Quote:
Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Perhaps you can describe what you mean by Scientific Method that is at odds with the folks you take issue with.
|
For one, there's the "Nuh-uh, I don't have to prove it doesn't happen, you have to prove it does..." BS that floats around here, as if science inherently sides with skeptics. Anyone who has ever been involved in an actual scientific experiment (which I have) knows that you do everything possible to prove your point, you don't pass the buck to the people who think you're wrong. It's a cop-out, pure and simple. Say, for example, it's the mid 80s, and a scientist dealing with AIDS panic says, "Kissing somone will not spread AIDS... but I don't have to prove that, you have to prove that it does!" They would be laughed out of their profession.
Also, the phrase "This stuff has been established for 50 years, it's not going to change." Science is constantly morphing, it is not (as the wikiscientists claim) something forever set in stone. The last generation's science is less advanced than this generation's science, and only a temperocentrist would believe that the same pattern won't hold to the next generation.
Then there is the most flagrant part, the rampant idea that observation is a completely optional part of the scientific process ("I don't need to hear it to know...").
My problem is people using the word "science" when they have no idea of the extremely rigorous standards that it entails. It might pass on Oprah, but it doesn't pass with me.