Shamgaur asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 1 decade ago

Real Science?

It seems to me that scientists are some of the most close minded and indoctrinated people I know. No offense to all you scientists out there, but I never see scientists go back to the drawing board with all of their evidence, instead they look for evidence that will only support a Theory that already exists and will not look at evidence that is contrary to that Theory (i.e. Evolution). My question: Do you think the process of science is flawed? If so, what can be done to make it better and more accurate?


Peer review? That's just there to keep people in line with the already accepted views of science, to make sure no one is coloring outside of the Theory lines.

9 Answers

  • Dr W
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    In my humble opinion, and I going to stretch out your agrument for a moment, everything we do today, including everything you do, is based on millenia of "evidence" and learning. Although I understand your concept (ie some theories may take us in the wrong direction and if we continue down that path, how do we correct ourselves), your suggestion of going back to the beginning is very complicated, and not realistic. Why is it unrealistic? because to go back to the beginning would undo thousands of years of your "evolution" of man.

    Let's take math for a moment........start with numbers. When did man first learn to count?, then on to algebra, then geometry, then calculus, then diff eq. etc ..... Math has been around for thousands of years. Many of use believe math is a pure science. Meaning you can prove something mathematically and it's proof is independant of your local situation. Regardless, it is a part of your everyday life. you count change at starbucks with math. Cars are manufactured with differential equations, statistics, thermodynamics, etc. you rely on those concepts for your everyday life. How could you forget all of that learning and go backwards?

    Same thing for Physics. Been around a while and is sort of a pure science and it is considered to be universal.. and physical laws are laws not to be violated.. right? ie once proven it's a fact. but it's proven based on knowledge gained in the past.

    Point is this... things that are "discovered" are discovered with information gained in the past. We learn something and build on to it. and there are checks and balances along the way. If our discoveries are "proven" (via math for example), we scientists consider it a fact or a law of nature. if we can't prove it, but there is sufficient evidence to support the "finding", we call it a "theory". if new evidence contradicts the theory, we may modify or discard the theory or fact. And yes there is a scientific community who argues these issue....they look at supporting versus contradicting evidence. Happens all the time....

    Here are a couple of real life examples. quantum mechanics and Einsteins theory of relativity. Newtonian mechanics claims energy levels are continuous. QM shows they are not. We scientists have modified our "science" or thought processes to use both mechanics.... Einsteins theory of relativity. Rocked the scientific world. example. Einstein showed that the "straight line" concept in geometry was incorrect. there are no straight lines in our world. Yet we scientists adopted our methods and practices to include Einsteins theory. String theory is perhaps a more direct analogy to what your asking for. String theory implies, through math, that our world is not 4 dimensions but is in fact 10 dimensions. or maybe more....

    So you ask. Is the scientific process flawed? Which by the way is 1) collect information, 2) form hypothesis, 3) design experiment and collect data to test the hypothesis 4) analyze data, 5) intrepret data and repeat steps 2-5 as necessary 6) draw conclusions and publish results, 7) peer review. In a way it is flawed. it is based on our ability to collect and process information. And I hope that all researchers realize that and work very very hard to eliminate those flaws. But then again, it does work for us now doesn't it? Look around you at the things we humans have created....And by the way, we can improve the process by having more and better data.

    Now if you've made it this far through my incoherent ramblings, then let's take your concept of "starting over" on. It is a purely philosophical cocept and is totally unrealistic. That is because the society we live in, the country we live in, even the planet we live on is based on business. The goal of all business is to expand and grow. starting over is the opposite. Going forward is the way of the world. Going backwards is impossible.

    As to your "theory of evolution". Notice the word theory? that's because it is in fact a theory. An unproven theory. Same goes for the "theory of creation". and of course the theory of "intelligent creation" ie the mix of evolution and creationism. Suggesting to go "Back to the beginning" to find reasons to support or discredit that particular theory is, well, not practical

    A couple of other things. I am a scientist, I hold a couple of dozen patents and I do review data in a non biased way all the time. To suggest otherwise means you are not familar with what "scientists" do. And to generalize and call all scientists close minded because we won't give up our "learned information and techiques" to prove your theory of evolution is both arrogant and extremely short sighted. No offense intended.

  • 4 years ago

    Being open to seemingly "bs" science, might not be so bad, considering some of the 'bs' science could actually be real and much more advanced higher understandings of current known sciences. But that would take a GRAND leap of faith on your part. And also KNOWING where to look and to SEE where this knowledge can be found. There is alot of garbage out there which can take you for a ride and leave you empty like the energy drain after consuming a sugary candy bar. That is what you must go through unfortuneately, until you land in the honey pot. Current sciencse are not really magical or perhaps not spiritual. But pseudo science CAN link you to the spiritual realm a little more, which is needed. The videos you describe simply don't make simple statements about truth. They do and don't. It is really because the answer to the mysteries is not known.....yet. We are all confused....and we need Peter Pan to light the way........

  • 1 decade ago

    You seem to confuse 2 issues here. Scientists, and the process of science.

    Scientists are human - if they have a pet theory, they will often support it even if the evidence doesn't. One example from history was Copernicus. He developed the theory that the sun was the center of the solar system, instead of the earth. But the earth-centric model was supported by many scientists of the time. After a generation or so, most scientists accepted the heliocentric model. So the process of science worked, even if the scientists themselves didn't give up their pet theories.

    The book "The Big Bang" gives a lot more detail on this. See the link below.

  • 1 decade ago

    I've always found that "evidence to the contrary" is usually a bible thumper who took a biology class when they were 17 using big words they don't understand. No offense to all of you anti-evolution folks out there.

    The process works, peer review works and when presented with good data science will change its theories. Always has.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I fear you might be a bit "indoctrinated" yourself...

    Science is not quite as close minded as one might think because of something known as "peer review". When a scientists discovers something, they publish the data. This gives the rest of the scientific community the opportunity to try and verify the results by preforming the experiment themselves. "Cold fusion" was quite sensational at first, but it was soon abandoned when other scientits failed to obtain the same results.

    Reguarding evolution, it is the best theory available at the moment. Many people argue that biblical "creation" is an alternate theory, but they are confusing science and religion. The difference is that science is open to any critique whereas religion is not. As far as "creative design" is concerned, it is an attempt to introduce religious concepts into science, and unfortunately perhaps, God can not be proved experimentally.

    Source(s): I'm a chemist.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Listen to the other scientists that posted - you can't just take Bio 1 & 2 and all of a sudden think you know anything about how science really works. If you don't agree with the scientific method that's ok. Just do me a favor and stop going to the doctor (scientist), stop taking medications (scientists), stop getting flu shots (evolution), stop buying gas (geology), stop eating (agricultural biology); stop living. You think you can use the blanket of freedom we provide and then question the manner in which it is provided? I'LL ARREST YOU FOR INTERFERRING WITH THE LAW!

    Source(s): !Viva la evolucion!
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Evidence is ALWAYS being found to disprove theories. For example, centuries ago people believed a geocentric theory for the universe, now we believe a heliocentric model. Until last year Pluto was considered a planet, now it is not. New technologies lead to new discoveries that may disprove existing theories.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Quantum Physics is the most accurate predictor of events known to mankind. It has an unblemished record of predicitons. It is the most useful and elegant tool that the human race has come up with. You want to go ahead and try to improve on that accuracy, be my guest. By the way, ever heard of peer review?

  • 1 decade ago

    Bless your heart. Read a Scientific Journal something like Science News, Science, or Nature and you will understand just how dynamic science is.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.