You dont expect me to believe that??

steddyeddy

On boards lately we have seen an increase in the number of people who dont accept some of the current scientific thinking. Some for example dont believe we're evolved from a common anscestor with the apes, others dont accept that GMOs (genetically modified organisims) are safe and some dont accept global warming (well human accelerated global warming anyway).

I'm a scientist and I dont see anything wrong with being skeptical about current scientific thinking. As long as you can back up your argument. If people cant challenge current scientific thinking thats not science thats dogma.

So is there any current scientific thinking you dont accept? Personally I dont think ivf is as safe as some people think but in fairness some studies are starting to agree with me. What science doubts do you hold and do you think the increasing distrust of scientists and science is warranted?

Mint Sauce

The moon landings.

RainMaker

I'm not sure about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

steddyeddy

irish-stew wrote: »

The moon landings.

Fair enough. Can you back that up though?

jimmycrackcorm

Saw some drunk people in Temple Bar so I accept the monkey evolution thing.

RidleyRider

I don't believe babies are made the same way mammy and daddy said they were

Mint Sauce

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fair enough. Can you back that up though?

Well they never went back for a start. Where's all this talk of moon bases and jump/relay points for further travel that we were promised.

Frederica Beauregard

Yes, but I learned my lesson after my car, with garbage filled blender hooked up to fuel tank, hit wall despite my speed reaching well above 88 miles per hour.

steddyeddy

irish-stew wrote: »

Well they never went back for a start. Where's all this talk of moon bases and jump/relay points for further travel that we were promised.

You didnt get an invite :eek:?

IceFjoem

Have you any evidence of this supposed increase in skepticism?

franktheplank

I'm a bit skeptical about the whole astrology thing.

Maybe it's just because im Sagittarian.

steddyeddy

IceFjoem wrote: »

Have you any evidence of this supposed increase in skepticism?

Well just look at the threads on boards. Look at the attacks on gm crops, many scientists are targeted with hate mail for their support of global warming and look at the level of support for creationisim.

1ZRed

In before RTDH who'll blast you away with one of his highly credible scientific articles to put you in your place for good!

franktheplank

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well just look at the threads on boards. Look at the attacks on gm crops, many scientists are targeted with hate mail for their support of global warming and look at the level of support for creationisim.

I dunno, Im still kinda skeptical.

Tom_Cruise

I am also a scient(olgist) and i think when we die we get the answers to all of lifes questions.

DEFTLEFTHAND

irish-stew wrote: »

Well they never went back for a start. Where's all this talk of moon bases and jump/relay points for further travel that we were promised.

The USA did about 6 manned landings between 1969 and 1972. I presume the extraordinary costs put an end to their moon programme.

Piliger

steddyeddy wrote: »

On boards lately we have seen an increase in the number of people who dont accept some of the current scientific thinking.
Some for example dont believe we're evolved from a common anscestor with the apes ...

First of all, if you are going to start setting scientific standards in a discussion, then avoid enormous errors like calling Evolution "current scientific thinking'. Current Scientific Thinking is a fluctuating state that changes according to changes in the ebb and flow of evidence. Evolution has been wholly proven by 100 years of repeatable data and evidence. It is most definitely not 'current scientific thinking'.

. . . others dont accept that GMOs (genetically modified organisims) are safe and some dont accept global warming (well human accelerated global warming anyway).

There is no solid proven evidence that GMO are safe. There is simply no evidence that they are harmful as yet. But it is very early days in the life of a major new science like this. In fact it hasn't even reached the stage of being 'current scientific thinking' except within the food industry.

I'm a scientist and I dont see anything wrong with being skeptical about current scientific thinking. As long as you can back up your argument. If people cant challenge current scientific thinking thats not science thats dogma.

I am sceptical about your profession considering your inaccurate and mistaken terminology. Also 'current scientific thinking' has never been a fixed immovable state of affairs that objects to alternative thinking. That is why the word 'current' is used.

So is there any current scientific thinking you dont accept? Personally I dont think ivf is as safe as some people think but in fairness some studies are starting to agree with me. What science doubts do you hold and do you think the increasing distrust of scientists and science is warranted?

Your comment on ivf is illuminating. The vast and overwhelming body of research says it is safe, yet you chose to give weight to one or two questionable studies.

I suggest this is not a thread that you should have started, as you tripped right at the first hurdle.

newmug

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well just look at the threads on boards. Look at the attacks on gm crops, many scientists are targeted with hate mail for their support of global warming and look at the level of support for creationisim.

