Misappropriation of Science.

[necrosect]

Not sure whether this is more of a pub thread or more of a General Discussion but I'll let the mods sort that out

I consider myself a very rational and calm person, much more likely to think things out and try to understand the basis of any opinion I have.

I also like me some Science... so I find it interesting when (as happens regularly) I am in some discussion with [insert person here] and I hear a statistic quoted or something. I always want to go and look it up and see for myself, I'm happy to take it at face value for the purpose of a casual discussion obviously, just later I like to actually know - in case that statistic may change an opinion I have.

In any case, this sort of thing is greatly open to abuse - but at least I (and anyone else) can check that infact that statistic is correct/erroneous or whatever.

However, herein lies a problem, many discussions (and a particular few on here) centre around or concern themselves in some details with aspects of science. The problem being that people are (if it is "deep" enough science) unable to really verify whether this is the case and have 3 options as I see it 1. Accept it as "truth" and continue 2. Step out of the debate not continuing but not conceeding the point obviously 3. Return with their own take on the science presented.

Now it is this third point that I see a lot of, particularly in religious debate, and while it used to be mostly those on the theistic side that misappropriated science, more and more I am seeing the atheistic side simply quoting "facts" that they don't really understand, yet form an opinion based on them.

Not wanting to get into the details of of the theist vs. atheist debate (there's a whole mega-thread for that) I am just interested in how many of you encounter this misappropriation of "fact" and what is your opinion of it?

I have no problem with people accepting science that they don't understand as "just the way it works" and forming their opinion on it (correct or otherwise) as I don't expect everyone to want to take the time to go away and learn it. However I do have a problem with the same people attempting to use said ill-understood science to further an argument they are having or even further their own agenda in some regard.

This is particularly apparent in many forums as the internet, as we all know, is teeming with BS science.

Thoughts....

necro xx

[Aerilon]

Originally Posted by necrosect

necro xx

We love you too.

In regards to your post, it would be better (I think) if we had some examples to work from..?

[MrFancypants]

Don't really see the problem with using science as part of an argument. If one side doesn't use proper science the other side can always point that out, in the end someone will end up learning a bit more about it, so the general idea can't be that bad.

[necrosect]

If one side doesn't use proper science the other side can always point that out

No this is not always the case, as grossly evidenced by the evolution vs intelligence design arguments that rage.
Both sides (in forum debates) misappropriate science and simply use it to further an agenda.

Don't really see the problem with using science as part of an argument.

Don't want to be rude but either my post wasn't as well constructed as I'd hoped or you didn't read it well enough before replying. I didn't say using science in a debate was a problem. Of course it isn't. That entire suggestion would be pointless.

The problem is when one side uses science that they don't understand nor can explain and simply present this as fact. The other side, unable to decide for themselves the veracity of the science presented vs. what they understood to be the "truth", presents their "take" on the "science". This is the problem.

In regards to your post, it would be better (I think) if we had some examples to work from..?

Ok roughly constructed examples (as I don't want this to degenerate into discussion of the minutae of the science involved in these cases) are (from BOTH sides of these debates):

1. Evidence for evolution vs. Intelligent Design
2. Theistic takes on early universe vs. Hot Big Bang
3. Global Warming For vs. Against Human Responsibility.

All these well discussed topics have many people on both sides misusing science, or not attempting to understand it before implanting their own beliefs on it. My discussion is whether the good of promoting discussion on the topic outweighs or is outweighed by the damage done to the general understanding and consensus of what are vitally important areas of science.

[ShadowSteelDragon]

Just to make sure I've got it right - your point is that people take some "scientific fact" that they don't really understand, accept it as complete truth, and use an uneducated interpretation to justify their viewpoint?

[Anlushac11]

My only response...

[necrosect]

More that both sides are guilty of doing this, and it just perpetuates (in my opinion) retarded discussion of topics that can't really be settled.

My question was whether is this me just being picky about shit like this? Do other people notice?
And also if you do - what do you think about it?

My only response...

Wow great response for a pub thread.

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by necrosect

Don't want to be rude but either my post wasn't as well constructed as I'd hoped or you didn't read it well enough before replying.

Neither is the case, I just assumed that most of the science used in internet discussions is not very well understood.

Originally Posted by necrosect

No this is not always the case, as grossly evidenced by the evolution vs intelligence design arguments that rage.
Both sides (in forum debates) misappropriate science and simply use it to further an agenda.

Why wouldn't people be able to point out mistakes? I get why it wouldn't help much (if someone is biased enough to use pseudo-science he will probably not change his mind when confronted with the truth), but I don't see why it would be so difficult to point out to others how that science is false.

[Mr. Pedantic]

I'd like to put up my hand and say I'm guilty of this sort of thing.

My question was whether is this me just being picky about shit like this? Do other people notice?
And also if you do - what do you think about it?

I notice. More so in topics relating to biology and chemistry, because I'm studying those full-time, and less with physics, unless it deals with basic fundamentals.

Just to make sure I've got it right - your point is that people take some "scientific fact" that they don't really understand, accept it as complete truth, and use an uneducated interpretation to justify their viewpoint?

That would seem so. A very good example for this is the use of genetically engineered crops in foods. I find it bizarre and annoying when people say that genetically modified food is unsafe for human consumption and dangerous to the environment. The genetic modification entailed involves cutting a few genes out of another plant or bacterium and inserting it into the genome, and then extensively testing the result for abnormalities in function to that hypothesized. This is in comparison to a technique which has been used easily and with little bureaucratic difficulty since the 1920s, the practice of putting plant strains near radioactive sources and selecting beneficial strains from those mutated plants.

[Smitty025]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

I find it bizarre and annoying when people say that genetically modified food is unsafe for human consumption and dangerous to the environment. The genetic modification entailed involves cutting a few genes out of another plant or bacterium and inserting it into the genome, and then extensively testing the result for abnormalities in function to that hypothesized. This is in comparison to a technique which has been used easily and with little bureaucratic difficulty since the 1920s, the practice of putting plant strains near radioactive sources and selecting beneficial strains from those mutated plants.

While I agree that genetically modified foods are not particularly harmful, many of the arguments that activists make are not based in a total misunderstanding of science. They make valid points about altering the ecosystems in which the plants are cultivated.