![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Posted in a discussion about this blog entry.
I understand where you are coming from, but it might help to keep in mind that I have a math degree. It even further helps to understand that I started off as a physics major. The extent of these two disciplines allows me a certain amount of leeway when it comes to reality. The mathematics teaches me that it is possible to prove something, but first one must make a whole batch of assumptions. The physics tells me that nothing in reality is PROVEN, so much as it is estimated.
When I get into a debate about something illogical, say ghosts, I am never arguing that they don't exist as much as I'm arguing that it is highly unlikely that they exist. ESP could be very, very real... but the odds of it being real are very slim given the amount of interest in the subject and the lack of any credible scientific evidence to support it. The truck that is coming down the street while I cross COULD be something other than what I see, but exposure to similar circumstances has supported my senses. Were I to act as if it were a ghost truck and stand in the middle of the road while it hits me, then I would be acting foolishly, even though I don't particularly have absolute proof that vehicle is what I have perceived it to be. Reality does not support 100% proof, down to it's molecular behavior. To make any decisions, we have to act on the odds.
Evolution... the roundness of the earth... man-made global warming... and the biogenic theory you posted above are all suitably researched and supported by solid science. And when I say solid science, I mean science consistently challenged and shown to hold true in the face of those challenges. This is not the "Earth is the center of the universe" science... nor is it egotistical science, where individual fear of a lost supposition is emotionally devastating. This science, by definition, accepts challenges and willingly submits to alternative agencies. It's built in to the scientific theory, itself. Writing a paper that says "What if the assumption is wrong?" is redundant to real scientific inquiry. It's already being done... over and over again.
The supposition that one theory could falsely drive an entire discipline my sound good on paper, but my exposure to scientific fields shows differently. String theory is a perfect example of something that is unproven, but still heavily researched and used for further debate. It is considered to answer many logical questions regarding the subatomic universe, but as far as I know, not one single shred of evidence has been found to support the theories supported within. I have not, in the face of this lack of evidence, discovered a drive to push string theory as a dogma. I have not, despite a significant amount of time and energy being spent on it, found it to be anything other that one alternate theory that seems to hold. I don't see any cascade here. I don't see any insistence on belief.
What typically drives the desire to undermine science is a need to promote alternatives. As a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman, my first job was the "kill" their machine... to convince them that their current vacuum was unsuitable for cleaning their home. I had a better chance to sell my machine if they felt the former wasn't doing its job. This happens in theology when people wish to sell their new theories. By showing that science fails to do its job, one is able to push new theories that have failed to pass scientific standards. As a result, we get John Edwardses, Uri Gellars, and Sylvia Browns who are eager to huck their wares.. By undermining what is real and what is not real, they get a leg-up on the competition... but quite frankly, I'm unwilling to give them that benefit.
I feel it is quite inappropriate to give hucksters free ammunition by needlessly drawing on the imagined weaknesses of science. Since this article points out something redundant, I find it almost insulting the hard work and tireless efforts put in to the scientific field. I find it needlessly points at something inherent to the scientific process and claims intellectual superiority. Were I to point to a diet soft drink and say, "Look, it doesn't have any nutritional value!", I'd be missing the point of the drink in the first place. Science can't PROVE anything... but it can show certain things are highly, highly likely. To point at it and snicker is doing no one any favors... except sheisters and people who feed of doubt. I won't support it.
I understand where you are coming from, but it might help to keep in mind that I have a math degree. It even further helps to understand that I started off as a physics major. The extent of these two disciplines allows me a certain amount of leeway when it comes to reality. The mathematics teaches me that it is possible to prove something, but first one must make a whole batch of assumptions. The physics tells me that nothing in reality is PROVEN, so much as it is estimated.
When I get into a debate about something illogical, say ghosts, I am never arguing that they don't exist as much as I'm arguing that it is highly unlikely that they exist. ESP could be very, very real... but the odds of it being real are very slim given the amount of interest in the subject and the lack of any credible scientific evidence to support it. The truck that is coming down the street while I cross COULD be something other than what I see, but exposure to similar circumstances has supported my senses. Were I to act as if it were a ghost truck and stand in the middle of the road while it hits me, then I would be acting foolishly, even though I don't particularly have absolute proof that vehicle is what I have perceived it to be. Reality does not support 100% proof, down to it's molecular behavior. To make any decisions, we have to act on the odds.
Evolution... the roundness of the earth... man-made global warming... and the biogenic theory you posted above are all suitably researched and supported by solid science. And when I say solid science, I mean science consistently challenged and shown to hold true in the face of those challenges. This is not the "Earth is the center of the universe" science... nor is it egotistical science, where individual fear of a lost supposition is emotionally devastating. This science, by definition, accepts challenges and willingly submits to alternative agencies. It's built in to the scientific theory, itself. Writing a paper that says "What if the assumption is wrong?" is redundant to real scientific inquiry. It's already being done... over and over again.
The supposition that one theory could falsely drive an entire discipline my sound good on paper, but my exposure to scientific fields shows differently. String theory is a perfect example of something that is unproven, but still heavily researched and used for further debate. It is considered to answer many logical questions regarding the subatomic universe, but as far as I know, not one single shred of evidence has been found to support the theories supported within. I have not, in the face of this lack of evidence, discovered a drive to push string theory as a dogma. I have not, despite a significant amount of time and energy being spent on it, found it to be anything other that one alternate theory that seems to hold. I don't see any cascade here. I don't see any insistence on belief.
What typically drives the desire to undermine science is a need to promote alternatives. As a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman, my first job was the "kill" their machine... to convince them that their current vacuum was unsuitable for cleaning their home. I had a better chance to sell my machine if they felt the former wasn't doing its job. This happens in theology when people wish to sell their new theories. By showing that science fails to do its job, one is able to push new theories that have failed to pass scientific standards. As a result, we get John Edwardses, Uri Gellars, and Sylvia Browns who are eager to huck their wares.. By undermining what is real and what is not real, they get a leg-up on the competition... but quite frankly, I'm unwilling to give them that benefit.
I feel it is quite inappropriate to give hucksters free ammunition by needlessly drawing on the imagined weaknesses of science. Since this article points out something redundant, I find it almost insulting the hard work and tireless efforts put in to the scientific field. I find it needlessly points at something inherent to the scientific process and claims intellectual superiority. Were I to point to a diet soft drink and say, "Look, it doesn't have any nutritional value!", I'd be missing the point of the drink in the first place. Science can't PROVE anything... but it can show certain things are highly, highly likely. To point at it and snicker is doing no one any favors... except sheisters and people who feed of doubt. I won't support it.
