{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by pValue2010:
11/14/2018 9:16:14 PM
29
Is it Reasonable Hold a View That Goes Against the Consensus of Scientists in Their Particular Field?
Examples:
The Big Bang
Plate Tectonics
Evolution
Climate Change
Heliocentric Model
If you think yes, that it is reasonable, do you think there is a conspiracy among scientists? Or that they are less intelligent than you on said topic?
English
#Offtopic
-
If you don’t know enough about something you should really have a ‘view’ on it. Obviously you will as it’s human, but there isn’t much of a point to discuss something you know little about
-
13 RepliesI believe God exists, you say he does not, let's say that he does for the sake of the argument, if an all powerful being created everything his supernatural powers aren't bound by science and therefore science cannot prove or disprove God
-
2 Replies[quote][i]Reality is an illusion, exile.[/i][/quote] ^Dominus
-
4 RepliesDepends on the situation. You shouldn’t believe everything you hear, but you should probably trust experts of things like that. While I believe in religion I also believe in the Big Bang theory, evolution, etc.
-
If you have done evidence that proves otherwise and cannot be disproven, then yes. Otherwise, no.
-
If you have done evidence that proves otherwise and cannot be disproven, then yes. Otherwise, no.
-
Skeptical not cynical.
-
9 RepliesI think it reasonable to hold the view, but only in that you should always question everything. You should not cling to it like a drowning man to a life raft in a raging sea though. No, I do not think I am smarter than the scientists, but that is what the scientists told us to do back in the Stone Age when I was still in school
-
5 Replies
-
1 ReplyEdited by HollowedWayfarer: 11/15/2018 5:45:50 PMSome of those examples were already proven as straight up fact.
-
It's not that I feel more or less intelligent than scientists, it's more that I try to take the results within the context of what influenced the results outside of the science.
-
It’s reasonable if the entire body of evidence supports doing so, and your theory provides a better explanation of it that the current models. IOW, if you are a once a century visionary genius like Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking....then yes. Enjoy your Nobel Prize. Otherwise you’re simply being irrational. Probably because Science won’t feed one your sacred cows.
-
It’s reasonable if you know what you’re talking about. It’s not reasonable if your education comes from YouTube videos about the earth’s lack of curvature.
-
Generally no.
-
Edited by Ogma: Destroyer of Worlds: 11/15/2018 1:38:11 PMNot if you’ve observed and can demonstrate something that suggests it. [spoiler]cue people that don’t know what is required to arrive at calling something a theory[/spoiler]
-
All I know is ppl use stuff they read on the internet to debunk other stuff they read on the internet. Is the moon made of cheese? It might be if you believe in the multiverse theory. If the moon exists at all that is
-
3 RepliesEdited by NeoIcarus1: 11/15/2018 8:16:48 AMYes, here's why: They are all theories, as soon as more evidence is discovered it tilts it one way or the other. Big bang is a theory, there are scientists who are looking for other evidence to see how the universe formed. Even the moons formation is in question depending on who you look for. Plate tectonics isnt in question, just how to predict their movements to help saves lives during an earthquake. Evolution is in question as when humans split from apes and why. Even Darwin admits he wasnt sure if his theory was fully fleshed out. Climate change is a flawed theory that scientists are looking for proof if it. The other dont know enough about to comment on to be fair to it. Science should never stop looking for answers or ever stop asking questions. When that happens it reaches the level of a religion. When you use science for public policy, the science must be spot on as if later that science is wrong, bad things can come of it. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment Theory is a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something, one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
-
Of course. All the greatest scientific minds are the ones that challenged the established rules, and proved the world worked differently than the way people thought it did. Of course, it’s one thing to disagree, another to call others wrong. If you don’t think a particular scientific model is correct, that’s fine, but if you’re going to call it wrong, then it’s probably best to have some evidence against it. As for whether others are less intelligent for their belief/foundation of a model? Of course not. They worked with what they had, just like you’re working with what you got. A conspiracy? Yes. [spoiler]Reality is an illusion, the universe is a hologram, buy gold bye![/spoiler] Er.. I mean, no. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean they’re plotting against you, or hiding anything.
-
Is it reasonable to have a difference in opinion with a scientist?: Yes. Like how I don't believe in the big bang but that the universe has actually been around forever and its in constant motion with a never ending cycle of creation and destruction. Is there a conspiracy among scientists?: Nah. I really doubt it. Are scientists less intelligent than we give them credit for?: Of course not. They are very intelligent, indeed. I just think that many of them lack an imagination big enough to think of grander possibilities and/or to have the balls to dare theorize into the crazy. There's [i]sooo[/i] much going on out there in the vast cosmos that literally anything is possible and that includes the possibility of our knowledge over physics being completely inadequate or even wrong.
-
If you can make the effort to dispute their ideas in a reasonable and accepted manner, I’d say go ahead. Science is an effort of finding out how the universe works. Standards can be proven incorrect, broken down, and built again.
-
Yes.... but only if you’ve got actual evidence or knowledge that contradicts it. If you’ve done the research, thoroughly examined the evidence, and actually understand the science - that’s when you are within your rights to disagree with the scientific consensus. However everyone these days seems to be an armchair scientist. They watch one YouTube conspiracy video and think they know more than the thousands of scientists that have spent a lifetime studying this stuff. Scientists that have actually analysed the raw data, done the maths and held the evidence in their hands. I’m all for questioning the status quo - but only if you actually know what you’re talking about.
-
1 ReplyEdited by Partisan: 11/14/2018 10:44:36 PMI feel like a lot of the "yes" answers are going to be packaged in a way that's outside the scope of your question. It is, obviously, reasonable to challenge scientific consensus through scientific methods-- that's as simple as just doing a bunch of replication studies to see if the consensus holds. And "science" as an actual industry could use a lot more of those. But that is not the same thing as arbitrarily holding a view that goes against the consensus (e.g. alleging a grand conspiracy by climate scientists), and I feel like that's what you're actually asking here.
-
Yes it is but only if there is no way to truly prove it like The Big Bang.
-
2 RepliesIf there is evidence suggesting against it, then possibly.
-
1 ReplyI'm somewhat on a middle ground with science. Yes I'll agree with current fact but I find it always good to continue to challenge common knowledge to proceed advancing in the world. Someone had to believe we could bring images on a screen with lights before others thought it possible, now we have the TV.
-
It is unreasonable to look at a consensus from the outside and claim you have the superior perspective. Assuming you aren’t yourself an expert on the topic and aren’t capable of arguing effectively, of course. That doesn’t mean you are wrong, just that you are being unreasonable. A clock running backwards will still be right twice a day.
