Posted on 03/08/2010 11:26:26 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
How do you tell a scientist from a non-scientist? Where does science end, and propaganda, politics, and opinion begin? You only need to know one thing:
…
…
Straight away this sorts the wheat from the weeds. We don’t learn about the natural world by calling people names, or hiding data. We don’t learn by chucking out measurements in favor of opinions. We don’t learn by suppressing discussions, setting up fake rules about which bits of paper count, nor which people have a “licence” to speak.
A transparent, competitive system where all views are welcome, is the fastest way to advance humanity. The Royal Society is the oldest scientific association in the world. Its motto is essentially, Take No One’s Word For It. In other words, assume nothing, look at the data. When results come in that don’t fit the theory, a scientist chucks out their theory. A non-scientist has “faith”, they “believe” or assume their theory is right and try to make the measurements fit. When measurements disagree they ignore the awkward news, and “correct”, or statistically alter the data — but always in the direction that keeps their theory alive.
NOTES: This page was created as part of the booklet Global Bullies Want Your Money (The Skeptics Handbook vol II). It was inspired by requests from people who were obviously frustrated. They wanted a formula, a checklist, or a table– a way to know which side was right. The people who normally like to trust authority are the ones most likely to run into a brick wall in this debate. They trust the scientific method, but also trust the institutions, the processes and the politics that have risen up to supposedly carry this method from it’s pure form into it’s practical output, and the two sides are at loggerheads.
I trust the scientific method, but not the human institutions.
(They are subject to ambition, personality, money and conflicts of interest).
In the end, the only real way to decide is to look at the evidence, but if you have to figure out who to trust, if that’s your chosen short-cut, then at least this is a more systematic approach than trying weigh up the resumes on each side.
Give Joanne some attagirls for some nice work!
This applies to what I am calling “DarwinGate” as well!
Yes,...I think this would be great with kids....got to try it on my grandaughters.
1) Go to the Science and Public Policy Institute page. Christopher Monckton and other sane people have very good material there.
2) Study this cartoon by Chip Bok:
pingaling!
“Who to believe . . “
Should be WHOM TO BELIEVE . . .
My error.....
Global Bullies want your money
As a result of this science they has evolved into an elite club for real discussions on their issue. Not unlike how the Church held science from the people during the dark ages.
“My error.....”
Great posting tho’
Yeah,,, because the official academy of english, sole legal arbiter of the language ruled this in the 2002 meeting,,
Oh, wait, i almost forgot, english has no official ruling body. That fast moving flexibility is precisely why it’s making over the earth. New usages can become proper “english”, simply by becoming used by many english speakers. And there is nobody who can reasonably argue any differently, though they *so badly* want it to stay static.
Kids ( Grand-kids) will respond to this I think....
for reference
Irregardless, for all intensive purposes, their are some words who’s usage is better than others, as anti-climatic as that may seem.
Thanks so much Ernest. I hadn’t seen her site before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
