No Debate When You Can't Argue the Facts

I am of the opinion that a fact is a fact regardless of how you arrived at that conclusion and I am irritated at how "science" seems to have the final word on the facts.

The term "science" gets used all the time when people want to present solid facts, but facts stand alone without science needed to prop them up. Political propagandists love the terms "science" or "scientific" when trying to shut down debate with "the facts", but science is merely an investigative method, one of many.

Why is it that science must come around and place its stamp of approval on the facts that have always been facts long before people developed the scientific method? Common sense (not so common these days) has always known the simple fact that what goes up must come down, yet it took an apple to fall on Newton's head for "the science" to catch up with that fact.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that science is a good thing if properly used to determine facts, but I get pretty perturbed at people who use the word "science" as if that proves something without debate. It gets so loosely used all the time that unless something is verified by "the science" it is merely an opinion. If you produce some evidence that refutes a given "scientific fact" (remember that the word scientific is not that same as science itself), then your source is pseudo-science or worse racist.

So, while science is good it is too often used politically by way of "scientific facts", facts that were always facts but are now claimed as something science gave to us. It has gotten so bad that it has become a feature of our culture now and is used in common everyday language.

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

you are incorrect. Because science.

MY science is more powerful than YOUR science!

Oh my science…..

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

Its a bit more bitter than some orange juice, helps stop the Scurvy. This place has done better than others on this issue.

In making sense of it all, very few things are fully black or white, most is in the grey zone. Hang on to those things you can fully trust, like a busted bone does hurt for a while.

As for the rest in the gray, one step at a time.

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

"Scientific paradigms are not objective and fixed truths, but rather they are just accepted models of knowledge within particular scientific communities." – Thomas Kuhn

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

Thank You!

Anyone who knows about science and the scientific method knows that there is no scientific definition for "fact."

Science has definitions for hypothesis, theories, and laws, and a real student of science knows the difference. Science has definitions for quantifiable constructs, like a Mole, the speed of a photon in a vacuum, or a second, a kilogram, etc.

I would venture to say that any time a real scientist says anything about something being a scientific "fact", there is money involved.

I do realize that this type of thing has been going on long before I was born. The lab coat wearing actor playing the part of a doctor or scientist has been selling things and ideas since at least the early 20th century. It just seems like its use has become like a weapon these days.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

"Scientific paradigms are not objective and fixed truths, but rather they are just accepted models of knowledge within particular scientific communities." – Thomas Kuhn

So the moon cycles mean nothing? The scientist that saw Earth is not the center of the universe are stupid? The bloke that found found vitamin D is an idiot? Edison screwing up a thousand time before finding one element for a light bulb is not being objective?

You want to bend your reality, go for it. You want to find some hard scientific facts, they are out there. Improving the table of periodic elements takes more than some bla bla.

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

It started after WWII. Movies started making scientists the hero of the movies.

That was when science became a religion.

originally posted by: Athetos
MY science is more powerful than YOUR science!

Oh my science…..

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

"My Sci-Fu is superior to yours. Your scientist is a bastard!", stated with lips out of sync with the audio.

originally posted by: theatreboy
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

It started after WWII. Movies started making scientists the hero of the movies.

That was when science became a religion.

Side effect of the Manhattan Project producing a weapon that ended the war ?

Cheers

originally posted by: kwaka

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

"Scientific paradigms are not objective and fixed truths, but rather they are just accepted models of knowledge within particular scientific communities." – Thomas Kuhn

So the moon cycles mean nothing? The scientist that saw Earth is not the center of the universe are stupid? The bloke that found found vitamin D is an idiot? Edison screwing up a thousand time before finding one element for a light bulb is not being objective?

You want to bend your reality, go for it. You want to find some hard scientific facts, they are out there. Improving the table of periodic elements takes more than some bla bla.

Perfect examples.

Moon cycles can mean something or nothing, depending on the context. If you're trying to predict tides, important. If you're trying to predict the best time to plant corn, not so much. Moon cycles are simply a way of measuring time.

The Earth being the center of the universe or not is a matter of definition. To absolutely say it's not, you would have to be able to determine the exact shape of the universe and then determine where the center of that shape is. For a universe where everything is in motion, it can be useful to define a fixed point for certain purposes. Usually gravimetric purposes. For instance, to send a craft to the moon and back, Earth is a good starting point. To send a craft to Alpha Centauri, the Sun might be a better "fixed" point. You could use the Sun as a starting reference point for your moonshot, but it makes things unnecessarily complicated.

I assume the bloke who discovered Vitamin D was not an idiot. But his discovery of vitamin D is an historical fact, not a scientific fact. Like Columbus, he simply "discovered" something that was already there, and defined it as vitamin D. Could have just as easily named it Super Chemical Formula XJ5.

Suggesting Edison found the best light bulb filament is a relative observation. For his purposes, he needed something that would conduct electricity and withstand high temperatures to produce enduring light. He settled on tungsten, but osmium would have worked just as well if not better. But osmium wasn't available to him. If Edison was trying to make a bulb for flash photography, steel wool would have been better. High brightness, short lifespan. Then we also have carbon arc lamps, which have a different purpose altogether. Once again, the "facts" depend on the circumstances, and circumstances change.

