. All Marie Montessoris schools were closed and her books burned during the reign of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. She was not welcome among followers of Hitler, needless to say and although she had thousands of schools, she were all closed by communists.

After the wars end, she was able to reopen many of her schools and many hundreds of thousands of Montessori Schools are scattered over the globe. They are for free thinkers.

When someone says something once, that is not mind control or indoctrination. For it to be that it needs to be subliminal and repetitious. I don't trust our government, so much so that I am afraid to take up MEDITATION with the HAARP facility operational but I don't think Barack Obama really has a handle on anything at those levels of secrecy. The President has always been excluded from many black ops and nefarious workings of the FBI, CIA, NSA, NASA and an alphabet list of others who really run things, "in the interest of national security" which trumps all other interests and justifies the top secret status.

It's a neat little setup.

No. I think Obama really just wants people to have healthcare and there are Capitalists who are trying to kill those same folks and they expect people like Obama and Democrats to stand down.

That's funny.

I just love when the anti-science crowd says things like "science thought the world was flat", without realizing that they only know it's not, because of science.

Some of what we know today is wrong, but I won't denounce science over that. Being wrong is an unavoidable part of learning. It's cynical to say we know nothing because we've been wrong. We are seeing the birth of tractor beams! We've created matter from light! We are growing organs in labs! Robot technology is making great leaps. The list of cool technology is endless. Science has saved a lot of lives with it's medical breakthroughs. It also made your life a lot less grueling.

I don't defend science because it's a cult, I defend it because it's a vital part of human progress. I don't see what anyone gains from attempting to discredit science.

a reply to: donhuangenaro

In my opinion, seeing the situation today, the science is deeply corrupted, results are over rated, skewed or even falsified (google: peer review scandal) and no one knows what is really true or not.

Actually this proves science works. Make something up and the others have no qualms about outing you. Lies don't last long in science.

a reply to: Loveaduck

She began teaching special ed students, developmentally disabled and when she was able to get many of those students on a level surpassing normally developed children, children who were not handicapped, it made her question the entire system of education up until that point. What are they doing in schools to these normal children if I can get mentally disabled students to top them in exams? She asked herself.

Interesting claim. Source? As I read that her less able children were able to pass exams, they didn't outperform the normal children and she believed her methods would significantly improve the normal childrens learning ability to

I ask as I've seen work that shows Montessori kids don't do any better or have notably different personalities:
Lopata, Christopher; Wallace, Nancy V; Finn, Kristin V (2005). "Comparison of Academic Achievement Between Montessori and Traditional Education Programs"

originally posted by: mahatche
I just love when the anti-science crowd says things like "science thought the world was flat", without realizing that they only know it's not, because of science.

I don't think anyone ever realy thought the world was flat. Ever since people got into ocean going vessels they could tell it was curved. I think the Koran said something about the world being flat like a carpet in one place..

I don't see what anyone gains from attempting to discredit science.

Then they can put science on an equal footing with their religion. That's the sole purpose of that train of thought. Look out for the word 'scientism' from nutters on creationist sites. If science is a 'cult' and built on belief than it can't tell them their religion is wrong, as it has no tyranny of fact over fiction. I see this attempted incessantly by creationists and people who have a 'faith' based belief structure: often seen on ATS as the 'vaccines cause autism/aliens built the pyramids' crowd. Basically if you can get people to believe science is just making stuff up then you can persuade them anything is true despite masses of well researched evidence to the contrary.

Reply specifically to OP.

Science is not democratic.

Your uneducated opinion is not an equal to sciences accumulated thousands of years of direct study, which is checked and verified over and over.

originally posted by: eisegesis
Science Is Not Democratic

“I’m not a doctor either, but if a bunch of doctor's tell me that tobacco can cause lung cancer, then I’ll say, OK.” - Barack Obama

This was a quote from a speech he gave to a league of conservative voters. I stopped reading after that. I felt weird inside. I sounds like passive mind control. I hope others can see his tricks. Take what you hear from your doctor and use it to do your own research. If it jives with the doctor's advice and you feel comfortable, then take it slow.

