Science Pledge

[craftysarah]

What do you guys think?

www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/12/07/166732941/a-pledge-to-science-thats-something-congress-should-consider?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20121211

Given the unique role science has played in American history — securing our prosperity, ensuring our defense and allowing us to push back the frontiers of knowledge in ways which will echo through future generations — I craftysarah, representative/senator of really, just my house, pledge my support to the great American enterprise in science and technology.

In particular I pledge to make no statements in flagrant contradiction to the foundational principles of basic science, nor will I support others who make such statements. Understanding the importance of science to the next generation of Americans, I pledge to uphold the integrity of basic scientific research and take no actions to undermine the broadest public education in empirically verifiable scientific truths. I further acknowledge that such education must include an understanding of the methods science deploys in its investigations, as well as the limits of those methods.

In making this pledge I affirm that an absolute respect for both science and a personal commitment to divinity (in whichever form) are not incompatible.

[Colleenz]

Good luck seeing that the guy who cancelled the space program just got reflected...

[Dark Honor]

I don't know about all of them, but it would be nice if the folks on the damn Committee on Science would stop saying things that make me wonder if they've ever had a basic science class in their lives.

[rockon]

Does history reflect that what science concludes today is always proven correct in later years? You do believe the earth is round now right?

[craftysarah]

Dec 11, 2012 13:18:35 GMT -5 rockon said:

Does history reflect that what science concludes today is always proven correct in later years? You do believe the earth is round now right?

It's actually a little squashed down in the middle, but generally round, yes.

And history has reflected that the scientific method is a pretty reputable way to learn about the world around you. The theories evolve as our knowledge deepens, but the proces is pretty irrefutable.

[Virgil Songbird]

the foundational principles of basic science

No such principles exist.

Human knowledge is in a constant state of flux. Even the hardest physical laws—Newton's laws of motion, Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism, etc.—are subject to reinterpretation, extension, even revision by credible new research. And for the softer sciences such as economics, psychology, archaeology, you can forget "foundational principles" entirely. The fields have mutated radically even in the past 50 years.

You're pledging your allegiance to a waterfall, or to a hurricane.

Better not blink.

The theories evolve as our knowledge deepens, but the proces is pretty irrefutable.

It also acknowledges its own (rather stringent) limitations, which many people who invoke it (themselves not scientists) pay no attention to.

Science, the output of university press offices, the media reporting on science, and the layperson's understanding of 'science' are all very different things.

[Dark Honor]

It's actually a little squashed down in the middle, but generally round, yes.

I thought the "squashed" parts were the poles, and we bulge at the equator from centrifugal force generated by rotation and the moon's gravitational pull? Did my Marine Bio teacher lie to me?

[Virgil Songbird]

Dec 11, 2012 14:05:14 GMT -5 Dark Honor said:

It's actually a little squashed down in the middle, but generally round, yes.

I thought the "squashed" parts were the poles, and we bulge at the equator from centrifugal force generated by rotation and the moon's gravitational pull? Did my Marine Bio teacher lie to me?

It's a tiny bulge that technically makes the Earth an ellipsoid.

It's due almost entirely to centrifugal force; the moon has nothing (significant) to do with it.

[DramaQ1015]

It's a tiny bulge that technically makes the Earth an ellipsoid.

Thank you! Dh called the earth a sphere and I argued it wasn't but couldn't remember the shape. It was driving me crazy.

I've accepted the fact I can't fix stupid, people choose to think what they want to think and there is no changing their minds. I could have mountains of empirical data but as long as one dude on the internet says it isn't so. . .

Everything else, it's my job. I couldn't do my job if I didn't uphold those things.

[craftysarah]

Dec 11, 2012 14:05:14 GMT -5 Dark Honor said:

It's actually a little squashed down in the middle, but generally round, yes.

I thought the "squashed" parts were the poles, and we bulge at the equator from centrifugal force generated by rotation and the moon's gravitational pull? Did my Marine Bio teacher lie to me?

Yes. I was hedging. I thought it was squished at the poles and fat at the equator, but I was too lazy to google it to confirm. I was hoping "middle" would be an ambiguous enough term to escape the P&M fact police. Mea culpa.

