*new*
What are scientists responsible for?
Italian Court Overturns Scientists’ Convictions for Failing to Warn of Deadly Earthquake – The Ticker - Blogs - The Chronicle of Higher Education
http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/jp/italian-court-overturns-scientists-convictions-for-failing-to-warn-of-deadly-earthquake?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Does knowing that scientists believe that scientific laws and science in general are fallible, make you trust science less? Argue for or against, using some detail. Feel free to just play Devil's advocate. Let's have a full-discussion back and forth with everyone engaged.
Relatedly, has your perception about the trustworthiness of science changed since we started this course?
No, just because scientists agree that some aspects of science don't hold true 100% of the time doesn't make me trust science any less. In my opinion, the fact scientists admit that they don't actually know everything makes me trust them even more. I would rather there be some unknown in science instead of scientists claiming things to be true that really aren't. Admitting we don't know everything allows theories to be open for debate, ideas to be built off of, and will ultimately makes for a better understanding of whatever it is we are questioning. The lead example we used in class today illustrates this clearly. If scientists would have accepted lead as harmless, there would have been many more cases of lead poising and paint would have been dangerous to our society. Essentially, we have to trust scientists to give us accurate information. For example, if we chose to not believe scientists, many people would be skeptical about taking certain kinds of medicines and eating certain types of food. Life would be a lot more difficult if we didn't take their word for it.
ReplyDeleteYou make strong points here adam but how can you have faith in theories that are not even fully supported by their creators. Science is all based of chance that has yes, been proven over time, still showing some signs of disbelief. I wonder why scientists do not have as much faith in what they believe in that they could. I think that scientists should begin to show more faith in there work in order to gain my full support.
DeleteThe idea you shared about having more trust in scientists who admit when they are wrong is a great point. We don't want scientists claiming that all their past theories are correct even if they are not, because this won't further our understanding and explanation of the natural world. As you said, one theory leads to exploration of new ideas. It is a process of many errors and experiments, but will hopefully come to a new and improved conclusion.
DeleteI think that both Madison and Adam make a valid point when they talk about how scientists ability to consider their theories as possibly fallible increases our confidence in them. It's nice to know that people are willing to accept new evidence and not let their pride get in the way of progress. In response to Josh, I think that there is a big difference between being confident in your findings and being cocky (or assured). Scientists believe that they have made the proper conclusions from their data. They have spent many hours collecting and interpreting said data, yet they are willing to hold the possibility of new information being uncovered in the future that would change their original conclusion.
DeleteYes, the fact that scientist do not believe in something that they literally put there life into does have me lose trust in them. I feel like scientists are so concerned about being the next big guy or the one who is always right that they do not care if they are 100 percent sure, they just want the most credibility. But what I ask is, How can you be happy with believing a falsifiable theory. I have learned a lot about science in this class through this. I never knew that science was basically all developed off of greatly supported assumptions. I thought before this class that theories were truth and could not be changed. I also learned how much scientists really do take the peoples opinions seriously. To be honest I feel the people have control over what in science is suggested as theory or law.
ReplyDeleteI think your idea that science is developed off of greatly supported assumptions is very elementary. We have learned in class about things like context of discovery and context of justification and with the context of discovery it is indeed true that assumptions can lead to discoveries in science. We also know that through the context of justification there has to be proof behind the assumptions to give the science any backing. We have also learned that giving a theory the ability to be falsified allows science to grow and open to future discovery. Giving a theory the ability to be falsified also gives that theory more strength. An example I can think of is with the theory of evolution. If one day we find fossils of let's say modern humans in rock that's 7 million years old or even a billion years old then we know that our idea of evolution needs to be reviewed. This hasn't happened so our theory of evolution is given a stronger backing from the evidence. Your last point to say people have control over what in science is suggested as a theory I agree with to an extent but have some problems with it. There is obviously research done that is backed by some financial support so in that light I see people controlling science. But in history people have tried controlling theories and ultimately science prevailed. A couple examples that we've talked about include: lead being poisonous, heliocentric theory, and the tobacco company's false studies about the effects of cigarette smoking.
DeleteFirst of all Nate I think you are being a hater (lol). I know we have learned that science has had some theories that have active proof available. But what about the information that came forth before the new observations. Those did not have as much support so they were immediately proved wrong. What If they were correct we just do not have the proof to show that it is? Scientists say all the time that there is a lot of information that we still do not know. I just wish science could be more trustworthy if they had more faith in their work.
DeleteIf we can't trust or believe in theories, than what can actually believe in? Are you saying we can't believe in science?
DeleteI also believe that scientist publish their work too soon in some cases when they do not have enough evidence just to get credit but its hard to criticize them when I would probably do the same.
DeleteThe fact (in itself) that scientists are confident in what they believe in is a good thing, and develops enthusiasm for the continuation of discovery-finding and paradigm-shifting. If scientists were not confident in their findings, I think we would be at a standstill that would prevent paradigm-shifting. So no, I do not trust science any less due to scientists believing in whatever they do and doing their thing. But, I do have a trust issue with the morality of some scientific paradigms. Consider eugenics, the concentration of the aim to “racial cleanse” and develop a better human race. Scientific application was being used by people against people on the same level, “playing God.” This is a case when natural human opinion perverts the good causes that science if capable of. Science exists because it can do so much good, but it is much like any other instrument that can cause good. For example, some weapons serve good purposes. But, if used in the wrong ways it causes many others to believe that that things is ALL bad. Eugenics might have had SOME good, but not in the manner and scope that it was used. In summary, I support scientists and their findings. But, do they fit in line with my morals?
ReplyDeleteI agree, when experiments shift from hard facts to opinions and beliefs it decreases my trust in scientist and their work.
DeleteRan you make a strong argument regarding biases in science and having wrong moral reasons behind it. Some scientists want to have their name stamped on a discovery and take full credit for finding it, even if they haven't really found something different. An example; the dinosaur guy. In the movie we watched about the different species of dinosaurs, the guy presenting the fossils showed that all of the "different" dinosaur species were actually the different developmental stages of ONE specie of dinosaur. But why did they all have different names? Because the scientists wanted to be known for discovering a new species. This need to stand out in the scientific community can affect research and the findings from that research.
ReplyDeleteI have to say when I first began to answer this question my answer would be that yes my trust in science has lessened. If scientific laws and theories aren't 100% correct then why should we have 100% faith in them. But being a non-scientist, we lack the tools and expertise to perform these scientific experiments ourselves. We must trust scientists to perform these experiments accurately and objectively, coming to conclusions that can further our understanding of the natural world. Yes the context of discovery comes into play, but as we discussed in class today, it doesn't matter where the ideas come from. A scientist could have a natural bias or assumption that leads them to a discovery, but our trust is in the results, not the starting point. Through context of justification, scientists are peer reviewing and checking each other's results and theories, which will only lead to more credibility. We must have faith and trust in scientists, because if not then what are we to trust? Are we to question every past discovery or explanation? Like Adam stated, we are dependent on scientist's facts on a daily basis, from the food we eat to the medicines we take. Theories are fallible, but this only allows present or future scientists to continue to correct and adjust them to further our understanding of science and the natural world, the continuation of the scientific revolution.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't think I can say that my trust in science has lessened. I really don't think it's been affected at all. I've always thought that science was fallible. Everything is subject to new changes and new discoveries. It's just a part of life and the continuing development of discovery, thoughts, and new technology. Just like theories today are completely different because back in the day people didn't have the tools that we have today to make such discoveries. The good thing today is that scientist have to go through peer review. While theories still might not be 100%, at least peer review helps eliminate fallibility. Peer review gives a more solid standing ground on whether or not to believe something. It's a personal choice from there whether one wants to believe it or not. Part of me thinks that a lot of science is purely subjective when it comes to believing or not. The evidence and data may clearly state that something is objective, but a person can always choose not to believe it. Other factors such as religion and culture may play a role in how one views a theory or discovery.
ReplyDeletePersonally, my trust in science has remained about the same .If anything, I think I've began to trust it more because I know more about science. Before this class, I just trusted it because it's where I got a lot of my resources. I didn't know what else to believe. Now I believe it more because I understand what's coming from where and why. And like Madison said, it's unrealistic to question every discovery or explanation of something. A person could find a fault anywhere really. But we have to look at the big picture--where has science gotten us today? Extremely far! Just look at medical and technological advances. It's quite amazing! I wouldn't say I believe in everything science related, but I agree with majority of it.
I don't think that we should trust science or scientists any less just because science is fallible. I know that there isn't really a theory that we can say is 100% correct all the time, but that's just because a theory has to allow for experimentation. There are many theories that are falsifiable that haven't been falsified, they just need to be able to be proven wrong if such a situation occurs. Scientists dedicate their lives to make new discoveries and I don't think just because they can't be completely positive about every inner working of the world that they can't be trusted. There is so much in the world, from the small interactions between particles in quantum mechanics and the large interactions between the planets in space and I think it's unrealistic to say that scientists should know everything there is to know about such things. The theories that have been discovered through observation and data collection are good enough for me to trust what scientists do and how they come to the conclusions that they do.
ReplyDeleteCatie, i agree what you are saying. Just because you don't fully understand the process completely of something doesn't make the final results any less true.
DeleteEven though scientist believe that all aspects are falsifiable, I do not trust the theories and laws conducted over time any less. Because out of all subjects science includes the most concrete and observable concepts we have today. These phenomenon's of the world have been tested multiple times and have a very high probability of occurring each time, therefore I feel confident that I can assume they will keep happening. We have made very important advances overtime using these findings which makes me even more confident in the abilities of scientist. The history of science given in this course only ensures me more that the years these scientists put into their work has allowed them to look over and test all the details.
ReplyDeleteI may be taking the easy way out by saying I trust in science and scientists abilities but I think based on my knowledge about science, which is very little, I should trust what they observe and trust that they will correct their mistakes if they are wrong. Scientist go through so many experiments and observations. They have so much data for the theories they are trying to prove and I applaud them for that. It takes an endless amount of time and effort to perform the tasks they do and if there is error in their studies it will be found and fixed. I trust in the world of knowledge and science that it will work out. I do not intend on pursuing a career that has to do with science so I will gladly let science work its self out with the help of the observations of scientists and I will stick to analyzing criminals.
ReplyDeleteSo, you believe that scientists will correct themselves if they are incorrect? You are putting your trust in someone that you don't even know. They do have more expertise, but should you really trust what they say over someone else? Those scientists were taught specific theories and laws and may never believe another theory. Let's look at culture. People that grow up believing something are more likely to believe it when they are older than someone who was not raised this way. I believe that science is easily corrected, but do we even have enough data to correct ourselves sometimes? If there are 2 theories that are accepted, which one would you believe? And also, analyzing criminals sounds like psychology. PSYCHOLOGY IS A SCIENCE SAMANTHA!!!! You are a young scientist.
DeleteI believe that scientists have the potential to correct themselves. And as for psychology being a science, yes I agree but then again it is not the same aspects of science. As a criminal justice major I will not be looking at how the body works per say like a nurse would, I could be looking at the body after death. I would be focusing on rigor, livor, and algor mortis instead of how the body is working while it is alive. I would look at blood collecting in the most dependent parts of the body (livor mortis), the stiffening of the body (rigor mortis), and the cooling of the blood in the body (algor mortis). So maybe I could be considered a scientist but not to the effect of going to school to get a nursing degree or a chemistry degree. To me this is part of the criminal justice field more than the scientific field because nurses would not necessarily take the time to study the mortis’ like a criminal investigator. So yes Jillian I agree I could be a young scientist but I do not intend on pursuing a career in strictly science I will leave that to you and your biology major, you smarticle particle.
DeleteEven though science is fallible, theories and such are the best thing that we will ever have. Nothing is ever 100%. Saying this, science is ever changing so we must change our views periodically if we trust in science. I personally trust scientific theory because it is the only thing that we can work with as scientists. Do I trust them whole-heartedly, no. I know that science is never 100% so I trust theories but I always make room for them to be falsified or changed. I would never bet my life on a scientific theory because even though that theory may be correct at the time, the world is changing as well and therefore theory may be changed with it. Having a career in science in the future, I must be ready for an ever-changing science.
ReplyDeleteI think scientists are trustworthy because the findings of an experiment must be able to be repeated and re-created with identical results. Scientists gain credibility by making discoveries that other scientists can confirm. If a scientist produces faulty information, other scientists will find it to be false and they will lose their credibility. This kind of scenario can be seen in our everyday lives. For example, when you meet someone new, do you immediately trust them? No! It takes a while for them to gain our trust. If they ever break that trust, then we view them as untrustworthy and it takes a very long time for trust to be regained after it has been broken. Since this can be applied to our everyday lives, then why shouldn't we also trust scientists?
ReplyDeleteWe trust that scientists have done their work well and honestly when we drive a car over a bridge, ride in an elevator, or undergo a surgical procedure. But we need to be realistic in our trust of scientists. Scientists are human just like everybody else. When a scientific “breakthrough” is reported we should either examine the evidence for ourselves, or if we are not qualified to discern the data we should wait until the data are verified and confirmed by other reputable scientists before claiming it as fact. Unfortunately, many people transfer their trust in science to a scientist when he gives an opinion or hypothesis about the origins of the universe, the living world, and humans as well. Many assume that since a scientist said it, “it must be true” even if it apparently contradicts another idea. From the recent events depicting the problems that a few scientists have had with honesty and integrity, we should remember that they are human and just as prone to sin as the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteI think we are able to trust scientist and also science, even though they aren't 100% sure if they are right or not. The only reason we don't accept them to be 100% true is because we have learned from the past that we have to leave room for future discovers, because science is always changing. We have to leave that room just in case we find new discoveries that change how we think and do things
ReplyDeleteThats a great point that uypu bring up. science is always changing and if we refuse to believe that or if we give science a bad name because of outdated reasearch then that isnt fair to science. science is always changing and we are always finding more and more information out to help strethen the things we already know and help to find out thing that we dont know yet.
DeleteI think that we can trust science and scientists. Yeah we know that not everything that they tell us is 100% true or fact but we know that they used scientific means to come to that conclusion and that they tested there idea to make sure there results were correct. and also they area that they work in is most likely there speciality so if we dont trust them we would never trust anything about science ever. we learned that science is not always right but as our technology devolops more and more we understand more and more. We learn from our mistakes and we also learn new things and we have new ideas. Science grows as technology grows and i believe that it becomes more and more acurate because of that.
ReplyDeleteI think we should trust scientist. One of the main reasons is that scientist tend not to trust each other in many ways. They realize that if they were to publish something that what they are testing will be redone by their peers. If they are proven wrong, their credibility will be drastically hurt. So they may not tell us everything, but when they do it must be accurate because it will be challenged at some point.
ReplyDelete