Is natural science a scam?

[Robert_Sock]

What are the chances that science is a scam? The theory of evolution, for example, being a bunch of lies? How could humans have lived the way that “science” presumes and actually survive? For example, did our ancestors really live in caves and survived? Or, were we really created and placed here on this earth at a much later time? Is archaeological evidence similar to the ideas presented by Immanuel Velikovsky?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

What are the chances that science is a scam? The theory of evolution, for example, being a bunch of lies? How could humans have lived the way that “science” presumes and actually survive? For example, did our ancestors really live in caves and survived? Or, were we really created and placed here on this earth at a much later time? Is archaeological evidence similar to the ideas presented by Immanuel Velikovsky?

Science leads to the truth and dismantles all kinds of illogical reasoning.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[vsedriver]

What are the chances that science is a scam? The theory of evolution, for example, being a bunch of lies? How could humans have lived the way that “science” presumes and actually survive? For example, did our ancestors really live in caves and survived? Or, were we really created and placed here on this earth at a much later time? Is archaeological evidence similar to the ideas presented by Immanuel Velikovsky?

I don’t believe science is a scam, after all it was the Church that gave us the scientific method.

People still live in caves and survive. People survive in all kinds of climes. Our technological society blinds us to the powerful tool of the human mind and the human ability to adapt. Early humans functioned and survived in very harsh areas.

I am not familiar with Immanuel Velikovsky, but anyone can posit ideas and theories. The trick is to find evidence to back them up.

 

[buffalo]

Empirical science by itself has a very limited say about the universe. It is limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. It has to be observable, repeatable and predictable.

When pronouncements are made beyond the above it is then philosophy. I believe that is where many problems occur.

In the past science was known as natural philosophy. Perhaps it is a worthy term that we should again use.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Science leads to the truth and dismantles all kinds of illogical reasoning.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

Did you ever do “scientific” research? I have (psychology), and I believe it’s a scam. Conclusions are often written prior to the results!

 

[buffalo]

Did you ever do “scientific” research? I have (psychology), and I believe it’s a scam. Conclusions are often written prior to the results!

I like to look at it this way. There is a box of white and black balls. We cannot see inside the box. We keep picking only black balls. What gives? What do we conclude about the contents of the box?

Now suppose on the side of the box are written the words - this box contains black and white balls. How do we reconcile the fact that we only pick black balls?

Now suppose we a priori rule out the writing on the side because we only have picked black balls. What then do we conclude about the contents of the box?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Did you ever do “scientific” research? I have (psychology), and I believe it’s a scam. Conclusions are often written prior to the results!

Then perhaps you should have limited your definition of science to the “natural sciences”.

I am a scientist, a biochemist, and the suggestion that science is a scam is just . . . (never mind, I would have to come up with all kinds of strong adjectives).

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Did you ever do “scientific” research? I have (psychology), and I believe it’s a scam. Conclusions are often written prior to the results!

Nice to hear a response.

Psychology is not a physical science, like Chemistry or Physics. It is what is sometimes called a “social science”. I want to become an economist, and many people incorrectly believe that economics is a science. It is portrayed to be, but ideally it is not. The reason for this (and this applies to Psychology as well), is that humans have volition (free will). Their behaviour can not be defined by a mathematical function, and so therefore, can not be “tested” in laboratory conditions. Psychology, Economics, Sociology (to an extent) and a few other fields erroneously make this claim. The only real subject field worthy of “social science” would be sociobiology.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Science basically is a systematic study concerning a body of facts or truths. It’s not a scam unto itself. How it is applied determines whether it’s a scam or not.

 

[buffalo]

Science basically is a systematic study concerning a body of facts or truths. It’s not a scam unto itself. How it is applied determines whether it’s a scam or not.

Right - the legitimate search for truth can never be a scam. Human reasoning of the search results can be faulty.

 

[Della]

What disturbs me is the fact that the scientific community will not allow discussion of ideas that are contrary to their accepted theories. I thought science was about letting the facts speak for themselves and hang anyone’s opinions. But, there’s too much at stake in the way of reputations and funding for the scientific community to be open to conflicting ideas, even ones that later prove to be truth, such as the moon being the product of the collision of another planet with earth near its beginning. The very idea was not allowed in discussion until it was shown, through computer modeling that it was a viable theory. So no, I don’t trust whatever the latest “science” says about anything when I know those behind it can’t be open nor face being contradicted when money and reputations are on the line.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I should have asked if the natural sciences are full of lies? I can see where the hard sciences are mostly truthful.

I believe we live in a world of lies and deceit.

 

[Della]

I should have asked if the natural sciences are full of lies?

I would rather put it that scientists can be full of lies, just like any other profession. They just can’t admit it.

 

[buffalo]

Della’s points are valid. Their is definitely peer pressure at work.

 

[Robert_Sock]

What disturbs me is the fact that the scientific community will not allow discussion of ideas that are contrary to their accepted theories.

I found this to be true in the field of psychology. The old maxim “publish or perish” got twisted when my dissertation committee read my draft and told me my work would result in “publish and perish”.

 

[Pieman333272]

I found this to be true in the field of psychology. The old maxim “publish or perish” got twisted when my dissertation committee read my draft and told me my work would result in “publish and perish”.

Are you kidding? I’m planning on doing Psychology as my second major and have had exposure to the field already. Many theories are and were accepted, even groundbreaking ones to some extent. What you call “setting the evidence to prove predetermined results” are probably just ground premises which would be confirmed by an objective study anyway.

To the OP:

Science is not a scam. Granted, misitnerpretations, intentional or not, of science can create scams, but science itself isn’t a scam. Same with religion and political philosophy. Neither are scams, but when read in the wrong light, they can easily be used as such.

 

[buffalo]

More food for thought.

What happens when an entire field of science is built on a faulty underlying assumption?

 

[JonathonofOhio]

A scam is something that is intentionally misleading for the benefit of the person running the scam. This is hard to vote on because I don’t think that all of science is correct. Corrections are made when new evidence is discovered. I can’t say though that any part of science is a scam, because science is based on evidence. If the evidence suggests something, then a theory or hypothesis is suggested based on the evidence. I know that all of science is not a scam, because Laws of Science are based on observable facts that one would be just plane crazy to dispute. I don’t think there is any scam involved in science, but it’s not 100% correct either.

 

[Barbkw]

Science is the human attempt to decipher an ancient text of multiple well hidden principles.

The main problem with science is the ego of the scientists who are involved in those discovery processes.

 

[Robert_Sock]

More food for thought.

What happens when an entire field of science is built on a faulty underlying assumption?

The whole structure tumbles! (this is what I’m trying to get at in my OP) It’s like the structure of beliefs in psychology. Change a belief that is along the horizontal structure and not much happens. But change a belief along the vertical structure and everything above it tumbles down. I remember when I first became a believer in religion there was a “earthquake” of thoughts that many thoughts and beliefs needed to get rearranged. Those beliefs along the vertical structure are pretty well guarded against and a person will live in denial. So to, the faulty underlying assumptions of science are well protected. The theories in Immanuel Velikovsky’s book “Worlds in Collision” is one fine example and was met with ridicule and unwarranted rejection by scientists.