[happyhoix]

I like it, but I'm a scientist.

Some people only look at the world through the prism of their faith, and anything that conflicts with their faith must, therefore, be wrong.

For instance, I had a guy tell me that God created dinosaur bones and left them deep underground as a way to test our faith; true believers understand that the world is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs didn't actually exist because they aren't mentioned in the Bible.

Those people will never agree with such a pledge, and unfortunately, some of them sit on the Science Committee.

[Waffle]

Dec 11, 2012 13:11:27 GMT -5 Colleenz said:

Good luck seeing that the guy who cancelled the space program just got reflected...

You say that like it's a bad thing. ;D ;D ;D ;D

[craftysarah]

Dec 11, 2012 14:04:48 GMT -5 Virgil Songbird said:

the foundational principles of basic science

No such principles exist.

Human knowledge is in a constant state of flux. Even the hardest physical laws—Newton's laws of motion, Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism, etc.—are subject to reinterpretation, extension, even revision by credible new research. And for the softer sciences such as economics, psychology, archaeology, you can forget "foundational principles" entirely. The fields have mutated radically even in the past 50 years.

You're pledging your allegiance to a waterfall, or to a hurricane.

Better not blink.

The theories evolve as our knowledge deepens, but the proces is pretty irrefutable.

It also acknowledges its own (rather stringent) limitations, which many people who invoke it (themselves not scientists) pay no attention to.

Science, the output of university press offices, the media reporting on science, and the layperson's understanding of 'science' are all very different things.

Hey, it was draft language pitched by some guy at NPR.

That said, is your post not a statement of the foundational principles of science?

Knowledge evolves. Limitations are acknowledged. Scientific method persists.

[happyhoix]

"Knowledge evolves. Limitations are acknowledged. Scientific method persists."

The beautiful part about the scientific method is your theories have to be supported by tests that can be validated by every other scientist in the world, should they want to replicate your experiment.

So you can spout any BS you want, but if you can't prove it through validated testing, no one listens to you, and in fact will mock you as an idiot.

I wish other fields of study had similar methods to separate bullshit from fact.

[DramaQ1015]

For instance, I had a guy tell me that God created dinosaur bones and left them deep underground as a way to test our faith; true believers understand that the world is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs didn't actually exist because they aren't mentioned in the Bible

mind = blown.

You just can't argue/logic with that. I'm going to leave a dent in my desk long before I could make headway with an argument like that.

So you can spout any BS you want, but if you can't prove it through validated testing, no one listens to you, and in fact will mock you as an idiot.

The problem is I can make up validation and it may take awhile before anyone figures it out.

Look at Dr. Wakefield. His methods have been outed and his paper retracted but he has done a shitload of damage that will probably never be fixed.

You, I and everyone who investigated his reserach knows it is a farce, but the damage is done when it comes to laypeople.

[Virgil Songbird]

Dec 11, 2012 14:49:08 GMT -5 craftysarah said:

Dec 11, 2012 14:04:48 GMT -5 Virgil Songbird said:

No such principles exist.

Human knowledge is in a constant state of flux. Even the hardest physical laws—Newton's laws of motion, Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism, etc.—are subject to reinterpretation, extension, even revision by credible new research. And for the softer sciences such as economics, psychology, archaeology, you can forget "foundational principles" entirely. The fields have mutated radically even in the past 50 years.

You're pledging your allegiance to a waterfall, or to a hurricane.

Better not blink.

It also acknowledges its own (rather stringent) limitations, which many people who invoke it (themselves not scientists) pay no attention to.

Science, the output of university press offices, the media reporting on science, and the layperson's understanding of 'science' are all very different things.

Hey, it was draft language pitched by some guy at NPR.

That said, is your post not a statement of the foundational principles of science?

Knowledge evolves. Limitations are acknowledged. Scientific method persists.

My skepticism comes in the form that few (if any) of the major problems facing the world today are caused by the layperson's rejection of scientific canon.

Even if everybody went out and got a M.Sc. tomorrow, 99.9% of the problems we currently face would still be there and wouldn't be any easier to solve.

[happyhoix]

So you can spout any BS you want, but if you can't prove it through validated testing, no one listens to you, and in fact will mock you as an idiot.

