Reuss Griffiths wrote:
You're right in the belief that this was not intended to be a debate on religion. The crux of this issue is people who disagree with science according to Sagan. The problem is that much of what is happening today is giving science a bad name. We are being told that one cannot question science because of the "scientific method" practiced by scientists of today. If 90%+ of scientist agree on an issue then it must be right and not to be questioned. But that is exactly what the scientific method does, is question science. Science is never settled and always subject to change. The role of the scientist is to determine with some certainty and clarity the accuracy of scientific data. The role of the politician is to take these data and ascertain the likely impact of this information on the populace and develop policies to deal with it. These roles are very mixed these days with some assuming both roles and some assuming none.
And I appreciate the opportunity to present a rationed argument for consideration without being disparaged or disparaging others.
You're right in the belief that this was not inten... (
show quote)
And we (or at least I hope, most) appreciate a rational hypothesis put forward for consideration without any carping or denigrating (and insulting) others.
The degree of incivility in the Attic is astounding. With the same individuals harping on the same subjects in the same manner — with no positional alteration — even when evidence or data to support a different viewpoint is provided.
There are some (in my estimation, unguided) individuals who will not even investigate provided references or links to information that would be germane to a discussion.
_________________
As to your thoughts on the scientific method: There seems to be a polarization among scientists as well as political groups. I understand the process and significance of the scientific method, and the fact the highest certainty on any particular subject is a theory with predictive explanatory power(s).
It seems people (in general) or those not very literate of science, do not understand the concept of falsifiability. NO theory is 100 percent true(*), and new evidence may be discovered that upsets theory.
The problem, as I observe it, is scientific methodology provides more “guidance” than “answers” when politicians, special interest groups and lawmakers regard Theory as proven Fact and make decisions or laws that affect entire populations.(**)
90 percent of scientists within any specific field agreeing on a subject is rare in scientific circles, it seems. And there is (almost) always a dedicated “fringe group” or more holding specific beliefs(***) that attempt to find fault with supported theory — coming up with unverifiable arguments and contrary hypotheses that are usually A). Antithetical to demonstrable experimental observation, B). Have little or no predictive power, and C). Depend upon some unproven, non-observed, generally non-factual, statistically insignificant or impossible alteration of known observed data.
The highest truth is verifiable observation. The only manner in which facts of nature be determined.
(*) Although some observations come close. The “law” of universal gravitational attraction, for one. Although even that may be altered if “dark matter” and “dark energy” hypotheses are correct.
(**) Cases in point: Masking directives and mandatory inoculations for certain groups (Covid).
(***) Examples are Creationists, “Young Earth” supporters, Flat Earthers, and other entrenched believers.