• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are scientists objective and trustworthy?

What is YOUR opinion?

  • Are scientists a new clergy, possessing enchanted university degrees granting infallability?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

yobarnacle

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
1,495
Reaction score
291
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Are scientists trustworthy? Are they free from human frailties such as prejudice? Opinionated? Obstinacy? Jealousy?

All humans are prone to these and other errors.

Are all earth dwelling scientists human.

Logic dictates if all humans err, and all recognized scientists are human, ergo, all scientists err.

Take the poll please.

Checking a box beside a question, indicates affirmative you believe the answer is "True" to the question.

And for your consideration, the following link and quote!

"The knowledge filter and scientific suppression

One of the prominent themes introduced in Forbidden Archeology is the phenomena of "knowledge filtration." This is the process by which scientists and others routinely accept evidence that supports their preconceptions and theories while rejecting, either consciously or unconsciously, other evidence that does not uphold their views. This process of suppression of evidence is illustrated by many of the anomalous paleoanthropological findings discussed in the book. This evidence now tends to be extremely obscure, and it also tends to be clouded by a series of negative reports, themselves obscure and dating from the time when the evidence was being actively rejected. Thus, evolutionary prejudices held by powerful groups of scientists act as a "knowledge filter" which has eliminated evidence challenging accepted views and left us with a radically altered understanding of human origins and antiquity."

Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You know what' so disturbing about this section?
The Partisan HACKERY and anti-intellectualism we see here in Majority - they think they can 'win' if they post more - Bury us in crap.
One nonsensical FLAMING Science-bashing string title after another.
Right wing board Abuse. Brown-shirts. Posting Thugs.
'Scientists' are 'crazy', dishonest', etc

THIS SECTION NEEDS A CLEAN UP.
 
Last edited:

yobarnacle

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
1,495
Reaction score
291
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why is taking an objective view, common sense skepticism, about human pronouncements and opinions in anyway anti-intellectual?

Just the opposite.

It's SMART to NOT be gullible ! :)
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,700
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You know what' so disturbing about this section?
The Partisan HACKERY and anti-intellectualism we see here in Majority - they think they can 'win' if they post more - Bury us in crap.
One nonsensical FLAMING Science-bashing string title after another.
Right wing board Abuse. Brown-shirts. Posting Thugs.
'Scientists' are 'crazy', dishonest', etc

THIS SECTION NEEDS A CLEAN UP.
So in your opinion scientist are gods not normal humans.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
So in your opinion scientist are gods not normal humans.
No, but to claim there is some international cabal among the 90+% of scientists who's studies tell us that climate change is happening, and is at least partially contributed by man-kind is ridiculous.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,700
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, but to claim there is some international cabal among the 90+% of scientists who's studies tell us that climate change is happening, and is at least partially contributed by man-kind is ridiculous.
And there you have it. To what degree nobody knows and changing our entire socioeconomic structure based on a hypotheses is absurd to any reasonable person.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
And there you have it. To what degree nobody knows and changing our entire socioeconomic structure based on a hypotheses is absurd to any reasonable person.
It's not a hypotheses, it has been proven by peer-reviewed studies.
 

the_recruit

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,207
Reaction score
2,615
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Scientists as individuals are not anymore trustworthy than anybody else. And they are susceptible to psychological biases like confirmation bias. That's why scientists have established certain testing methods like double-blind studies to try to keep the results as objective as possible. I do think most scientists personally hold "discovering truth - whatever it may be" highly as a personal value.

And I think history has shown that science, collectively, trends toward truth.
 

Hard Truth

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
9,122
Reaction score
3,751
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Most scientists try to be objective and trustworthy. Some scientists are not. Science as a whole, with its processes that verify claims, is the best and most reliable process for obtaining objective and trustworthy information.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,510
Reaction score
50,094
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In general, I think most scientists are slightly more trustworthy than the average run of humanity.... but let me point out that isn't exactly high praise, when you consider it in light of reality.


Scientists are trained to value facts and figures, and to be rigorous in proving same... this puts them a step ahead of the general run of humanity, who are likely to assert as fact that Halibut live in trees because Uncle George told them so.


However, scientists are human like the rest of us, and subject to the same pressures, drives and failings. The desire to be right... to be respected... to make a living, to achieve security (tenure), to be loved and wanted, to have the admiration of their peers... yes, they even fantazise about wealth and fame.

They also struggle with peer pressure in many forms... particularly when you consider the phrase "publish or perish" and "peer reviewed journal" and consider how it applies to funding, research grants, tenure, and so on... and how presenting evidence that the majority of one's peers might be WRONG might be recieved in certain circles.


Science has been wrong before while exhibiting great confidence in its current pet theories. Witness the astophysics of the 80s and early 90s about planet formation, and then what happened when we started discovering actual exoplanets... and found out the universe was much stranger than our theories guessed, and that we had a lot to learn and unlearn.

A majority of scientists can be as wrong as a majority of laymen, and for many of the same reasons... groupthink, peer pressure, and putting personal desires ahead of professional ethics.


Now in general I will respectfully to scientific opinion, and IF the subject in question is NOT a current social hot-button issue I might even give the scientists the benefit of the doubt... but when the pressure is on and only certain types of results are politically acceptible, credibility becomes much more questionable.
 

Mustachio

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,820
Reaction score
1,804
Location
Minneapolis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why is taking an objective view, common sense skepticism, about human pronouncements and opinions in anyway anti-intellectual?

Just the opposite.

It's SMART to NOT be gullible ! :)
Well, many of those who are "merely skeptical" about climate change get fact sheets and talking points from people on the payroll of industrial corporations. Is listening to them the really smart way of going? Should you consider what the spokesman for Kraft said equal to what a scientist said when deciding whether or not American cheese is healthy?

