I have had some basic observations about the above subjects and how they relate to each other. I would be very interested in everyones thoughts on my observations.
I believe I have a good understanding of what science is and its implications on the world we live in. I am also a fairly logical person. I find myself becoming more and more uncomfortable as the years go by with how science and scientists are viewed. It seems that scientists and people who claim to be scientists are becoming authorities about subjects that are completely out of the scope of science. From my understanding, science is based on facts, at least physical science. It seems that some scientists are becoming "experts" in fields where there are little or no facts present. My sad observation is that the media and a whole lot of people swallow what an "expert" says without question. It seems that if someone holds the title of "Scientist", they become an aurhority on just about anything, in or out of their field. Let me get a little more specific.
I dont want to get people inflamed around here, I am not pushing any certain agenda. I just want to know if Im crazy. Im am going to bring up a couple of hottly contested subjects, not to push a certain school of thought, but to illustrate my point. So there is no need to get your fur up, people.
Let us take for example the subject of near death experiences. Let us look at the subject as a whole for a second. In this area there are certainly few facts. People are experiencing something, but what is it? What facts are present? Even more important to science, what is testable? From all of the evidence that I have seen, it would seem that it is impossible to test any fact. At minimum, any test possible would cause controversy nonetheless. We will have to agree that no scientific conclusions can be made due to lack of evidence, for either side. I wouldnt have to go too far out on a limb to say that, would I? Nonetheless, you will see scientists quoted as experts on the subject. A scientist who claims to be an expert or an authority on a subject such as NDEs, would seem to be abusing the authority granted to such persons by our culture. Since, at this moment in time, NDEs are not in the realm of scientific observation it would seem irresponsible for a scientist to claim to be an authority on the subject. An example of this would be Susan Blackmoore. You see her on every program about NDEs representing the sceptical point-of-view. It bothers me to see her throw around baseless theories that could not possibly be tested. Its one thing for a doctor or a patient to present a theory, its another thing(IMO) for a scientist to do so (in this instance).
Of course this brings up a question of what a scientist is. If you have a doctorate and are doing research at a university, does that make you a scientist? I will just just narrow my definition for the sake of argument. Lets just say the above are true and they claim to be a scientist. A claim is certainly good enough for the media, I guess that is where the problem lies. The heart of the problem is true scientist being qouted as an authority on subjects out of thier field. Would a scientist who specializing in brain function be an expert on the subject of NDEs? I would have to say no, because there is no concrete evidence it is even a function of the brain. So, what should a scientist as a respected authority figure in our society say on the subject? A simple "I dont know" would work fine.
If a physicist claims to have evidence that further supports the Theory of Relativity and it is accepted by the scientific community, that person is a legitimate authority on the subject. His theory could be trusted and quoted. This is what all the scientists theorizing out of thier field lack. The media and most people dont know the difference.
Lets have some fun and talk about UFOs. You thankfully dont see many scientists qouted on the subject. Another problem that arises in this area is what I call "In The Name Of Science!" sceptics. Now, this is more devious and much more subtle form of authority manipulation. You have sceptics who will claim to be the gaurdians of science running around debunking everything from UFOs to "The Shroud of Turin". I personally find it humorous, but this can truly be damaging to freedom of thought. In our society, science should be taken seriously, for it is the most reliable way to understand our world. But science cannot be taken out of its scope to supress thought. Whenever a balanced UFO program is aired that truly attempts to show both sides of the issue, you will see sceptics attempt to use the words "science" or "scientific" to give authority to thier opinions. The most common tactic is to qoute some thoery or another about how far away other stars are or how large the universe is. They are speaking true, but twisting it to fit thier opinion at the same time claiming to represent science.
Without getting too much into specifics, I dont believe sceptics should be using science as a shield to convince other people that ETs could not possibly visit our world. There is no evidence at this point, no hard evidence at all. This puts this entire subject out of the realm of science, so people claiming to represent science shouldnt be even conversing on the subject as an authority. UFOs should be confined to realm of specualtion until a UFO crashes into Los Alamos. The point would probably be moot anyway, because most scientists would die of shock as thier world expanded exponentially
Sceptics, IMO, commit a disservice to science by claiming to represent it. I dont mind hearing about lights in the sky or alien abductions as long as someone is not citing science as an authority on the subject, from either direction.
All of this stuff I learned in Logic 101, but apparently members of the media, sceptical community, and some scientists need to take that class too or take it again.
Am I just crazy? I hate ignorance coming from both directions at the same time.
I believe I have a good understanding of what science is and its implications on the world we live in. I am also a fairly logical person. I find myself becoming more and more uncomfortable as the years go by with how science and scientists are viewed. It seems that scientists and people who claim to be scientists are becoming authorities about subjects that are completely out of the scope of science. From my understanding, science is based on facts, at least physical science. It seems that some scientists are becoming "experts" in fields where there are little or no facts present. My sad observation is that the media and a whole lot of people swallow what an "expert" says without question. It seems that if someone holds the title of "Scientist", they become an aurhority on just about anything, in or out of their field. Let me get a little more specific.
I dont want to get people inflamed around here, I am not pushing any certain agenda. I just want to know if Im crazy. Im am going to bring up a couple of hottly contested subjects, not to push a certain school of thought, but to illustrate my point. So there is no need to get your fur up, people.
Let us take for example the subject of near death experiences. Let us look at the subject as a whole for a second. In this area there are certainly few facts. People are experiencing something, but what is it? What facts are present? Even more important to science, what is testable? From all of the evidence that I have seen, it would seem that it is impossible to test any fact. At minimum, any test possible would cause controversy nonetheless. We will have to agree that no scientific conclusions can be made due to lack of evidence, for either side. I wouldnt have to go too far out on a limb to say that, would I? Nonetheless, you will see scientists quoted as experts on the subject. A scientist who claims to be an expert or an authority on a subject such as NDEs, would seem to be abusing the authority granted to such persons by our culture. Since, at this moment in time, NDEs are not in the realm of scientific observation it would seem irresponsible for a scientist to claim to be an authority on the subject. An example of this would be Susan Blackmoore. You see her on every program about NDEs representing the sceptical point-of-view. It bothers me to see her throw around baseless theories that could not possibly be tested. Its one thing for a doctor or a patient to present a theory, its another thing(IMO) for a scientist to do so (in this instance).
Of course this brings up a question of what a scientist is. If you have a doctorate and are doing research at a university, does that make you a scientist? I will just just narrow my definition for the sake of argument. Lets just say the above are true and they claim to be a scientist. A claim is certainly good enough for the media, I guess that is where the problem lies. The heart of the problem is true scientist being qouted as an authority on subjects out of thier field. Would a scientist who specializing in brain function be an expert on the subject of NDEs? I would have to say no, because there is no concrete evidence it is even a function of the brain. So, what should a scientist as a respected authority figure in our society say on the subject? A simple "I dont know" would work fine.
If a physicist claims to have evidence that further supports the Theory of Relativity and it is accepted by the scientific community, that person is a legitimate authority on the subject. His theory could be trusted and quoted. This is what all the scientists theorizing out of thier field lack. The media and most people dont know the difference.
Lets have some fun and talk about UFOs. You thankfully dont see many scientists qouted on the subject. Another problem that arises in this area is what I call "In The Name Of Science!" sceptics. Now, this is more devious and much more subtle form of authority manipulation. You have sceptics who will claim to be the gaurdians of science running around debunking everything from UFOs to "The Shroud of Turin". I personally find it humorous, but this can truly be damaging to freedom of thought. In our society, science should be taken seriously, for it is the most reliable way to understand our world. But science cannot be taken out of its scope to supress thought. Whenever a balanced UFO program is aired that truly attempts to show both sides of the issue, you will see sceptics attempt to use the words "science" or "scientific" to give authority to thier opinions. The most common tactic is to qoute some thoery or another about how far away other stars are or how large the universe is. They are speaking true, but twisting it to fit thier opinion at the same time claiming to represent science.
Without getting too much into specifics, I dont believe sceptics should be using science as a shield to convince other people that ETs could not possibly visit our world. There is no evidence at this point, no hard evidence at all. This puts this entire subject out of the realm of science, so people claiming to represent science shouldnt be even conversing on the subject as an authority. UFOs should be confined to realm of specualtion until a UFO crashes into Los Alamos. The point would probably be moot anyway, because most scientists would die of shock as thier world expanded exponentially
Sceptics, IMO, commit a disservice to science by claiming to represent it. I dont mind hearing about lights in the sky or alien abductions as long as someone is not citing science as an authority on the subject, from either direction.All of this stuff I learned in Logic 101, but apparently members of the media, sceptical community, and some scientists need to take that class too or take it again.
Am I just crazy? I hate ignorance coming from both directions at the same time.
