"You can't believe anything science says, they're always changing their minds.."

by disposable hero of hypocrisy 30 Replies latest jw friends

  • apostrate
    apostrate

    MASH,

    Thank you! You were able to articulate far better than myself what my original thoughts were.

    Oubllette,

    Yes! You can disagree with a scientist and they are probably not going to try and tear your family apart and refuse to speak to you again.

    In reading the newspaper as a kid, i remember finding articles in the back of the paper such as "reading in the dark is better for your eyes than in the light", and "vitamin C is actually bad for you". Even as a dumb kid I thought to myself, where do they come up with this stuff???

  • OneEyedJoe
    OneEyedJoe

    Those kinds of statements are generally found in women's magazines at the supermarket, not scientific journals.

    Some journalist cherry-picks a quote from a medical study without understanding the context or how to frame it and then it gets repeated by your ordinary, average yahoo that also doesn't know how to interpret it in any kind of context.

    Yep.

    When discussing something somewhat scientific that conflicts with the bible, my father in law always loves to get on stage and say "so I can't remember, is coffee good for you this week or not?" in reference to the frequent news stories that coffee will cause cancer or prevents cancer or whatever. There are a number of misunderstandings that result in this so-called proof that science hasn't got a clue.

    1. As creationists love to point out - the human body is incredibly complex and therefore can sometimes be influenced by relatively small factors. This can result in studies that seem to indicate conflicting results. The truth is that many of these results are essentially noise in the data and, to go back to my example, coffee is essentially neither good nor bad for you. When the noise in the data indicates something somewhat shocking/exciting about an everyday item (like coffee, or wine, etc) it is usually heavily reported - it gets people to watch the news, and that's what the media is about, not disseminating accurate information.

    2. Often studies are done on very specific effects, which are then simplified for a headline/news story. Imagine if 4 studies are done on coffee - in one the effect of excessive coffee consumption on heart health is studied, in another the effect of moderate consumption is studied, the third investigates a link between coffee consumption and colon cancer, while the fourth looks for a link between coffee and brain cancer. If the results show that moderate consumption of coffee is good for your heart, but excessive consumption is very bad for your heart, you might find that one news station reports that coffee is good for your heart, while another says it's bad for your heart. If coffee seems to increase chances of colon cancer, but decreases chances of brain cancer, you'll hear one story that coffee causes cancer and one that says it prevents it. All of these would be factually correct, but the oversimplification seems to point to a contradiction. The whole of scientific knowledge is pushed forward, but the lay-person is left with the impression that "those scientists can't make up their minds."

    3. Science is a process. Sometimes a study can be flawed (or falsified as was the case with the vaccine/autism BS that's been going around for a while) and it won't be discovered for a few years as other scientists try to duplicate the results themselves. This definitely indicates that we probably shouldn't put 100% faith in the latest scientific discoveries if they're only backed by one study or a very small sample size (incedentally, scientists aren't typically the type who ask you to put faith in something - they usually just present the evidence and their conclusions and invite scrutiny). The problem is that some will seize upon this so-called failure of leading-edge science to try to dispute well-established scientific theories. I.e. One study shows coffee is bad for you but was debunked therefore you can't trust evolution. In truth, the fact that science self-corrects and identifies flawed ideas and disproves them should increase our trust in scientific knowledge that has stood the test of time.

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    I did an OP some time ago contrasting the wisdom of the scientific community with the folly of the religious community:

    "Jesus prayed that all his followers be united as one. But we see christianity divided into thousands of denominations. This division is partly due to the fact that the book that christianity claims is the truth, the inspired word of a supremely wise God, was not written in a sufficiently unambiguous manner as to make its one true meaning indisputably clear throughout.

    By contrast take a field of science - say physics. How many different brands/versions/sects/denominations of physics are there? One! Barring respectful differences of opinion among physicists on matters not yet clearly understood, the field of physics is united. Physicists don't go off forming their own 'church' of followers resulting in different denominations of physics being taught in schools. Physicists the world over are united on all the major teachings of the field that have been established though experimentation. What the universe reveals through testing and experimentation is unambiguous, provable, repeatable, demonstrably true. Are we to believe the same God who created this universe and its consistent, unambiguous laws was unable to also inspire a book whose meaning is similarly clear and unabiguous throughout?


