The world would be a better place if we lived by science

MRnotlob606

I wouldn't like if in an overly scientific and rationalist world. It would make humans like mere automatons who just stepped off assembly lines. I think people would start treating Science as a dogma, and will feel an existentialist angst over when they try to look for morality and answers from Science.

sonny.knowles

Science good. Scientists bad.

La Fenetre

sonny.knowles wrote: »

Science good. Scientists bad.

It isn't "good" or "bad", it's in the hands of the user.

suicide_circus

Religion degrades us.

If I behave in a decent and socially responsible way, is that because I know logically this is the best way to act or is it because I fear judgement day?

Why don't I commit murder? Is it because God told me not to?

Our ethics and morals come from....OURSELVES. In terms of evolution and a healthy human society, murder, rape, theft and fraud are largely disruptive and unhelpful - humanity didn't learn this from stone tablets or scrolls - we are social creatures - we work better in groups - murder, rape etc have a negative impact on the cohesiveness of those groups - that's why we avoid these things.

We are the result of unimaginable celestial forces billions of years ago - ancient starts exploding - dust and debris scattered throughout the universe at alarming speeds - we are stardust....how beautiful is that? And we will return to stardust...our planet will eventually be swallowed by the sun and it will be like we never existed....*poof*....gone.

LeinsterDub

Ally Dick wrote: »

Lack of religion could mean lack of morals, so I am not sure that living by science is enough

The Bible is highly immoral. Rape, incest, murder, genocide to name a few

steddyeddy

kneemos wrote: »

No art,creativity or wonderment. No thanks.

That's not what I mean. I mean policies should be evidence based. That doesn't mean getting rid of the arts.

La Fenetre

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The Bible is highly immoral. Rape, incest, murder, genocide to name a few

You mean some of the people in it are

Mesrine65

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The Bible is highly immoral. Rape, incest, murder, genocide to name a few

Sounds good, must give it a read some time

LeinsterDub

La Fenetre wrote: »

You mean some of the people in it are

I mean if you are to believe it. People acting under the guidance of God are highly immoral . In fact God himself comits many immoral acts personally

KomradeBishop

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You changed the question to one you could answer "undoubtedly yes", as if you were making a definitive statement. I presented reasons why your assertion was very much in doubt, because you chose to ignore evidence that didn't suit your answer to your own question which wasn't the question asked in the opening post.

No you just misrepresented what I said. I'm not going to debate from the position of something I did not say, and when posters insist on trying to present me as saying something I did not (by asserting that they 'rebutted' something I didn't say), that gets very tedious and becomes a big waste of time/space in threads.

KomradeBishop

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If anyone was trying to "expand concepts" here (segueway in their own agenda), it was KB, who completely changed the question to one they thought was a "better" one, and decided to offer an answer to that, instead of actually offering any answer to the question in the opening post.

Reframing the question as being based on evidence (one smaller part of science), instead of being based on science, is limiting - not expanding - the question.

Since evidence is a part of science, it's a perfectly fitting and on-topic post - which makes the thread a lot easier to debate, since evidence is a lot less of a broad topic than science is, and a lot easier to defend as a way of basing management of society (in the not-entirely-strict way I presented).

One eyed Jack

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No you just misrepresented what I said. I'm not going to debate from the position of something I did not say, and when posters insist on trying to present me as saying something I did not (by asserting that they 'rebutted' something I didn't say), that gets very tedious and becomes a big waste of time/space in threads.

Sorry? I didn't misrepresent anything you said. It's there in your post in black and white if you'd care to go back and read it for yourself. I wasn't trying to misrepresent you, I was questioning the idea that undoubtedly the world would be a better if the idea of making decisions based on evidence were to gain any traction (or pressure as you put it).

Do you think policy decisions aren't based on evidence already? You're the financial and economics genius (and I mean that genuinely, you're quite passionate about the subject, but not everything can be measured in pence and pounds!), but what happens when the evidence is politically motivated? People presenting evidence that suits their agenda?

I'm not particularly interested in lofty debates myself, it's after hours, there are no stakeholders here.

KomradeBishop

sup_dude wrote: »

People don't know what credible evidence is.

And the world would be a better place if people did - it's not really hard at all to learn the critical thinking skills, needed to evaluate the quality/credibility of sources, and of evidence (yet for some reason, so so many people are incredibly bad at it) - those skills should be taught in school.

