nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The rise of scepticism?

steddyeddy

By this I mean the rise of so called scientific scepticism eg people who say ghosts, loch ness monster and other things are made up. Have they got any merit in society or are they pointless. My view is they're pointless and often completely misrepresent how science works.

They say they educate the public on how science works ect but surely that's what scientists do? I work in the science world and I can tell you a large number of scientists have no time for this crowd.

Don't get me wrong I agree with a lot of their conclusions but they completeyl misrepresent the scientific process. An example, National geographic are looking for a potential new type of ape in Sumatra based on eye witness accounts and footprints but the sceptic community have a big problem with this. They say that the locals are mistaken and there is no new animal and National Geographic shouldn't be funding this. In short a load of armchair scientists are telling a group of scientists and locals that they are wrong. The starting point for any scientific experiment is "we don't know". work from the hypothesis that there is no

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

For Forks Sake

I'm sceptical of your claims

SureYWouldntYa

I dont believe you

Capt'n Midnight

so you are comparing ghosts and the loch ness monster , for which no evidence exists, with local reporting evidence like foot prints ?

If the book says one thing and the locals say another , the locals will be right , every time, ask any zoologist

Arthur Beesley

I've seen Bigfoot, and the yeti and el chupecabra.

Canis Lupus

If given two options I'd prefer to be staunchly skeptical rather than staunchly gullible.

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

so you are comparing ghosts and the loch ness monster , for which no evidence exists, with local reporting evidence like foot prints ?

If the book says one thing and the locals say another , the locals will be right , every time, ask any zoologist

That's my point sceptics do compare ghosts yo undiscovered animals. They discount local testimony and claim locals are mistaken. In a sense they are dismissing evidence.

tritium

Dismissing scientifically sound. evidence. That would be a new one. Its not like every guango, right wing paper, left wing paper and most governmental departments have been doing that for decades when the truth is inconvenient

Next you'll be saying they manipulate results...

Hell Ram

Canis Lupus wrote: »

If given two options I'd prefer to be staunchly skeptical rather than staunchly gullible.

Yeah, there's no in between.

Capt'n Midnight

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

I've seen Bigfoot, and the yeti and el chupecabra.

But what about the abominable snowman ?
or the "hairs from the polar bear hybrid"
or gigantopithecus

Arthur Beesley

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But what about the abominable snowman ?
or the "hairs from the polar bear hybrid"
or gigantopithecus

Exactly.

Links234

steddyeddy wrote: »

By this I mean the rise of so called scientific scepticism eg people who say ghosts, loch ness monster and other things are made up.

People who say ghosts, loch ness monster and other things are made up are just hopping on a bandwagon and trying to be cool.

Mark my words, in 8 months time, they'll be questioning how Santa can make it all around the world in one night, because that'll be the cool thing to be "sceptical" about.

Karl Stein

The world would be a duller place without mysteries and reports of undiscovered creatures like Yetis and Sea Monsters.

AnonoBoy

I don't believe such people exist.

Sunnyisland

And don't forget mermaids, I want them to exist...

http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/mermaids/videos/the-new-evidence-are-mermaids-real.htm

Calibos

Strawman how are you?!

They're skeptical because its not just about a 'garden variety' new primate species, its about a Sumatran version of Big Foot and the search is funded by a once respected channel that lost most of its credibilty along with all the other Serious 'Educational' channels like Discovery when they started showing crowd pleasing gems like Ancient Aliens and Storage Wars. As for the host being a biotech scientist. He could be a low level technician who presses the go button on the test tube centrifuges for all we know. Its funny you should mention Loch Ness. What makes you think impoverished Indonesians are any less likely to tell fibs to boost the tourist trade than impoverished Scots?

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/wild/beast-hunter/episodes/man-ape-of-sumatra/

Czarcasm

It's hard to believe in "science" any more as scientific theory nowadays isn't based on discovery; it's based on who has the bigger wallet and therefore more resources to promote their point of view. "Peer reviewed" is also a meaningless term, so it doesn't hurt to be cynical which in turn leads to scepticism.

I find more and more when I'm reading scientific papers nowadays that they are being driven by propaganda rather than the pursuit of knowledge.

Ann Landers

steddyeddy wrote: »

By this I mean the rise of so called scientific scepticism eg people who say ghosts, loch ness monster and other things are made up. Have they got any merit in society or are they pointless. My view is they're pointless and often completely misrepresent how science works.

They say they educate the public on how science works ect but surely that's what scientists do? I work in the science world and I can tell you a large number of scientists have no time for this crowd.

They're a good thing because it means scientific findings have to be rigorous to prove their worth. Any scientist who is good at what they do and who believes in what they do has nothing to fear when it comes to scepticism.

Evolution took years to be accepted but it was eventually because of its passionate proponents.

I have a science degree but am also a natural sceptic. I don't see a conflict of interest between the two.