    Christianity condemns doubt and scrutiny of its teachings as a show of lack of faith and as trying to destroy the faith of others. Often, a christian who openly exposes a teaching of his church as being in error is branded as divisive and expelled - sometimes even shunned, as ex-JWs can attest to. Christianity claims to be about seeking truth but its behavior reveals that its leaders are really about maintaining their power and their traditions. Christianity's inflexible and unreasonable demand of unquestioning conformity to tradition - even those not explicitly taught in scripture - often results in friction and conflict that leads to honest-hearted truth seekers being expelled and going off to form their own denomination, thus compounding the division in christianity.

    By contrast, science welcomes doubt and scrutiny of its theories. Working to disprove a theory is seen as a good thing. It is precisely because of such scrutiny that scientific knowledge has increased and been refined. The scrutiny inherent in the scientific process serves to filter truth from error. Science does not condemn scrutiny of its theories - it feeds on it and grows as a result - because science is genuinely about seeking truth - not preserving the power of a particular leader or organization. Scientists respectfully have different hypotheses on matters not yet clearly understood or proven one way or the other. They don't let let their differening views on such matters divide them into different denominations that condemn each other.


    Christianity seeks to unite followers through obedience to an ecclesiastical authority of one kind or another. Many christian denominations claim that without such centralized authority or organization there would be division and God's will (such as having the good news preached in all the inhabited earth) could not be successfully accomplished. The top down approach is employed where teachings flow from the central authority down to the followers. The irony is that such authorities are the ones that often foment divisions.

    By contrast, science has no one central hierarchy demanding adherence to its theories. What unites scientists is truth itself. When a hypothesis is demonstrated through experimentation to be true, scientists the world over can't help but be united in agreement based on the hard facts proven through math and experimentation. This isn't to say that there aren't authorities in the field of science. There are multiple universites and other bodies that set standards and rules for research etc. But there is no one central body that seeks to impose its theories on others by pulling rank. There is no 'faithful and discreet experimenter' appointed to give hypotheses in due season which must be accepted by all without question. There is no magisterium. Knowledge flows from the bottom up - from individual scientists and researchers who prove their hypothesis to the universities and other bodies that publish them.


    I find these stark contrasts between science and christianity to be very revealing. Didn't Jesus say that wisdom is proved righteous by its works? So compare the fruitage of science re unity and getting at the truth with the fruitage of christianity. How is it that christianity - a system professing belief in an allwise God of order - can be so divided, whereas another system that professes no belief in God can be so united? For me this comparison reveals exactly who is in error and stupidity and who is in truth and prudence. Science puts christianity to shame!"

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/280216/1/The-stark-contrast-between-Science-and-Christianity-says-it-all

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    An apples and oranges comparison, admittedly, but here goes:

    Science is the means by which humans can understand how things work. As knowledge advances, ideas about how things work are adjusted.

    The Org claims its knowledge is divinely given truth, therefore, it should be correct first time. However, the reality is the Org's 'truth' is constantly changing. The reality is that the Org's ideas are based on ancient writings that have to be interpreted ... by humans ... and humans change their minds and have different ideas on what the true interpretation should be.

    Therefore, on what basis can the Org dismiss scientists for changing their minds in the light of more research when the Org does the same thing? If scientists cannot be believed because they keep changing their minds, then it logically follows that the Org likewise cannot be believed for the same reason.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    "You can't believe anything science says, they're always changing their minds..."

    Authoritarian personality types crave absolutes.

  • THE GLADIATOR
    THE GLADIATOR

    "You can't believe anything science says, they're always changing their minds.."

    So are women but we still believe in them!

  • OneGenTwoGroups
    OneGenTwoGroups

    I hate the way computers are always changing, getting smaller, faster, and more powerful. Really sucks.

  • prologos
    prologos

    "--always changing their minds--" ?? they better, who wants to listen to baby talk, 4th grader even, like some wt material?

  • smiddy
    smiddy

    THE GLADIATOR

    "You can't believe anything science says, they're always changing their minds.."

    And Jehovahs Witnesses dont ? Give me a break , 130 + years and they are continually changing their minds as to what this scripture means or that scripture means , so either Jehovah God doesn`t know what he is talking about , giving them false information these past 1 hundred years , or the governing body of jehovahs witnesses are pulling a fast one on the rank and file .

    Treating them like mushrooms , keeping them in the dark and feeding them bullshit .

    Well this is another kettle of fish

    So are women but we still believe in them!

    So true , what can I say ?

    smiddy

  • stillin
    stillin

    Science will admit that they are wrong.

    Religion will kill to prove that they are right.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit