Skeptical is good. Science prefers skepticism, and doesn't demand faith and obedience mindlessly. The few scientists who do have problems.

The health warnings are a joke, IMO. They're used to distract people away from serious issues. It's funny as all get out watching people take these seriously, without looking into the info themselves.

Take eggs for example. On one report, eggs are horrible for you. On another report, they're perfect. We have our own chickens, and eat our own eggs. What doesn't get eaten gets sold. When the "good for you" comes out, our egg sales go up, and when the "bad for you" comes out, egg sales go down. And it's the same people buying or not. It's downright funny, and we just roll our eyes. Our chickens are eating the same as they were from day one.

Often, people don't think, and they don't want to. They follow happily along with what someone else is saying.

No, it's not. That's the point. Reality is not subjective. Science is not an opinion.

Religion is an opinion. This is easy enough to demonstrate, but here's one example: creationists are all Christians. You will never meet a creationist who isn't a Christian. However, people from all different backgrounds and religions accept evolution as the most reasonable explanation for the origin of species.

It's important to make the distinction between things that are opinions and things that are facts. To confuse the two is highly illiterate.

Another example: Every so often, someone will do a year of philosophy in college and do some weed and come out with the most stupid things. For instance, you may hear someone suggest that all reality is subjective. Throw a rock at his head. Tell him to 'subjective' his way out of that. Suddenly, he accepts that gravity, mass, acceleration, etc. all exist outside his perception.

Unfortunately, many facts in science are debatable. Math and physics are more well defined than medicine but medicine is science too. The egg example is excellent. One day they are "proven" to be bad for you and the next day they are "proven" to be good for you.

Our understanding of many areas of science are far less than the general public knows. The internet may be great for finding out how many albums Lady Ga Ga sold this week, but the "opinions" expressed as "science" in the most serious of ways are numerous.

A good example of "false science" is the well coordinated effort of misinformation spread about global warming. Scientists were in agreement that it is real and dangerous until big oil and industry started a "scientific" misinformation campaign to "disprove" it.

The problem with our grade school scientific education has more to do with lawyers, politics, and teaching to the lowest common denominator than intentional ignorance.

Finland does not produce ignorant students.

Whether the question is science or religion, the questions that must be asked are "qui bono?(who benefits)" and "where is the funding coming from?" The answers to these questions will reveal the bias of the science (if any). JMHO.

You are correct to a point. Some of science is opinion. How the universe was created is opinion. They base it on what they know scientifically but it is still a theory.

Pure science for the sake of it is rare. There is always a matter of who funds the research steering the science in one direction. But if the science they are using cannot prove what they want it to, then it can't. I am sure that those against global warming want to prove it isn't happening but they fail. Why because the oceans of this planet are warming. Global warming is speaking of the oceans warming, not the weather. So when you hear someone talk of the weather is not warming proving there is no global warming they don't know what they are talking about.

Now as to whether man is causing the global warming, that is the question.
Is man good for this planet? HELL NO!
Are we poisoning what we need to live? OF COURSE!
So it really comes down to can we accept that we should try to stop from poisoning that which we need to live.
And if the planets natural course of warming is why it is happening then we need to make sure we are prepared for what is going to happen because of it.

That's not "unfortunate", that's amazing! That's exactly the strength of science - that it can build and adapt to new information, the way religion simply can't. No one says that "eggs are proven" to be good or bad for you, but various studies come to various conclusions. Sometimes these conclusions are sensationalised by media outlets, or misunderstood by the public, but you can't blame science for that.

Yes, the source of funding can influence findings, but the great thing about science is that any biased, incorrect findings will eventually be discovered and corrected.

Science is how we find out about reality, and grow as human beings. You are typing on a computer. Right now, you are proving that science works, and is useful to you on a daily basis.

Just imagine if

Please
Excuse
My
Dear
Aunt
Sally

became

My
Dear
Aunt
Sally
Prepared
Escapades

Would that just F up mathematics as we know it and every scientific empircally verified theoretical evidence in history

i think subjective means how you see things... when i see something that is brown, it may not be the same brown that you see... that is one reason why science has so many theories... some things are facts,
like the sun, that is a fact... but how the sun was formed, how it works, where it is going, those are all theories... reality is as you see it...sure, getting hit in the head is a reality, but if you don't know who threw the rock, or why it was thrown, it is a theory.

I forgot to finish my thought here.

Reality for you and me is subjective. Because due to my experiences in life, I will interact and react to the same stimulus as you, differently. Not making either of us wrong, just making us different.

There are those who want the world to be black and white. Reality and falsehood. But because of interpretation and perception and experience there are too few black and whites in our world, it is mostly gray.

Science is quite overrated, especially the government-sponsored variety.

I find myself wondering how religion got into this conversation. Perhaps someone read too much into the original question and mistakenly took it out of context. However, in regards to the OVERALL topic and conversation flow, one can speculate on both religion and science until they're blue in the face and still remain in a stalemate. The reason being is actually quite simple if you think about it. Both science and religion are a product of mans Ingenuity and Genius. Allow me to elaborate a bit. Science is a product of man's want for advancement and understanding of how things work. Religion is a product of man's want for good moral standing and order in a chaotic world. Science helps us create and discover. Religion helps us balance and define ourselves. both created by mankind, which we all know are fallible. it goes back to a couple of sayings. "to error is human" or "Man can justify anything, they need but to convince themselves it is correct"

and as far as this question is concerned

How do you feel about Science today? It's definitely become the "end-all/be-all authority" about everything...Each day new scientifc health warnings come out through the media and they are presented as "infallible" because they are based on someone's research...I tend to view Science as the government sponsored religion. How do you feel about it? Thanks....
---------------------------------------------------------------

I personally feel that the media will report just about anything these days. science itself is fine and dandy, we use it in everyday life, science is what produced 90% of whats in your house. as far as it being a religion, im not ready to go that far, regardless if its government sponsored or not if it helps some one then great!

Again, replacing the word "science" with the word "reality" in the above posts will illustrate the flaws in the arguments.

Our interpretation of reality is of course subjective. The actual reality itself is not. This is why we can say the the universe did not pop into existence 6,000 years ago. It's ridiculous even as an opinion, which is fine. The problem arises when beliefs like that are allowed to drive public policy that affect the rest of us (who live in reality).

Science is the process of discovering how reality works. Religion is a a series of dogmatic myths designed to answer unanswerable questions, like "Why do bad things happen to good people?" and "What happens after I die?"

Religion is oil and science is water. You can drink all the oil you want but I'll stick to water...and stay regular.

^^^^^^^
Yet a perfect example of someone taking a simple question too far into their own direction. Lets try to stay on topic here shall we? i would try to offer my opinion to him that reality is subjective because it is ever changing, ever evolving due to the actions and choices of man. reality is what you make it. But this is someone who is so deeply convinced of his own words, that to correct him or argue with him just seems a moot point to me. And on that note i think i'll find another topic. have fun everyone!

You're not convinced of your own words? Well, then I guess we can ignore everything you post! The preceding sentence was a facetious comment designed to make you think about the logical flaw in your reasoning, not to smack you down for being stupid. I'd prefer not to have to type a disclaimer after everything I type. It makes for really boring posts.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, DON_CORDOVA, I'm just sharing my opinions. Try not to be too sensitive about that. If you have something to say, just say it directly. I never know how to respond to the sort of passive-aggressive thing you just posted. I could be passive-aggressive in return, but that might lead to in infinite loop of increasingly petty and decreasingly intellectually valid comments. Or I could make a joke (done), or I could point out some obvious flaws in a direct way (also done).

Let's see what happens next.

There is another thread about Genetically Modified food, or GM crops.

If there was ever an example of science gone wrong, GM crops is it. The world could reap huge benefits from the techniques being used to move and replace genes but the indiscriminate spread of spores from corn, grapeseed, soy, etc. as crops, is a disaster in the making.

