"F*cking magnets, how do they work?!"

[felixgwilliams]

***WARNING: POST CONTAINS MUCH BILE AND RAGE**

I realise that I can come across very agressively when I am pissed off about something I am passionate about. And that my views are my own. If you are looking for an entierly polite and sensible LJ post to read today I suggest you move along, I am not looking to offend anyone. I am just venting.

Comments

[mostlyfoo]

I can totally agree with this, I'm honestly just weirded out by people who can't accept science and the scientific method but easily accept things like say baking (well I just tweak it a bit if the cake isn't right and remember it for next time, or ask another cook how they've seen it work or how they think the eggs/flour interaction works) or painting (well if I don't think the orange is right I just change the red/yellow mix and remember it for next time, or ask another painter how they achieve effect X

[bhriste]

To be honest, while I disagree with it, I have some sympathy with this attitude that has begun springing up where people see science as a monolith of authority that claims things to be "just so".

It's all very well and correct to describe science as observation and collection of empirical evidence and rigorous blah blah, but I think I've only ever heard this description of the scientific method given in response to a challenge to it. Most of the time only the results of scientists are presented to the public with only a passing reference to the evidence that the conclusion is inferred from.

The information will melt your brain. Science? It's complicated these days. There's that famous quote that "if you think you understand quantum theory, then you haven't understood it". If you go looking into the evidence and reasoning behind any given scientific theory, there will eventually come a point where you'd need a good few years of education in the field to actually understand what you're looking at. Now, this knowledge can obviously

[mr_jez]

The problem is exacerbated because most folk do not have much of a model of epistemology.

Plato, for instance, suggested that there are four levels of knowledge. Most folk spend most of their lives wholly within the first level, whilst empirical science rises to the second, and theoretical science to the third. Now, this may not be True(tm), but it does help one recognise situations when people are pointlessly arguing from the perspective of different levels and agreement is just not possible.

[mrvi]

Psst. You shouldn't believe in science, Science doesn't need belief. It's a methodology. Believing in science is like believing in Flamenco, or fish.

One can accept current scientific theory, or not. But *believing* in science, that's a matter of FAITH and has nowt at all to do with the scientific method!

[mr_jez]

Yes.

And further, the wearer of the t-shirt might have meant...

"I don't believe in science, because science does not require faith, I only believe in love, sex and myself."

But then, whilst many of us might be of the opinion that love requires a certain belief at times, and perhaps also the Self, I think we'd all agree that there is plenty of empirical evidence for sex... ;o)

The course of action for the scientist would presumably have been to ask the wearer of the t-shirt what he meant by the statement emblazoned across his chest!

[jaded_phoenix62]

I have faith in science. The scientific process is just that and doesn't require faith. Scientific theories on the other hand; I haven't read the papers on which these theories are based, or personally assessed the groups that have peer reviewed them. Faith comes in the form of belief that the models empirically hold and that the secondary sources, even if that's the education system, are accurately conveying the essence of the theory. I also have to have faith in my ability to comprehend, store and recall the relevant information