Boards is not a national thermometer for anything but. It attracts a type of poster who does not represent the normal cross-section of people of Ireland in the main. Therefore, although I agree with you that there are a lot of threads contravening current scientific thinking, this in no way represents the average Irish persons opinion on same. Thankfully:D

Frederica Beauregard

Science can be misused though. We are told that medical studies are based on hard science but often times it has turned out the results have been manipulated. Is it not understanding for people to be skeptical when they see pharmaceutical companies being fines for such lying. The word science is quite often shoehorned into discussions, no. To give an air of credibility where at times none is deserved.

The King of Moo

I'll never believe it's not butter.

Senna

Its better to be skeptical than except everything your told. Current scientific thinking (as you call it) could be proved wrong on nearly any topic, the 2 you mention especially.

Where To

Gravity is balls!!

steddyeddy

Piliger wrote: »

First of all, if you are going to start setting scientific standards in a discussion, then avoid enormous errors like calling Evolution "current scientific thinking'. Current Scientific Thinking is a fluctuating state that changes according to changes in the ebb and flow of evidence. Evolution has been wholly proven by 100 years of repeatable data and evidence. It is most definitely not 'current scientific thinking'.
There is no solid proven evidence that GMO are safe. There is simply no evidence that they are harmful as yet. But it is very early days in the life of a major new science like this. In fact it hasn't even reached the stage of being 'current scientific thinking' except within the food industry.

I am sceptical about your profession considering your inaccurate and mistaken terminology. Also 'current scientific thinking' has never been a fixed immovable state of affairs that objects to alternative thinking. That is why the word 'current' is used.

Your comment on ivf is illuminating. The vast and overwhelming body of research says it is safe, yet you chose to give weight to one or two questionable studies.

I suggest this is not a thread that you should have started, as you tripped right at the first hurdle.

You misunderstand my post. Current scientific thinking is not by definition of the reality of the world. Current scientific thinking is how scientists see the world.

You seem to be under the illusion that I dont believe in evolution. Well thats not the case. Again evolution is a fact and also current scientific thinking. Current scientific thinking as a term does not mean "not proven".

Also my reference to current scientific thinking is an admission to the fact that the perception of science isnt a fixed state of affairs. That is my point. Whats thought of as safe today or accurate often wont be safe or accurate tomorrow.

As regards IVF I do think its largely extremely safe but I think there is more risks involved with IVF than a regular pregnancy. Those possible risks are bound to possible errors involving information other than DNA sequence that is heritable during cell division.

IVF shouldnt be automatically more risk bound but current attitudes to cell culturing dont always take into account sensitivity to histone acetylation, methylation, cpg methylation and possible cell enviroment reprogramming.

By the way scientists give weight to any scientific paper as long as the experiment methods are sound and the abstract clear. It's not a popularity contest.

steddyeddy

Senna wrote: »

Its better to be skeptical than except everything your told. Current scientific thinking (as you call it) could be proved wrong on nearly any topic, the 2 you mention especially.

Indeed. Thats an attitude I can agree with. Current scientific thinking changes all the time so it's always important to question.

Rigol

I'm all for the scientific method but from my research* I've been getting the impression of a sense of arrogance from the skeptical side.

It's the easiest position to hold on any topic** and skepticism leaves plenty of room to guffaw at the latest buffoon who thinks one day man will one day break the rules of physics and actually fly ....haw haw haw.

*(mostly online flame wars and nonsensical roundabout philosophical ramblings from various arrogant stubborn single-minded goatee wearers in basements)

** plus it gives an air of nonchalance and superiority to anyone who can google facts and copy and paste.

Seriously though, some seem just a little too eager in their readiness to be perfectly objective.

Frederica Beauregard

Double post - moderators delete please, don't know how.

Rigol

Frederica Beauregard wrote: »

They must have been asking for Cola bottles and he got confused and thought they meant coke.

Wrong tab.
Thatll teach you to open two tabs from the same site at one time.
Such wrecklessness.

Grimebox

I'm leaving town, but my cream says apply locally. Can I take it with me or is it too much of a risk?

Lapin

Rigol wrote: »

Wrong tab.
Thatll teach you to open two tabs from the same site at one time.
Such wrecklessness.

Outrageous carry on.

Anyway, back on topic, I always leave one tin of beans stacked on top of another on my kitchen shelf.

Its my way of proving to myself the existance of a higher bean.

:pac:






Is that my coat ?

Adyx

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The USA did about 6 manned landings between 1969 and 1972. I presume the extraordinary costs put an end to their moon programme.

That and the fact that it was just a dick-waving contest. The only reason to go to the moon is to establish a staging post for more worthwhile exploration of the Solar System.

SunDog

Adyx wrote: »

That and the fact that it was just a dick-waving contest. The only reason to go to the moon is to establish a staging post for more worthwhile exploration of the Solar System.

Read recently that what the US of A military uses in ac is equal to the entire NASA budget.:eek: