Target of skepticism

[Skepticus Rex]

Greetings, Skeptics...

I have long thought of myself as a sceptic (and, now, a Skeptic), and i applaud this communities efforts to destroy lies and reveal truth, in your battle against "paranormalists, woo-woos (nice term), conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists."

It is always good to discover truth and debunk anything claiming to be true without sufficient evidence, and i think that should be done at every opportunity.

Now to the purpose of this topic...

I think that any organised Skeptical efforts would be most effective if there was no set target to the campaign.
As i quoted above, your stated targets are those popular, mostly controversial, areas such as government conspiracies, UFO sightings, etc. and it is good that people are shown the truth about these... However, it can always be claimed by supporters of those theories that you are actively attempting to debunk their theories, because you personally disagree (because, to be fair, you are).
But if the areas under scrutiny were to include mainstream ideas as well, such as the big bang, or uniformatarian geology (which would, presumably, prove true), then you would be seen as real, fair, skeptics, because you don't have any pre-suppositions, and wield the sword of truth like lady justice: blindfold, and indiscriminately.

I apologise if mainstream scientific ideas have been reviewed by you before, but i havn't seen them discussed on your website. It seems to me that mainstream ideas are always assumed to be correct, because so many people have concluded that they are correct before. But remember, the catholic church controlled mainstream knowledge for a large swath of our cultures history, but they were overturned.

[wollery]

The difference is that mainstream science works by the methods of reproducibility, peer review and properly conducted tests, and is supported by huge rafts of evidence. When someone in mainstream science gets results that are at odds with standard theory others try to replicate these results. If they succeed then standard theory has to be altered or, in extreme cases, scrapped. If they fail then the person who got the odd results has to show that they can reproduce their results. If they can then others will examine the equipment used, and most likely find a fault in it, or the methodology used. In other words, there's no point challenging mainstream science with skepticism, because it already does so to itself!

But this is precisely the sort of stuff that psychics, homeopaths, etc. refuse to take part in. That's why they need to be challenged at every turn. That's why it needs to be pointed out to the public that these people refuse to be tested by people who doubt their abilities. That's why we need to point out the flaws in any tests that they do conduct.

[Skepticus Rex]

When someone in mainstream science gets results that are at odds with standard theory others try to replicate these results.


however there are many cases where, if the results claimed do not fit with current theories, they are dismissed as 'impossible', and no further tests are done.
and also, some of the core theories, like evolution, are already assumed to be true, and are not tested using the scientific method. rather, studies relating to these theories are tested to see whether they fit with the 'already established' scientific truth of those theories.


If they succeed then standard theory has to be altered or, in extreme cases, scrapped.

to illustrate my comments above; how many times has this actually happened with the major theories of the current standard models? even when there is substantial evidence that the theories in their current forms are not correct, nothing is done to revise them.

[wollery]

however there are many cases where, if the results claimed do not fit with current theories, they are dismissed as 'impossible', and no further tests are done.
Examples?


and also, some of the core theories, like evolution, are already assumed to be true, and are not tested using the scientific method. rather, studies relating to these theories are tested to see whether they fit with the 'already established' scientific truth of those theories.If a theory has stood up to multiple examinations, and has huge amounts of supporting evidence then it is indeed assumed to be accurate. Evolution fits into this group, along with relativity, quantum mechanics and stellar nucleosynthesis.


to illustrate my comments above; how many times has this actually happened with the major theories of the current standard models? even when there is substantial evidence that the theories in their current forms are not correct, nothing is done to revise them.The current standard models have stood up to all the challenges offered, and have quite a bit of supporting evidence. If that weren't the case we'd have different standard models. Since evolution has been directly observed in the lab with viruses and bacteria it seems churlish to challenge the basic tenet that organisms adapt to their environment. The exact mechanisms are less certain, but evolution quite definitely happens.

Again, I ask for examples, specific ones please.

[Skepticus Rex]

example:
Eric Laithwaite, inventor of maglev train technology, presented a demonstration to the royal institute. he demonstrated that gyroscopes had some effects that seemed to be at odds with newtonian gravity. for the first time in 200 years, the proceedings of the demonstration were not published, and what Laithwaite did with a 50 pound tyre on the end of a pole was dismissed as trickery.
Laithwaite carryed on his research on his own, and eventually worked out that the effect did fit into newton's laws. he has now patented a 'reactionless drive', but if he hadn't carryed on his research, and hadn't gotten sympathy from several universities, that entire effect, and the technological results, would have been lost.

there are other examples i could put of the scientific community dismissing things as 'impossible' with no supporting evidence, even contrary to evidence in support for the new idea, but they deal with subjects in 'pseudoscience', and as such you will dismiss them on principle as well.



If a theory has stood up to multiple examinations, and has huge amounts of supporting evidence then it is indeed assumed to be accurate. Evolution fits into this group...

now it's your turn, if there are huge amounts of evidence for evolution, give examples of evidence. the sort of things you require when reviewing theories as part of your Skeptical activities.


The current standard models have stood up to all the challenges offered, and have quite a bit of supporting evidence.

however, if the 'standing up to challenges' takes the form of my first point, just dismissing them, then that isn't proof at all.
depending on the type of theory, evidence is used in different ways. for example, with uniformatarian geology, there is lots of positive evidence for it, however, even a single piece of (irrefutable) negative evidence would completely disprove that theory. because a the negative evidence wouldn't be able to exist if the theory was correct. so evidence can only be used to prove or disprove a theory if all available evidence is looked at, evidence which may be ignored in my first point.


If that weren't the case we'd have different standard models.

if everyone took that view (which a majority of people do), then it would be impossible for any new model to replace the current one. you are assuming that it is right, because other people have found it right... that is the complete opposite of scepticism.

[Admin]

I think that any organised Skeptical efforts would be most effective if there was no set target to the campaign.
As i quoted above, your stated targets are those popular, mostly controversial, areas such as government conspiracies, UFO sightings, etc. and it is good that people are shown the truth about these... However, it can always be claimed by supporters of those theories that you are actively attempting to debunk their theories, because you personally disagree (because, to be fair, you are).
But if the areas under scrutiny were to include mainstream ideas as well, such as the big bang, or uniformatarian geology (which would, presumably, prove true), then you would be seen as real, fair, skeptics, because you don't have any pre-suppositions, and wield the sword of truth like lady justice: blindfold, and indiscriminately.


Hi, Skepticus and welcome.

Actually, at UKS we don't set out simply to debunk things like the paranormal, UFO sightings etc., we look at a wide range of topics and aim to understand them. Alternative medicine is a good example. It's not simply a case of debunking them and proving they don't work (many of them of course do not), it's also about understanding why people use them and the benefits they do get from them.

It's not a case of being 100% against alternative medicine but it is about finding out their appropriate usage. Someone using homeopathic arnica gel for bruising is doing themselves no harm - someone taking homeopathic nosodes as an anti-malarial is exposing themselves to great risk.

We're currently undergoing a few changes at UKS and we'll be adopting a more educational approach. I know what you're saying and largely agree. I don't think we need to be scrutinising mainstream science (hopefully they do that themselves) unless there is a reason to do so though.

[Skepticus Rex]

thanks, glad to be here :)

i just think it might be a good idea to go over a few of the major columns of current scientific consenus, to get a good background of what you think to be true, as well as what you a more sceptical about.
and also, as i said in my first post, it would boost the image of this movement, to show that nothing is above suspicion, and it would prevent people dismissing you as being close-minded to their radical views. even if you arn't close-minded, people will be able to point at the 'alternative' nature of the things you look at and say that you are targetting them due to a preconcieved objection

[Mongrel]

thanks, glad to be here :)

i just think it might be a good idea to go over a few of the major columns of current scientific consenus, to get a good background of what you think to be true, as well as what you a more sceptical about.
and also, as i said in my first post, it would boost the image of this movement, to show that nothing is above suspicion, and it would prevent people dismissing you as being close-minded to their radical views. even if you arn't close-minded, people will be able to point at the 'alternative' nature of the things you look at and say that you are targetting them due to a preconcieved objection


Unfortunately (from my point of view) when it comes to science the more accurate and definitive it becomes the harder it is to explain in terms that your average person will understand easily. Many common misperceptions of science are due to the simplified version that made sense to your average Daily Mail reader but are woefully inadequate if you're talking to a room full of your peers.

If you've ever perused the Terry Pratchett "Science of the Discworld" series he explained the concept of 'Lies to children' - a difficult scientific propostion is over simplified and analogised so that children can understand it, as they learn more they're simultaneously taught that the previous examples are wrong (and told why) but it bears a close enough proximity to what actually happens that it's used as a learning building block for the next stage.

When it comes to Science I'm always trying to improve my limited knowledge, sometimes it's easier and sometimes not and sometimes I just look at a paper, throw my hands in their air and exclaim "Haven't a clue what they're trying to say". A book that I've, shamefully, only just started reading is Carl Sagans' 'Demon Haunted World', even within the first few chapters it covers and answers the same questions you're asking now. Michael Shermers book 'Why People Believe Weird Things' rebuts the similar statement that's often pitched by the more out spoken religious groups that "we (skeptics) have faith in Science" - we don't, or shouldn't, we trust science and by extension scientists and the scientific method.

Edit - I've seen some of your other posts that ask similar questions but rather than follow you around the board I'll offer the advice here :)
Check the brief articles by John about 'The Open Mind (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_open_mind.php)' and 'Beliefs (http://www.ukskeptics.com/explanation.php?dir=articles/explanations&article=beliefs.php)'. For checking on Anti-Evolutionary and Creationist claims Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/) is an invaluable site. Remembering the adage "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" always helps, if someone has a discovery that will "overturn science as we know it" it's really up to them to show the workings and proof. A good example are the Nobel prize winners Robin Warren and Barry Marshall (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4304290.stm), they were laughed at and scorned by the medical community but they persisted and due to a rather dodgy but conclusive methodology they were vindicated (although the 5 Pharmacists I work with reckon they should have got the IgNobel prize (http://www.improbable.com/ig/) as well).

[Skepticus Rex]

Unfortunately (from my point of view) when it comes to science the more accurate and definitive it becomes the harder it is to explain in terms that your average person will understand easily.

i think that's a very unfortunate thing. it can lead to what people sometimes term the 'religion of science': because you are unable to understand the concepts involved you have to take the word of the scientist/priest, you can only understand the concepts by becoming a scientist/priest yourself. this is exactly the technique bodies like the catholic church used to use to establish their authority and control people.
if a body of scientists (say, the royal institute) decided they wanted to not let black people in, they could 'prove' that black people were less intelligent, and therefore unsuitable, and laypeople would have to choose to believe them or not, just a matter of faith. if other scientists objected to their 'proof', they could be called charlatans and heretics, and again laypeople would have to choose between them.
theoretically that could happen, but luckily there are many scientific institutions that could outnumber one trying that sort of thing, and all people within one institution are not likely to all agree to the charade.


If you've ever perused the Terry Pratchett "Science of the Discworld" series he explained the concept of 'Lies to children' - a difficult scientific propostion is over simplified and analogised so that children can understand it, as they learn more they're simultaneously taught that the previous examples are wrong (and told why) but it bears a close enough proximity to what actually happens that it's used as a learning building block for the next stage.

i really hate that concept, having recognised it while going through it. it's especially bad when teachers deny the existance of any higher level, and insist that what they're teaching you is the one, the only absolute truth.
unfortunately, there is no alternative but just not teaching children anything on a subject until they are experienced/intelligent enough to understand it, which is hardly an option considering the curiousity of children.

[Mongrel]

i think that's a very unfortunate thing. it can lead to what people sometimes term the 'religion of science': because you are unable to understand the concepts involved you have to take the word of the scientist/priest, you can only understand the concepts by becoming a scientist/priest yourself. this is exactly the technique bodies like the catholic church used to use to establish their authority and control people.

Can you or would you try declare that you know everthing about everything? You have to accept that many people spend their lives researching one particular subject. Who am I to declare after a few internet searches and a pop science book that I fully understand Particle physics or String theory, maybe tell my Pharmacist Girlfriend that the 4 years of Uni and constant training modules are worthless now that I've found this really useful Wiki article?

The underlying principle behind the scientific method is, apart from the very rare case, self correcting. The chaps at the Royal Institute could, hypothetically, declare that due to some recent research that "black people were less intelligent, and therefore unsuitable", they'd attempt to publish it and - it wouldn't make it past peer review. If they'd bribed all the reviewers and it got published then it'd get shredded by the scientific community around the world.

i really hate that concept, having recognised it while going through it. it's especially bad when teachers deny the existance of any higher level, and insist that what they're teaching you is the one, the only absolute truth.
.

Maybe you were in the wrong class then. Knowledge is not something that's best assimilated in large blocks, it's much easier for everyone to handle in small chunks that you can work up from. Once you get past the schools and into Colleges and Universities seemingly basic subjects can diversify even more. If I have an interest in Chemistry which large chunks should I be taught? Organic, Inorcanic, Applied, Analytical, Physical, Macromolecular? Having a broad but slightly simplified base will allow a student to branch into any of these at Uni.


unfortunately, there is no alternative but just not teaching children anything on a subject until they are experienced/intelligent enough to understand it, which is hardly an option considering the curiousity of children.

So the sequence over time (off the top of my head please excuse mistakes)
"Light is the fastest thing in the universe"
"Light travels at 299,792,458 metres per second"
"Light is a constant"
"Here is how we measure the speed of light"
"Because light is a constant we can use it to increase our knowledge of distant stars"
"Thanks to Red and Blue shift we can tell all sorts of things about the age of the Universe"
"It's very important to Einsteins' Theory of relativity <explaination>"
"We can jigger with light to speed it up or slow it down"
Unless the average 12 year old has a particular aptitude for Physics learning all that in one fell swoop would probably wipe out the curriculum for a couple of years...

[wollery]

example:
Eric Laithwaite, inventor of maglev train technology, presented a demonstration to the royal institute. he demonstrated that gyroscopes had some effects that seemed to be at odds with newtonian gravity. for the first time in 200 years, the proceedings of the demonstration were not published,

and what Laithwaite did with a 50 pound tyre on the end of a pole was dismissed as trickery.
Laithwaite carryed on his research on his own, and eventually worked out that the effect did fit into newton's laws. he has now patented a 'reactionless drive', but if he hadn't carryed on his research, and hadn't gotten sympathy from several universities, that entire effect, and the technological results, would have been lost.

I've been reading up on Laithwaite, he was quite a man. As for the rejection of the establishment, it's regrettable, but Laithwaite didn't present them with a new theory. He showed up at a talk, which is meant to be more of a social affair, showed them a strange object doing something that was incredibly strange and said, "Look, Newton was wrong!" It's not exactly the best way to endear yourself to a bunch of senior scientists. What he should have done was approach individuals and say something like, "Look, I've come across this phenomena that I can't explain. This is more your field of expertise, can you please help me out?"

Of course, in the end what was shown was that the thing does obey Newtonian mechanics, so although it's a new effect it isn't really new science. You'll also note that he got "sympathy" from several Universities, something you can't get without a member of academic staff to collaborate with, so he was actually working with "the establishment" which had supposedly rejected him out of hand.


there are other examples i could put of the scientific community dismissing things as 'impossible' with no supporting evidence, even contrary to evidence in support for the new idea, but they deal with subjects in 'pseudoscience', and as such you will dismiss them on principle as well.

I don't think I've ever dismissed something "on principle", and I'm insulted by your ad hom. Please give the examples, and we can take it from there.


now it's your turn, if there are huge amounts of evidence for evolution, give examples of evidence. the sort of things you require when reviewing theories as part of your Skeptical activities.

How many fossils do you want me to list? Stratified fossils which show serial changes. Genetics, which can be traced through different species. I've already mentioned viruses and bacteria which have been observed evolving in the lab. MRSA, VRSA, both of which evolved outside the lab. For more detail you might try looking at the web pages here - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46


however, if the 'standing up to challenges' takes the form of my first point, just dismissing them, then that isn't proof at all.

Firstly, you may note that in the example you give in your first point, the standard theory stood up to the challenge because the effect turned out to be due to the standard theory. Secondly, in science it is impossible to absolutely prove a theory correct, and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or labouring under a serious misconception.


depending on the type of theory, evidence is used in different ways. for example, with uniformatarian geology, there is lots of positive evidence for it, however, even a single piece of (irrefutable) negative evidence would completely disprove that theory. because a the negative evidence wouldn't be able to exist if the theory was correct. so evidence can only be used to prove or disprove a theory if all available evidence is looked at, evidence which may be ignored in my first point.

As I pointed out above, no amount of evidence can ever completely prove a scientific theory. One can never rule out the possibility of finding a piece of evidence which contradicts the theory in question, thus requiring that the theory be modified, or scrapped in favour of a new theory. This has happened inummerable times in science.


if everyone took that view (which a majority of people do), then it would be impossible for any new model to replace the current one. you are assuming that it is right, because other people have found it right... that is the complete opposite of scepticism.

You are again getting it back to front. In science, theories are assumed to be not wrong if they have not been found to be wrong, and will continue to be assumed to be not wrong until and unless they are proved wrong. This may seem at first like semantic wordplay, but it's actually an incredibly important philosophical difference.

[Skepticus Rex]

I don't think I've ever dismissed something "on principle", and I'm insulted by your ad hom. Please give the examples, and we can take it from there.

i'm sorry that you're offended. what i meant was that you are already skeptical about most unorthadox claims (which are what are often dismissed by scientists), and since there is no evidence to 'prove' that my other examples were actually right (due to the lack of testing, which is due to the original dismissal) you would then agree with the scientists assessment to dismiss them.
i will collect my examples and post them in a while then. and since you don't dismiss anything on principle, then the nature of the examples and their source won't matter (as long as i can verify that they didn't make up the example, obviously)


How many fossils do you want me to list? Stratified fossils which show serial changes. Genetics, which can be traced through different species.

the relationships of fossils are determined through physical similarities, and the shared genes in different species are the ones that control their shared characteristics (mostly). all that proves is that DNA is a standardised language, with certain genes controlling certain characteristics across the board of life as we know it. that would be just as true if life was created by a god as if it evolved. in fact, in the evolution side of things, DNA would have to have been the first thing evolved in order for everything to have the same kind of gene transfer device.


I've already mentioned viruses and bacteria which have been observed evolving in the lab. MRSA, VRSA, both of which evolved outside the lab.

now the definition of evolution has changed from development from species to species to adaption and mutation. adaption and mutation are integral parts of evolutionary theory, but they are not its entirety. existance of them does not prove the rest of it.


Firstly, you may note that in the example you give in your first point, the standard theory stood up to the challenge because the effect turned out to be due to the standard theory.

however, the effect that the royal institute denied was real. if it hadn't fit into newtonian gravity (and therefore a revision would be needed) it wouldn't have been accepted. as shown by the fact that the discovery was almost completely ignored and denied until it could be shown to fit. if that happened to every anomalous discovery, then we would never know if our model was false, because we don't accept anything that doesn't fit.


One can never rule out the possibility of finding a piece of evidence which contradicts the theory in question, thus requiring that the theory be modified, or scrapped in favour of a new theory. This has happened inummerable times in science.

until recently. the scientific community is becoming more and more like the church that it replaced. Anyone that doesn't agree with the standard models is wrong, if they are a scientist, they are ostracised. (examples forthcoming)


You are again getting it back to front. In science, theories are assumed to be not wrong if they have not been found to be wrong, and will continue to be assumed to be not wrong until and unless they are proved wrong. This may seem at first like semantic wordplay, but it's actually an incredibly important philosophical difference.

i think you misunderstood what i was trying to say.
if literally everyone had the same view as you, that "The current standard models have stood up to all the challenges offered... If that weren't the case we'd have different standard models" then they would never be proved wrong, simply for the reason that no one would ever try to prove them wrong.
i hoped to have established, by the time i said that, that the scientific community has developed a nasty habit of simply ignoring anything that doesn't fit. and if that is the case, then no one would ever find anything by accident to cast doubt on their theories, because they would just ignore it.

[wollery]

i'm sorry that you're offended. what i meant was that you are already skeptical about most unorthadox claims (which are what are often dismissed by scientists), and since there is no evidence to 'prove' that my other examples were actually right (due to the lack of testing, which is due to the original dismissal) you would then agree with the scientists assessment to dismiss them.

The point of skepticism is to examine extraordinary claims and ask if there is any evidence for them and whether they make predictions. If the answer to both is no then there is no reason to take them seriously. If you have a problem with that idea then you aren't the skeptic you claim to be!


i will collect my examples and post them in a while then. and since you don't dismiss anything on principle, then the nature of the examples and their source won't matter (as long as i can verify that they didn't make up the example, obviously)

We'll see when you post your examples.


the relationships of fossils are determined through physical similarities,

Not entirely, dating of fossils by various means is also important, since it would be foolish to say that one animal had evolved from another if both lived during the same period in history. That's why I also mentioned the stratification, which gives a timeline for evolution.


and the shared genes in different species are the ones that control their shared characteristics (mostly). all that proves is that DNA is a standardised language, with certain genes controlling certain characteristics across the board of life as we know it. that would be just as true if life was created by a god as if it evolved. in fact, in the evolution side of things, DNA would have to have been the first thing evolved in order for everything to have the same kind of gene transfer device.

I agree to an extent, but the God hypothesis fails to explain the huge amounts of junk DNA. We share genes with houseflies which do absolutely nothing in either species! Evolution explains junk DNA, but why would God bother to include identical DNA in diferent species which does nothing?


now the definition of evolution has changed from development from species to species to adaption and mutation. adaption and mutation are integral parts of evolutionary theory, but they are not its entirety. existance of them does not prove the rest of it.

Not the point of the argument. That organisms adapt to their environment is a fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory, but utterly unnessecary in creationism. That we observe it supports evolution but not creationism.


however, the effect that the royal institute denied was real. if it hadn't fit into newtonian gravity (and therefore a revision would be needed) it wouldn't have been accepted. as shown by the fact that the discovery was almost completely ignored and denied until it could be shown to fit. if that happened to every anomalous discovery, then we would never know if our model was false, because we don't accept anything that doesn't fit.

Misleading in the extreme. As I pointed out, Laithwaite was working with researchers to find out what was going on. Had they discovered that Newton was indeed wrong then the theory would have had to change.


until recently. the scientific community is becoming more and more like the church that it replaced. Anyone that doesn't agree with the standard models is wrong, if they are a scientist, they are ostracised. (examples forthcoming)No, people who disagree with the standard models are ostracised if their work offers no alternative explanation, or if the explanation is obviously false as is the case with Dr. Gentry). Einstein's theories were revolutionary, but the maths was indisputable. The same is true of quantum mechanics. Recently there has been a big controversy in cosmology due to a challenge to the dark matter model from Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), which is definitely going against the standard model. It did recieve resistance at first, but again, the maths works, so it cannot just be dismissed (see this page for an interview with Milgrom, where he explains the process he and his theory went through - http://www.physics.odu.edu/~weinstei/120f03/astro10.html).


i think you misunderstood what i was trying to say.
if literally everyone had the same view as you, that "The current standard models have stood up to all the challenges offered... If that weren't the case we'd have different standard models" then they would never be proved wrong, simply for the reason that no one would ever try to prove them wrong.
i hoped to have established, by the time i said that, that the scientific community has developed a nasty habit of simply ignoring anything that doesn't fit. and if that is the case, then no one would ever find anything by accident to cast doubt on their theories, because they would just ignore it.
And I think that I've showed the the scientific community doesn't simply ignore new theories if they have something to back them up, such as decent maths, and make testable predictions. There may initially be resistance, but as Milgrom points out, that may not be a bad thing!

[Ginger Rogers]

For the most part, lay people like myself, have to believe what scientists tell us, because we're not scientists and we don't know or understand all the evidence, in the form of bizarre diagrams and graphs and equations that you wouldn't understand unless you'd studied the subject.
I don't know that that world is spherical - or I do only because thats what I've been told, and I can see that it's fairly likely since there is a 'horizon', because of night and day, and all that stuff - but since I've not been into space I am unable to see it for myself. Its the same for many common beliefs, how many of us can actually see or experience it for ourselves.
Some things are obvious, I mean we all know gravity exists because we experience it every day but there are many things we don't or can't.

[wollery]

[pedantic git]
The world isn't spherical, it's an oblate spheroid, slightly flattened pole to pole!
[/pedantic git]

[Ginger Rogers]

see, told you I'm not a scientist! :D But you see my point ^-^

[Admin]

For the most part, lay people like myself, have to believe what scientists tell us

Yes. What skepticus was alluding to is the Argument to Authority that religions rely on and making the analogy that science is the same.

Where it breaks down however, is in the relevance of such authority. The major and crucial difference is that the authority of religion cannot be tested. If something is the word of God then that’s it – end of story.

With science however, the claims that we accept on authority can, potentially, be tested. In fact for science to be accepted it has to stand up to skeptical scrutiny; therefore science can back up its claims.

So, the quick layman’s terms answer is that yes we do accept science on authority much of the time, but we have good reasons for doing so. Science is an evidence-based method - religion relies on dogma.

We have faith in religion but we can trust in science.

[Skepticus Rex]

...we can trust in science.

hopefully. :) only joking. but as i said earlier, it is possible.

anyhoo, evidence of people and theories being dismissed for reasons other than scientific merit:

immanuel velikovsky (a zionist). he did lots of things, but the most controversial was a catostrophic cosmology he worked on. i won't go into details, but his theories included predictions on the nature of Venus, which were later verified by probes, and several other ideas of his are now part of scientific consenus.
at the time, any form of catastrophism, especially involving biblical ideas of global floods, was despised by uniformatarians (including darwinists), and people proposing such theories were often attacked.
when he tried to publish his book worlds in collision, his publisher (macmillan, who also publish/ed science textbooks) was threatened with a boycott of all its scientific publishings by several prominant scientists and universities. macmillan then passed on the book to another publisher, one with no scientific connections. this meant it was immune to blackmail, but it also undermined the credibility of the book.
velikovsky was thrust to the margins of the scientific community, and even though many of his theories are now established, he is still known for his work having no scientific merit.

Wilhelm Reich (a pschotherapist cum natural scientist). he noticed some effects which implied the possible existance of a form of biological energy. he apparantly made detailed notes of his experiments with protozoa, but i can't find any reference to anyone else scientifically testing his conclusions.
his books were burnt by the nazis (he was jewish, and his research involved sex), and later, after moving to the US and developing a therapy based on his bioenergy, a series of articles attacking him triggered an investigation by the american FDA, who suspected he was selling a quack cancer cure. i can't find any details of the investigation, but they concluded that he was, and a judge ordered his books burnt (in 1954 in the 'land of the free'). from what i've read he didn't claim it would cure cancer at all, just that it appeared to be able to boost the immune system to destroy tumours.

this last example isn't someone being ostracised by the scientific community, since he isn't a proffessional scientist, but some of the things he was attacked with show the attitude i'm trying to demonstrate
richard milton (a scientific journalist). he wrote several books pointing out apparant problems in neo-darwinist evolution and also expressed concern about how many scientific discoveries might be lost due to the attitude i'm proposing here (including the examples above, funnily enough).
various critics (quite a few scientists, including richard dawkins) called him personally several things including 'stupid' and 'mentally ill'. one of his articles was removed from a journal when richard dawkins told the editor that milton was a 'secret creationist'. milton denies that he is any such thing.
i have never seen anything actually addressing the issues he raises. apparantly personal attacks on him and his supposed beliefs are enough to debunk scientific theories.

[Physiotherapist]

If you want to find out more about Reich, then Alexander Lowen's books might be helpful. He had his own therapy with Reich and then went onto develop his own practice. Lowen was a teacher, lawyer and latterly a doctor and has written many books in which he talks about Reich.

[Mojo]

anyhoo, evidence of people and theories being dismissed for reasons other than scientific merit:

immanuel velikovsky (a zionist). he did lots of things, but the most controversial was a catostrophic cosmology he worked on. i won't go into details, but his theories included predictions on the nature of Venus, which were later verified by probes, and several other ideas of his are now part of scientific consenus.
at the time, any form of catastrophism, especially involving biblical ideas of global floods, was despised by uniformatarians (including darwinists), and people proposing such theories were often attacked.
when he tried to publish his book worlds in collision, his publisher (macmillan, who also publish/ed science textbooks) was threatened with a boycott of all its scientific publishings by several prominant scientists and universities. macmillan then passed on the book to another publisher, one with no scientific connections. this meant it was immune to blackmail, but it also undermined the credibility of the book.
velikovsky was thrust to the margins of the scientific community, and even though many of his theories are now established, he is still known for his work having no scientific merit. I'd be interested in knowing which of his theories "are now established".

[Skepticus Rex]

Ironically, some of the concepts Velikovsky originally put forward in the 1940s, which at the time were heretical, are in fact much more widely accepted within the mainstream today. These include:

* The idea that global mass extinctions were caused by Earth colliding with an extraterrestrial body (particular the anomalous iridium levels at the Cretaceous boundary, which marked the destruction of the dinosaurs).
* The neo-Darwinist ideas of punctuated equilibrium in evolution.
* Velikovsky's arguments that electromagnetism must be given greater consideration in astronomy can be seen in the light of the subsequent discoveries such as the Van Allen belts, the sun and planets have extensive magnetospheres, and that the "vacuum of space" was in fact found to be permeated with charged plasma (the "solar wind").
* The idea that cometary impacts could have precipitated "dark ages" within historical times (eg the AD Dark Ages in Europe)

However mainstream academia contends that their acceptance of such ideas has little or nothing to do with Velikovsky's work, which is generally regarded as erroneous in all its detailed conclusions by academia.

[wollery]

Velikovsky? :o

You're including Velikovsky as an example? :confused:

Velikovsy? ::)

Oy vey. Velikovsky's work (if you can call it that) was about as unscientific as you can get. He started from the premise that the bible and other mythological stories were 100% accurate and then tried to account for them with physical astronomy. This involved having planets bouncing around the solar system like billiard balls. That's why he proposed extinction being caused by collisions, nothing to do with anything like physical evidence. That's why he proposed EM being more important, he had to have some mechanism to throw the planets around.

His predictions about Venus weren't confirmed by probes, since what the probes showed was a planet which is millions of years old. Velikovsky said that it was ejected from Jupiter (whose chemical makeup it does not resemble, not even close) as a comet, whizzed about the solar system in ways that aren't physically possible, screeched to a halt in its present orbit and suddenly changed from a comet into a planet!

Please note, I am not dismissing this out of hand. I've looked at Velikovsky's stuff and there's not one shred of real science in it. His predictions are worthless because they result from a wild fantasy which bears no resemblance to anything approaching reality. That a few minor bits of what he suggested turned out to be not entirely innacurate is neither here nor there. This should all be plain to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about science who reads his stuff. The "scientific establishment" didn't disregard it because it went against their cherished views, they disregarded it because it's a load of complete bollocks.

I'm afraid that I don't know enough about Wilhelm Reich or Richard Milton to comment on their cases yet. I'll read up on them and get back to you.

[Mojo]

from what i've read he didn't claim it would cure cancer at all, just that it appeared to be able to boost the immune system to destroy tumours.
In what way would boosting the immune sysyem to destroy tumours not be curing cancer?

[Skepticus Rex]

The "scientific establishment" didn't disregard it because it went against their cherished views, they disregarded it because it's a load of complete bollocks.

however, at the time they didn't know it was complete bollocks. they disregarded it from a preconcieved idea that it was bollocks. i wasn't saying it's right, I think most of it's bollocks, however, there are parts of his theories that were correct, but they were also dismissed, because of the nature of the rest of it.
that's the reason i didn't want to use these examples, because although they are examples of the scientific community ignoring (or even attacking) things because they disagree (without further research to refute it), they are people that have been proven wrong (or havn't been proven either way yet), and so people think it doesn't matter that they were dismissed.



In what way would boosting the immune sysyem to destroy tumours not be curing cancer?

what i meant was, he didn't go around saying "i've cured cancer, give me money and i'll cure your cancer", he was doing further research into it at the time.

[wollery]

however, at the time they didn't know it was complete bollocks. they disregarded it from a preconcieved idea that it was bollocks. i wasn't saying it's right, I think most of it's bollocks, however, there are parts of his theories that were correct, but they were also dismissed, because of the nature of the rest of it.

Actually that's not accurate. The basic tenets he was working from were bollocks. That renders any conclusions he comes to bollocks, whether or not some of them later turn out to be accurate.

I'll give you an example of how starting from crap can give you a prediction that turns out to be accurate, but doesn't alter the fact that it's all crap. When I was a lowly PhD student a couple of friends and I were being very silly over lunch and decided to come up with a new theory of cosmology. We decided that since everything in the Universe rotates or orbits something else it follows that the whole Universe must rotate, and is probably a sphere. This has the upshot that, due to centripetal acceleration, all galaxies should be receding from the centre of the Universe, and the further out from the centre they are the faster they'll be travelling. This gives the result that if you are at the centre of the Universe every galaxy you look at should be redshifted, with the magnitude of the redshift being proportional to its distance. It's a theory which starts from a basic tenet, makes two predictions, namely that galaxies should be receding, and that their recession velocities should be larger the further away they are. Both of these predictions turn out to be correct. Does this mean that parts of our theory were correct? Of course not, because the theory is fundamentally flawed. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light, and in order for the overall rotation to not be apparent (which it isn't) the rotational velocity of distant galaxies about the Universal centre must be faster than light! The predictions are worthless, because they are based on a flawed premise. The science is wrong from start to finish, despite making some predictions which turn out to be correct. As an aside we also decided that since the Universe was a sphere it probably had a solid boundary, and eventually the galaxies would run into this boundary at high velocity. We called it the "Rotating Universe, Splat!" model. :D


that's the reason i didn't want to use these examples, because although they are examples of the scientific community ignoring (or even attacking) things because they disagree (without further research to refute it), they are people that have been proven wrong (or havn't been proven either way yet), and so people think it doesn't matter that they were dismissed.

As I said earlier, Velikovsky's work was dismissed because upon reading it, it becomes clear that it is almost impossible to describe as science. It's that wrong, from start to finish!

I had hoped that you were going to give examples of people who's work had been dismissed or attacked without any basis, regardless of whether or not they were right. Velikovsky certainly doesn't fall into that category, and from what I've been reading about Wilhelm Reich, his case doesn't either. I couldn't find many sites that aren't rabidly pro-Reich (i.e. they talk about him being a martyr) and obviously have an axe to grind, but those that I did all say that other people failed to find the Orgones that he claimed to have discovered. This suggests that other researchers tried to replicate his work and failed. They also say that the book burning incident has been exagerrated, what actually happened was that the court ordered the destruction of labelling attached to his Orgone collectors, which had been deemed he was selling on false pretenses, i.e. that they could cure all manner of diseases. He was prosecuted by the FDA on charges of fraud, in that he was claiming a medical benefit for which there was no evidence (now why can't they do that to homeopaths?). He was jailed for contempt of court because he kept selling his collectors after he had been ordered not to. The court records, and FDA records are available for public scrutiny.


what i meant was, he didn't go around saying "i've cured cancer, give me money and i'll cure your cancer", he was doing further research into it at the time.He claimed that his Orgone collector was benificial to health, despite there being absolutely no evidence to back up these claims. His notes have been studied by others who have found nothing in them to support his assertions.

Still need to read up on Milton, but I'm not holding out much hope, although I'm keeping an open mind.