Why Do Some People Reject Empirical Facts?

[m00st]

Why the need for lab results? Why not just figure it out in your head and be sure about it?

That is not science... I do not know how to say this but please educate yourself on science; and on how to do science. Let me just say this; if things you think up in your head do not qualify as science unless you can give testable claims. Lab results are a must (this does not mean literally in a lab; it can be at volcano's, a desert, etc. so long as there is results to test)

I'll give you example of non scientific subjects: Intelligent design (pseudoscience; calls itself science but it's not), astrology, faith healing, creationism, fortune tellers, ghosts... Tons more unfortunately.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why the need for lab results? Why not just figure it out in your head and be sure about it?

Not really sure why you're headed in this direction magpies. I didn't get that m00st was suggesting anything about just deciding that we could invent our own answers.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wrong; the evidence is abundant.

? When did I ay the evidence was not abundant? Of course it's abundant!

Assuming it was faked without any evidence why it was faked especially when the evidence points otherwise only shows ignorance. One example of evidence is universities test on the lunar rocks from the Apollo program, saying it is fake means a world wide conspiracy...

This is all true.

And no you did not get back on topic... We are not discussing accuracy of the moon landing. We are discussing why people deny these facts.

Well, again, first we're getting our terminology straight. Until we do that, we're n ot really discussing anything.


Why people deny these facts is a whole other ballgame. you alluded to this in your OP, but some of the rhetoric thsat went along with it meant we had to straighten that out first.


One thing to realize is that you/me/each of us do not have an objective view of "the way things really are"; it is folly for you to think that you are not ignorant of some facets of the world.

 

[m00st]

Not really sure why you're headed in this direction magpies. I didn't get that m00st was suggesting anything about just deciding that we could invent our own answers.

I'm essentially asking for opinions from people who love science, and have to deal with incompetence from normal non-scientific individuals.

 

[m00st]

? When did I ay the evidence was not abundant? Of course it's abundant!This is all true.Well, again, first we're getting our terminology straight. Until we do that, we're n ot really discussing anything.

That is where you make the mistake... Science doesn't have "terminology" it's universal (unless you are uneducated in how Science works). Chances are that the scientist in India is doing science right if he was educated on how to do science (scientific method). Therefore every scientist you know that has a decent education has the same understanding of science... it has been this way for 2200 years...

Everyone is ignorant to reality; however somethings we are not ignorant to. Science aims to find out those things we don't understand (your statement was a double negative).

 

[DaveC426913]

Science doesn't have "terminology" it's universal

What a strange thing to think...

So, understanding what I mean when I say "volt" or "watt" or "relativistic velocity" or "empirical observation" is not a necessary precursor to effective communication?

You not knowing that empirical observation is premised on input from the senses (as opposed to logical deduction) does not pose a problem?


Now I get what magpies is saying about making stuff up.

Empirical observation is done through the senses. A heliocentric model is done through a host of higher brain functions a few steps removed from the senses. If you don;t feel the senses needd to be involved, then yeah, you could just make up whatever you wanted.

 

[m00st]

What a strange thing to think...

So, understanding what I mean when I say "volt" or "watt" or "relativistic velocity" or "empirical observation" is not necessary for effective communication?

You should've assumed I know that science is universal and that there is only one way to do science. Volt and Watt are not an accurate comparison to "science".

It's actually very far from strange. Science uses the Scientific method, there is only one way to do this method. Therefore terminology is not needed unless one does not understand science or the scientific method.

 

[magpies]

If there is only one way to do the method how do you explain the fact that it has changed many times over the years?

 

[JoeDawg]

We are discussing why people deny these facts.

No, not really, what is happening here is that you are instigating a definition war on what 'empirical fact' means.

And I don't think it means what you think it means.

Empirical philosophy deals with deriving knowledge from observation.

Knowledge about X, and observation of X, are not the same.

I can observe a rock. (empirical fact)
I cannot observe where it used to be.
You claim it is from the moon, because NASA says so. (an argument from authority)
NASA provides evidence to support your claim (Inductive reasoning)

The fact, that it is a moon-rock, is not an empirical fact, and having evidence that it is, does not make it so. We can reason that it is, based on empirical facts, but that doesn't make it an empirical fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Empirical_Verification

 

[DaveC426913]

You should've assumed I know that science is universal and that there is only one way to do science. Volt and Watt are not an accurate comparison to "science".

It's actually very far from strange. Science uses the Scientific method, there is only one way to do this method. Therefore terminology is not needed unless one does not understand science or the scientific method.

OK, the Moon orbits the Earth at blart forbs per qualude. Still sure science can be discussed without some agreement on terminology?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Ugh, I'm having flashbacks to a currently locked thread. It is upsetting that so many people seem lost in the details of the basis of science, empiricism, logical positivism, and so forth.

 

[DaveC426913]

m00st, I think you may want to collect your thoughts to re-craft the question to get the answers you want.

I've recommended that this thread be locked so that it does not go any farther off the rails.

Hopefully this'll get it off on the right foot.

 

[JoeDawg]

Science uses the Scientific method, there is only one way to do this method.

Wrong.

Scientific method actually includes quite a variety of different ways of approaching problems. There is no, one way, of doing science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mills_methods

 

[IcedEcliptic]

m00st, I think you may want to collect your thoughts to re-craft the question to get the answers you want.

I've recommended that this thread be locked so that it does not go any farther off the rails.

Hopefully this'll get it off on the right foot.

Locking this thread would be a great kindness. There shouldn't need to be debate over grade-school concepts in a place like this. Science is plastic, and some are too rigid to accept that; they make the rest of us look bad.

 

[D H]

m00st, these people were trying to help you. You rejected that help. Several of your facts are not facts. Just to pick a few, evolution, the heliocentric model, and the idea that there is one scientific method.

Evolution is a theory. There are of course lots and lots (and lots and lots and lots) of little facts that bolster this theory and make those who disagree with it look foolish at best. Saying evolution is a theory is not degrading. Theory is the pinnacle of science. Facts are small pieces of immutable knowledge. Scientific theories are large bodies of knowledge that connect/explain a myriad of facts. Theories are mutable. They adjust to new facts, new ways of thinking. Darwin for example did not know about genetics or DNA.

A heliocentric model is not used to explain the behavior of a satellite in Earth orbit. Satellites in Earth orbit are modeled from a geocentric rather than heliocentric POV. A vehicle in orbit around Mars is modeled from an areocentric POV. It is not is the case that some choices are wrong and others right. All reference frames are equally valid. The problem is that the math can get really hairy or the results can lose precision with a bad choice. Using a heliocentric model to explain the behavior of a vehicle in orbit around a planet is generally a bad choice; there is too much loss of precision.

There is no one thing that can be called the scientific method. Physicists and chemists poke and prod at things, often rather violently. Medical scientists can't poke and prod in the way that physicists and chemists do; there are these nasty things called ethics that get in the way. Paleobiologists can't poke and prod at all. They would need a time machine to do that. They, along with astronomers, are stuck with passive observations. Yet medical scientists, paleobiologists, and astronomers are scientists.