KomradeBishop

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sorry? I didn't misrepresent anything you said. It's there in your post in black and white if you'd care to go back and read it for yourself. I wasn't trying to misrepresent you, I was questioning the idea that undoubtedly the world would be a better if the idea of making decisions based on evidence were to gain any traction (or pressure as you put it).

Do you think policy decisions aren't based on evidence already? You're the financial and economics genius (and I mean that genuinely, you're quite passionate about the subject, but not everything can be measured in pence and pounds!), but what happens when the evidence is politically motivated? People presenting evidence that suits their agenda?

I'm not particularly interested in lofty debates myself, it's after hours, there are no stakeholders here.

Well, when people present evidence to suit their own agenda, that's not actually real evidence - when you manufacture false 'evidence', that's fraud not evidence, and when you ignore competing evidence against your argument, that's another kind of intellectual fraud.

A better way to put my argument, is having society be managed on evidence, and proper/accurate evaluation of evidence (all the evidence); that's where the scientific method comes in, as it's a proven method of evaluating evidence and advancing knowledge based upon that.

Ave Sodalis

KomradeBishop wrote:

And the world would be a better place if people did - it's not really hard at all to learn the critical thinking skills, needed to evaluate the quality/credibility of sources, and of evidence (yet for some reason, so so many people are incredibly bad at it) - those skills should be taught in school.

Including scientists. Repeating what I said in my other posts, there is too much bad science out there that you can get evidence for near enough any argument you wish to make. Or you can do what too many studies do, and make your own evidence.

KomradeBishop

sup_dude wrote: »

Including scientists. Repeating what I said in my other posts, there is too much bad science out there that you can get evidence for near enough any argument you wish to make. Or you can do what too many studies do, and make your own evidence.

That's not evidence though - that's fraud.

People should face complete exclusion from the scientific community for that, and should go to prison wherever that kind of fraud is used to hide/cause harm to society - as both the tobacco industry (when it comes to cancer from smoking), and the oil industry (when it comes to climate change research) are both guilty of - the oil producer Exxon in fact, is now looking at facing massive massive lawsuits, just like the Tobacco industry did, for promoting fraudulent climate change science.

steddyeddy

sup_dude wrote: »

Including scientists. Repeating what I said in my other posts, there is too much bad science out there that you can get evidence for near enough any argument you wish to make. Or you can do what too many studies do, and make your own evidence.

There isn't bad science it's just bad conclusions or bad data. Science exposes this with new studies. Science is not static. It's the process of discovery rather than a set of facts.

Ave Sodalis

steddyeddy wrote:

There isn't bad science it's just bad conclusions or bad data. Science exposes this with new studies. Science is not static. It's the process of discovery rather than a set of facts.

I mean in terms of misconduct. Look at the fairly recent case of Dipex Das. 145 cases of misconduct and he is only one person.

Yes, there is fraud but its on a very wide scale. Much too wide to rely on evidence. Yes, there is bad data (huge amounts of it), but could you recognise it in fields that aren't your own? How much of that bad data is referenced, even within fields where they should know better? If people really want to justify something in every day life, they would more than likely be able to find a study or two that supports what they are saying, giving credit to what could be nothing but tripe. A clean up of journals is needed before we start living by them.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

There isn't bad science it's just bad conclusions or bad data. Science exposes this with new studies. Science is not static. It's the process of discovery rather than a set of facts.

I don't understand then how that would be any different from the way most Western democratic secular societies are run now though?

Evidence based decision making is hardly a new thing? We make decisions based upon the weight of evidence available to us at the time, so how do we know, even using critical thinking and evaluation, or even using the scientific method, that the evidence before us is actually incredible if the tools we use fo evaluate the evidence don't catch the bad conclusions or bad data?

I hope that question makes sense, I know it's a bit long, I was trying to get my head around how would what you guys are proposing, be any different from what we have now?

KomradeBishop

sup_dude wrote: »

I mean in terms of misconduct. Look at the fairly recent case of Dipex Das. 145 cases of misconduct and he is only one person.

Yes, there is fraud but its on a very wide scale. Much too wide to rely on evidence. Yes, there is bad data (huge amounts of it), but could you recognise it in fields that aren't your own? How much of that bad data is referenced, even within fields where they should know better? If people really want to justify something in every day life, they would more than likely be able to find a study or two that supports what they are saying, giving credit to what could be nothing but tripe. A clean up of journals is needed before we start living by them.