Bipolar Joe

What part of the "Science World" do you work in? Or is it a planet? Do you work on another planet that just happens to be called Science?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtotCkyQbPk

Temptamperu

I dont understand what this thread is about? I dont understand the question nor shall i answer it.

Czarcasm

Temptamperu wrote: »

I dont understand what this thread is about? I dont understand the question nor shall i answer it.

Eddy who is a scientist, who works in the world of science, the pursuit of knowledge, says old wives tales, myths, superstition and legends should be taken seriously over scientific inquiry...

Meanwhile, I have some gay magnets from Uganda to sell, peer reviewed research says they choose to be attracted to each other, no government pressure like.

anncoates

You mean you have to be a scientist to doubt that a gigantic sea monster has been living undetected in a small Scottish lake for decades?

Smiles35

i saw a Skeptic one day and he had 3 heads and was bigger than 3 houseses

Sarky

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's hard to believe in "science" any more as scientific theory nowadays isn't based on discovery; it's based on who has the bigger wallet and therefore more resources to promote their point of view. "Peer reviewed" is also a meaningless term, so it doesn't hurt to be cynical which in turn leads to scepticism.

I find more and more when I'm reading scientific papers nowadays that they are being driven by propaganda rather than the pursuit of knowledge.

That's adorable.

steddyeddy

Czarcasm wrote: »

Eddy who is a scientist, who works in the world of science, the pursuit of knowledge, says old wives tales, myths, superstition and legends should be taken seriously over scientific inquiry...

No C you completely misrepresented my point. I'm simply saying that science does not dismiss lines of evidence classed as legends or folklore like the sceptic community does. The starting point for a scientific enquiry is "We don't know yet".

Lets examine a few old wives tales as they were classed and you can tell me which ones we shouldn't have investigated because they were classed as such:

Neural plasticity
The mountain gorilla
The giant and colossal squid
The okapi
The giant panda
The komodo dragon
The Hoan Kiem turtle

My point is that scientific inquiry is being ignored by the sceptics. For instance it was recently found that the yeti might have a basis in reality. Professor Brian Sykes from Oxford university tested samples associated with yeti sightings and concluded it was a match for an ancient polar bear that died out 40,000 years ago. Link here.

Prof Sykes found that he had a 100% match with a sample from an ancient polar bear jawbone found in Svalbard, Norway, that dates back to between 40,000 and 120,000 years ago - a time when the polar bear and closely related brown bear were separating as different species.
The species are closely related and are known to interbreed where their territories overlap.
The sample from Ladakh came from the mummified remains of a creature shot by a hunter around 40 years ago, while the second sample was in the form of a single hair, found in a bamboo forest by an expedition of filmmakers around 10 years ago.

Now the sceptic community complained that the investigation shouldn't be taken seriously and Sykes shouldn't be investigating folklore. If he listened to them scientific progress would be halted.

Now who was more scientifically accurate there Sykes who investigated and tested samples without prior bias or sceptics who insisted it shouldn't be investigated.

Scientific inquiry is my life by the way so please don't misrepresent my view.

steddyeddy

Sarky wrote: »

That's adorable.

He's right in a lot of cases. Publication bias does exist.

Stavros Murphy

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's hard to believe in "science" any more as scientific theory nowadays isn't based on discovery; it's based on who has the bigger wallet and therefore more resources to promote their point of view. "Peer reviewed" is also a meaningless term, so it doesn't hurt to be cynical which in turn leads to scepticism.

I find more and more when I'm reading scientific papers nowadays that they are being driven by propaganda rather than the pursuit of knowledge.

I'd replace the word propaganda with the phrase "an eye to receiving funding, now and in the future". Some research will attract funding, others will not. If you want to study birds in Antarctica, you bung in the phrase "and the effects of climate change on said birds" and someone writes a cheque. Leave it out, and you get to sit on the couch watching National-Geo. It distorts the field, and not in a good way.

LizzieJones

steddyeddy wrote: »

By this I mean the rise of so called scientific scepticism eg people who say ghosts, loch ness monster and other things are made up. Have they got any merit in society or are they pointless. My view is they're pointless and often completely misrepresent how science works.

I believe in Ireland. I've never seen it but I believe it exists.

Sarky

steddyeddy wrote: »

He's right in a lot of cases. Publication bias does exist.

It does. And eventually peer review shows it up.

steddyeddy

anncoates wrote: »

You mean you have to be a scientist to doubt that a gigantic sea monster has been living undetected in a small Scottish lake for decades?

No you don't but you look at the evidence and decide for and against. Sceptics seem to inform themselves based on the opinions of other sceptics. I looked up the sightings of the loch Ness monster and don't find it credible based on the discrepancy between the sightings (no consensus on morphology). I don't inform my opinion based on someone else's opinion.

steddyeddy

Sarky wrote: »

It does. And eventually peer review shows it up.

Yes eventually it does but the point is a lot aren't subjected to peer review.