Has the scientific method been all good? In relatively recent times, from the perspective of history, the scientific method has appeared and it has allowed us to unlock the secrets of so many areas of study about the universe and our place in it. And it has ushered in an era of reason. All good so far, but wait... Science has also led to the development of a certain attitude, you may know it. That has gone beyond scientific inquiry, beyond skepticism, we're talking about full-on denial! And this is coming from the people who claim to be following rational thought. Maybe it's time to look beyond the scientific era and come up with something new.
Okaaaay let’s see Things science has denied The moon is made of green cheese The earth is flat The earth is hollow Sound can negate gravity Snake bite can be cured by burying someone up to the neck in dung You can resuscitate someone by blowing smoke up the nuts (true they thought this!) Climate change is not happening
IDK what you are specifically talking about but generally, I think "science" today tends to be a bit skewed by a lot of things. One of them is that people too readily accept models as facts or proof, another is the lack of skepticism as to a premise, and another is the substitution of "peer-reviewed" for "reproducible". On some things, correlation is too readily accepted as causation when it confirms a premise.
I'm not entirely clear what you're talking about here but I suspect it will ultimately be about people applying science incorrectly (intentionally or not) rather than science being fundamentally bad. If we somehow replaced science with something else, what would prevent those same people applying the new method incorrectly too? Science doesn't kill people, people kill people.
Really? Got proof of that because at Masters (Honours) level and above students are taught how to critique research and are expected to not only use correct citations but provide a critique on those citations
Skyscraper designers don't have to figure out how to distribute the steel like Eiffel had to do for the iron monstrosity in Paris. But then structural engineers say nothing about that distribution regarding a supposed collapse. Very scientific! Then millions of people don't expect to be told such obvious information by the "experts".
People (especially lay-people) failing to properly apply scientific rigour hardly supports the idea that there is a fundamental problem with scientific method. If anything, it's the opposite; if they properly applied scientific method, they wouldn't make the same errors and reach valid conclusions.
There is no way in natural sciences to create a proof like there is in math, where 100% of conditions are fully specified. It's the problem Newton faced. He had no way of knowing the effects of exceptional speed, for example. So, science includes a significant range of methods for confirmation. Earth's warming was initially developed by historic reports from various regions. Then, an increasingly large number of monitoring stations grew across regions of our surface. Then, we got satellites that could measure Earth's temp from space, confirming surface measurements. Then we got information from ice cores. Then, we increased monitoring of oceans. Etc. These confirmed a pattern of warming. Let's assume for the moment this is a reasonable history of surface temperature determination (though a lot is left out and there are sure to be discrepancies somewhere). That's not proof - certainly not in the sense of mathematical proof. So, what do YOU want to call it if not consensus, given that the vast majority of scientists in related fields agree that Earth is warming?
Some of my more scientific minded friends are telling me AI is going to take over in the not so distant future and wipe out humanity. I ask them then why are you still paying into your 401K?
Oh, there are so many things. This attitude problem is showcased by the phrase "extraordinary claims extraordinary evidence" when that's wrong. It only requires ordinary evidence, that's all. Another one was the physics claim that supersymmetry was the truth, or else! This was a widely held belief a few decades ago until the evidence put that idea to bed, and we discovered that supersymmetry was wrong. And what about NDEs (Near Death Experiences)? The rise of science gave rise to the secular worldview that there was nothing beyond death and anyone who did experience a NDE was psychologically disturbed. But now I'm hearing that doctors are encountering NDEs every week, and they are telling patients that their experiences are real! Another denial is the rejection of others' experiences and evidence until that person can personally see and experience something for themselves. Otherwise, they deny anything that would change from their viewpoint.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a casual phrase that has little to do with scientific method. It's not entirely flawed if read in the correct context but could be explained much more clearly. No scientist would assert that any scientific theory is "the truth, or else!". I'm no expert but I think stating "supersymmetry is wrong" is too simplistic. Regardless, the very fact the theory was reassessed following the discovery of new evidence supports the very opposite of what you claim. Similarly, no scientists will definitively assert "there is nothing beyond death" though they will certainly state the fact that there is no definitive evidence that any aspect of our consciousness continues after brain death but there is evidence supporting alternative explanations for various types of experiences and events described as NDEs. You "hearing" things isn't evidence of anything and I'm aware of nothing suggesting the incidence of experiences called NDEs has changed in either direction. Regardless, I'd suggest that nothing relating to actual scientific method has changed in this field - there is some research but no conclusive results. Again, scientists won't simply reject anyone's (reported) experiences without good reason, though they will be treated as exactly that - individual experiences. Evidence isn't individual by definition. If one person says they saw something it would be different evidence to if multiple people say they saw the same thing (though neither situation would likely be entirely conclusive alone). Refusing the accept anything that would change you viewpoint is the exact opposite of scientific method so only serves to support the counter claims that the problems you highlight are with people rather than science.
And I made that reference to science today not the scientific method so jumping to conclusions has been well illustrated.
I hope the earth is warming. We have a lot of wasted space thats too cold to do anything with. My issue is with the folks trying to claim we need to stop it from warming. The earth has been ice free lots of times yet still completely habitable many times in the history of complex life on earth. Even the most 'apocalyptic' warming projections put a partial thaw of the coastal regions of Antarctica out at 200 years or so. Which sucks, because I personally would love to be part of settling a new continent. Higher CO2 causes plants to grow more efficiently, producing more food with less water. This means it will be easier to irrigate dry regions. Combined with farming thawed regions, it will make up for (and then some) any coastal areas lost to sea level rise. And adapting to warmer temperatures over hundreds of years while making use of carbon fuels will be a lot less strenuous on humanity than trying to eliminate the use of carbon fuels immediately.
The population of Earth is spread to regions that support humans today. If you change where people can live on Earth, it will mean stupendous human movement to regions where living is in the cards. I've never seen you propose immigration of that stupendous scope. You do realize we're approaching 10 Billion people, right? Also, we have our own water/agriculture/population problems right here in the USA.
I was thinking the other day it seems a lot more practical to move people than to stop the ocean rising. Why not just take them off the sinking land and start moving them to where the glaciers used to be or just another more solid location.
We dont have a population problem. We have a resource scarcity problem. Most of the world resources are locked up in government and corporate 'preserves' such as carbon offsets, elite estates and just land that govts and rulers wanna keep to themselves. Some day we'll risk exceeding earths capacity to support humanity. But that day is a looooong way off. We should be focussing on expanding off-world, not constricting to hide in the confines of this one tiny blue dot. There is still lots of earth for humans. Some of it is frozen. We can fix that too... It'll require work, sure. But so does everything.
Ummmm - and are they to starve to death in those locations asks the woman from a country already accepting refugees from rising sea levels https://borgenproject.org/facts-about-tuvalu-refugees/
Locations where agriculture is suffering from having too little water are certainly suffering from "resource scarcity". In the US southwest that is exacerbated by a direct conflict between agriculture and increasing population density. That isn't solved by some freeing of federal or state resources. And, I don't see a reason to accept your explanation for other countries, either. Also, NOBODY wants to live on Mars. Mars is hell. Anyone who thinks they want to live on Mars should try setting up housekeeping on Antarctica - which is an absolute wonderland of beauty and human needs compared to Mars. You can even walk around outdoors on Antarctica!
Well if you live on some BFE island, not so much. Those seem to be the people most at risk. The Army Corps moves people (and sometimes sections of towns) to new locations due to repeated flooding and it is cheaper or more effective to relocate them (and buildings) than to mitigate the risk. I don't see why we can just expand on that.
