DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> An observation on the role of science...
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 45 of 45, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/02/2009 05:40:48 PM · #26
I think the point in the original quote is a little more general than merely talking about ways in which the understanding brought about by science drives back the unkown etc.

I thought about it like this:

1. (Not a scientist) Either, this is good let's see if I can make it happen again, or this is bad let's ignore it and hope it doesn't happen again.

2. (Scientist/Post-Enlightment product of culture/whatever) This is interesting, let's see if I can make it happen again.

Science, as an institution, increases societal rewards for engaging with things many would rather not think about.

06/02/2009 05:45:12 PM · #27
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Yet, science tells us on a regular basis that certain food/drinks are good for us, then they tell us a little later that they are bad for us. It makes you think that perhaps the scientists are hedging their bets just as most of us are!


People say that a lot, but it's a very disingenuous way of putting it. Yes, there are always stories about how eggs are bad/good/ok, or how antioxidants in wine/tea etc are the second coming/do very little

BUT, the overwhelming scientific consensus over the last thirty years for ensuring lower rates of cancer, heart disease and many many other conditions is to eat a balanced diet: less meat; more vegetables and fish.

The details change as we find out more about the specific properties of food/ publish studies funded by corporate interests, but the general principles are extremely consistent, and the evidence is only getting stronger.
 06/02/2009 06:04:13 PM · #28
There ya go, people! Now we're cooking with GAS!

R.
 06/02/2009 06:10:06 PM · #29
I think one way that science has decreased the potential for mind control is technically speaking anybody can test a claim. You can't test the claim that a supreme being told somebody else that all disease is caused by mischievous elves dropping toxic powder on our faces when we sleep. You can, however, test if exposure to a certain bacterium causes illnesses.
I say "technically" for a reason though, as most people lack the funds and resources to do such a thing, especially with anything that's cutting edge/high level science. So to this extent, yes, to a degree one controller has replaced another, but I like to think that not everybody is corrupt, that there is at least a few scientists out there with access to the resources necessary to prove how utterly ridiculous some claims are.
 06/02/2009 06:14:45 PM · #30
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Yet, science tells us on a regular basis that certain food/drinks are good for us, then they tell us a little later that they are bad for us. It makes you think that perhaps the scientists are hedging their bets just as most of us are!


People say that a lot, but it's a very disingenuous way of putting it. Yes, there are always stories about how eggs are bad/good/ok, or how antioxidants in wine/tea etc are the second coming/do very little

BUT, the overwhelming scientific consensus over the last thirty years for ensuring lower rates of cancer, heart disease and many many other conditions is to eat a balanced diet: less meat; more vegetables and fish.

The details change as we find out more about the specific properties of food/ publish studies funded by corporate interests, but the general principles are extremely consistent, and the evidence is only getting stronger.


I think the overwhelming consensus is wrong!

I have always eaten healthy, home cooked, no junk food.

I have had cancer, my wife has had cancer. I recently visited the village where we lived and 50% of the people there have had cancer in the past 10 years. Is it part of their diet in the past? Is it more pollution now? Or is modern technology better at spotting and diagnosing cancer?

I don't accept modern science as the be all and end all. It is just an advance in our lives, for the better or worse.
 06/02/2009 06:22:44 PM · #31
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Yet, science tells us on a regular basis that certain food/drinks are good for us, then they tell us a little later that they are bad for us. It makes you think that perhaps the scientists are hedging their bets just as most of us are!


People say that a lot, but it's a very disingenuous way of putting it. Yes, there are always stories about how eggs are bad/good/ok, or how antioxidants in wine/tea etc are the second coming/do very little

BUT, the overwhelming scientific consensus over the last thirty years for ensuring lower rates of cancer, heart disease and many many other conditions is to eat a balanced diet: less meat; more vegetables and fish.

The details change as we find out more about the specific properties of food/ publish studies funded by corporate interests, but the general principles are extremely consistent, and the evidence is only getting stronger.


I think the overwhelming consensus is wrong!

I have always eaten healthy, home cooked, no junk food.

I have had cancer, my wife has had cancer. I recently visited the village where we lived and 50% of the people there have had cancer in the past 10 years. Is it part of their diet in the past? Is it more pollution now? Or is modern technology better at spotting and diagnosing cancer?

I don't accept modern science as the be all and end all. It is just an advance in our lives, for the better or worse.


There are so many different causes for cancer that as of now, it is futile to pinpoint one thing as the cause for most cases. (unless you spent your life inhaling asbestos or something obvious like that). It could be anything from your predisposition to the affliction to the curing agent used in your car's leather seats.
 06/02/2009 06:27:40 PM · #32
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
BUT, the overwhelming scientific consensus over the last thirty years for ensuring lower rates of cancer, heart disease and many many other conditions is to eat a balanced diet: less meat; more vegetables and fish.


Whoops. Even such a simple generalization isn't error proof. We are cautioning on the fish portion because many fish contain more mercury than is acceptable... :P
 06/02/2009 06:33:34 PM · #33
These statements elevate science to the role that religion used to fill. Science is the new religion, and Mother Earth the new deity. The problem is that there is little independent science going on. Science is done to achieve an outcome. Some science is done to promote the theory of global warming. Some science is done to sell products such as vitamins. Some science is done to invent a product that will be profitable. Most science done is motivated by a predetermined outcome, depriving it of independence. Placing our faith in science to mitigate our fears will ultimately be unfulfilling. Better to stick with religion to deal with your inner issues of fear. It will do a far better job.
 06/02/2009 06:34:43 PM · #34
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
BUT, the overwhelming scientific consensus over the last thirty years for ensuring lower rates of cancer, heart disease and many many other conditions is to eat a balanced diet: less meat; more vegetables and fish.


Whoops. Even such a simple generalization isn't error proof. We are cautioning on the fish portion because many fish contain more mercury than is acceptable... :P


Fish is good, mercury is not. Particular types of fish are more prone to having a higher mercury content, influenced in no small part by industrial pollution. This is hardly a reversal.
 06/02/2009 06:52:24 PM · #35
Originally posted by meyers:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
BUT, the overwhelming scientific consensus over the last thirty years for ensuring lower rates of cancer, heart disease and many many other conditions is to eat a balanced diet: less meat; more vegetables and fish.


Whoops. Even such a simple generalization isn't error proof. We are cautioning on the fish portion because many fish contain more mercury than is acceptable... :P


Fish is good, mercury is not. Particular types of fish are more prone to having a higher mercury content, influenced in no small part by industrial pollution. This is hardly a reversal.


I didn't say it was a reversal, I'm just saying you can't even say "more fish" without having to be more specific. In other words, the advice "eat more fish" isn't a slam dunk to be good advice. If you are pregnant and you are eating more swordfish, you are, in fact, taking bad advice.

Message edited by author 2009-06-02 18:52:55.
 06/02/2009 07:02:37 PM · #36
Originally posted by cloudsme:
The problem is that there is little independent science going on. Science is done to achieve an outcome. Some science is done to promote the theory of global warming. Some science is done to sell products such as vitamins. Some science is done to invent a product that will be profitable. Most science done is motivated by a predetermined outcome, depriving it of independence.


That's the crux of the matter, absolutely.... The key word is "independent"... T the extent that science is co opted by policy, we all lose...

R.
 06/02/2009 07:17:29 PM · #37
I knew that would come back to bite me. I was considering adding 'taking mercury levels into account', but I figured I'd go for concision.

The soundbite is killing us people. No matter what you say, it is ALWAYS valid for someone to say 'actually it's more complicated than that'. That's why science is so much fun.

Also, 'actually it's much simpler than that' is another pretty good response.

There, I think I covered most bases.
 06/02/2009 07:19:07 PM · #38
Originally posted by zarniwoop:
There, I think I covered most bases.


Except home plate...

R.
 06/02/2009 07:26:21 PM · #39
Never liked baseball anyway. There's no wicket.
 06/02/2009 07:37:17 PM · #40
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Very interesting. Science does take away the mysteries of life. But, when push comes to shove, the old, primitive fears still surface. No matter how advanced we feel we have become, there is no way for us to get rid of our basic animal instincts.

Knowledge is a dangerous thing, we all know about death, and we know about eating wisely to prolong our lives. Yet, science tells us on a regular basis that certain food/drinks are good for us, then they tell us a little later that they are bad for us. It makes you think that perhaps the scientists are hedging their bets just as most of us are!

