Feedback and Notes

 

Imagine No Religion

Latest Activity

Mrs.B commented on Stephen's group Secularism in the UK and Europe.and all those lucky places that doesnt have Trump as its leader
2 hours ago
Stephen commented on Stephen's group Secularism in the UK and Europe.and all those lucky places that doesnt have Trump as its leader
2 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Stephen's group Secularism in the UK and Europe.and all those lucky places that doesnt have Trump as its leader
2 hours ago
Mrs.B left a comment for Md Jasim Uddin Khan
3 hours ago
Stephen commented on Stephen's group Secularism in the UK and Europe.and all those lucky places that doesnt have Trump as its leader
3 hours ago
Stephen commented on Stephen's group Secularism in the UK and Europe.and all those lucky places that doesnt have Trump as its leader
4 hours ago
Lutz posted a blog post
9 hours ago
Lutz joined Marianne's group
10 hours ago
Lutz replied to Lutz's discussion Wikipedia -data by social media enforcers
11 hours ago
Lutz replied to JeanMarie's discussion What song is stuck in your head right now? in the group The Music Box
12 hours ago
Stephen left a comment for Zachary Konopa
13 hours ago
Stephen left a comment for T.J. Thomas
13 hours ago
Stephen left a comment for husain
13 hours ago
Stephen left a comment for Austin P
13 hours ago
Stephen left a comment for Anand Prithvi
13 hours ago
Stephen left a comment for Md Jasim Uddin Khan
13 hours ago
Md Jasim Uddin Khan is now a member of Atheist Universe
13 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Julien's group The Music Box
15 hours ago
Onyango Makagutu left a comment for cherry wilhelm
16 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on A Former Member's group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral | Fungus or Scump
20 hours ago

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

Tremendous achievements and advances in understanding what surrounds us and about us too have been made since early civilizations because of scientific discoveries. But at this time, science seems to be bandied about often erroneously or without backing or proofs.

I would like to hear what are the references of what I hear constantly "according to science" or "it has been scientifically proven".  The words "I believe in science" are so common, sometimes I think it's almost like saying "I believe in the god science".

I am a skeptic by nature and if somebody tells me "that it has been scientifically proven", there is still a question mark in my mind.  Where did that statement come from ?  Can you give me any references (valid ones) and how they reached that conclusion, well if I can understand it which I hope I will do.  I would like to know what kind of research it entailed;  has it been warped by people misunderstanding, misinformed or maybe tainted by people retelling each other ?

Some popularization work or popular scientific work often presents mind shattering developments.  But what about their sources or proper referencing by reliable researchers well know in their field.

To me, scientific development and innovations should be rigorously done, properly researched and subject to cross-examination and tested properly before being considered as valid.

The field of meteorology is one where conclusions are drawn has always been a bit suspect to me; predictions appear to me dubious at least.  Correct me please if I'm wrong.

I am all for scientific achievements and developments, by no mean am I anti-science but I believe that before being published for general consumption as scientific truths, it should be subjected to much scrutiny.

When people make assertions that because it is science it is true, I raise my eyebrows and these "sayings" have definitely become a popular trend.

But, let me conclude by writing that I am all for proper scientific achievements, so often an eye-opener...

Views: 186

Nice Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Universe to add comments!

Join Atheist Universe

Comment by Lutz on December 16, 2018 at 4:15am

The problem is many reporting on science are ignorant about the scientific method. Or often its subject matter. In the popular media. Not its specialist publications. There are also many academically trained incompetents who are smart enough to fake their research to make it look convincing. Coffee kills you. Drinking kills you. Smoking kills you. When I was still addicted to nicotine various GPs actually were NOT worried. This was indeed good news. Because they did not believe the propaganda put out by various government health agencies. Who inflated the figures anyway. Claiming to be scientific of course. Now 1000/1000000 people die from particle pollutants coming mainly out of traffic. So where is the outrage? By these same government departments demonizing cigarettes. Which does not contribute to climate change. Cars do. But these asphyxiated victims, when I suspect it is known they were smokers were then shifted to -death by smoking. That is how science is misused for ideological ends. Same with social scientists pontificating on 'drug abuse'. What an oxymoron. Is there 'beer abuse?' 'Television abuse?' People have enjoyed drugs for millennia. No abuse there. But it is a 'signifier'. It certainly is not science. My eye opener to all of this was a subject at university called 'History and Philosophy of Science' It wasn't anti science. Our brilliant Dr. Panther warned us of academic obscurantists. With their hidden agendas. His target were basically Social Scientists. And he was right. I am a Sociologist by degree. I found how they pretended to by 'scientific'. It was laughable. It was terrible. Psychologists are even worse. They don't even study the mind. Buddhists know more in this field.

The real scientists, the physicists, the whole gamut of hard working people basically sacrificing wealth and fame for advancing knowledge are often left, socially, publically in the dark. It is the headline grabbing show ponies who do all the damage. And they also admit getting their message across in this social media frenzy so fashionable now is a hard ask.  

Comment by Chris on August 30, 2014 at 12:36am

I wouldn't say that science has become the new god, but has become the new knowledge.

Early warning system for earthquakes.

Comment by Chris on August 30, 2014 at 12:07am

I recently tuned in to ABC/KGO channel 7 in San Francisco about the earthquake in Napa. I thought they did a good job covering the earthquake damage. I liked that they did it without commercial interruption.

Here's a map of the earthquake damage in Napa.

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on August 29, 2014 at 7:46am

Marianne, about meteorology, you're not wrong. More in a few moments.

What do you say to the idea that when you were learning to crawl without bumping into things in your path, your mind was learning how to do differential equations?

If you were crawling fast, your mind had to "compute" fast to tell you to slow down or change directions fast.

Then, learning how to walk without falling required more complex equations.

As to weather prediction, my differential equations professor said so many things affect the weather that no one knows how to write the equations and no computer is fast enough to solve the equations.

And so, continue to doubt weather predictions.

When I lived in San Francisco I heard people say they listen to Channel 7 weather predictions and prepare for the opposite.

Comment by Doone on December 19, 2012 at 5:28pm

THE NEW SCIENTISM

Scientism

In contrast to reason, a defining characteristic of superstition is the stubborn insistence that something — a fetish, an amulet, a pack of Tarot cards — has powers which no evidence supports. From this perspective, scientism appears to have as much in common with superstition as it does with properly conducted scientific research. Scientism claims that science has already resolved questions that are inherently beyond its ability to answer. Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence. Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will serve only to undermine the credibility of science as a whole. The ultimate outcome will be an increase of radical skepticism that questions the ability of science to address even the questions legitimately within its sphere of competence. One longs for a new Enlightenment to puncture the pretensions of this latest superstition.

more from Austin L. Hughes at The New Atlantis here.

Posted by Morgan Meis at 10:42 AM | Permalink |

Comment by Marianne on December 13, 2012 at 10:41pm

What I meant to convey was that distorted science, fallacious science, using science almost as a god word in cases where it has no place to be can also be harmul, first to proper science and also to misleadng people. I agree that the word science doesn't equate with religion or religious beliefs and it's probably more fun to use but my blog was to be aware that caution is needed when using science as a know it all...

Comment by Doone on December 13, 2012 at 8:50am

The nice thing about science as a supposed god is that it is fun (unlike the alternative), informative (unlike the alternative) and good for you (well, sometimes the alternative is also good). Science as a process also helps us improve our lives and the lives of your children etc etc 

Comment by Matttammar on December 12, 2012 at 2:32pm

If a theory has been scientifically proven, peers have done their best to find fault but couldn't. The theory is then accepted until it can be replaced by a superior theory. I find that system infinitely
less dubious than religious doctrine! Meteorology is based on probabilities and
can never be more than that.  
 

Comment by Chris on December 12, 2012 at 4:19am

Good points Adriana.

I think newspapers are also culprits of sensationalism, or maybe at least reaching for conclusions that haven't actually been made yet. Watch the following video 

Cosmic Journeys Supermassive Black Hole in the Milky Way Galaxy is covers

Janskky discovered the buldge in the universe at the constellation Sagittarius in the 1930's. Becklin marks the center of the andromeda galaxy and calls it Sagittarius-A-star.

Genzel narrows the search in 1990

Becklin and Gates narrow it further in 1993

In 2002 is proof of a black hole. It may have been written that proof of the black hole was found during the previous work.

Comment by Adriana on December 11, 2012 at 12:07pm

© 2019   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service