During his speech, Obama lambasted members of Congress who espouse either an active distrust of our scientific community or passive ignorance of its findings. The distrust of scientists in the U.S. has become an effective political tool since the 1980s. But it is also extremely dangerous to our democracy.

Science isn’t a belief system. It’s proven knowledge. It either knows the answer to a problem, or admits it doesn’t and keeps looking for it. Every time we ignore the scientific community, bad things generally happen.

The question is, what exactly is the scientific community? The scientist, the investor, the shareholder, the highest bidder, the most ruthless, the most wealthy, the most agreeable, the most trustworthy, the most willing to lie?

Before 1980, Congress and the President generally deferred to the scientific community to interpret science. Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t argue the merits of the Bohr atom with Oppenheimer when he wrote to him 1943. Yes, the Moon landing was driven by military and Cold War aims, but no one in politics questioned how NASA went about getting us there.

I forgot, it doesn't take a genius to run a country. Just a person surrounded by geniuses. My doctor knows what he learns just just like anyone else is capable of doing. If you are not in immediate jeopardy, do some research and try a few natural remedies. You will be surprised.

Beginning in the 16th century, it took almost 200 years for the scientific method to develop to the point where it provided demonstrable survival advantages to civilization. It is not coincidental that this realization by the monarchs and governments of those times came first through military applications and the advancement of material sciences, since they were the original funding agencies.

Does survival of the species dictate who we take scientific advice from or does what will give dictators the greater advantage over those they wish to segregate from? Science for the wealthy and slave magic for the poor and useless.

If those in power didn't show so much desire to use science as a way to separate us, then we as a species would not be suffering. The poorest person on the planet can still afford to have an outstanding idea but it will usually never make it past their own lips. There is little motivation or funding for those who don't play the role.

At some point we spun out of control and those who were taught to be trustworthy and reliable became more obsessed with their own self interests than our own. Doctors receive kickbacks for prescribing certain medicine, get paid vacations disguised as learning seminars by drug companies. Kind of hard to make a heartfelt diagnosis and treatment after being bought out. Do you trust your doctor? Your lucky if you have a good one. Mainstream science is usually bought and sold as well.

But things began changing in the United States about 30 years ago. Basic Science began being cut in favor of Applied Science. Research budgets for agencies like the Department of Defense exploded while basic research funding for Universities and scientific societies began drying up. The Directors and Chiefs of those science-based government agencies, previously held by scientists in those fields who worked their way up that agency’s ladder, became political appointees. It was worrisome.

I thought this would be a good topic for ATS because there are people on this site with some serious trust issues, including myself, when it comes to science and medicine. Does anybody have faith in science anymore? Are there some bright minds on here willing to share their thoughts on where we stand? Do you trust companies who conduct their own safety testing? Do you trust global warming research? Do you trust your electric company? Do you trust cancer research to be cutting edge? Phage, do you trust NASA!!! lol

Very ,very,smart and well said.

a reply to: subtopia

Not only that, but just take a look at for example, the forced sterilization that the global elites, and known rich people have been partaking in such as the Gates. These people try to rationalize the need to force sterilizations on people, and at the same time they see everyone else, even people living in the western world as not having the ability to make informed decisions so they want to force everyone to accept theirs. How can a country, or even the world introduce a law guaranteeing "an integrity law", when the world elites don't give a hoot about integrity or what people think or want to do?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: eisegesis

Science is a process for discovering things about the world around us, a methodology. This methodology can be applied to many things. It requires no faith or belief; anyone with the proper equipment and powers of observation can repeat any experiment and achieve the same results. If the results are not repeatable, the hypothesis the experiment was intended to prove is rejected. This is an extremely democratic process, as anyone can participate who wishes to. On the other hand, it is not democratic because the body of knowledge derived is not the result of people voting based on their personal opinion.

