The End of the Scientific Age

[Brotherska]

Hi Everyone:

We appear to be experiencing two problems with this thread. It seems that some have not understood my first post, and some are defining science to be inventions. Let me deal with both issues.

The scientific Age

We generally start with evidence. Evidence must be interpreted and these interpretations are based on assumptions. When someone has interpreted evidence, the interpretation becomes their opinion or assertion.

The scientific approach is to verify the assumptions upon which interpretations/ opinions/ assertions are based. This approach has been used in various disciplines and in many countries for thousands of years. However, those with agendas normally resisted having their opinions examined. The problem for scientists, i.e. those using this scientific approach, was when persons with agendas had the means to persecute those scrutinizing their opinions.

I call the scientific age the period of time (generally the last 200 years or so) when persons could attempt to verify the assumptions upon which others had based their interpretations of evidence, without the same level of threat of harm.

I believe that we are near the end of this scientific age. Persons will continue to use the scientific approach; however, not without persecution, as those who dared examine the underlying assumptions upon which evolution, global warming, teaching methods, health care methods, child development, gender studies, etc are based.

Science and Inventions and Innovations

Inventions and innovations are just that. The may and may not rely on a scientific approach. Unfortunately, the general public has been misled into believing that science means evolution, stem cell research, computers, etc, and the opposite of science is religion etc.

As previously mentioned, the scientific approach can be applied to biology, history, and religion. Wherever there is evidence to be interpreted, the scientific approach can be employed.

Regards.

[Interbane]

Ska: "Persons will continue to use the scientific approach; however, not without persecution, as those who dared examine the underlying assumptions upon which evolution, global warming, teaching methods, health care methods, child development, gender studies, etc are based."

What you're referring to as the hurdle that will eventually become too tall for us to leap is the challenging of certain scientific theories such as evolution. The problem isn't that the challengers are quelled by ridicule or political maneuvering, but that they aren't challengers at all. They are pseudo-scientists who are trying to get a foot in the door for their dogmatic beliefs. The ridicule that is placed on them is justified.

There are valid challengers to theories such as Einsteins theory of relativity, and these scientists aren't ridiculed at all, even though the theory is exceptionally popular and widely used.

I think that we are actually entering a truly scientific age, where pseudo-science such as intelligent design will be finally and forever dismissed. Such attempts to masquerade religious beliefs as science are the true hurdle to our collective progress. How many young brilliant minds have we lost to such nonsense that could be better used on advancing real science?

[Brotherska]

Well Interbane:

Your reaction, which is typical among those with the popular academic position, simply supports my observations. There are stages of persecution, but the aim is the same – to stop the examination of assumptions upon which the opinions were based. Discussing the issue is encouraged, provided that the underlying assumptions are not questioned. That is not science, but political correctness.

Interbane, even if someone were to make what you may consider to be an unlikely claim, the scientific approach is to examine it, not to prevent an examination of the claimant’s assumptions by: ridicule, damaging the claimant’s reputation, misconstruing their ideas, confiscating their property, destroying their research, torturing them, and murdering them. History has shown that all of the above were employed by those whose opinions happened to be popular at the time.

I have often wondered how such hatred could be generated from simply discussing issues. I have found that it starts with persons becoming too emotionally attached to their position. Therefore, to question their underlying assumptions is interpreted as a personal attack, and they react accordingly – with contempt.

Regards,
Walter.

[johnson1010]

The "challenges" you speak of have already been examined and intellectually destroyed. they hold no water. To continue discussing things like intelligent design, or flat earth theories as though they are on an equal footing to real science is a disservice to humanity.

See my thread on entitled to your opinion.

You are entitled to think whatever you want about the origins of life, the shape of the earth, or anything else. You are not entitled to everyone else pretending like you make any sense.

[Interbane]

Ska: "Interbane, even if someone were to make what you may consider to be an unlikely claim, the scientific approach is to examine it, not to prevent an examination of the claimant’s assumptions..."

The claims I mention aren't simply unlikely, they have been examined and are shown to be false. It is not science to blame here, but religion. Religion does not care for evidence and will thrust it's convictions forward relentlessly in the face of all evidence forever and ever. I say again, there is no appropriate way to deal with such behavior. After a while, there is nothing left but ridicule and scorn. The issue has been gone through with a fine tooth comb, all assumptions have been challenged. You're beating a dead horse.

Reread my paragraph considering that I'm talking about how the sun revolves around the Earth. Does it sink in?

[geo]

. . . if someone were to make what you may consider to be an unlikely claim, the scientific approach is to examine it, not to prevent an examination of the claimant’s assumptions by: ridicule, damaging the claimant’s reputation, misconstruing their ideas, confiscating their property, destroying their research, torturing them, and murdering them. History has shown that all of the above were employed by those whose opinions happened to be popular at the time.

Brotherska, what you are saying is true. Oddly enough it has been religion which has done these things. What is your point here? I'm sorry, I just don't see one.

You've made two general statements. One, that "the scientific age is coming to an end," and two, I believe that we are moving, and in many countries, we have moved back into the ‘politically correct’ age, where questioning of politically established ‘truth’ is not tolerated."

What do you base these on? Are these things you have observed? If so, let's see some examples. Otherwise you're simply stating something so vague that it's meaningless, at least to me.

[Brotherska]

Johnson: “The "challenges" you speak of have already been examined and intellectually destroyed. they hold no water.”
Interbane: “The claims I mention aren't simply unlikely, they have been examined and are shown to be false.”

Why are they false and destroyed? Because someone whom you choose to believe says so? This behaviour of resisting or stopping the examination of base assumptions is typical of those who were on the popular side of issues. History has shown how this will end, and you are playing your roles to perfection.

It seems that the scientific age has ended in the US – you have reverted to the politically correct age. Regrettably, the general US population has been misled into believing that Science and Technology are synonymous.

Regards.

[Interbane]

Ska: "Regrettably, the general US population has been misled into believing that Science and Technology are synonymous."

I was referring to the claim that the Sun revolved around the Earth. If you think that claim should be reexamined you're an idiot. Not only for the simple fact that this base assumption is continually reexamined, but that it should be given equal research time alongside more critical theories.

[CWT36]

Why are they false and destroyed? Because someone whom you choose to believe says so? This behaviour of resisting or stopping the examination of base assumptions is typical of those who were on the popular side of issues. History has shown how this will end, and you are playing your roles to perfection.

Belief is an opinion based on trust and faith, knowledge is a fact based on empirical evidence. Assumptions are propositions or notions. Facts have evidence and objective reality. I don't know why you think anyone is stopping the examination of knowledge based on fact, or even the examination of assumptions for that matter. The scientific community encourages the reexamination of facts by anyone with the desire and capability of doing so.

Example: I do not "believe" in the assumption of gravity, I have knowledge that the theory of gravity is a fact. Any resistance I may have to the reexamination of this theory is not attempting to stop anyone else from doing so, it is saying that I will not reexamine it because the empirical evidence has already shown the theory to be true. If new empirical evidence presents itself, proven through scientific methods, and it disproves the theory of gravity, that is fine. But if some loon comes up with an assumption and no proof and then expects the scientific community to put the time and effort into examining it, he has no basis for demeaning science because they choose not to do so.

It is not the scientific community's job to chase the whim of every person who thinks they have a better understanding of how the universe operates. It is science's job to provide proof of what they claim to be true, and they have done so.

[DWill]

I believe that the scientific age is coming to an end. It appears that in some countries, it has actually ended.

Humanity has had approximately 200 years or so to verify the assumptions on which other’s have based their opinions, without the same threat of harm. However, in come countries today, if one questions the base assumptions of: evolution, global warming, teaching methods, health care methods, child development, gender studies, etc, your reputation can be damaged and your earning potential compromised.

We are going backwards.

It's an interesting historical perspective, that free inquiry held sway for two centuries and now has come to an end. (This free inquiry is what you claim characterized the scientific age.) Does this perspective hold up under examination, though? We would need evidence that questioning popular opinions and beliefs was not penalized during these two centuries. What evidence would you offer? Certainly in this country, questioning the scientific truth of biblical creation was not something welcomed with open arms. Questioning the prevailing theory of racial superiority was also unwelcome. These are but two examples of many that could be provided. Aren't you overreacting to the existence of an attitude that conservatives have labelled political correctness? It is true that something like that attitude exists, especially in academia, but to say that it rules society is just not true in my opinion. People who question fashionable or well established beliefs are often prominent and have even built their reputations on such questioning.