I don't want to eat a corndog that makes it's own pesticides.

AH! this guy is really something special. Alright. I'll bite, lets play your game until we're both comatose shall we? We'll have fun going in circles and get nowhere. I'm quite surprised after reading a few of your posts which seemed to have a high level of intellectual prowess, that you would resort to a petty verbal fight. I may have thrown the first punch granted, but it was not intentional, well maybe it was. But since we're already at it, what the hell, why not go ahead and see it through to the end, huh.

Let's talk about your post that Quotes me. Convenient to post only a partial quote that you can twist to support your pretentious attitude towards anyone who would DARE question you intellectual aptitude.

And since we've taken it that far, ill go ahead and sink to your level. And possibly take it further.

"You're not convinced of your own words? Well, then I guess we can ignore everything you post!"

Not convinced of my own words..(snicker)nice play on words, didn't work but hey they all cant be winners. But nice try.
What is this, are trying to play to the crowds? I wasn't aware that you were given the moral hierarchy to answer for everyone else. There's no "WE" in this, just you and me. I'm sure no one else want's to drag themselves into this.

"The preceding sentence was a facetious comment designed to make you think about the logical flaw in your reasoning, not to smack you down for being stupid."

AH! The egotistical Bravado rears it's ugly head again. I'm sorry i cant help but laugh at this. Oh! It's a disclaimer too! how studious of you! It's seems that (and I'm just going out on a limb here) by your reasoning, everyone's logic is flawed...but yours. How about you step back into that never changing reality of yours that you hope everyone will conform to. Yeah, the one you continuously post about in this topic board. Which coincidently, had nothing to do with the original topic. But hey, far be it from me if you feel like going off on a tangent. It probably would have been better to start another topic board with that in mind...just a suggestion.

As for the second half of your post, yes that monstrosity of self-importance and self-assurance you call a post.

Oh where do the contradictions begin?...Somewhere between "I could be passive-aggressive in return, but that might lead to in infinite loop of increasingly petty and decreasingly intellectually valid comments." and "Or I could make a joke (done), or I could point out some obvious flaws in a direct way (also done)" What are you kidding me?! I love this part! What a way to try and save face. Waiter? Yes, i would like a plate of arrogance with a side of hypocrisy. Easy on the "decreasingly intellectually valid comments" if you please.

So Mr. passive-aggressive after you remove your foot from your mouth, be so kind as to try and explain what you had HOPED to accomplish with that disaster of a post you put up. Inquiring minds wish to know.
Was it an inside joke that only you would laugh at? Honestly to me it sounds like your screaming "look at me! i'm so smart that i make other smart people feel that they are retarded!"

Never thought i would get into a pissing contest with someone on a dating site. There's a first for everything... so much fun.
The way i see it, we can continue this debacle (you know, i play the brigand, you play the part of the good samaritan who takes umbrage or visa versa)or we can choose to end it. now to Quote you..


"Let's see what happens next." Yes...Let's.

actually that sounds interesting. i think i'll peruse that thread

DAN_CORDOVA, I have to be honest and say I didn't read all of that, as much for your sake as my own. I have no idea what you're talking about. You don't seem to have addressed anything I've said in your post, preferring to insult me personally. There's not really a lot I can do with that, is there?

The original topic was about "science today", and that science is "the government-sponsored religion". The post I made was directly relevant to the topic. If you don't like my posts, well, fair enough, but there's not a lot I can do about that, either, is there?

In other news, GM crops certainly do pose certain challenges, but they may also represent the survival of our race. It depends on how the cost/benefit analysis ends up.

"Survival of our race"? Unlikely. The damage has already been huge and the "benefits" seem to focus completely on Monsanto's and a few others' profit margins. Spores have contaminated large areas of cropland from Canada to Mexico and Africa to India.

Scientifically, monoculture is a really bad idea. The introduction of unknown proteins can produce allergic responses which may benefit mankind by greatly reducing it's numbers.