Can science be abused? Yes, anything can be abused. The fault is not with science, but the abuser.

By all means, do your own research: if you do it properly, it makes you a scientist.

And you think Science did not evolve into the many religions we have today?

Someone took carefully crafted SCIENCE, that could be shown just enough times, and applied fairy tales to it.

People are trying to tell you, that the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, is CREATED to be ABUSED PERIOD !

It does not search for truth, it is a system of CONTROLS that pretends to search for it, and only when certain gates are opened, does anything even get confirmed!

I see Religion and Science as controlled by the same beings, for the same reasons, because they HIDE THE TRUTH!

a reply to: ParasuvO

Your post made no sense whatsoever. Please try explaining yourself again.

I think a lot of people just confuse the science part with the media's biased headline of what they interpret that bit of science to mean. Headlines are always slanted one way or another. Politics can manipulate those slants but it cannot manipulate the outcome of experiments. If you don't want to be fooled you have to study proper scientific methods and then you can do the experiments yourself. Then you don't have to listen to the spin.


There is definately a whole slew of scientists who would lie for the right amount of money, but their work won't hold up to public scrutiny.

I will never understand how someone who has never studied a field of science can reject it on principle alone and never come to think that maybe the folks who have disciplined themselves and memorized the pertinent methods might know what they're talking about.




a reply to: eisegesis

Science is not at all democratic. Especially in case of publishing in the prestigious journals (science, nature, cell etc.)
Researchers at the big hotshot institutions have way easier times getting their papers accepted into these than the small guys like me at regular universities. I know this isn't exactly what the thread is about, but figured I'd throw my 2 cents in. Don't even get me going on this topic either, the whole thing is so broken and corrupt to the top. Grants, publishing, the whole thing. I'll make a thread perhaps one day.

If science is democratic then please explain who gets to vote on it and why.

Science and the scientific method is the best way we have to understand/explore/categorize the known universe if someone came up with a better way they would need to use the scientific method to prove it was better.

So...do you have a better way?

a reply to: eisegesis
Spot on!
I tend to feel people view "science" more like a religion and simply invoking its name gives one magical intellectual power.

An example,I am in the medical/research field and can read/understand research papers in a pretty good variety of fields, but I find many people on ATS will simply claim the "I speak from science" and post a link to a study where they just read the headline. If they read the study they would find out the "science" conducted was a phone survey.

This is how most of America is, and I find it sad. Science based fields can be extremely corrupt especially when funding is involved. People today are just too lazy and dumbed down to care and would rather just take someones word for it, claim it as their own, and tout their superior intellect.

The Earth and life aren't democratic.

There are ecological and biological limitations and consequences.

Science is a way of offering solutions to replace edifices with new more cleaner technology rather than rely on old technology that is more consequential.

Science also offers solutions to mitigating ecological phenomenon that are harmful.

Science is only as productive as the economic doctrine of a culture that practices science.

originally posted by: Loveaduck
a reply to: eisegesis


Well no. Science is science. I just saw a program last evening about Montessori schools of learning begun by Marie Montessori in the early 1900s. They flourished being that they encouraged free thinking and discovered children will learn for learnings own sake, without need for either reward or punishment, if you allowed them to be free thinkers, if you let them alone. Founders of Google and other notables were Montessori school students.

I would love if you could track that program down. I would be interested in watching it.

It is rigid indoctrination that makes little soldiers.

I agree. Schools have become to lax. To be successful means to possibly become something you're not. A great teacher will encourage you to prove him or the current model wrong. Obama's take on it and many others is that we accept what we are told from teachers, doctors, scientists. The class of individuals that have been told to trust have been infiltrated at the highest level. While it is extremely beneficial to listen to these individuals, it is ever more important that we question them as well.

originally posted by: Antigod
Reply specifically to OP.