Yes but you're misusing the word evidence - fraudulent 'evidence', is not actually evidence - it's fraudulent misinformation, trying to masquerade as evidence.

Ave Sodalis

KomradeBishop wrote:

Yes but you're misusing the word evidence - fraudulent 'evidence', is not actually evidence - it's fraudulent misinformation, trying to masquerade as evidence.

But it is used on a wide scale basis as it is, nevermind getting people who dont really have an interest in science to find credible evidence. For example, if I stuck a study in front of you from a veterinary journal on the effect of garlic seaweed on a horses diet, would you be able to tell if it would be considered sufficient evidence for whatever conclusion it came to? If it came to a positive conclusion (let say that it gives a horse a shiny coat and improves joints), and I came running onto the equestrian forum with this study, how many people would just believe me because I have a study?

RDM_83 again

suicide_circus wrote: »

Religion degrades us.

If I behave in a decent and socially responsible way, is that because I know logically this is the best way to act or is it because I fear judgement day?

Why don't I commit murder? Is it because God told me not to?

Our ethics and morals come from....OURSELVES. In terms of evolution and a healthy human society, murder, rape, theft and fraud are largely disruptive and unhelpful - humanity didn't learn this from stone tablets or scrolls - we are social creatures - we work better in groups - murder, rape etc have a negative impact on the cohesiveness of those groups - that's why we avoid these things.

We are the result of unimaginable celestial forces billions of years ago - ancient starts exploding - dust and debris scattered throughout the universe at alarming speeds - we are stardust....how beautiful is that? And we will return to stardust...our planet will eventually be swallowed by the sun and it will be like we never existed....*poof*....gone.

Thats a very narrow view thats framed completely in a largely peaceful Europe thats been shaped by Christian morality.

Yes we work better in groups but between groups rape and murder have traditionally been astoundingly common throughout history.

What imposing a pacifist morality (which Christianity and some other belief systems are at its core) does is essentially pushes towards a co-operative response when the Game Theory ideas of co-operation vs aggression (Hawks vs Dove).
Rationally can you say that somebody like Ghengus Khan was not a model to aspire too, he was amazingly successful in passing on his genes and ensuring their survival which from a truly rational and scientific perspective is all that really matters. He killed millions but scientifically why is human life precious and suffering a bad thing? its just electrical signals in a mass of self replicating long chain amino acids and proteins.

KomradeBishop

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't understand then how that would be any different from the way most Western democratic secular societies are run now though?

Evidence based decision making is hardly a new thing? We make decisions based upon the weight of evidence available to us at the time, so how do we know, even using critical thinking and evaluation, or even using the scientific method, that the evidence before us is actually incredible if the tools we use fo evaluate the evidence don't catch the bad conclusions or bad data?

I hope that question makes sense, I know it's a bit long, I was trying to get my head around how would what you guys are proposing, be any different from what we have now?

Politics pays lipservice to evidence, but doesn't really operate based upon evidence, unless the evidence is so well established with the public that it's impossible not to.
The idea of the Overton Window is a good way of understanding how politics works - and how it doesn't have much bearing on evidence/science.

Even then, you've got whole fields like economics, where the dominant ideology largely ignores all evidence and resists reform, because economics is really all about political power - and maintaining that political power, depends upon corrupting that field of research and delaying the proper application of evidence, for as long as possible (I reckon it might even be possible to avoid that field from ever reforming - all the conditions are in place, for allowing raw political power to isolate reformists, and in a generation or two all the lessons learned from the current crisis can be forgotten - just like after the 1930's).


Evidence based decision making, and proper application of the scientific method to evaluate available evidence, is fairly easy - the tools we have available, work, and are largely accurate, and catch bad conclusions/data if applied well - it's getting people to actually do that, without politics corrupting the process, that's the hard/intractable bit.

It's not the process (evidence and the scientific method) that becomes the problem, it's the corruption of the process so that it's no longer about evidence/science, but about politics instead, that's the problem.

KomradeBishop

sup_dude wrote: »

But it is used on a wide scale basis as it is, nevermind getting people who dont really have an interest in science to find credible evidence. For example, if I stuck a study in front of you from a veterinary journal on the effect of garlic seaweed on a horses diet, would you be able to tell if it would be considered sufficient evidence for whatever conclusion it came to? If it came to a positive conclusion (let say that it gives a horse a shiny coat and improves joints), and I came running onto the equestrian forum with this study, how many people would just believe me because I have a study?

