Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Abuse of science Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]Solomon Grundy[/m] at 9:00 am on Oct. 6, 2008[quote]i definitely agree with this.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post iconoclast Posted at 8:56 am on Oct. 6, 2008 I personally feel it's better to just admit that we're not to the point of scientifically understanding something rather than pretending to be, for the purposes of reinforcing ones' worldview/arrogance, for purposes of social control, etc. Taking this further, in some cases, science might not even be helpful in these areas. When people try to 'scientize' things that really are too ambiguous to be accurately studied, they introduce a huge amount of bias into it. So, in at least some cases, it's better to just leave the question open, or try to explain what's at hand from wisdom/experience/social observation rather than try to conjure up flawed (pseudo)scientific explanations.

Replies iconoclast Posted at 9:46 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from liv21 at 12:44 pm on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 9:38 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from liv21 at 12:11 pm on Oct. 6, 2008 I tend to agree, but the "bias" you speak of isn't really bias. Theorists arrive at certain conclusions based on what they can observe. They don't take into account what they CAN'T observe, if that makes sense. I'd think that many of them are just closed minded and poor observers...And sometimes you have to take into account stuff that isn't blatantly obvious. If you follow just the obvious and ignore everything else, then you stand to fail. I'm more concerned about closed-minded non-observers. i would call limited, wrong observation worse than non-observation, except in the case of idiots like literal creationists liv21 Posted at 9:44 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 9:38 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from liv21 at 12:11 pm on Oct. 6, 2008 I tend to agree, but the "bias" you speak of isn't really bias.  Theorists arrive at certain conclusions based on what they can observe.  They don't take into account what they CAN'T observe, if that makes sense. I'd think that many of them are just closed minded and poor observers...And sometimes you have to take into account stuff that isn't blatantly obvious. If you follow just the obvious and ignore everything else, then you stand to fail. I'm more concerned about closed-minded non-observers. iconoclast Posted at 9:38 am on Oct. 6, 2008 Quote: from liv21 at 12:11 pm on Oct. 6, 2008 I tend to agree, but the "bias" you speak of isn't really bias. Theorists arrive at certain conclusions based on what they can observe. They don't take into account what they CAN'T observe, if that makes sense. I'd think that many of them are just closed minded and poor observers...And sometimes you have to take into account stuff that isn't blatantly obvious. If you follow just the obvious and ignore everything else, then you stand to fail. liv21 Posted at 9:11 am on Oct. 6, 2008 I tend to agree, but the "bias" you speak of isn't really bias.  Theorists arrive at certain conclusions based on what they can observe.  They don't take into account what they CAN'T observe, if that makes sense. La Motta Posted at 9:00 am on Oct. 6, 2008 I understand everything about nothing. Solomon Grundy Posted at 9:00 am on Oct. 6, 2008 i definitely agree with this. All 6 previous replies displayed.