Science is the Only Objective Truth

[Avalux]

All other 'truths' are Subjective, based upon the perception (belief) of the individual.

Science does not lie; there are rules to be followed and if the outcomes of those rules can be repeated over and over again, we find the truth. It is the best explanation of phenomena in the absence of a counter-explanation.

It was 100 degrees today in central PA where I grew up, and a storm just tore through there with hurricane force winds, ripping apart my uncle's neighborhood. Based upon my perception, I may believe god was angry and caused the storm. To me, that would be the truth. But, there is no supporting evidence to prove that god caused the storm.

The evidence that we do have for these extreme weather events proves climate change. The trajectory we are traveling was predicted (based on evidence) and is beginning to happening. Yet, there are millions of people walking around in this country who don't believe climate change is the truth. They choose a different truth, that climate change is nonsense, based upon their beliefs.

Unfortunately, denying climate change is the truth does not stop the trajectory. Things are going to have to get really horrible weather-wise to possibly change people's beliefs and by then it will be too late.

As the only species smart enough to be caretakers of this planet, we have failed to respect and honor this planet as our home and for everything it does for us. We can't survive without it.

[Odin2005]

1. K&R for telling of the Denialists AND the Woo-Woos!

[Avalux]

2. You know it! Tired of science getting trashed and the denialists. n/t

[spin]

3. Science doesn't yet provide all the answers to many deep questions ...

nor does religion. Perhaps in several hundred or several thousand years our scientific knowledge will increase dramatically.

Most of our religions are based on supposed events that happened thousands of years ago and while they have evolved to an extent, they are largely mired in the past. The basic message of most religions is various versions of the Golden Rule. If you're curious about this comment I suggest reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Science doesn't deal with morality well and religion has a hard time dealing with factual evidence.

Both can serve a purpose. Both can be exploited and misused.

[RagAss]

4. Wrong !

The basic message of most religions is "give me your fucking money and you can see God, asshole !"

[spin]

8. That is basically true today ...

which is one of the reasons why I don't attend church.

[vanlassie]

5. Why should science have to deal with morality?

That's the responsibility of humans.

[spin]

9. I totally agee. (n/t)

[MattBaggins]

60. Morality falls under the umbrella of psychology and sociology

both which are sciences.

[DirkGently]

89. Philosophy has more to do with ethics & morality.

And that's already been dismissed in this thread as "woo-woo" "bullshit."

[vanlassie]

14. Well I don't agree that I've tried to do anything except respond to the statement

that science doesn't deal with morality "well." Science doesn't deal with morality, period.

I understand the difference, believe me!

"There is no God but Reality. To seek Him elsewhere is a function of the Fall."

[Avalux]

15. I'm so sorry!!

I just realized I didn't mean to reply to you, but the morality "well" post. My apologies!

[vanlassie]

16. No problem-o!

[MattBaggins]

61. Science doesn't deal with morality, period.

Despite the fact that you added an emphatic "period" at the end of your statement; it is incorrect to say that science does not deal with morality.

[Scootaloo]

26. What i've found...

Is that most "deep questions" aren't really deep at all. They're just easily-answered, but pretentiously-phrased questions by people who want to appear "deep" or "spiritual." oftentimes two or three people will meet up to discuss these "deep questions" in a matter that is nothing more than a philosophical circle-jerk, where nobody says anything worth a shit but they all still go home happy for having done it.

Most of our questions have been - or can be - answered with science. It's just that the answers aren't sufficiently back-lit with golden halos and angelic choirs for the tastes of people who believe themselves to be deep and spiritual.

For instance, the meaning of life? Propagation of genes. That's the 'meaning of life' for every organism on the face of the planet, and presumably potential life on other planets as well. Replication. We're basically an autocatalyzing chemical reaction. It's not fancy, and Morgan Freeman will never be hired to speak it, but it's true.

As for religion, most of them profess to lay claim to the "golden rule" but that's actually got nothing to do with religion; it's an inborn, instinctual human trait, which is why it pops up EVERYWHERE. The Tasmanian aborigines, who had been cut off from every other human being on earth since the fucking Ice Age, had the "golden rule." Why? because we're a social species, and society does not exist without considering others. By the mere fact that we DO exist we must assume that this notion is hardcoded into us as the result of natural selection; we're all the descendants of humans who DIDN'T act like lone wolf assholes everywhere they went.

Religion's main job is keeping you away from rival religions. At the most basic it's a clan thing, rather than any inherent truths or special things about this religion or the other. The basic message of all of them is "this is the true religion, those other religions are all stupid, follow me!"

However, I will grant that religion is heavy on morality. But then, I believe that morality is a society's main method of escaping the weight of ethical behavior. Surely you've noticed how most mores restrict or harm other people? According to the Old Testament, it's absolutely moral to beat a man to death if he gathers firewood on the sabbath. Taoism and many strains of Buddhism don't regard women as human; they can be used as a man wishes. In America, saying the word "fuck" is regarded as immoral. In Iran, drawing a picture of someone is immoral.

[mmonk]

33. "many strains of Buddhism don't regard women as human" ?

Where did you get that from?

[white_wolf]

83. I was wondering that as well.

Considering Buddha himself ordained nuns, I find his statement odd.

[DirkGently]

56. There are deep questions. Science doesn't know "the meaning of life."

You could say science embodies everything we know, but you can't really say what we know through science is everything there is to know. There ARE "deep" questions to be asked, given that we know almost nothing about the universe. We're learning to *describe* it, but unless you're positing that all existence is a series of random physical events -- which in itself is a piece of intuition or faith -- you can't really posit that our tiny understanding of things is all there is to it.

The whole truth, if we could see it, would likely be as strange to modern science as any intuitive or mythological ideas. If, for example, science is right about multiple dimensions and multiple universes, it just means our reality, its origins, structure, full nature, and rules are more beyond our imagination that we thought before.

[MattBaggins]

63. Science doesn't know why kids love the taste of cinnamon toast crunch either

What meaning of life?

[DirkGently]

67. Although I think there was a test regarding going Cuckoo for Coco-Puffs.

Results were ... inconclusive.

[FrodosPet]

80. Life doesn't NEED a meaning.

It is much better off without one.

[DirkGently]

93. That's a philosophy. One of many possible.

Whether or not the unexamined life is not worth living, human intellect demands a "take" on our place in the universe. We can decide not to have one, but as someone once said, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

[Scootaloo]

73. No, we don't know everything. But we CAN.

Science allows that. No religion, no philosophy, will ever be able to give that guarantee.

Religion encourages inertia; "this is what is, go no further."
Philosophy encourages indolence; "This is what is, but maybe not; discuss!"
Science encourages discovery; "This is what what we think it is, now go find evidence otherwise."

[DirkGently]

74. Uh, no. Philosophy is simply a different discipline.

This is what's wrong with your "the meaning of life is gene propagation" statement.

Just because you don't see any merit in exploring anything besides pedestrian observation of the physical world doesn't mean there isn't any, for Pete's sake.

Science works, but it' hardly encompasses all human endeavor.

If you're talking about some idealized "science" that has figured out everything, fine, but that's never going to happen.

Bit limiting to suggest scientific method is the only way to learn anything.

[Scootaloo]

82. Limiting if you think bullshit deserves a place next to fact, yes.

You can take Deepak Chopra's medical advice if you like; it'll lessen your odds of passing your genes along, and eventually, maybe within a few thousand years, your decision will have contributed to the demise of Woo-wooism.

[DirkGently]

87. That is a stunningly ludicrous definition of philosophy.

I'm surprised someone who writes as well as you do would attempt to dismiss several thousand years of human thought as "woo-wooism."

Is democracy bullshit? Because "science" didn't come up with that. Is ethics bullshit? No test tubes there.

Where do you think ideas like equal rights and justice come from? Lab techs?

This is the most profoundly ignorant thing I have seen posted on DU in a long while.

[Scootaloo]

90. Ethics are actually instinctual

Philosophy, in the case of ethics, serves to explore what's already there.

Philosophy has uses, as a tool. As an end however, it's pretty much worthless. You point to Democracy? I pont towards alchemy. Seriously, study alchemy, the philosophical underpinnings of it are all pretty much spot-on, the logic is impeccable, and the alchemy itself doesn't fucking work because philosophy is no replacement for science.

Incidentally, democracy IS scientific. It's the product of examining evidence at hand and deciding to test new ways of doing things. we're still in hte hypothetical stage, and the control experiments are a little sloppy, but what can you do?

[DirkGently]

92. Science doesn't observe "what's already there?"

You're talking in circles. Alchemy? That was considered science by many.

"Science" is just a method of trying to verify observations of the physical world. That's great -- we need that. But its main strength is simply that it ideally recognizes when it's wrong by rigorous application of whatever our best techniques of observation happen to be at the time.

That's no guarantee of objective truth of any kind. It's always a best guess.

And yes, democracy comes from philosophy. So does the law. So do the ideas of equality and fair play. Everything this board stands for comes from intellectual pursuits that do no occur in a lab or follow scientific methodology.

Even the principle that scientific methodology is a good approach to observing the world is a philosophy.

Science itself has made a lot of its major advances through imagination. Speculation. Even dreams.

And at the end of the day, science can't even claim to know anything. Science observes. Sciences tests. Science, at its very best, helps us manipulate our physical environment by showing how things work. But it's always a guess. It's very strength is in the fact that it will theoretically change completely when it's shown to be wrong.

But science does not prove that every other kind of thought is "woo-woo bullshit." Science didn't write the Constitution. Science didn't create the right to free speech. Science can't explain why slavery is a bad idea.

One thing science is supposed to understand is that it doesn't know much, least of all the nature of "objective truth."

[Odin2005]

58. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x Infinity!

[mr blur]

68. ^^This^^ nt

[Major Nikon]

28. Science does a great job dealing with morality. Religion sucks at it

In the purest sense, science is the collection of knowledge. Up until a few hundred years ago, the study of the physical world was simply a branch of philosophy and the two terms were interchangeable. Within philosophy, you'll find the study of ethics which deals with the subject of morality quite well.

Religion sucks at morality. That's because pretty much all knowledge in religion comes from revelation that is supposedly divine inspired, not reason. There is no arguing with such "morality" outside the confines of religion and revelation always trumps reason. Therefore if a religious tome says it, or someone who pretends to be inspired by god says it, there is no higher authority one can appeal. That's why you get dipshit 'morality' like birth control is bad, sex outside of marriage is bad, jerking off is bad, abortions are bad, homosexuality is bad, and blasphemy is bad. Furthermore there is no way to challege such dispshit notions. God wants it that way, so therefore that's the way it is.

[Scootaloo]

29. Philosophy discusses ethics, and science explains ethics

It nestles together rather nicely.

[Quantess]

31. No, science explains (or is in the process of explaining)

all kinds of mysteries. Have you ever looked into quantum physics?

[spin]

65. Yes quantum physics is a fascinating subject ...

I can't say that I grasp quantum mechanics or physics all that well and I don't believe many physicists do either.

If will be a big step forward when we finally develop a unified field theory or theory of everything.

[Quantess]

71. No, I cannot wrap my mind around some of it! But it is fun trying!

However, it shows that phenomenon that are conventionally viewed as impossible, are actually possible. So, I do not buy the idea that anything cannot be proven is automatically "woo". I keep a firmly open mind. That was my point.

[spin]

72. It seems to show that once what was considered impossible is actually possible ...

and leads to the possibly of multiple universes.

If an unbiased observer without any knowledge of science or theology might well decide after study that both religion and quantum mechanics and religion are both questionable while another similar individual might actually find some compatibility between both.

[4th law of robotics]

43. Well it does provide answers for a lot of those things

the answers just aren't that comforting.

"Why are we here?"

Random chance led to molecules forming self replicating structures, add a billion years and here we are: the totally random product of a pointless series of chemical reactions.

"What happens when we die?"

Your consciousness ceases as far as we know and you are eaten by various organisms.

"What's the point of life?"

There really isn't one, unless you want to go with passing on your genes. Again, we're here by chance and likely our entire species will be extinct in not too long.

[MattBaggins]

59. Science in fact can deal with questions of morality

much better than religion ever has.

[spin]

66. History shows that both science and religion have sometimes been misused ...

and the result has been the death of millions of people.

[LeftyMom]

84. Science has actually contributed a great deal to our understanding of morality.

Science provides us with the information we need to make moral decisions. Science also allows us to study the origins of our morality, for example by studying the effects of altruistic behavior on other species' reproductive success.

Religion, on the other hand, is worse than useless.

[spin]

86. The misuse of both science and religion have led to unnecessary war ...

and the development of weapons of mass destruction.

[RedCappedBandit]

97. Yes, it does. We're just not there yet. nt

[MadHound]

6. While I agree with you concerning global climate change and its cause,

To say that science is the be all and end all of truth is ludicrous on the face of it. To say that it is objective is to A: Ignore the fact that our perception of scientific truth is constantly changing, and B: To disregard the singular fact that science, being a human endeavor, is ultimately subjective despite our best efforts otherwise.

[pwhtckll]

17. Science is about a different kind of truth

Science is about the process, not the product. The scientific processes, to include peer review and replication by other scientists, is an objective, unbiased, and self-correcting process of acquiring knowledge. Our body of scientific knowledge changes and grows not because our previous understandings were wrong or biased--and certainly not because of a subjective perception of reality--but because of the consistent application of the scientific method leading to a more precise understanding. The "truth" that science is concerned with is the "truth" that there is an objective reality that can be observed and measured. Science is merely the process of making each observation and measurement more accurate than the last.

[DirkGently]

91. Excellent. It's a process. NOT "objective truth."

The best you can say is that science attempts to make reliable, repeatable observations through a rigorous process.

Science doesn't "know" anything at all, much less is it the epitome of "objective truth."

Science is a mall cop. It observes and reports. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not the limit of our ability to understand.

[Festivito]

21. I agree. Well said. Your post should not have been bypassed.

However, bypassing may be a blessing seeing that other response posts on this topic continue in the vane of being weirdly worded and badly written.

[DirkGently]

88. Yes. It's incredibly arrogant to pretend science is even objective.

What science has going for it is that it ATTEMPTS a rational approach and accepts changes to its precepts, eventually, in theory.

That attempt is laudable. Rationality and objectivity should be attempted.

But claiming that science has the lock on "objective truth" is simply laughable.

There's no magic to a scientific approach, and it's inherently limited. The best it can do is attempt to observe facts and predict results. It's a tool. Science is by definition wrong about most things, because we don't know most things. It's a tiny pinhole of understanding in a vast universe of ignorance. Science has no way to even approach larger truths.

Moreover, when science has made great leaps, it often got there with imagination and intuition leading the way. The painstaking process of trying to verify and replicate is just that -- a process. The result is just that -- a specific result about a specific fact.

You can't double-blind an idea like democracy or ethics or fairness, yet these are some of the most important ideas humanity has ever developed.

Where would we be if all of our thinkers had been hogtied by the silly notion that there is only one approach to understanding?

[derby378]

7. I think Indiana Jones would agree with me on this one

Science is the search for fact instead of truth. If it's truth you're looking for, the philosophy class is right down the hall.

Not that I don't see value in truth, mind you. But science doesn't make any value judgements on photosynthesis, plate tectonics, or the Higgs boson (if it actually exists). Either they are, or are not. Either they happen, or they do not. The rest is observer bias and the ever-present need to make sense of it all.

[immoderate]

11. Not exactly.

It's hot out. That's a fact. That we are experiencing a climate change, is a scientific theory, that is supported by the facts. Scientists don't use the words proof or truth.

--imm

[Avalux]

12. Semantics; you and I obviously have differing perceptions about the meaning of the word.

Doesn't make either one of us wrong. Where science is concerned, there is no wiggle room.

[spin]

18. However as we learn more, scientific theories often change. ...

For example we don't yet understand dark matter or dark energy. We are just beginning to understand quantum mechanics. We don't know for sure if there is only one universe or multiple universes.

Two hundred years from now it is quite possible that our current scientific theories will be laughed at and ridiculed.

For example Albert Einstein published his theory of relativity in 1905. Prior to Edwin Hubble the prevailing theory was the the entire universe consisted of the Milky Way and his observations changed that view in in 1924.

[Avalux]

19. I know what you're saying....

It is true that if more evidence is attained, it can change the theory, or render it invalid. But it's always replaced with a better explanation based on facts.

We know dark matter exists based on the available evidence; we don't have enough evidence yet to tell us exactly what it is.

[spin]

25. I believe we will understand far more about dark matter in 20 to 50 years ...

and it will revolutionize our understanding of the universe.

[Avalux]

38. I think so too.

And people don't realize (or don't care) how truly brilliant our brains are, that if we keep working at a problem we can eventually figure it out and reach underdstanding.

There is a very real movement to marginalize science, and outlaw critical thinking skills (check out the Texas GOP's new platform) that scares me to death. It's mind boggling.

[spin]

46. I'm extremely concerned about our educational system ...

as there does appear to be evidence that our high school level students are rapidly falling behind most other developed nations in mathematics, science and readings. Also according to CNN, 25% of students do not graduate from high school. Ref: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/03/how-u-s-graduation-rates-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

In the last worldwide evaluation of students’ performance, administered by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Shanghai pupils’ scores topped the charts across the board in math, science and reading. Shanghai was the only site in China where the tests were administered.

In the same test, American students ranked 25th in math, 17th in science and 14th in reading.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44642475/ns/nbcnightlynews/t/how-shanghais-students-stunned-world/

And I definitely agree that the Texas GOP position on teaching critical thinking in high school is "mind boggling."