Science works, so I am told. Death happens, so I am told, but I will never know if this is true. But inspiration and invention is what drives and moulds our lives.


Thats the beauty of the scientific process..... you propose something, design a way to find out more about it, and then tell everyone about what you found. Then, it is up to other scientists to evaluate your work with further study. Sometimes that study confirms the original result, sometimes it contradicts it... and we learn as a result.

Science works, so you are told, and so you have shown. You are using a computer, a camera, and countless other forms of technology, all of which are the result of the scientific process. Even in our own lifetimes, regardless of how old we are, I think many of us can recognize the advances that science has provided. I remember a time before cell phones, plasma/LCD tvs, internet, environmentally friendly cars, etc... and I am only 31.

I should also mention that I am a science teacher, so I may be biased toward science :)
 06/02/2009 11:38:48 PM · #41
Originally posted by yanko:
but does Obama win the election if there wasn't a fear of the Bush policies continuing on via McCain?


THIS!
 06/03/2009 02:16:14 AM · #42
Originally posted by cloudsme:
These statements elevate science to the role that religion used to fill. Science is the new religion, and Mother Earth the new deity. The problem is that there is little independent science going on. Science is done to achieve an outcome. Some science is done to promote the theory of global warming. Some science is done to sell products such as vitamins. Some science is done to invent a product that will be profitable. Most science done is motivated by a predetermined outcome, depriving it of independence. Placing our faith in science to mitigate our fears will ultimately be unfulfilling. Better to stick with religion to deal with your inner issues of fear. It will do a far better job.


That's a really unfair statement. The main purpose why people do science is to increase knowledge. Of course one needs money for that. If you get it from government it's politically motivated. If you get it from a company like me, then you have to develop new products which make money. It's a give-give situation, else you get fired. But believe me, if my interests were purely commercial, it would have been much easier and by far more lucrative to go for finance, law,... Don't forget that most scientific publications are cross-checked by other research groups, who have not always the same interests. On the long term, biased results will not survive.
 06/03/2009 11:42:15 AM · #43
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
On the long term, biased results will not survive.


I'm afraid I don't subscribe to this statement nearly to the extent I wish I could.
 06/03/2009 02:52:31 PM · #44
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
On the long term, biased results will not survive.


I'm afraid I don't subscribe to this statement nearly to the extent I wish I could.


Very much depends on the extent to which the interests of the people funding scientific research remains the same. That's a socio-political problem. I hope we solve it, but even if we don't, variations in culture over the centuries should ensure that things are tested again and again. Also, it's all very well saying that substance X is harmless, three hundred years of data carries a lot more weight than the last ten, twenty, thirty years.

Of course three hundred years from now, new fields, discoveries, rethinking of old fields will be subject to the very same long term etc. etc.

And yes, there can always be manipulation, and suppression of data, it's just harder when you have the scientific method, than when you have the don't ask questions: it's almost certainly a sin attitude.

John Aubrey, the first thing like an archeologist we had in Britain, and a great recorder of local history, described how people of the generation or two before him (They would have been born in the late 1500s) used to look on the gathering of new knowledge, and curiosity about the world as sinful, or at the very least, extremely impolite. Getting past that first hurdle, means that it doesn't matter how many steps backward we take, providing we never forget that repeatable experimentation and the analysis thereof works we can always regain lost ground.

06/03/2009 05:20:36 PM · #45
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
On the long term, biased results will not survive.


I'm afraid I don't subscribe to this statement nearly to the extent I wish I could.


Well until now it is quite simply a historical fact. You do not bleed veins in order to draw noxious humors, do you ;-)? At the moment, more and more people begin to have doubts again. Fundamental theories (mainly the "mother-ship" physics) are now a bit staled for half a century. But that's hardly a big time scale, so it does not take a lot of optimism to assume that it will also work in the future. Maybe I am an idealistic fool, but I am looking forward for the next cycle of refutations/new discoveries. What else can we do than keep on testing things, in the line of the OP? What else, that is the interesting existential question about science.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 08:12:44 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 08:12:44 AM EDT.