Science is not democratic.

Your uneducated opinion is not an equal to sciences accumulated thousands of years of direct study, which is checked and verified over and over.

My uneducated opinion? As much as science has accumulated thousands of years of direct study, they have also lost, destroyed and compartmentalized much as well.

You also don't understand the point of this post if you are referring to the scientific community as "science" itself. The point was to show that science, as important as it is, has become or is becoming too political. To many smaller groups of scientists being used to affect large groups of people and their lives. An example would be Monsanto carrying out it's own studies on whether the chemicals they manufacture are harmful to plants, insects and our health.

For that example, I hold my "uneducated guess" quite high over theirs that something isn't right. I wouldn't necessarily call it uneducated though. I research.

If science was a bus, this post is to help differentiate those who are driving it and those are there to fix it when it breaks down. Politics are using science like a GPS. It will get you to your destination using the shortest possible route but sometimes taking the longer road is safer and gives one more time to look at the facts.

We are currently on the fast track to carbon tax. Obama says that science is telling him that humans are causing global warming. We would already be paying those taxes if we took him at face value.

a reply to: Jobeycool

Thank you.

I wonder how many people on here only call one mechanic when describing the symptoms of their broken down car? Obama says I need a whole new engine and to use nothing but premium octane.

I better listen cause he said so.

Believing something simply because "science says so" is actually pseudoscientific. Notice how Obama's statement—and any other such statement that implies something is true merely because "science says so"—involves no interpretation of data, no experiment and no scientific method.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
I think a lot of people just confuse the science part with the media's biased headline of what they interpret that bit of science to mean.

SOME are confused, A LOT of people take it verbatim or don't care at all. Leave science to the scientists. It allows people to play the victim role instead of getting involved and educating themselves. Ignorance is bliss and once you become educated, you now have the responcibility to not fall back into it. So much easier to stay ignorant these days. During the days when one was more responcibale for their own well being and survival, if you did not educate yourself you would most likely perish.

Headlines are always slanted one way or another. Politics can manipulate those slants but it cannot manipulate the outcome of experiments. If you don't want to be fooled you have to study proper scientific methods and then you can do the experiments yourself. Then you don't have to listen to the spin.

They wouldn't have to manipulate the outcome of an experiment because we rarely see the outcome these days. The point of Obama's quote was exactly that. They can publish results in Spanglish because the majority don't fact check.

Doctor: Cigarettes are likely to cause cancer.
Patient: OK, didn't know, thank's Doc!

Somewhere in an alternate universe...

Doctor: Cigarettes are likely to cause cancer.
Patient: Really? Have they done a study?
Doctor: Yes, there have been many.
Patient: How did they figure that out?
Doctor: They did some experiments.
Patient: Sounds important. I can't wait to get home and look that up. I know a few friends who might also be interested.

There is definitely a whole slew of scientists who would lie for the right amount of money, but their work won't hold up to public scrutiny.

Your correct, except that it doesn't have to. As long as the majority swallows the bait. What would happen is the faulty science would carry us only so far and then the government comes through like a knight in shining armor because they'll be prepared with an answer to a problem they already knew existed. There goal is to make out in the short term and then casually explain that new data has arisen to show that they were off the mark.

I will never understand how someone who has never studied a field of science can reject it on principle alone and never come to think that maybe the folks who have disciplined themselves and memorized the pertinent methods might know what they're talking about.

Don't hurt yourself trying. DO NOT reject what you hear. That is not what I am saying. As one poster said, If you are not in immediate danger, use your doctor or anything else for that matter as a consultant. The more free advice you can get the better. The point of this thread was to show that Obama likely takes his advice from wolves in sheep's clothing. Clothing he helped tailor. Any excess wool has been pulled over our eyes.

QUESTION AUTHORITY, DON'T REJECT IT

(unless that authority has your face to a curb under their boot...THEN you reject it!)