The arrogance of modern science

hey everyone. gigamonsta is back and im ready to discuss! it seems to me that modern science (mainly astronomy tho) is so arrogant. there is this belief that anything can be explained by them eventually. does anyone think that this lack of humility is harming to modern astronomys reputation and ability to be taken seriously?

I think that you might be surprised by the number of things that scientists readily admit that they don't understand and may never figure out.

Why do people think science deals in truths?

Because it doesn't.

Science tries to explain the world around us based on evidence. It does not imply the explanation is the absolute truth, just that it's the mostly likely explanation based on the evidence.

It would make a scientist a millionaire over night if they could prove that Einstein's wrong or the laws of thermodynamics fail, because they've managed to do something that no other scientist on the planet has been able to do so far.

Also, most or all scientists revel in the fact that usually every new answer brings about a lot more questions, in total opposition of the OP.

And astronomers are the first to tell anyone who might listen that there are enormous issues for which they do not have an answer yet. And if you ask any one of them, they will probably tell you that behind the great unknowns of today there probably are even bigger unknowns, and probably some unknowable questions.

Maybe we have to look for the arrogant ignorant people somewhere else, like in this forum, for example.

It would make a scientist a millionaire over night if they could prove that Einstein's wrong or the laws of thermodynamics fail...

Scientists rarely become millionaires when they do make breakthrough discoveries.  Usually it is the corporations that figure out a way to profit off that knowledge.

Well, if we are going to discuss arrogance...

"In all directions there is so much truth in our favour that we can well afford to be dainty in our selection, and magnanimous, charitable, and condescending towards those who simply believe, but cannot prove, that we are wrong."

Can you guess who said that?(Hint: nobody 'modern')

Science is all about being wrong, any researcher knows that. The 'arrogance of science' and similar themes on these boards make me laff.

Well, if we are going to discuss arrogance...

"In all directions there is so much truth in our favour that we can well afford to be dainty in our selection, and magnanimous, charitable, and condescending towards those who simply believe, but cannot prove, that we are wrong."

Can you guess who said that?(Hint: nobody 'modern')

Ohhh ohhh... for 200 pts, Alex, I'm gonna say:

Who is Samuel 'Parallax' Birley Rowbotham, in the Preface of Zetetic Astronomy [1881]?

That is correct!

ORACLE VICTORY

Hey now, It's Samuel "Dr. Samuel Birley" "Parallax" Birley Rowbotham.

"In all directions there is so much truth in our favour that we can well afford to be dainty in our selection, and magnanimous, charitable, and condescending towards those who simply believe, but cannot prove, that we are wrong."

Hrmmm... "truth in our favour"

Not a very open minded person... doesn't seem like he is really following true Zetetic Principles at all.  Actually seems like he has a lot of confirmation bias to contend with....  Much like many of the members on this site, he probably wouldn't believe that the earth was round even if you showed him a picture of it (or video of it actually rotating) from space.

Quote from: Samuel 'Parallax' Birley Rowbotham, in the Preface of Zetetic Astronomy {1881}

"In all directions there is so much truth in our favour that we can well afford to be dainty in our selection, and magnanimous, charitable, and condescending towards those who simply believe, but cannot prove, that we are wrong."

Hrmmm... "truth in our favour"

Not a very open minded person... doesn't seem like he is really following true Zetetic Principles at all.  Actually seems like he has a lot of confirmation bias to contend with....  Much like many of the members on this site, he probably wouldn't believe that the earth was round even if you showed him a picture of it (or video of it actually rotating) from space.

A paraphrase of Dr. Rowbotham's quote bolded there would be "there is so much Zetetic truth backed up in our favour by experimental evidence" so he is on firm footing there.   

Quote from: Oracle on March 26, 2011, 05:33:02 PM

Quote from: Samuel 'Parallax' Birley Rowbotham, in the Preface of Zetetic Astronomy {1881}

"In all directions there is so much truth in our favour that we can well afford to be dainty in our selection, and magnanimous, charitable, and condescending towards those who simply believe, but cannot prove, that we are wrong."

Hrmmm... "truth in our favour"

Not a very open minded person... doesn't seem like he is really following true Zetetic Principles at all.  Actually seems like he has a lot of confirmation bias to contend with....  Much like many of the members on this site, he probably wouldn't believe that the earth was round even if you showed him a picture of it (or video of it actually rotating) from space.

A paraphrase of Dr. Rowbotham's quote bolded there would be "there is so much Zetetic truth backed up in our favour by experimental evidence" so he is on firm footing there.  