If people accept what you say, just because you present a study, they're not really engaging in any kind of critical thinking - all potential evidence/sources need to be evaluated and continuously re-evaluated.

That doesn't change my original point though, that if the 'evidence' presented is fraudulent, it's not actually evidence - that'd be a misuse of the word evidence.

When I talk about evidence in the thread here, I am talking about proper evidence, correctly evaluated and vetted, and subject to the scientific method - definitely not any kind of 'evidence' that is based on fraud, or intellectual sleight-of-hand, that goes against the scientific method.

dirtyden

steddyeddy wrote: »

Would the world be a better place if science governed our politics and morals. Straight off the bat science doesn't recognise races. There's less than 1% difference in the genetic code of all humans. That should end racism.

The Palestinians and the Jews are nearly identical genetically indicating they both come from the same region. There's no Holy land ! No more wars there.

No more ISIS because there's no religion.

No more American health service because science says treating the individual to deal with pathogens rather than society doesn't work and makes things worse (multi drug resistant bacteria).

Would the world be a better place if we let science govern our lives?

The world would be pretty much the same, minus Christmas.

This simplistic argument that religion is the source of all evil that you appear to be promoting really has no basis in reality.

From the day people learned how to use tools they started using that skill to kill other people.

Knowledge has been used for good and ill just as religion has.

Ave Sodalis

KomradeBishop wrote:

When I talk about evidence in the thread here, I am talking about proper evidence, correctly evaluated and vetted, and subject to the scientific method - definitely not any kind of 'evidence' that is based on fraud, or intellectual sleight-of-hand, that goes against the scientific method.

But what I'm saying is that it's difficult to determine what is proper evidence when you have no experience in the field. So until it's cleaned up, you cannot expect every day people to tell the difference.

KomradeBishop

sup_dude wrote: »

But what I'm saying is that it's difficult to determine what is proper evidence when you have no experience in the field. So until it's cleaned up, you cannot expect every day people to tell the difference.

Not really, it's not really hard to analyze the critiques and counter-critiques of evidence, or even dive into examining it for yourself if you've a good critical mind, in order to determine what problems may be present in a certain piece of evidence.

You definitely don't need experience in a field to evaluate the quality of evidence - especially not if you are able to evaluate the quality of arguments/counterarguments in support/opposition of the evidence - after reading a lot of the latter regarding physics, I can confidently support the claim that e.g. the entire field of string-theory is mostly pseudo-scientific and wont become falsifiable anytime soon.

Usually all it takes, is taking the time to do a bit of your own research with Google, and - after evaluating their quality - finding some good sources to learn from.

You can learn pretty much anything you like, if you just put a bit of time into it - doesn't even have to be that much time.

Ave Sodalis

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You can learn pretty much anything you like, if you just put a bit of time into it - doesn't even have to be that much time.

Anything you like is really the key element here. Many people don't like science. They have no interest in it, and it should not be forced on them. However, if in a hypothetical situation (such as the one being proposed that everyone should live by science and evidence), we force everyone to produce evidence for everything they believe, then people aren't going to sit down and look at every bit of literature out there to draw a conclusion, based on credible evidence. They're going to find what supports their statement. If you truly believe the human race can quit being bias in favour of true evidence (when pressed for evidence and otherwise haven't care for it), then you have more faith in people than I do.

Xeyn

Can you tell me where you are getting this notion that scientific fraud is widespread? Scientific consensus does not rely on one bad study. There is a hierarchy for evidentiary support. Your claim that you can find a study to support any view is disingenuous. If someone does a case study and reports on his findings and they contradict a prospective double blind meta analysis - that doesn't even come close to changing scientific consensus or even bringing it into dispute.

Ave Sodalis

Xeyn wrote: »

Can you tell me where you are getting this notion that scientific fraud is widespread? Scientific consensus does not rely on one bad study. There is a hierarchy for evidentiary support. Your claim that you can find a study to support any view is disingenuous. If someone does a case study and reports on his findings and they contradict a prospective double blind meta analysis - that doesn't even come close to changing scientific consensus or even bringing it into dispute.

It's widespead in the way it's not every so often. Studies that are funded by certain companies, poor studies (which isn't fraud as such but I was talking about bad science in general, if you read my posts). No, science doesn't rely on one bad study and I've never stated that. I'm talking about if everyone in the world lived by science and evidence. Not science the way it is now. Please read my posts.