Texas GOP Declares: "No More Teaching of 'Critical Thinking Skills' in Texas Public Schools"
Saturday, 07 July 2012 08:03 By Danny Weil, Truthout | News Analysis

The Republican Party of Texas has issued their 2012 political platform and has come out and blatantly opposed critical thinking in public schools throughout the state. If you wonder what took them so long to actually state that publicly, it is really a matter of timing. With irrationality now the norm and an election hovering over the 2012 horizon, the timing of the Republican GOP announcement against "critical thinking" instruction couldn't be better. It helps gin up their anti-intellectual base.

The Texas GOP's declarative position against critical thinking in public schools, or any schools, for that matter, is now an official part of their political platform. It is public record in the Republican Party of Texas 2012 platform. With regard to critical thinking, the Republican Party of Texas document states: "Knowledge-Based Education - We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." (page 20, Republican Party of Texas, 2012).

Yes, challenging beliefs or claims is considered insubordinate, immoral and could lead to rebellion, disobedience or perhaps worse: revolution. For the Republican Party and their followers, thinking is subversive, imagination is a sin and the Republican Party in Texas and elsewhere is working to codify this into public policy. The plutocrats can't have a working-class citizenry that is asking questions of those in power, be they parents or bosses; instead, the people must be taught the ideology of what is morally acceptable, what rules and regulations to follow. and even more importantly, how to accept and internalize hierarchical authoritarianism. Critical thinking is a direct challenge to the "leaders" and their claims on authority, and any opposition to vertical arrangements is ethically unacceptable to those in power.

Reactionaries have long known that enshrining ignorance and hierarchy in both thought and practice within the school curriculum is essential if the control of young minds is to be accomplished softly and quietly yet profoundly through propaganda and perception management. In the quarters of obedience training, "education" has nothing to do with "schooling" under capitalism.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/10144-texas-gop-declares-no-more-teaching-of-critical-thinking-skills-in-texas-public-schools

[libinnyandia]

76. Science is open to change when new information becomes available. The people who don't believe

in science don't want to change.

[MattBaggins]

64. That "truth" that may not exist?

If you're looking for that blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that does not exist, then the philosophy class is right down the hall.

[derby378]

75. Therein lies the problem

If you state that truth does not exist, you've asserted a truth. But if you put forth the idea that truth might not exist, things get a little more interesting.

[bananas]

13. DU needs an Objectivism forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=1701

[tinrobot]

20. Science doesn't teach us to do something about it.

If I accept the science completely, but also calculate that I'll be dead before the planet completely fries, what's the scientific reason for me to do something about it?

The reason you act on this evidence is because it is a moral choice. It is because you care for others, you think outside of yourself and see the bigger picture. It's because you care about the planet and it's inhabitants. Science can inform us about what to do, but it is a moral choice whether or not to do it.

[Avalux]

23. That is true. I agree with you completely.

What people DO with what they know is the reason we're in the mess we're in. I'd say those who deny climate change and the resulting consequences are of weak moral character.

[Nye Bevan]

22. Can you say objectively why the Big Bang happened? (nt)

[Avalux]

24. Nope, not why.

We know that it did based on evidence but the "why" part may be unknowable.

[Kablooie]

27. You only BELIEVE that science explains true rules.

When in actuality there has only been an incredible stream of coincidences that created the impression of rules.

At any moment now everything will disintegrate into chaotic particles.

[Avalux]

37. Sorry I don't agree. Belief has nothing to do with it. n/t

[HiPointDem]

30. Insider Report on Big Pharma’s Corrupt Marketing and Phony Science

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002912099


Maybe you're right -- but this objective, disinterested science is hard to find in a for-profit economy.

[Avalux]

36. I somewhat agree with this insider report....

and it is true that new drug development is most often motivated by profit potential and not humanitarian reasons. That's my biggest issue with new antibiotic development. Big Pharma won't spend money on developing novel antibiotic compounds because the profit margin will be low. Antibiotics are used for short periods of time and not in mass quantities. The problem with this....our current arsenal of antibiotics is old and eventually bacteria will evolve to render them ineffective; infectious diseases docs will tell you it's only a matter of time unless an effort is made for true discovery.

[GeorgeGist]

32. Is it an objective truth that this planet needs a caretaker?

If so, what is the evidence.

[Avalux]

34. No it isn't. However....human beings have the ability to think and reason.

Would you argue that knowing what science tells us, that we should not take care of the planet to ensure surivival of the human race?

[aikoaiko]

35. I would reframe this as "Science is the Only Pramatic Truth"

But otherwise I agree completely.