True Zetetic truth is open to all possibilities, including the idea of a round earth.  Dr. Rowbotham clearly rejects anything that does not agree with his preconceived notions for a Flat Earth, and tried desperately to create fanciful explanations to explain away observable phenomena that does not conform to his way of thinking.

This type of methodology is not called Zetetic Truth, it is called Confirmation Bias.

The experimental evidence gathered was both limited in scope and intrinsically flawed.  At best, his results were inconclusive of a Flat or Round Earth.

Incorrect.  Dr. Rowbotham did not have a preconceived notion of a flat earth.  He had every Zetetic reason to make his claims and backs it up with experimental evidence.

Incorrect.  Dr. Rowbotham did not have a preconceived notion of a flat earth.  He had every Zetetic reason to make his claims and backs it up with experimental evidence.

Show me just one experiment of his that I cannot logically refute with Zetetic wisdom.

Challenge was issued and accepted, please see the following thread for this challenge:
gotham's challenge...conclusive proof of a FE

Incorrect.  Dr. Rowbotham did not have a preconceived notion of a flat earth.  He had every Zetetic reason to make his claims and backs it up with experimental evidence.

In his zetetic reasoning, he would have seen that objects dip below the horizon and would logically conclude a round Earth from this position, but of course he is biased in his opinion and not willing to accept a round Earth, not willing to accept his theory being false which would throw away years of work, so he makes up some fanciful theory to explain why there seems to be a horizon. This theory had consequences in explaining other observable facts however, so the ball kept rolling and more fanciful theories were brought to life.
As oracle says, this is far from a Zetetic truth.

Quote from: gotham on March 26, 2011, 06:14:18 PM

Incorrect.  Dr. Rowbotham did not have a preconceived notion of a flat earth.  He had every Zetetic reason to make his claims and backs it up with experimental evidence.

Show me just one experiment of his that I cannot logically refute with Zetetic wisdom.

Challenge was issued and accepted, please see the following thread for this challenge:
gotham's challenge...conclusive proof of a FE

The experiments in ENaG have been duplicated.

Quote from: Oracle on March 26, 2011, 06:27:41 PM

Quote from: gotham on March 26, 2011, 06:14:18 PM

Incorrect.  Dr. Rowbotham did not have a preconceived notion of a flat earth.  He had every Zetetic reason to make his claims and backs it up with experimental evidence.

Show me just one experiment of his that I cannot logically refute with Zetetic wisdom.

Challenge was issued and accepted, please see the following thread for this challenge:
gotham's challenge...conclusive proof of a FE

The experiments in ENaG have been duplicated.

You're right, the Bedford Canal was actually proven to be inconclusive and therefore not proof of the Earth's flatness. Good job!

Why do people think science deals in truths?

Because it doesn't.

Science tries to explain the world around us based on evidence. It does not imply the explanation is the absolute truth, just that it's the mostly likely explanation based on the evidence.

It would make a scientist a millionaire over night if they could prove that Einstein's wrong or the laws of thermodynamics fail, because they've managed to do something that no other scientist on the planet has been able to do so far.

so scientists are all relativists?

Quote from: gotham on March 27, 2011, 04:17:48 AM

The experiments in ENaG have been duplicated.

You're right, the Bedford Canal was actually proven to be inconclusive and therefore not proof of the Earth's flatness. Good job!

By Rowbotham's own observations, the Bedford Canal is clearly not a perfectly level surface.  There is a downward current even if only minute, and there is even 1 or 2 changes in grade of the current enough for a ship to disappear for a short period of time, only to reappear further on.

This is strong evidence of a distinct elevation difference over a 6 mile stretch (by at least the full height of a ship), which of course will invalidate it for use in experiments to demonstrate the shape of the earth.

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on March 26, 2011, 06:49:17 AM

Why do people think science deals in truths?

Because it doesn't.

Science tries to explain the world around us based on evidence. It does not imply the explanation is the absolute truth, just that it's the mostly likely explanation based on the evidence.

It would make a scientist a millionaire over night if they could prove that Einstein's wrong or the laws of thermodynamics fail, because they've managed to do something that no other scientist on the planet has been able to do so far.

so scientists are all relativists?

Science makes an attempt to approximate truth based on observation, experiment, and the data at hand.  Science is very careful about calling anything as truth without absolute and undeniable proof... that's why they have so many Scientific Theories and very few Scientific Laws.

Science makes an attempt to approximate truth based on observation, experiment, and the data at hand.  Science is very careful about calling anything as truth without absolute and undeniable proof... that's why they have so many Scientific Theories and very few Scientific Laws.

Actually, there is a small but important detail about the words "theory" and "law" in science.

When Newton proposed his models he used the word "law" because he thought he really had found an immutable fact about nature. Now scientists know that there are no hypothesis that will certainly withstand the test of time intact, so they call the best hypothesis available "theories", not "laws".

So, for example, Evolution is a theory which might get some updates in the unforeseeable future, but no scientist is really expecting it to be totally reversed, ever. It is as close to total truth as you can find in science.

Theory is the highest level of knowledge in science. the phrase "it is just a theory" is only used by the ignorant who want to discredit science but have no argument.

Sometimes the word "law" is used for some theories because of historical reasons (like Ohm's law, or Snell's law) but real scientists know those are theories, and are as certain as anything can get in science.

so scientists are all relativists?

To my understanding of that term... yes.

I probably don't understand the term since you tend to argue against scientists and I consider that a positive mark for them.

It's hilarious how the OP says this while typing on a computer, a device which is accumulative of many, many, many years of Scientific advances that he takes for granted.

Or how he's probably gotten immunizations from the flu, immunizations from smallpox and other immunizations and medicines that have increased the lifespan of humans from 40 years on average to over 70 years on average, an accumulation of many, many, many years of medicinal science.

It's hilarious how the OP says this while typing on a computer, a device which is accumulative of many, many, many years of Scientific advances that he takes for granted.

Or how he's probably gotten immunizations from the flu, immunizations from smallpox and other immunizations and medicines that have increased the lifespan of humans from 40 years on average to over 70 years on average, an accumulation of many, many, many years of medicinal science.

Great. The hundreds of millions killed in the 20th century's technological wars? What about atom bombs, pesticides and global warming? You know, the potential end of life as we know it on this planet? Was it really worth it for a computer?

Quote from: RoundEarthGuy on April 08, 2011, 07:53:51 PM

It's hilarious how the OP says this while typing on a computer, a device which is accumulative of many, many, many years of Scientific advances that he takes for granted.

Or how he's probably gotten immunizations from the flu, immunizations from smallpox and other immunizations and medicines that have increased the lifespan of humans from 40 years on average to over 70 years on average, an accumulation of many, many, many years of medicinal science.

Great. The hundreds of millions killed in the 20th century's technological wars? What about atom bombs, pesticides and global warming? You know, the potential end of life as we know it on this planet? Was it really worth it for a computer?

What potential end of life on this planet?

Great. The hundreds of millions killed in the 20th century's technological wars? What about atom bombs, pesticides and global warming? You know, the potential end of life as we know it on this planet? Was it really worth it for a computer?

Life could end on this planet in a millisecond if a large enough asteroid struck it, or a nearby star supernova's, or an extremely large 'supervolcano' decides to make an appearance. All of these things happen regularly, resetting the evolutionary clock. There's lots of more common and dangerous things in the Universe, and our understanding of them is the only way we can hope to survive.

Also, people killed each other before technology joined the fray. You should be attacking humanity's need to always fight, not the weapons with which we do it; you don't avoid buying a car because there's a chance you could crash it.

Also, people killed each other before technology joined the fray. You should be attacking humanity's need to always fight, not the weapons with which we do it; you don't avoid buying a car because there's a chance you could crash it.

Sorry, but scientists don't get to take credit for saving lives with some inventions but at the same time duck responsability for the lives taken by other inventions. Either scientists are responible for saving and ending lives through medical and military technology respectively, or they aren't responsible for saving or ending any lives. You can't have it both ways.

Quote from: Vindictus on April 13, 2011, 04:29:25 AM

Also, people killed each other before technology joined the fray. You should be attacking humanity's need to always fight, not the weapons with which we do it; you don't avoid buying a car because there's a chance you could crash it.

Sorry, but scientists don't get to take credit for saving lives with some inventions but at the same time duck responsability for the lives taken by other inventions. Either scientists are responible for saving and ending lives through medical and military technology respectively, or they aren't responsible for saving or ending any lives. You can't have it both ways.

One scientist invents the knife, designed to increase our productivity in the kitchen. A man finds another use for the knife and murders somebody.
A scientist invents the atomic bomb, another uses this new technology to help solve our energy crisis.
All in all, most scientists are there for the money and the discoveries. It's not as though most are mad scientists at heart, and if a scientist invents a mass killing device, are they the ones to blame when they aren't the ones that are going to be using it?

It's how you use it, and the scientist isn't responsible for the man that decided to cut people rather than vegetables.

But he is responsible for the lives saved by a doctor? Like I said, you can't have it both ways. Scientists can't claim credit for the lives saved as a result of their discoveries without taking responsability for the lives lost as a result of their discoveries.