guthrie said:
Seems you don't discern between science and technology. Technology does not need as much honest peer critique as cutting edge science, cause technology either works or does not work (well). With science, it's not that straightforward, it's not that fast.It would be nice to read a few sentences above the denial sentence, even if my English is not that much pleasant to read. Science is an abstraction, it does not exist, it cannot deny anything on its own. Scientists can. Again, modern science is a bread winning professions (with all good and bad sides of it), it's not gentelman science of 17-19 centuries anymore. In two words, it's much more about money than anything else (including the desire to understand the world better). Scientists are in denial (mostly) of that fact, even if their actions suggest otherwise, they climb on "we are savior of the world tree" instead, statement we may argue a lot about.leopold99 said:
Thankfully, otherwise I wouldn't have learned all that I learned --- no training had biased my mind and closed me to the truth beforehand! I did receive training on male gender and sexuality amongst other things, but by that time I'd already learnt enough truths, not to believe everything that I was told by science or other westernised/ heterosexual institutions.Ophiolite said:
Yet, its so true. .... Someone recently told me that the real truth is actually simple, very very simple, and I couldn't agree more (even though explaining it in the mesh of lies created by the society is way too complex a task.Ophiolite said:
Ophiolite said:
No (straight) man will share such things even when he is standing before a mirror all alone with himself. In fact he will have a tough time admitting such feelings to himself. That's where sexual identities help --- to psychologically marginalise one's own deepest sexual feelings which have terribly negative social-masculinity value.Ophiolite said:
Well, we can all try to figure that out, if only we could discuss/ analyse the thing without fear, prejudice and with honesty --- (in the process some of things I'm saying may come out to be a misjudgment too)Ophiolite said:
This is an imperfect world, and there are many you can't stand. Running away is not such a good strategy.Ophiolite said:
Well, actually like 'sexuality' and 'color', 'western' is a peculiar English word.leopold99 said:
That was a different thread! And it was one discussing 'homosexuality' (sic) which according to me is an 'unnatural'/ artificial/ manmade phenomenon (just like heterosexuality). And you'd yourself chosen to come to the thread.leopold99 said:
Aye, I suppose so.dixonmassey said:
But which reality? Different perceptions lead to different realities, yet somehow we manage to function ok even though they are different realities.dixonmassey said:
Yet it does encourage cooperation. Not just monopilistic agreements between big companies, nor research tie ups, or government/ company cross fertilisation by swapping staff members (which I abhor because its one step on the road to fascism) but also science does proceed by controlled competition by means of cooperation of research groups and people in said groups. You do research, you have to get on with your peers, your technicians, your bosses. The fact that peopel will compete to be the first to do something seems to be hardwired into humans, but the fac tis that plenty of people will do stuff without competitive pressures.dixonmassey said:
Moral authority in science? You jest. What you mean is that someone says that because the scientist says its ok, it must be right. Which is an appeal to authority, not morality. And dont get me started on media stupidity. A scientist says "oh, it looks like that seems to be slightly related to this occurence under certain circumstances" gets changed to "We're all going to die next thursday!!!!!". Now, I am well aware that sometimes this suits the financial bods who run things, but these situations are usually quite obvious.dixonmassey said:
In fact, veneration of science is so alive and well that people flock to get treated by homeopaths, Deepak Chopra, and a bunch of non scientific rubbish. I think you are doing average Joe a misfavour. If said Joe had been brought up to be more independently minded, and less like Sheeple, he would be more interested in getting things explained. But then many people dont want things explained to them, it gets in the way of doing what they want to do, and are you going to blame them for all that?dixonmassey said:Steadily diminishing veneration before science is still alive in the masses. It's left from those old times when most of population was not so literate and educated, times when carriers of advanced knowledge were much more respected (unless they were evolutionists
Hey its politics! So, we are agreed that science can get misused in the daily pwoer games? I'm so glad we agree on something.dixonmassey said:
Well, make up your mind- are you ranting about the evils and misuses of science or technology? In my opinion, the science tells you how it works, and why, the technology is what you do to use it. besides, as far as I am aware, stuff like aluminium magnesium alloys did come out of scientific research. Yes, metallurgy etc was one of the early areas of science/ technology, back when there was less of a divide, but that does not lessen the real and critical role of modern science in the past 60 years. Or do high temperature triple composite turbine blades not exist at all?dixonmassey said:Well, as a metallurgist, I tell you that there is more (witch)craft involved in invention of superb alloys than science
If anyone is ranting here it is you. You have beautifully avoided discussing the basic issue --- of the serious lacunaes in the institution of science that now at least two insiders have perfectly and beautifully exposed.guthrie said:
Find people? There are any number of people on this forum who will not listen to reason but insist on 'external peer-reviewed scientific papers' as if none other than the 'selected' scientists are capable of observing life or reasoning.guthrie said:
What would have made this whole topic more interesting would have been for it to take place without the anti-science faction. We could them have explored notions such as the following. I agree that the press does look for spicy news, and it has a strong 'heterosexual' agenda. I remember when we started working with school students on sexual health education, a reporter once took our interview about our work and then did a big article on it with the title, "youth organisation finds majority of school students indulge in sex". Now that was untrue and none of us ever made that statement. I was too young then to understand the actual consequences of this. I did not care to put the record straight.spuriousmonkey said:
a. You had a point only if I was referring to how the media has interpreted the results of the research. But here the media has quoted him 'verbatim'. That means he actually did make those claims.spuriousmonkey said:
The reason peer review etc is usually preffered is that it means that other people around the world have usually noticed something similar to what the people in the papers have said/ done. This can be contrasted to such phenomena as religious experience, where we have no way of knowing whether the same thing is happening to different people. Science is a collective social endeavour, about building up a picture of "reality" that people agree on. And as importantly, one that actually works without any faith in it working or not.Buddha1 said:
HHmmm, that sounds about right. However that they take it as the word of god is contrary to how most scientists would like their work to be taken (at least when they are being sensible, plenty of them would like to be worshipped, have money thrown at them, not to mention groupies...). I think what we have here is the problem of specialisation and the difficulties inherent with the sheer size of knowledge that has accrued over the past few hundred years.Buddha1 said:
The thing is, they are perfectly entitled to question science and its methodologies, the problem is that in many cases unnecessary questioning leads to disasters. People need to be educated and interested enough to ask the right questions and work out how to get good answers (ie more "truthful" ones) when confronted with problems. WHich is more a social cultural issue than a scientific one.Buddha1 said:
Oddly enough, that used to be a problem here in the UK, but is much less so nowadays. Not only because of increased irreverance of professionals, but also because it is clear to Drs and patients that such behaviour is not good for the patients, and as it is the Drs job to try and heal the patient, they need to improve their bedside manner. Which again is more a socio-cultural problem rather than one strictly scientific.Buddha1 said:
Sort of. When you can decide upon a universally acceptable way of measuring truth, value, quality etc, like you can measure the length of the room you are sitting in, then science will be interested in such things. But at the moment, possibly always, they are not susceptable to scientific processes, therefore they are ignored.duendy said:
Feeling, view interpretation is fine. Perhaps you want to argue with gravity? Or 20,000 volts three phase electricity? I am afraid that people like Ophiolite and myself from physical science backgrounds dont really understand where you are coming from. However if you want to slag off "social" sciences, then we might join in.duendy said:
this is where science in its materialisticguthrie said: