What assumptions do scientists/science make?

[PLAYER57832]

Again and again, we hear "scientists and Creationists begin from differing assumptions". This is why, we are told, we simply disagree.

OK, I'll play ... what assumptions do you feel scientists make that are wrong?

[pimpdave]

ALIENS

[TheProwler]

In General:

Scientists assume that their explanations for certain things are correct.

They perform an experiment, observe a certain behaviour or reaction, and explain it by saying "This is because <something that is conjecture>."

And then they use that <something that is conjecture> as a fact when explaining something else. And then it becomes a stack of cards.


Regarding the Creation discussion:

I don't know. And I am not really interested in the whole evolution versus creation debate. It seems so trivial to me. It. Doesn't. Matter.

[StiffMittens]

In General:

Scientists assume that their explanations for certain things are correct.

They perform an experiment, observe a certain behaviour or reaction, and explain it by saying "This is because <something that is conjecture>."

And then they use that <something that is conjecture> as a fact when explaining something else. And then it becomes a stack of cards.

I'm not so sure about that. I would say that bad scientists assume their explanation to be correct, whereas good scientist are very thorough and diligent about verifying that their explanation is correct in as many different way that they can think of and then turn it over to their peers to have them verify the explanation in as many ways as they can think of and only then, after everybody's had a chance to try and punch holes in the explanation, if the explanation still holds water is the explanation widely regarded as fact (and even then it's subject to further scrutiny and possible revision).

The only assumption that I can think of right now that scientists generally make and which could be wrong (although I'm not saying it actually is) is the idea that everything that happens in the universe is perceivable by us (either directly or indirectly). The only way to eliminate the possibility of this being wrong is to define the universe as everything that is perceivable (either directly or indirectly).

[MeDeFe]

They assume that a reality that is independent of humans exists.

[jay_a2j]

Again and again, we hear "scientists and Creationists begin from differing assumptions". This is why, we are told, we simply disagree.

OK, I'll play ... what assumptions do you feel scientists make that are wrong?

As with any field, there is "bad apples". I am sure one day we will know just how wrong science was in certain area's. Just as they keep changing their minds on what foods are good or bad for you. (ie. coffee has carcinogens in it vs. a cup of coffee a day is good for you) If Science was infallible, they would call it "the Word of God".

[StiffMittens]

They assume that a reality that is independent of humans exists.

are you saying that it doesn't?

[MeDeFe]

They assume that a reality that is independent of humans exists.

are you saying that it doesn't?

It probably does, but we can't tell for sure. And that certainly messes with most, if not all, of our descriptions of it.

[PLAYER57832]

Again and again, we hear "scientists and Creationists begin from differing assumptions". This is why, we are told, we simply disagree.

OK, I'll play ... what assumptions do you feel scientists make that are wrong?

As with any field, there is "bad apples". I am sure one day we will know just how wrong science was in certain area's. Just as they keep changing their minds on what foods are good or bad for you. (ie. coffee has carcinogens in it vs. a cup of coffee a day is good for you) If Science was infallible, they would call it "the Word of God".

Except this is not really what science does. That is the issue. It is what the media and some people interpret science to say.

Take the above as a specific example. Scientist do research on all sorts of things. At some point, a scientist may find that a particular chemical is likely to cause cancer. Note the qualifications, the scientist will very rarely say "x causes cancer", they will say that there seems to be a cause. THAT is a valid scientific conclusion, based upon evidence.

HOWEVER, doctors, etc reading that then have to make a decision. Is the risk great? In the case of coffee, there are other issues. Some doctors will take that as yet one more piece of evidence and advise patients not to drink coffee. Some media outlets will cease on the controversy -- often with good intentions, but somehow the caveats get diluted or deleted in the translation.

Other people are doing other research. Certainly, the coffee companies will want to do their own research, but we can discount them (to a point... just because someone works for a company doesn't mean all their skills are suddenly poor, more often it means they can only follow and publish certain trains of research).

Anyway, so someone else finds that coffee seems to have a positive benefit for other people .. maybe simply increases productivity, maybe helps with weight loss or maybe something more serious like having a positive effect on some people's blood pressure, etc. Again, the scientist will qualify his results with "seems to be a correlation", etc.

But, you want to know which is true? Probably both and several others who's research you have not even heard about. THAT is the real issue. Science is complicated. It is firm, but people wish too often to take out results that are not there.

[pimpdave]

Some Assumptions Scientists Have Made:

Sea Monsters.
AIDS is only for queers and dopers.
Lead can be turned into gold.
Space Monsters.
Human beings will suffer irreversible brain damage by traveling at speeds over 30 mph on the rails.
The moon is made of delicious cheese.
Lighting is what happens when Zeus and Hera be arguing over his stable of bitches.



oh wait, no, those aren't assumptions scientists have made. What an embarrassing mistake for me to have made in this thread!

[PLAYER57832]

In General:

Scientists assume that their explanations for certain things are correct.

No, scientists assume the results that they obtain can be replicated by anyone else doing the same experiment under the exact same conditions IF the test is valid. If that is not the case, the test is discarded, is invalid. And, that does happen.

They perform an experiment, observe a certain behaviour or reaction, and explain it by saying "This is because <something that is conjecture>."

No. They observe what happens, record the results... again and again, whenever possible.

They may certainly guess, try to find reasons why they got those results. BUT a good scientist does not confuse those possibilities with proof. Usually they will then perform further experiments to delve into the why and wherefore. Only THEN.. only if there is proof, is it offered up as a conclusion. This is why so much of what scientists say is phrased as conjecture.

Unfortunately, opponents of science are not so careful, they like to poke holes and claim that these explanations of uncertainty mean the science was poor, the scientist did not know what he or she was doing. In truth, the opposite is almost always true. Usually, the one who is so very sure their results HAVE to be this or that is the one who is wrong. (not always, some things are certain, but often).

And then they use that <something that is conjecture> as a fact when explaining something else. And then it becomes a stack of cards.

No, this is exactly what science does NOT DO!

This is why, despite the HUGE amount of evidence supporting Evolution, etc. (and it IS huge volumes of evidence!), it is still phrased as a theory. BECAUSE it is not something absolutely proven yet. (close, but not 100%)

Regarding the Creation discussion:

I don't know. And I am not really interested in the whole evolution versus creation debate. It seems so trivial to me. It. Doesn't. Matter.

Does science at all matter to you? Because that is the real issue. Is science valid or is anybody allowed to come up with any ideas they like and put it forward as science?

[TheProwler]

In General:

Scientists assume that their explanations for certain things are correct.

They perform an experiment, observe a certain behaviour or reaction, and explain it by saying "This is because <something that is conjecture>."

And then they use that <something that is conjecture> as a fact when explaining something else. And then it becomes a stack of cards.

I'm not so sure about that. I would say that bad scientists assume their explanation to be correct, whereas good scientist are very thorough and diligent about verifying that their explanation is correct in as many different way that they can think of and then turn it over to their peers to have them verify the explanation in as many ways as they can think of and only then, after everybody's had a chance to try and punch holes in the explanation, if the explanation still holds water is the explanation widely regarded as fact (and even then it's subject to further scrutiny and possible revision).

Yeah, I shortened my answer, but I think you are saying the same thing as me.

To be a little more clear: I am not referring to all science. I think we are right about a lot of things. I am just making a general statement about how scientists are sometimes wrong about certain things.

Our knowledge is very limited in certain areas. Our scientific tools are impressive, but there is room for improvement. And *people make mistakes*. We still have scientists that are absolutely convinced that <such and such> is true. And in time, other scientists with greater knowledge and better tools will prove that <such and such> is indeed false. It has happened time and time again throughout history and we are being a little arrogant and naive to think that it isn't happening right this second.

The only assumption that I can think of right now that scientists generally make and which could be wrong (although I'm not saying it actually is) is the idea that everything that happens in the universe is perceivable by us (either directly or indirectly). The only way to eliminate the possibility of this being wrong is to define the universe as everything that is perceivable (either directly or indirectly).

Do you not recognize that this is a very, very, very important point??

If there are forces outside of what we can perceive, that means that many of our explanations for things happening might be wrong. We are thinking "inside the box" of only things that we can perceive.

There are many, many things that science cannot explain. This could be due to our inability to perceive certain things.

This simple fact demonstrates that scientists indeed do assume that their explanations are correct because their proofs only deal with that which is perceivable by humans or current human technology.

An analogy would be when you see a magic trick that you can't figure it out. Then someone explains it to you. "Oh yeah!! Now I get it!!! So the bird must be hidden in the top of his hat!!" And you feel all satisfied that your world makes sense once again. But then an elephant steps on the hat and the bird comes out of the tiger's mouth. And a different proof is required because new evidence has been presented. The same thing happens within the scientific community.

[StiffMittens]

The only assumption that I can think of right now that scientists generally make and which could be wrong (although I'm not saying it actually is) is the idea that everything that happens in the universe is perceivable by us (either directly or indirectly). The only way to eliminate the possibility of this being wrong is to define the universe as everything that is perceivable (either directly or indirectly).

Do you not recognize that this is a very, very, very important point??

If there are forces outside of what we can perceive, that means that many of our explanations for things happening might be wrong. We are thinking "inside the box" of only things that we can perceive.

There are many, many things that science cannot explain. This could be due to our inability to perceive certain things.

This simple fact demonstrates that scientists indeed do assume that their explanations are correct because their proofs only deal with that which is perceivable by humans or current human technology.

An analogy would be when you see a magic trick that you can't figure it out. Then someone explains it to you. "Oh yeah!! Now I get it!!! So the bird must be hidden in the top of his hat!!" And you feel all satisfied that your world makes sense once again. But then an elephant steps on the hat and the bird comes out of the tiger's mouth. And a different proof is required because new evidence has been presented. The same thing happens within the scientific community.

I do see it as an important point. But if there are forces outside of what we can perceive and they affect those things which we can perceive, then we can perceive those forces indirectly. And if we try to think "outside the box" and imagine forces that we cannot perceive directly we can test whatever hypothesis we devise to see if we can prove that force actually exists. If we succeed in that, then we have just pulled that force into the box of the universe that we can perceive (directly or indirectly). Isn't this essentially how the atom was discovered? In fact isn't this the entire basis for ideas like string theory, grand unification theory, etc.?

I don't know that there are many, many things that science cannot explain. Only that there are many things that science has yet to explain. That is not to say that science is infallible. Indeed science itself is the subject of constant observation and refinement. Over the centuries there have been several very dramatic paradigm shifts resulting from new ideas that invalidate old views. This, I think, is the fundamental advantage science has over religion. Science is kind of a vast open source project, it is the nature of science to constantly change and refine itself, to evolve. Religion, although it does change over time, is by design, highly resistant to change. It is intended to be the final word, the ultimate authority. The problem with science arises when scientists cling dogmatically to old ideas when new developments suggest that they shouldn't (thus making science a religion).

[captain.crazy]

ALIENS

I keep asking myself "Self, why do you keep clicking on "Display this post" when you know this is nothing but stupid?"

[jonesthecurl]

The only assumption that I can think of right now that scientists generally make and which could be wrong (although I'm not saying it actually is) is the idea that everything that happens in the universe is perceivable by us (either directly or indirectly). The only way to eliminate the possibility of this being wrong is to define the universe as everything that is perceivable (either directly or indirectly).

Do you not recognize that this is a very, very, very important point??

If there are forces outside of what we can perceive, that means that many of our explanations for things happening might be wrong. We are thinking "inside the box" of only things that we can perceive.

There are many, many things that science cannot explain. This could be due to our inability to perceive certain things.

This simple fact demonstrates that scientists indeed do assume that their explanations are correct because their proofs only deal with that which is perceivable by humans or current human technology.

The point is that if it is not perceivable it is not possible to know anything about it. By definition. ANything which can influence something else in a measurable way is a legitimate subject for science.

Anything which has no effect on anything else is, um, not something we can sensibly say much about, scientifically or not. Because it has no effect.

Usually, scientists do not "prove" previous scientists "wrong". They show that the previous "explanation" only dealt with a subset of reality. Newtonian physics is not invalidate by Einsteinian. It is just shown to apply only in certain cases (What most of us would think of as common sense cases, the world we normally perceive with our senses).

[TheProwler]

Nothing personal, but you make assumptions. And that is what makes a dangerous and irresponsible scientist.

In General:

Scientists assume that their explanations for certain things are correct.

No, scientists assume the results that they obtain can be replicated by anyone else doing the same experiment under the exact same conditions IF the test is valid. If that is not the case, the test is discarded, is invalid. And, that does happen.

Results are not the same thing as explanations for those results.

You said "No," and then proceed to explain how some theories are discarded as being wrong, which is not addressing what I was saying. I stand by what I said and it is really a matter of opinion because it cannot be proven wrong. Had I used the word "always", you would have an argument. But I didn't. So you don't.

They perform an experiment, observe a certain behaviour or reaction, and explain it by saying "This is because <something that is conjecture>."

No. They observe what happens, record the results... again and again, whenever possible.

They may certainly guess, try to find reasons why they got those results. BUT a good scientist does not confuse those possibilities with proof. Usually they will then perform further experiments to delve into the why and wherefore. Only THEN.. only if there is proof, is it offered up as a conclusion. This is why so much of what scientists say is phrased as conjecture.

Unfortunately, opponents of science are not so careful, they like to poke holes and claim that these explanations of uncertainty mean the science was poor, the scientist did not know what he or she was doing. In truth, the opposite is almost always true. Usually, the one who is so very sure their results HAVE to be this or that is the one who is wrong. (not always, some things are certain, but often).

PLAYER, you conveniently switched phrases. In the opening post and in the title of the thread you simply used the term "scientist". In your answer, you slipped in the term "good scientist". That is a significant change that did not go unnoticed my me. You need to be clearer with your questions and statements.

"Opponents of science" - that term is a little funny. Honestly, reasonable people do not feel a need to "pick a side and defend it with my life" when dealing with things like this.

And then they use that <something that is conjecture> as a fact when explaining something else. And then it becomes a stack of cards.

No, this is exactly what science does NOT DO!

This is why, despite the HUGE amount of evidence supporting Evolution, etc. (and it IS huge volumes of evidence!), it is still phrased as a theory. BECAUSE it is not something absolutely proven yet. (close, but not 100%)

Remember way back when I said "In General:"? I wasn't referring to just the theory of evolution. That is why I put the statement you quoted in the "In General:" section.

You started a thread about scientists making assumptions. I said I think it happens. I didn't say "always". I didn't say "usually". I didn't say "most of the time". I simply commented on how scientists do, at certain times, make assumptions.

Why do you have such a hard time with people holding a different opinion that you? This is obviously a subject that cannot be absolutely proven one way or another.

But let me tell you this, PLAYER. There are a lot of government grants out there supporting certain scientific experiments. And there are certainly situations where there is some pressure for certain conclusions to be made. And there are certainly situations out there where there are conflicts of interest. This outside pressure can cause some scientists to make assumptions and jump to conclusions. Some scientists will even be dishonest about certain findings (we'll just sweep that one under the rug!). And some scientists will even make honest mistakes . And you can read my previous post about our possible lack of perceptive abilities. If you think this can't create a "stack of cards", I think you are being unreasonably stubborn in your clinging to your believe that scientists never make assumptions and other mistakes.

Regarding the Creation discussion:

I don't know. And I am not really interested in the whole evolution versus creation debate. It seems so trivial to me. It. Doesn't. Matter.

Does science at all matter to you? Because that is the real issue. Is science valid or is anybody allowed to come up with any ideas they like and put it forward as science?

If that is the real issue, why confuse things by pulling in creationism? That really clouds the issue because it brings in religion and all the emotions that sometimes go with it.

"Is science valid or is anybody allowed to come up with any ideas they like and put it forward as science?"

I don't really like who this question was phrased, so I will answer it as two questions.

Is science valid?
I think some science is valid and some science is not valid.

Is anybody allowed to come up with any ideas they like and put it forward as science?
Sure, why not? It's a free world . If their ideas are entirely ridiculous, I don't think they will be given much of an audience.

PLAYER, I think you almost always assume that people entering a discussion are fanatical followers of one point of view or the other. You think everybody has picked the "All Science Is Correct" side or the "All Science is Incorrect" side. Really, with terms like "opponents of science" you demonstrate a very black and white attitude and personality. Because of this, I will be choosing to ignore much of what you type. You are much too ready to debate and fight for my liking. I prefer open-minded discussions.

[TheProwler]

I do see it as an important point. But if there are forces outside of what we can perceive and they affect those things which we can perceive, then we can perceive those forces indirectly. And if we try to think "outside the box" and imagine forces that we cannot perceive directly we can test whatever hypothesis we devise to see if we can prove that force actually exists. If we succeed in that, then we have just pulled that force into the box of the universe that we can perceive (directly or indirectly). Isn't this essentially how the atom was discovered? In fact isn't this the entire basis for ideas like string theory, grand unification theory, etc.?

Yeah, that sounds good. But at times our lack of perceptions causes us to make mistakes. How much of the time? We might never know.

I don't know that there are many, many things that science cannot explain. Only that there are many things that science has yet to explain. That is not to say that science is infallible. Indeed science itself is the subject of constant observation and refinement. Over the centuries there have been several very dramatic paradigm shifts resulting from new ideas that invalidate old views. This, I think, is the fundamental advantage science has over religion. Science is kind of a vast open source project, it is the nature of science to constantly change and refine itself, to evolve. Religion, although it does change over time, is by design, highly resistant to change. It is intended to be the final word, the ultimate authority. The problem with science arises when scientists cling dogmatically to old ideas when new developments suggest that they shouldn't (thus making science a religion).

Yes, I agree with your correction of my statement - I should have said "current science". And I agree with the rest of the paragraph. Very well said.

[thegreekdog]

Not to pile on Player, but I've been echoing prowler's point in other threads. It doesn't matter if creationism can't be proven. The problem people have is that certain of us believe that creationism should not be taught in schools while others us believe it should be taught in schools. The merits of creationism over evolution is not really the issue.

You have this bee in your bonnet. I understand that you do not want creationism taught in public schools; neither do I. However, what you type comes across as you saying that people who believe in creationism, no matter what their views on whether it should be taught in school are stupid, moronic, living in a fantasy world, unscientific, etc., etc. You sound a lot like this surreal guy that posts sometimes; in other words, you sound like an atheist prophet. As I've said before, a burning bush can't talk, but maybe people believe that it did; and that's okay with me. Reading between the lines, I think it's okay with you too, but because people can't offer scientific proof that a burning bush can talk does not equate to those people being idiots.

[TheProwler]

Anything which has no effect on anything else is, um, not something we can sensibly say much about, scientifically or not. Because it has no effect.

Usually, scientists do not "prove" previous scientists "wrong". They show that the previous "explanation" only dealt with a subset of reality. Newtonian physics is not invalidate by Einsteinian. It is just shown to apply only in certain cases (What most of us would think of as common sense cases, the world we normally perceive with our senses).

I was talking about things not "directly" perceivable, but that do have an effect on things that we perceive. They can lead us to drawing incorrect conclusions.

I think scientists do prove other scientists wrong. If a previous explanation was only dealing with a subset of reality, but it was conveyed to explain all of reality (or at least a bigger subset), I assert that the previous explanation was wrong. You can argue that it was "partially right", but c'mon, let's call a spade a spade. Part of making a correct explanation is defining the scope of the application of this explanation. If you get the scope wrong, you are wrong. To be only partially right is to be wrong.

[Neoteny]

Not to pile on Player, but I've been echoing prowler's point in other threads. It doesn't matter if creationism can't be proven. The problem people have is that certain of us believe that creationism should not be taught in schools while others us believe it should be taught in schools. The merits of creationism over evolution is not really the issue.

You have this bee in your bonnet. I understand that you do not want creationism taught in public schools; neither do I. However, what you type comes across as you saying that people who believe in creationism, no matter what their views on whether it should be taught in school are stupid, moronic, living in a fantasy world, unscientific, etc., etc. You sound a lot like this surreal guy that posts sometimes; in other words, you sound like an atheist prophet. As I've said before, a burning bush can't talk, but maybe people believe that it did; and that's okay with me. Reading between the lines, I think it's okay with you too, but because people can't offer scientific proof that a burning bush can talk does not equate to those people being idiots.

That's a terrible example, because if someone can't offer proof of talking bush, and still believe that it's talking, the likelihood of their being an idiot goes up substantially. I can't agree with the sentiment that I'm getting from your statement: that if these people want to believe in nonsense, let them. That seems irresponsible to me. Making fun of them might not be the best tactic, but engaging them assertively is necessary. I'm guilty of picking on people because it is frustrating when your arguments are not evaluated. Too often, creationists duck topics and resort to straw men and red herrings. If that's the case, they aren't listening anyway, and picking on them is a bit easier to justify.

This website's, and likely most in general, evolutionists' condescending position is based on this bittersweet situation: arguments that have not been rebutted, and the frustration from not having them accepted in light of this.

[StiffMittens]

Not to pile on Player, but I've been echoing prowler's point in other threads. It doesn't matter if creationism can't be proven. The problem people have is that certain of us believe that creationism should not be taught in schools while others us believe it should be taught in schools. The merits of creationism over evolution is not really the issue.

You have this bee in your bonnet. I understand that you do not want creationism taught in public schools; neither do I. However, what you type comes across as you saying that people who believe in creationism, no matter what their views on whether it should be taught in school are stupid, moronic, living in a fantasy world, unscientific, etc., etc. You sound a lot like this surreal guy that posts sometimes; in other words, you sound like an atheist prophet. As I've said before, a burning bush can't talk, but maybe people believe that it did; and that's okay with me. Reading between the lines, I think it's okay with you too, but because people can't offer scientific proof that a burning bush can talk does not equate to those people being idiots.

I think the issue is not whether creationism should be taught in any schools at all, but whether it should be taught at public schools in science class as an opposing idea to evolution. Creationism taught in a religion class (or at a private school with a religious curriculum) is not being contested as far as I know.

[thegreekdog]

I think the issue is not whether creationism should be taught in any schools at all, but whether it should be taught at public schools in science class as an opposing idea to evolution. Creationism taught in a religion class (or at a private school with a religious curriculum) is not being contested as far as I know.

Yes, that's what I was getting at. "Should creationism be taught in public school science classes as an alternative to evolution?" My answer would be "no" because: (1) Public schools are funded by the federal government which is prohibited from advocating religion, and (2) It's not science, it's belief... it belongs in a religion class, not a science class.

[PLAYER57832]

This simple fact demonstrates that scientists indeed do assume that their explanations are correct because their proofs only deal with that which is perceivable by humans or current human technology.

But the thing is that if you nail a scientist down to the nitty gritty, there is the qualification "within our known universe"...et al.

We KNOW that there are things out there beyond scientific testing and understanding. Science, in fact, is already tackling some of it in the realm of quantum physics. Chaos theory (more math, I suppose, but related) tackles other ways of looking at things.

This is why scientists, well few anyway (scientists are individuals as well as scientists and speak with their own opinions as well as adding to the body of "science" or scientific knowledge) assert they can prove God does not exist. That assertion is ludicrous. Many may believe that. And many believe the opposite. It is just outside of science.

[PLAYER57832]

Nothing personal, but you make assumptions. And that is what makes a dangerous and irresponsible scientist.

"nothing personal".. but I am "dangerous and irresponsible"? Get real! If you wish to debate, fine, but for insults ... well, sorry Flame wars is gone.

Name the assumptions.

In General:

Scientists assume that their explanations for certain things are correct.

No, scientists assume the results that they obtain can be replicated by anyone else doing the same experiment under the exact same conditions IF the test is valid. If that is not the case, the test is discarded, is invalid. And, that does happen.

Results are not the same thing as explanations for those results.

You said "No," and then proceed to explain how some theories are discarded as being wrong, which is not addressing what I was saying. I stand by what I said and it is really a matter of opinion because it cannot be proven wrong. Had I used the word "always", you would have an argument. But I didn't. So you don't.

Look, I am not going to argue semantics here. I was speaking of the whole body of science, not particular individuals.

You are missing a very fundamental point of science. In fact, scientists hope they are correct in their ideas, beliefs, etc. However, they KNOW that a number of them will prove false. They find data and come up with new ideas.. then test them. This is the exact opposite of making assumptions.

Now, listen to the next part carefully. You might be confused because sometimes scientists will mention assumptions that they had to make in the course of a study or in designing a study. BUT, the reason they are mentioned is precisely because they know, deep down, that there is a possibility (hopefully very slim) that those assumptions are wrong. An example is that Bird biologists wanting to know something about how to fix injuries in an endangered species will begin with non-endangered species, on the assumption that this will teach them something about the endangered species. They cannot operate willy nilly on endangered species. When one does come in, then they look and see where the differences lie, BUT, they had to start with the non-endangered species and learn what they could about them first. In one sense, you can say that they are making an assumption. BUT, in a greater sense, it is just saying "hey.. we know this is not exact, but it is as close as we can get for now".

It is not a baseline assumption, it is a working assumption that scientists use temporarily, but know full well is might be (or even know will be partially wrong).

This thread refers to basic, underlying assumptions that almost all scientists are supposed to have as opposed to those scientist who support particular beliefs, namely Creationism.

They perform an experiment, observe a certain behaviour or reaction, and explain it by saying "This is because <something that is conjecture>."

No. They observe what happens, record the results... again and again, whenever possible.

They may certainly guess, try to find reasons why they got those results. BUT a good scientist does not confuse those possibilities with proof. Usually they will then perform further experiments to delve into the why and wherefore. Only THEN.. only if there is proof, is it offered up as a conclusion. This is why so much of what scientists say is phrased as conjecture.

Unfortunately, opponents of science are not so careful, they like to poke holes and claim that these explanations of uncertainty mean the science was poor, the scientist did not know what he or she was doing. In truth, the opposite is almost always true. Usually, the one who is so very sure their results HAVE to be this or that is the one who is wrong. (not always, some things are certain, but often).

PLAYER, you conveniently switched phrases. In the opening post and in the title of the thread you simply used the term "scientist". In your answer, you slipped in the term "good scientist". That is a significant change that did not go unnoticed my me. You need to be clearer with your questions and statements.

"Opponents of science" - that term is a little funny. Honestly, reasonable people do not feel a need to "pick a side and defend it with my life" when dealing with things like this.]

Again, you are arguing semantics and sliding right by the basic point.

A. I would say that Creationists are attacking science as a whole.. whether they acknowledge so or not.

B. I have spoken of science as a whole. Obviously, in a community as large as "all scientists" there are some who simply don't live up to the standards. They might claim the title "scientist", but don't really wind up adding to the body of knowledge we call "science".. except perhaps in the negative.

And then they use that <something that is conjecture> as a fact when explaining something else. And then it becomes a stack of cards.

No, this is exactly what science does NOT DO!

This is why, despite the HUGE amount of evidence supporting Evolution, etc. (and it IS huge volumes of evidence!), it is still phrased as a theory. BECAUSE it is not something absolutely proven yet. (close, but not 100%)

Remember way back when I said "In General:"? I wasn't referring to just the theory of evolution. That is why I put the statement you quoted in the "In General:" section.

You started a thread about scientists making assumptions. I said I think it happens. I didn't say "always". I didn't say "usually". I didn't say "most of the time". I simply commented on how scientists do, at certain times, make assumptions.

Apparently you did not read my first post? Because I clarified this there.

Why do you have such a hard time with people holding a different opinion that you? This is obviously a subject that cannot be absolutely proven one way or another.

What? That science is based upon assumptions?

But let me tell you this, PLAYER. There are a lot of government grants out there supporting certain scientific experiments. And there are certainly situations where there is some pressure for certain conclusions to be made. And there are certainly situations out there where there are conflicts of interest. This outside pressure can cause some scientists to make assumptions and jump to conclusions. Some scientists will even be dishonest about certain findings (we'll just sweep that one under the rug!). And some scientists will even make honest mistakes . And you can read my previous post about our possible lack of perceptive abilities. If you think this can't create a "stack of cards", I think you are being unreasonably stubborn in your clinging to your believe that scientists never make assumptions and other mistakes.

Now you are the one using the term "never". I did not.

You have to distinguish between individual scientists and the body of knowledge that we call science. Individual scientists make all sorts of claims, but it does not become part of the body of knowledge, the collective unit we call "science' that is taught and disseminated until it goes through several checks. Even so, most information is qualified and considered tentative until it goes through even more rigor. Each field defines its own standards.

Do some scientists, government or company out right lie? Of course! I could probably name more examples than you. Are there biases? Of course! And that is part of why there is such a long route between "a is published" and "a is considered true".

[

Regarding the Creation discussion:

I don't know. And I am not really interested in the whole evolution versus creation debate. It seems so trivial to me. It. Doesn't. Matter.

Does science at all matter to you? Because that is the real issue. Is science valid or is anybody allowed to come up with any ideas they like and put it forward as science?

If that is the real issue, why confuse things by pulling in creationism? That really clouds the issue because it brings in religion and all the emotions that sometimes go with it.

"Is science valid or is anybody allowed to come up with any ideas they like and put it forward as science?"

I don't really like who this question was phrased, so I will answer it as two questions.

Is science valid?
I think some science is valid and some science is not valid.]

I believe what you really intended to say is that some results are valid and some are not. Science is a process and a body of proven results. However just because someone says "this is science" does not make it really so.

This is why the internet is so very, very dangerous to science. Because there is no longer any filter, any process through which information must pass prior to publication. That can be liberating. There is some information now getting out that perhaps would have taken longer. However, science has long been based upong standards of proof and verification and truth.

The problem is all that is boring. Its far more interesting to hear that Autism might be caused by vaccines. It gives parents an answer when they desperately seek one, even the possibility of a cure... for other kids if not their own. Hearing that it is a complex mix of different events, that the primary evidence is certain other things that occur at the time of vaccinations (ranging from genetic mutations that are triggered with a fever that might have been brought on by a normal vaccination.. or any other number of things, to simple age progressions that mean some symptoms appear about the same time as kids are being vaccinated... etc.) all that is complicated and, frankly boring. So, in the internet game, guess which information gets disseminated more quickly? Is there a link? It is being looked into again. Because scientists do not assume they are always correct.

At some point, though you cannot keep saying "well, this is true within our universe at this period in time, providing the sun does not explode, and providing we are not all simply illusions in some alien's imagination and..." At some point, you just say "if you add an acid to a base you will get a reaction".

Is anybody allowed to come up with any ideas they like and put it forward as science?
Sure, why not? It's a free world . If their ideas are entirely ridiculous, I don't think they will be given much of an audience.

No, and here is the crux of where you are wrong. Anyone can come up with ideas and anyone can investigate them. But only if they follow procedures that ensure a lack of bias, that results are repeatable and genuine, only THOSE people are really doing science. The rest are fakers.

[Gregrios]

I don't care who you are. Anytime something is determined by man, you run a very high risk of being introduced, well to be frank, to bull shit. Our world has went through one mistake after another. Interpeters of the Bible and scientists of this world are no different when it comes to the likelyhood of error. Human error is right behind death as the most consistant human action.