The problem is I can make up validation and it may take awhile before anyone figures it out.

"Look at Dr. Wakefield. His methods have been outed and his paper retracted but he has done a shitload of damage that will probably never be fixed.

You, I and everyone who investigated his reserach knows it is a farce, but the damage is done when it comes to laypeople."

Unfortunately, this is very true.

Just look at all the people who sincerely believe that the world is going to end soon, when the Mayan calender ends.

Pseudo scientists have written all kinds of books about it, and the gullible snap them up.

I think we need to require more science in school, to begin with. Teach kids not to believe whatever the next snake oil salesman is selling.

[DramaQ1015]

We also need to do better educating the media. It's all about ratings. I can't count the number of times I have heard X on GMA but when I go to actually read what was written it is totally different. GMA is geared towards getting you to stay tuned and assuming you're too stupid to understand the real study.

I don't think we just need more science but critical thinking in general. Like a doctor who sells supplements and then tells you that you need to go on a supplement based diet. Common sense should tell you he has a vested interest in getting you on the diet he supports.

[Virgil Songbird]

Common sense should tell you he has a vested interest in getting you on the diet he supports.

Common sense also dictates that if he legitimately believes the supplements have value, he might include sales of these supplements as part of a vertically-integrated medical business.

Cause and effect aren't always a straightforward relationship.

[DramaQ1015]

Cause and effect aren't always a straightforward relationship

No they are not, but I am shocked at how many people take stuff at face value because there was a 'study" done or it is wrapped in scientific lingo.

I have to sign a finanical release when I do certain types of work. If I am recieving finanical benefits from a company I am working for, anything I do is immeadiely suspect.

Doesn't mean I am not right, but nobody can be sure I didn't deliberately alter the results because those results are in my favor.

It'd have to be investgiated and independently verified by someone who doesn't have my finanical ties.

Your average person doesn't think that far.

I don't expect them to do the amount of work I'd have to do in a professional case, your average person doesn't have the money or capacity to individually validate a study.

But if Dr. Sears is selling "Dr. Sears supplements" and every study he hands you supports the fact that you need to take them ts and was brought to you by the comapny that makes "Dr. Sears supplements", you should at least raise an eyebrow.

[Angel]

Dec 11, 2012 14:55:31 GMT -5 DramaQ1015 said:

For instance, I had a guy tell me that God created dinosaur bones and left them deep underground as a way to test our faith; true believers understand that the world is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs didn't actually exist because they aren't mentioned in the Bible

mind = blown.

You just can't argue/logic with that. I'm going to leave a dent in my desk long before I could make headway with an argument like that.

It gets better. I've had this conversation with people, it is called something like the aged earth theory. Basically God built the earth & universe as though it was already billions of years old. That is why all scientific data points to this conclusion. Everything is only 6000 years old, but he built it to appear older as if it had already aged, down to adding fake fossils & layers & carbon levels for dating.

There is literally no way to argue with this because they aren't disputing scientists findings. They are merely saying that god made it appear that way, so the scientists are merely finding the "evidence" that god left for them. The only really question is then why would god do this? Apparently god really, really wants to test our faith by making every sign point to X when the truth is Y.

[ArchietheDragon]

Dec 11, 2012 15:48:45 GMT -5 Angel said:

Dec 11, 2012 14:55:31 GMT -5 DramaQ1015 said:

For instance, I had a guy tell me that God created dinosaur bones and left them deep underground as a way to test our faith; true believers understand that the world is only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs didn't actually exist because they aren't mentioned in the Bible

mind = blown.

You just can't argue/logic with that. I'm going to leave a dent in my desk long before I could make headway with an argument like that.

It gets better. I've had this conversation with people, it is called something like the aged earth theory. Basically God built the earth & universe as though it was already billions of years old. That is why all scientific data points to this conclusion. Everything is only 6000 years old, but he built it to appear older as if it had already aged, down to adding fake fossils & layers & carbon levels for dating.

There is literally no way to argue with this because they aren't disputing scientists findings. They are merely saying that god made it appear that way, so the scientists are merely finding the "evidence" that god left for them. The only really question is then why would god do this? Apparently god really, really wants to test our faith by making every sign point to X when the truth is Y.

