I know this is going to come up in a conversation shortly, how would you respond to this? I've had it said to me before, specifically about health, one week wine/eggs/milk/axle grease is good for you, next week it's not.
"You can't believe anything science says, they're always changing their minds.."
by disposable hero of hypocrisy 30 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
DesirousOfChange
"Almost as changing as the WT definition of "generation"."
Doc
-
OneEyedJoe
This is a relatively common logical fallacy used by fundamentalists - inflation of conflict (Google it for example and counter arguments). It is usually accompanied by some quote or explanation of the science that demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the science.
-
apostrate
Don't get me wrong, I think science is wonderful. But, the way I see it science is not hierarchical as is religion. Anyone calling themselves a scientist can publish an article or book or whatever stating their findings/beliefs. I am not aware of a "pope" head scientist that they must get approval from. That's why even scientists can disagree with one another.
But many scientists get funding/grants from the government or wherever, and in order to continue getting further funding they must come up with some results. I don't doubt that sometimes they might "fudge" a little to produce enough results to aquire more funding.
Now, I didn't think this up myself but I don't recall where exactly I heard it. Perhaps I heard it years ago when I was still in WT Land, I just don't know. But it sounds reasonable, I mean even scientists are only human, right?
-
Apognophos
"If science can't be trusted, then where did we get all this technology from? Would you want to do without modern conveniences and medicine just because scientists might someday change their mind on how some of it works?" Witnesses like to boast about how perfectly the universe works thanks to the laws God set for it, such that they can land a rover on another planet by launching it at just the right angle. Well, science is the process of discovering those laws.
Besides the fallacy that OEJ mentioned, it's also typical "all or nothing" thinking from Witnesses, who won't accept anything that's not perfect. At least, they claim that they're not satisfied with anything imperfect, though they still use the results of man's ingenuity while not showing any gratitude for them. Imperfect solutions are all this world has to offer, but good luck convincing a JW to give up their idealistic fixations and accept that. If they can't live forever in a perfect world that is filled with perfect people and only has perfect weather, then screw it, they're taking their toys and going home.
-
skeeter1
Scientific facts do change. They change because new theories are proven to be more correct through the use of the scientific method.
Next time one who believes that scientists make it up on the fly, should go see the priest instead of a doctor.
-
apostrate
Oh, I will take a doctor over a priest anyday. In my post I was just theorizing that discrepancies can happen because of differences of opinion, human error, and new evidence.
A doctor, even the most experienced doctor, can not guarantee results simply because a human body is not a car! A procedure that works fine in 99 patients may not work in someone else. No slight on the doctors experience (or lack thereof) but simply because all human bodies are different.
-
Apognophos
Don't help the JWs make excuses, apostrate. Of course you're right about science and medicine, but the problem is that JWs need to let go of their either-or, black-and-white thinking. JWs are always happy to accept the fruits of science into their lives right up until the scientists say something that goes against their beliefs. It's on the JW to explain why those areas of science are less reliable than the ones that built the civilization which they are a part of.
-
snare&racket
Ask them for examples.....
The scientific method is only about 200 years old and has only really been applied to research and progress for about 100 years.,In that 100 years we have gone from horse and cart to lamding laboratories on comets.
When someone says 'people once said the early was flat' that is irrelevant to the term science. Whilst people were saying this, some people were using geometry to calculate the circumference of the earth to three decimal places, this was relevant to science.
These people won't be able to define science and won't have examples of science changing, Evidence does not change, evidence is added to and can have various interpretations. science is the gathering of evidence and of course as we gather more we learn more and our interpretations can increase.
The staple test to see if science is a valid method is to see whether it works...does it answer questions and solve problems? it clearly does.
Read them the scientific method. Explain who a scientist is. Explain the difference between newspaper articles about anacdotal opinion and 10 year random controlled trials, double blinded, with results indicating 'x'.
-
apostrate
Apognophos,
Trust me, it was not my intention to give any fodder to the JW organization. It was meant as a response to the OP's question. Science is perfect, sometimes our view of it is skewed, but we continue to research and improve. (I'm sorry, that sounds almost like the WT's excuse for their ramblings, doesn't it?).
But why the Governing Body isn't sharing a cell with Bernie Maddoff is beyond me! I have NO sympathies for WT or any other cult or mind controlling group!