Proof of 'God particle' found

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fair enough but Im talking about theories that had nothing going for them which were upheld at the time.The giant panda, bonobo and giant squid had multiple witness sightings which uphelp consistent anatomical and ethological observations yet were dismissed as myth. THe chemical theory of absorption had enough evidence to overturn the previous thoery but was ignored by scientists and the scientist who came up with the theory wasnt even allowed to present it.

But that doest change the fact that people are not just accepting a scientists word on this. Yes there is a certain amount of faith in the community to make these things known but you cant expect people to distrust it to such a degree than they hold no faith in it just in case its wrong when all known evidence suggests otherwise.

Yes it may not be correct but its not blind faith, just as it was not blind faith that led to the theory of absorption, whatever the reasons that hushed those who were against it the original theory would have been based on what were considered facts at the time. Even though it was wrong it wasnt plucked out of thin air, it was tested and scrutinized. And at some point it would have been the best known explanation.

There just is no comparison between the scientific world and religion in terms of faith.

I wont be happy until someone builds me an infinite improbability drive.

Then again, how likely is that?

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

No my point is that a non scientist has as much faith in scientific theories as a believer in a priest. That is, the "mysteries" of the thing are not understandable to him. For different reasons, sure.

A Church/religion is a monolithic organisation that is dedicated to a particular dogma, and disciplines priests who speak out against that dogma. There is no incentive for rebelling against this. They also provide no evidence for their claims.

Science researchers are employed by a whole array of different organisations, and are free to speak out against particular orthodoxies. In fact the scientific community rewards discoveries that overthrow previously accepted theories. Scientists are also expected to present evidence to support their claims, and publish them to be scrutinized by their peers.

Yes there can be a degree of scepticism to new claims, particularly when the existing body of evidence points to a different conclusion, but ultimately if the evidence is there the consensus eventually shifts, if perhaps after longer than it should (it is after all a community of humans, with all their flaws).

Given the adversarial nature of scientific research, and the fact that the evidence is published and debated in public, it's in no way comparable to faith in religion. It's quite reasonable to believe that, if a particular scientist makes an unsubstantiated claim, the rest of the community will scrutinize it and the truth will emerge.

And the significant track record of discovery by these very means is enough evidence for me to continue to "have faith" in science.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

This thread is an example, there is no discussion of what this means for the Standard Model, very little understanding about the standard model, very little attempt to understand, no questions asked - well one - and just an attack on religion - off topic - and meta discussion on whether belief in scientists is the same as belief in priests.

Thats because nobody understands the science, or even the implications of this, and - lets be honest - y'all don't care.

This is the After Hours forum. Most people were probably attracted to the tabloid headline, hence the level of discourse isn't very high. You're right, most people do not care about this discovery, or science in general.

Post a thread in a Science forum and you'll get a better response.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im not saying people should dismiss this but rather not use it as a stick to beat other people's beliefs. I do think everyone can and should look at the science for themselves though.

It's only natural to defer to expert bodies to analyse and interpret research. I think it's naive to think that everyone can analyse results from research performed by hundreds of people educated to PhD level, and be able to draw appropriate conclusions from it. What's the point of education then?

Should we all learn about aerodynamics before we get on a plane? Should we learn about pharmacology before taking medicine?

We might be able to get a superficial understanding, but there's no way it would be enough to be able to come to intelligent conclusions. We'd just be tricking ourselves.

Certain bodies of knowledge are more accessible than others, though. Evolution and natural selection are simple enough concepts to grasp, and the evidence is pretty easy to understand. Particle physics is in no way easy to grasp, and takes years of study to understand!