[Avalux]

39. Pragmatic works too.

Without pragmatism we are doomed to an existence where monsters and fairy tales are truth. Ugh.

[DirkGently]

94. Is the concept of human equality pragmatic?

Science didn't come up with that one. Law does not use the scientific method -- does it serve a practical purpose?

This OP and its supporters are being ridiculously reductionist. All of our possible understanding of things does not come from breaking down the observable world into labeled bits and pieces.

All knowledge and truth does not derive from one particular discipline of human endeavor.

[aikoaiko]

98. Yes, I would say the concept of human equality is pragmatic.

[hfojvt]

40. so according to you 100 degree weather and tornadoes

are proof of global warming

which you are now calling climate change.

That's very thin proof you know.

Here are the record temperatures set yesterday

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/daily/maxt/2012/07/07?sts[]=US#records_look_up

I would note just a couple of examples.

First, Cresco, Nebraska was 100 degrees yesterday. Broke a record set in 1948 when it was 98. Forest City, Iowa was 100 degrees, tied a record set in 1936.

Question, it 100 degrees today proves global warming, then doesn't 100 degrees in 1936 also prove global warming? What about Livingston, Michigan where it was 98 degrees in 1895 (a record that was broken yesterday by a whole two degrees).

Something that I posted just last Sunday, brought me this piece of weather history. http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=3567

"On Palm Sunday, 1965, a line of tornadoes took about 250 lives in the Midwest. One of them flattened every building in the farming hamlet of Pittsfield Center, Ohio and killed nine of the 50 inhabitants. Among the dead were Dr. Addison Ward, a 35 year-old assistant professor of English at Oberlin College, and his son Peter, aged seven. Mary Helen was buried up to her shoulders in the pile of bricks that had crushed her husband and child, but she survived, as did another son, Andrew, and the five-year-old Edith, who was blown out of the house and later found in the road."

Extreme weather, way back in 1965.

Please note that I am not denying global warming, something I have been talking about since at least 1990. Because I can remember coming to class one day when it was ten below zero and joking with my students. "You know, on some days, global warming seems like a good idea."

Point is that a few hot days and some storms do not prove global warming any more than a few cold days and some blizzards disprove global warming.

But thanks for proselytizing for your religion on this fine Sunday.

[Avalux]

42. You've taken the liberty of making assumptions about me in your post.

If you know anything about climate change, then you know that it's the trend and the frequency of these weather events that support it. Nowhere did I say that an isolated incident is proof.

And your last statement is just downright puzzling to me....you have no idea what my beliefs are. Science is not a belief or religion.

[man4allcats]

44. + 10 | You beat me to it.

While a few storms or an occasional hot day are not significant, a worldwide trend certainly is. Great comeback!

[Avalux]

49. Yep. If you look at data over the past 30 years, there is definitely a worldwide trend.

And I would ask those who deny climate change: what else is the reason for this trend? There is no other fact-based explanation.

[hfojvt]

45. you didn't mention a worldwide trend

you mention 100 degrees in Penn, and a tornado.

And Science certainly is a religion when it is declared to be the Only Objective Truth.

Tell me then, what is the Scientific answer to the question - "what should we do?"

[Avalux]

47. Sorry, you are dead wrong.

And I'm not going to bother explaining to you (again), why science is not a religion.

"What should we do" is where morality comes into play...looking at the evidence and understanding that our actions based upon the evidence will have consequences. Those consequences can be detrimental or beneficial to the existence of the human race.

I'm tired of the arguments that pit science against beliefs. The two need to work hand in hand to make this world a better place for all of us.

[hfojvt]

55. it is tiring isn't it

when other people stubbornly refuse to bow down and worship your God.

The two could more easily work hand in hand if some people were not always trying to claim that their way is superior, or indeed, the ONLY way, and those who disagree are dead wrong and not worth talking to.

[Avalux]

57. What are you talking about?

Obviously, you don't understand. I won't waste anymore breath.

[Swede]

41. "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

nt

[Avalux]

48. And I will say to that....science is beautiful.

To be able to explain our physical world with facts instead of relying on beliefs (which are often used to manipulate others) is beautiful.

[coalition_unwilling]

50. Given that some 70% of Americans believe that angels

actually exist, methinks you're fighting an uphill battle here.

That same 70% would be hard pressed to define the Scientific Method.

The only caution I would make to your otherwise excellent OP is that there may be times when subjective truths are as valid as objective truths.

For an earlier commentary on this, see Wordsworth's "The Tables Turned":

THE TABLES TURNED

UP! up! my Friend, and quit your books;
Or surely you'll grow double:
Up! up! my Friend, and clear your looks;
Why all this toil and trouble?

The sun, above the mountain's head,
A freshening lustre mellow
Through all the long green fields has spread,
His first sweet evening yellow.

Books! 'tis a dull and endless strife:
Come, hear the woodland linnet,
How sweet his music! on my life,
There's more of wisdom in it.

And hark! how blithe the throstle sings!
He, too, is no mean preacher:
Come forth into the light of things,
Let Nature be your teacher.

She has a world of ready wealth,
Our minds and hearts to bless--
Spontaneous wisdom breathed by health,
Truth breathed by cheerfulness.

One impulse from a vernal wood
May teach you more of man,
Of moral evil and of good,
Than all the sages can.

Sweet is the lore which Nature brings;
Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:--
We murder to dissect.

Enough of Science and of Art;
Close up those barren leaves;
Come forth, and bring with you a heart
That watches and receives.

*********************

One of my all-time Wordsworth favs. We need to take care that we do not 'murder to dissect.'

[Viking12]

51. Um, no.

There is no such thing as "objective truth"

[Avalux]

52. Now now, don't hit and run, If you're going to say that as a counter to my post, explain.

I'm curious how you'll support your argument.

[Viking12]

53. Philosphy 201: Epsitemic Systems

Pretty much the entire history of philosophical thought contradicts you assertion. Read a book.

[Avalux]

54. I am familiar with epsitemic philosophy and you still didn't answer me...

...but you did make an attempt to insult me. Nice.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. There is no such thing as "objective truth"... you know what that statement sounds like?

an objective truth.

[randome]

62. No! Magic underwear is the only TRUTH!

And if you don't believe that, as Mitch Hedberg put it, "Then you're not IN the fucking club!"

[4th law of robotics]

69. What about a mothers intuition?

That's all it takes for the anti-vaccers.

/and a spokeswoman who is 90% silicon.

[hifiguy]

70. The most significant thing about the scientific method is

that it is self-correcting. Always has been, always will be. Truth is contingent and subject to revision in the light of deeper knowledge of the processes of the universe.

Religion, most especially in its Abrahamic varieties, is never self-correcting and that is its ultimately fatal weakness.

[longship]

78. Nature is the only truth.

Science is the best description of that truth. No, it isn't perfect. Yes, there are mistakes. But science soldiers on.

No other discipline has science's record of achievements, no matter what the postmodernists say or think. (I use that last word in this context with some sarcasm.)

When science gets things wrong science is the first to admit it. When there are mistakes, science is what finds them. Science welcomes anybody's input, but it always manages to be other scientists who make the corrections.

An example from history:

Astrology didn't discover Uranus. Nor did it predict the existence and location of the planet we now know as Neptune. Granted, astrology quickly made all sorts of pronouncements about the profound influences these new large bodies have on the world's and humanity's affairs. But prior to when they were discovered, no astrologer made a case for possible outer planets. This was done by astronomers. In other words, scientists.

That's the way things are and that's the way things have been for nearly two centuries or more.

But it's nature who's the final arbiter.

[FrodosPet]

79. What about math? THAT seems like the only real truth to me.

Science may be true, but we can only see that truth with accurate measurements and interpretation.

Alas, mankind has only worked its way to the pre-school stage (at best) of our understanding. There is so much phenomenon we don't yet have the instrumentation to measure, or the background to truly process.

[Speck Tater]

81. MEASUREMENT is objective truth.

Science can be, and often is wrong when it attempts to EXPLAIN a measurement. But regardless of what theories are put forward, and then later discredited, only the measurements remain objectively true.

Science is a PROCESS, and as such, is neither true nor false.

[DirkGently]

96. Doesn't quantum physics say otherwise?

the possible results of a measurement are the eigenvalues of the operator representing the observable — which explains the choice of Hermitian operators, for which all the eigenvalues are real. The probability distribution of an observable in a given state can be found by computing the spectral decomposition of the corresponding operator. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is represented by the statement that the operators corresponding to certain observables do not commute.

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

Even science says science is inherently uncertain.

Agree it's a process. And a good one. Ideally, it represents our most workable approach to observing the physical world. NOT the source of "objective truth," however,

[Speck Tater]

99. Oh, you're right, of course!

I guess the only reliable objective truth is what (insert name of your favorite religious authority) tells us. In which case, we're screwed.

Something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?

[Confusious]

102. Only applies to quantum physics

Not the world above quantum, which we live in.

[ErikJ]

85. GW deniers the same as Tobacco causes cancer deniers 30 years ago.

GOP for sale.