Seems reasonable enough to me.

[DramaQ1015]

The only really question is then why would god do this

For poops and giggles? God probably needs a laugh every once and awhile.

My favorite is fossils were put here by Satan in order to distract us and make us question God.

[Angel]

Dec 11, 2012 15:51:09 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Dec 11, 2012 15:48:45 GMT -5 Angel said:

It gets better. I've had this conversation with people, it is called something like the aged earth theory. Basically God built the earth & universe as though it was already billions of years old. That is why all scientific data points to this conclusion. Everything is only 6000 years old, but he built it to appear older as if it had already aged, down to adding fake fossils & layers & carbon levels for dating.

There is literally no way to argue with this because they aren't disputing scientists findings. They are merely saying that god made it appear that way, so the scientists are merely finding the "evidence" that god left for them. The only really question is then why would god do this? Apparently god really, really wants to test our faith by making every sign point to X when the truth is Y.

Seems reasonable enough to me.

Maybe it is. I've also been told that you can not apply our logic or understanding to god's actions. That we can not possibly understand what he does or why because he is on a higher, all-knowing level & we are just peons.

So apparently I can't know if it makes sense that god would do this or not.

You just gotta have faith.

[Angel]

Dec 11, 2012 15:52:10 GMT -5 DramaQ1015 said:

The only really question is then why would god do this

For poops and giggles? God probably needs a laugh every once and awhile.

My favorite is fossils were put here by Satan in order to distract us and make us question God.

I have never heard that. Nice!

[sgtjer]

Politicos make pledges to campaign donations, nothing more, nothing less.

Science only counts if it brings in the dollars for them, and that gets measured against the dollars brought in from religious capitalism.

[DramaQ1015]

Faith isn't quantifiable. You just have to accept it to be true. You can't prove or disprove that God did anything. There is no way you can set up one universe that doesn't have God and one that does and see what happens.

Doesn't mean he does not exist, but he has no place in science. It drives me batty because you can't debate with circular logic.

I have no problems with people having faith but please stop trying to tell me Satan placed fossils on this earth and since I can't prove he didn't that makes you right.

Same with anything else. It deeply troubles me that people still cling to Wakefields 1985 study. I am not saying that down the road he might not be proven right, but the 1985 study itself has been proven false and ample evidence has been given as to why it has be. Yet people continue to swallow it and insist that it was debunked as a massive conspiracy cover-up.

He was handsomly paid as an 'expert' witness so the scales tip in favor of him finding more evidence. He was paid by people who were becoming handsomly rich off of desparate upset parents, his study only had 8 acendotal records and no one has been able to repeat his results in over 20 years.

But his crap still won't die.

[Swamp]

Dec 11, 2012 13:16:39 GMT -5 Dark Honor said:

I don't know about all of them, but it would be nice if the folks on the damn Committee on Science would stop saying things that make me wonder if they've ever had a basic science class in their lives.

[Virgil Songbird]

I don't get how any of this fits in with the OP.

We acknowledge that there are numerous theories about how to reconcile paleontological findings with scripture. The OP suggests that if more people believed in the prevailing scientific theory in this regard, America would be a happier, more prosperous place. But this plainly isn't the case. America's prosperity is in no way dependent on the common man's perceptions of prehistory. Nor, for that matter, does its prosperity depend on the validity or general acceptance of evolution.

If the Big Bang theory was invalidated tomorrow morning and replaced with some better understanding, America's prosperity wouldn't change in the least.

What is the fundamental purpose of the pledge in the OP? The author purveys full, unconditional acceptance of scientific canon as a panacea for society's ills, when as far as I can see, America's prosperity has absolutely no dependence whatsoever on the doctrines most heavily disputed.

"Science will save us" is a dangerous lie.

[DramaQ1015]

I really can't do a good job of explaining it myself, but you might want to read Unscientific America, Virgil. The authors do a pretty good job of explaining why the current thought process of a lot of people in America is so worrisome.

Panic Virus is another good one.

Then anything by Micheal Shermer. I own this one, DH needs to find my copy because I want to read it again.

www.barnesandnoble.com/w/why-people-believe-weird-things-michael-shermer/1100623402?ean=9781429996761