The periodic table is a set of definitions. An atom with one proton is defined as hydrogen, two protons is helium, three is defined lithium, and so on. You can call them facts, but definitions is a more scientifically accurate term. This is what we observe, this is what we call it.

originally posted by: TheMichiganSwampBuck
I do realize that this type of thing has been going on long before I was born. The lab coat wearing actor playing the part of a doctor or scientist has been selling things and ideas since at least the early 20th century. It just seems like its use has become like a weapon these days.

You're telling me !

All of these fake " Doctors " everywhere, yet they remain elusive.

I've seen these doctors names on hundreds of products, but when you try to research them : zilch.

So if anyone has info on the infamous doctors, please let us all know who they really are.

I'm speaking, of course, about Dr. Approuved, and Dr. Recommended.

originally posted by: kwaka

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

"Scientific paradigms are not objective and fixed truths, but rather they are just accepted models of knowledge within particular scientific communities." – Thomas Kuhn

So the moon cycles mean nothing? The scientist that saw Earth is not the center of the universe are stupid? The bloke that found found vitamin D is an idiot? Edison screwing up a thousand time before finding one element for a light bulb is not being objective?

You want to bend your reality, go for it. You want to find some hard scientific facts, they are out there. Improving the table of periodic elements takes more than some bla bla.

Note the author of the quote specifically said "paradigms", NOT facts or known's such as you gave example of. He's talking about the "models", theories, hypothesis, assumptions, and postulates scientists often build around the facts that don't always hold up to scrutiny. There is no rejection of science or scientific method in that quote.

Research is most often interpreted by beliefs. I see this all the time. What is said in the research is often not the same as it is implied to say in articles written from the research. Sometimes it is consensus of the time that changes the results of the research. If all the scientists believe the evidence is not right because it does not match what they have been taught to believe, in peer review they remove what they think is going to make them feel like fools because they have been preaching to the contrary all along. When vast amounts of evidence come to light, then they have no choice but to agree with the research, but they use proof from what they previously edited in peer review to try to prove other research is wrong for years. This is common, seems no scientist wants to admit they were wrong very often. Delaying it would make it so finding the whole truth might take till after they retire before it is released as real.

I read a lot of research and look at the parameters, who funded the research, and if the research matches the conclusion. I also examine relevance....something applies to a tenth of a percent of people and it increases risk by fifty percent...that means it applies to maybe an increase of a fifth of a percent...basically not much increase. But it is twisted in health and medical science to show it is a fifty percent increase...spreading doom and gloom even to those who have no risk at all.

Science is used against us or to control us more than it is used to benefit us. Consumerism drives a lot of this deceit...profiting from deceiving the masses. Now this by no means means the research is not real, it only means over half the time it is exploited by some people. Sometimes it is only parroting of things where the person does not truely understand how to interpret the evidence though, which can lead to misinformation, but with no planned deception for gain. I see lots of this stuff, so I always try to find the research when I read something to see if the conclusions match what is being implied.

I guess things have not changed in the last few centuries, the same thing was going on in the eighteen and nineteen hundreds. I have a lot of time to do this, most people who work all the time don't have the time to validate things properly and fact checkers...their conclusions are not right half the time because they use consensus of the time to fact check a lot. Plus, they most times do not read or are not used to reading the research.

Physics is a little more open minded than the other sciences, and chemistry.....it seems that they do not research the effects of their chemicals they create properly long term. Also, interpretation of safety also takes into consideration need for the product in our societies. Plastics are not good for the environment yet they keep producing them and picking on a few certain chemistries in them to condemn when in fact they are all bad. But look at how widely used plastics are...it would crash our economy now if they outlawed them, we would be back to getting our meat wrapped in paper like back in the fifties and sixties and stuff in glass bottles....seems it worked back then all right except for broken glass at the beaches. And of course risk of many diseases was lower back in the sixties.

So that is my evaluation of things. I had a thread concerning this before, saying half of the stuff on ATS was BS which matched interpretation of evidence in science. That was because people here often use scientific conclusions to make threads and accept improperly interpreted science articles in them. That is life, it seems to be more real here at
ats than what people say locally. People read the headlines and one paragraph, not the whole news article where it discounts the title and first paragraph as possibly an opinion.

originally posted by: TheMichiganSwampBuck
I do realize that this type of thing has been going on long before I was born. The lab coat wearing actor playing the part of a doctor or scientist has been selling things and ideas since at least the early 20th century. It just seems like its use has become like a weapon these days.

My favorite overused advertising trope is the "auto mechanic" in the sparkling clean uniform standing in front of an almost new car rubbing his perfectly manicured, lily-white hands with a brand new clean rag.

All I have to do is think about putting air in my tires, and dirty grease starts accumulating on my palms.

Science ???

Why do you think doctors call it a “Practice”.

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2

originally posted by: theatreboy
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

It started after WWII. Movies started making scientists the hero of the movies.

That was when science became a religion.

Side effect of the Manhattan Project producing a weapon that ended the war ?

Cheers

Operation Mockingbird

True Science BEGS to be challenged.
It’s a consensus of investigation that makes it so, not a censure of opposition.
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

Hold my beaker.

a reply to: Athetos