[Romulox]

95. Utter nonsense. All observations are ultimately from our SUBJECTIVE P.O.V. The very subjects we

choose to study are the results of our subjective value systems, and there is no reason to believe that an alien species would even develop the same system of "binary" logic (implicit in the very concept of "Only Objective Truth&quot that we have. No objective reason to believe that at all.

[deutsey]

100. Having worked at NIH for a few years

I can say I saw many brilliant minds there, but also many petty, self-serving minds as well.

Progress and insight alongside backward narcissism and narrow, agenda-driven delusions.

And these traits were often combined together in the very same minds.

[Romulox]

106. These people going on about "ONLY truth!!!!" can't even define the word "truth"!

"I can say I saw many brilliant minds there, but also many petty, self-serving minds as well."

I can't say I've met too many self-identified scientists who I'd call "brilliant". How is it that I'm the first to bring up the issue of P.O.V. on this thread, if we are amongst such "brilliance"?

Here's a fun little treatment of the problem, from wiki:

However, this traditional view about objectivity ignores several things. First, the selection of the specific object to measure is typically a subjective decision and it often involves reductionism. Second, and potentially much more problematic, is the selection of instruments (tools) and measurement methodology. Some features or qualities of the object under study will be ignored in the measurement process, and the limitations of the chosen instruments will cause data to be left out of consideration. In addition to these absolute limits of objectivity surrounding the measurement process, any given community of researchers often shares certain "subjective views", and this subjectivity is therefore built in to the conceptual systems. It can even be built into the design of the tools used for measurement. Total objectivity is arguably not even possible in some—or maybe all—situations. It is, at least, a process replete with uncertainties and challenges (cf. Latour, 1987: 63-79, Polanyi, 1958). One example of an objective idea is in the concept that all perception is relative. In accepting this, one encounters the objective.

Problems arise from not understanding the limits of objectivity in scientific research, especially when results are generalized. Given that the object selection and measurement process are typically subjective, when results of that subjective process are generalized to the larger system from which the object was selected, the stated conclusions are necessarily biased.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

[limpyhobbler]

101. What good is believing in the truth of global warming while supporting more arctic oil drilling,

drilling in national parks, tar sands extraction, and natural gas for America for the next 100 years? All things which add to global warming.

I understand the Republican positions are even worse, because they might also try to kill investments in renewables.

And yet the positions of some Democrat are only slightly less horrible, and they are still letting the oil companies do what they want to make maximum profit. The environmental costs are being pushed off onto the people as usual. We all pay the price for their greed.

Science may be an objective truth. But power often decides which studies are done, and power decides what is accepted as true. The scientific people and studies can be corrupted by pressures just like any other people. If there are a stack of reports that say fracking causes groundwater contamination, and a stack of papers that says the opposite, then political power decides the winner. In our world that usually means the rich and powerful win.

[grantcart]

103. I have a beautiful wife and two beautiful daughters.

Even though they are successful adults in other cities we talk to each other every day and it is the high point of the day.

We also have 10 Geese at the local park that think we are the owners of the park and bring them bread every day.

Non of the above has anything to do with science. I love Thai and Indian food.

None of this has anything to do with science.

If you think that science is the only objective truth then you live in a very one dimensional world.

Last night the moon was strikingly beautiful. For a human being that is as objective a truth as any other 'objective' truth.

[JNelson6563]

107. Are you confusing objective with subjective?

It would seem so.

Julie

[grantcart]

103. I have a beautiful wife and two beautiful daughters.

Even though they are successful adults in other cities we talk to each other every day and it is the high point of the day.

We also have 10 Geese at the local park that think we are the owners of the park and bring them bread every day.

Non of the above has anything to do with science. I love Thai and Indian food.

None of this has anything to do with science.

If you think that science is the only objective truth then you live in a very one dimensional world.

Last night the moon was strikingly beautiful. For a human being that is as objective a truth as any other 'objective' truth.

[grantcart]

105. I have a beautiful wife and two beautiful daughters.

Even though they are successful adults in other cities we talk to each other every day and it is the high point of the day.

We also have 10 Geese at the local park that think we are the owners of the park and bring them bread every day.

Non of the above has anything to do with science.

In human terms it is as objective as a strand of DNA.

If you think that science is the only objective truth then you live in a very one dimensional world.

Last night the moon was strikingly beautiful.

For a human being that is as objective a truth as the distance from the earth.

[Zyzafyx]

108. Amen!

(Irony deliberate. K&R.)