Even intellectual honesty is prone to fail based upon a variance of accepted knowledge, but inherently that entails being intellectually honest.
What Do We Know for Certain?? Experts, Authorities, Scientists are often Dead WRONG
by Terry 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Finkelstein
-
slimboyfat
A lot less than we think we know. Things turn out to be wrong all the time. In fact do we know anything at all for definite?
Science shows perception is not a reliable guide to how the world is in itself. Human rationality cuts the branch it’s sitting on.
Check out Donald Hoffman, The Case Against Reality for details.
-
waton
It would be a sad day if we knew everything already. In the meantime in many fields there is enough temporary certainty to have good results.
Predictions though, are very difficult; -- particularly about the future.
-
Terry
Are you not conflating knowing things with certainty and predicting the future?
____
Yep! -
Terry
NYTimes
HILLARY 91% chance of winningTuesday, October 18, 2016
TRUMP 9%
-
Finkelstein
Biased laden statistics isn't a science is it ?
Sure science can be wrong, it happens all the time but that's the good thing about science and the endeavor surrounding it, it leaves open the door to correct what was previously accepted as newly acquired knowledge is gained..
-
iwantoutnow
I want all those science denier to PLEASE
Stop using your:
Computer
Smartphone
TV
Car
Microwave
Digital Clocks
NEVER go to a Doctor or HospitalThis (can we trust science) is a ingenuous and moronic line of thinking, and so JWish.
-
jp1692
waton: Predictions though, are very difficult; -- particularly about the future.
My new favorite quote of the day!
FYI: The quote investigator attempted to track down the original sources of this quote. The conclusion was:
- "Current evidence indicates that this comical proverb was first expressed
in Danish, and the author remains unknown. The first written instance
now known was dated 1948."
- "Current evidence indicates that this comical proverb was first expressed
in Danish, and the author remains unknown. The first written instance
now known was dated 1948."
-
Terry
I think I've read every book Isaac Asimov ever wrote about Science. He 'man-splained' better than most.
I'll always remember his quote:[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.—Isaac Asimov MODERN SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG FAR MORE THAN YOU THINK
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
_____Rewriting the textbooks: When science gets it wrong
https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/rewriting-the-textbooks/
___________ -
Simon
How do we know climate change is real and that much of it is due to human activities? That's a great question. As a science teacher, I would encourage you to examine the evidence, of which there is plenty (NASA: "Climate Change: How Do We Know?").
The problem with appeals to authority is there's often a glaring gap of how you explain when they were completely wrong the other direction.
It's easy to point to claims made that we'd be entering another ice-age, and the inconvenient fact that NONE of the predictions made so far have actually happened, in fact, the models haven't been right once.
That's before you even get to the evidence of data being arbitrarily altered and incorrect data still used in claims.
I have a better thing to encourage: never trust anyone who makes money based of telling you to believe a certain thing. That applies to self-professed climate "experts", to economists and other fortune telling 'professions'.
You may not be able to tell if or why someone is lying, but you can often tell that there is a good chance they are trying to deceive you, even if you are not an expert in the field.
For instance, with climate change, why is every chart shown with a different start and end dates and so the charts look as convincing if you begin them all at the same point, 100+ years ago rather than 20 years ago.
If something was correct and incontrovertible, then why not just present that evidence? Why all the shenanigans?
As a teacher, you should know that the history of science is full of wrong-think where the experts of the day paid by the establishment were dead wrong and it was individuals, heretics, who defied the accepted wisdom and enabled genuine discovery and advancement.
