JamesM

For a person who bangs on about intelligent debate you'd think you'd be able to use Google.

In 3 seconds I pulled this up.

The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories - SciGuy

I could start posting more, but lets be honest here, if you can't see that science can be manipulated and draw to wrong conclusions then the naivete comment labelled at you holds true.

In actual fact we may well have proven something to be completely accurate on this thread.

JamesM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
More for our Google illiterate naivete friend.

Jericho79

Again, you're failing to understand the point. This initially started by you (or someone else?) saying "science proves what it is paid to prove". I grant you that scientists can come to the wrong conclusions- they can, and do, all the time. I think this is what you're trying to demonstrate, which is not at all the same as what you initially said- that scientists can prove a falsehood if they are paid enough money to do so.

So, to reinforce my argument, I'll use your own link.
"The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories"
Not a single one of these was ever proven to be true. In fact, science has proven them not to be true. Science did never, ever PROVE them to be true in the first place. Ever. Scientists came to a conclusion, which was flawed, and by using science (and scientists), was proven to be false.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

It's written in article you provided FFS:
One of the very best things about science is that the discipline is self-correcting. A scientist makes a set of observations about nature, and then devises a theory to fit those observations.

Other scientists then test the theory, and if it withstands scrutiny it becomes widely accepted. At any point in the future, if contravening evidence emerges, the original theory is discarded. At its essence, and though in practice it’s more messy, this is how science works.


Science did not prove that there was a geocentric universe. In fact, it proved the opposite.

Science did not prove the "young earth" theory was true. In fact, it proved the opposite.

Understood?

Oakvillian

Now you've lost the debate, you're falling to semantics to try to split hairs. It ill becomes you.

As anybody with even the most rudimentary grasp of scientific principles will know (and I'm sure you would be included in that group), it is not possible to prove a theory, only to disprove one. There's the famous example of the black swan: to many Europeans, who had never seen a black swan, the accepted and acknowledged truth was that all swans are white. It only takes the existence of one black swan, observed once, to disprove that theory - but it would take a knowledge of the existence of every swan, anywhere, ever, and unknowable evidence that they were all white for all time, to "prove" that swans are white.

Some scientists, albeit rarely but in several documented cases, draw conclusions from evidence (which, to the layman, look a lot like "truths") that falsely support the positions of their funding agencies. This is the point James was making, and the point that anybody not intent on obfuscation would easily have understood.

Clear?

Shard

Huh? Jericho has already demonstrated that theories can only be disproved. He's making that very point himself. This thread is getting too weird.

Teaandtoday5

+1

Oakvillian

He was going all arch-pedant on JamesM for making what was self-evidently a flippant remark. This thread is, indeed, getting very weird: I have a horrible suspicion that everybody's actually arguing the same point in the same direction but hasn't noticed yet that we all agree...

JamesM

You're all over the place now.

My point was that science could be used to manipulate people in the same way religion can be.

We then had to listen to you bleat on about how once something is proved it's proved and scientists can't be bought.

Now you're telling us what science did not prove which still does nothing to answer the question about science manipulating people. It just answers the point that science is not conclusive which reiterates the point it can be manipulated and in turn used to influence people.

You chop and change your position like you chop and change the evidence presented by others or indeed your self.

To then ask some one if what you're saying is "understood" is obscure.

You are not really saying anything at all now. Just going in circles and arguing with yourself with no clear position or understanding of the posts of others.

I'm intrigued to hear your next tangent (said no one ever).

JamesM

Ludic fallacy

Jericho79

This is pure belligerence.
Science has no bias. It is a method of proving what is true and disproving what isn't.

You're quoting things I've never said. Scientists can be bought. Scientists can make wrong conclusions. However, the beauty of science is that it is self correcting. Which is why I said, in my first reply, that something is either proven or its not.

I'm not arguing any further. My position has been clear and consistent.

Jericho79

I agree 100%... but then it is not actually proven, and science will prove it to be the case.

I think at this stage we're arguing about the definition of proof, so it makes little sense to drag it out any further.

JamesM

This is a purely belligerent statement.

I think if you look at it clearly I didn't quote you at all.

Science isn't self correcting. It involves people to come forward and retest the hypothesis under new or previous variables. No people = no correcting. The bills need to be paid and the majority of these people conduct the research for organisations who pay them with an end goal and result in mind to justify the expense.

Phew.

Greenhill

Some terminology (simplified and paraphrased from one of my physics books):

Knowledge: awareness or understanding of something
Science: A system of knowledge
Scientific method: an orderly process to refute or support a hypothesis
Hypothesis: a prediction
Theory: a scientific conclusion that has not been proven
Principle: a theory that has been tested, experimentally proven and still holds "true"
Law: defined by a formula (usually)

dishwashing

I think you will find that James is one of the logical and smart guys on this forum.

He comprehends.

Btw, have you heard of Quantum physics? Science evolves, and that was my point above. Science is fallible and is more than prone to be used for manipulating opinions. The most recent example of this is global warming.

The other facet of science is it can only deal with the material.

And no, please don't repeat that ill-founded, irresponsible and decontextualised statistic about Muslims again. It's just wrong.

Jericho79

Muslim Opinion Polls - Challenging the 'Tiny Minority of Extremists' Myth

Are all of these out of context?