Checking things out for yourself is fine, but we come to decisions based on different kinds of evidence. One of those types of evidence is considering and accepting the viewpoint of experts. Scientists are the experts, and the vast majority of them (working in the field of climate change) have reviewed material and done their own independent studies which confirm the evidence we have seen for decades. Should you blindly trust a scientist? No. But can you trust the scientific method when peer review and endless research has been done, and scientists from all backgrounds, nationalities, and political viewpoints have all overwhelmingly said that all the things you're talking about are real.

Under those circumstances, who is really the one here who is gullible?
 

yobarnacle

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
1,495
Reaction score
291
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not a hypotheses, it has been proven by peer-reviewed studies.
It is not yet graduated to theory status, still hypothesis.
and even if if became a theory, it can not be, and has not been proved.
theories can be dis-proved, but not proved.
Untill the future becomes recorded as history, agw isn't even a "working" hypothesis.
Witness countless failures to predict temperatures by the climate models.
 

yobarnacle

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
1,495
Reaction score
291
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, many of those who are "merely skeptical" about climate change get fact sheets and talking points from people on the payroll of industrial corporations. Is listening to them the really smart way of going? Should you consider what the spokesman for Kraft said equal to what a scientist said when deciding whether or not American cheese is healthy?

Checking things out for yourself is fine, but we come to decisions based on different kinds of evidence. One of those types of evidence is considering and accepting the viewpoint of experts. Scientists are the experts, and the vast majority of them have reviewed material and done their own independent studies which confirm the evidence we have seen for decades. Should you blindly trust a scientist? No. But can you trust the scientific method when peer review and endless research has been done, and scientists from all backgrounds, nationalities, and political viewpoints have all overwhelmingly said that all the things you're talking about are real.

Under those circumstances, who is really the one here who is gullible?
Read the quote I posted in OP about scientific filter and defend that isn't EXACTLY going on with the "science is settled" and the "consensus" and the "denier" labels toward anyone who doesn't rubber stamp the "collectivist" opinion.

Scientific method no where includes "a vote" to substantiate hypothesis! :)
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, but to claim there is some international cabal among the 90+% of scientists who's studies tell us that climate change is happening, and is at least partially contributed by man-kind is ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is that some people take this fact and go overboard with it. Most scientists agree that human beings are changing the climate in some way. But there is no such similar consensus that CO2 levels are going to lead to an apocalypse in the immediate future, or any of that sort of Al Gore environmentalist fearmongering.

So the consensus that environmentalists are always bragging about really amounts to nothing significant.
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's not a hypotheses, it has been proven by peer-reviewed studies.
Well understand that, for the past 15 years, there hasn't been any global warming. This stuff all started in the 1990's when there was some global warming. They have not proved that mankind is the single source or even the major source for the global warming that existed 15 years or so ago. Lately those same scientists have been changing their tune. Now they want money not to study global warming but to find ways to protect us since it is inevitable. All this during a period of global cooling. They state blatantly that now it isn't just a matter of global warming. The issue is now called climate change - apparently because the global warming has ceased. It is a hypothesis at best. Those same scientists predict the next ice age should begin in about 5000 years yet hell will break loose if we don't go nuts about global warmin in the next 10 years or so. What these scientists say could well be true. I see just as much evindence that it is not true. Sorry. Nothing personal.
 

Mustachio

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,820
Reaction score
1,804
Location
Minneapolis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Read the quote I posted in OP about scientific filter and defend that isn't EXACTLY going on with the "science is settled" and the "consensus" and the "denier" labels toward anyone who doesn't rubber stamp the "collectivist" opinion.

Scientific method no where includes "a vote" to substantiate hypothesis! :)
The "scientific filter" is a ridiculous notion in this context. Besides, it's written by MICHAEL CREMO!!!! THAT'S THE GUY who said humans have lived on the earth for billions of years. His "science" has been debunked more times than the rumors that Bieber is dead! Cremo cherry picks evidence in "Forbidden Archeology" - the very fallacy you are talking about! And that fallacy - What you're talking about would neatly apply to a person testing whether or not plants grow better when you talk to them (or whether or not humans have lived on earth for billions of years :lamo), but we're talking about hard data that a huge number of scientists have examined, extrapolated upon, gone over time and time again, and discussed until everybody's ears are bleeding. We're talking about data. Facts. Here is yet another NEW study confirming global warming is happening. If the Earth is getting warmer, on average, over a long period of time, how can you qualify that as a mere "hypothesis" as you just did in another post?

Scientists can be wrong, but when you're arguing against overwhelming evidence, you're more akin to a revisionist than a skeptic. There are people who argue that the holocaust didn't happen, that the moon landing was faked, that OJ didn't do it, that autism is caused by vaccines. Look at that last one - liberals love to say that autism is caused by vaccines, right? Does the "scientific filter" create a group of evil, elite scientists who have found in numerous studies that vaccines are in fact the cause of autism? No. Scientists found just the opposite. Do you know why? Because science is about the pursuit of truth in relation to explaining the natural world. You keep on believing Cremo.
 

yobarnacle

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
1,495
Reaction score
291
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obviously you didn't read his explanation of science filter.

it's NOT a conspiracy of EVIL scientists!

It's a very HUMAN proclivity to ignore what you don't agree with. Disparage contrary points a view, only fund projects you DO agree with (because they agree with you)!

And doesn't that EXACTLY describe the current controversy about AGW/Climate Change/Sea Rise?

Yep! :D

Whether you agree with other of his ideas, you'll have to admit (privately if not publickly), he described THAT aspect of human nature pretty well.

care to argue scientists are super-human in morals and ethics? :p
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
69,923
Reaction score
52,058
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Top Bottom