Why do many people reject science in favor of mysticism, anecdotes and instinct?

Because bullshit you make up yourself is easy to understand.

Holistic remedies do have a certain preventive value, but if you have cancer, a raw food diet will not help you .

Because science is fallible as well.
Because science can’t answer everything.
Because science is subject to cultural bias.

But perhaps the most compelling is:
Because hope and faith can save a life sometimes when science cannot.

To piss off people who don’t believe in that stuff.

@RedPowerLady; Science got you the computer you’re typing on. Culturally bias that.

@shilolo I’m not arguing it, but what would you feel if science proved certain vaccines caused autism? now, this would never happen, as we both know, but play with me! Also, you would know better than I would, but where did the vaccine/autism start? How long has that been going on? I know it can’t just be recent!

To answer your question, I believe in science but I also have instincts and yes, sometimes they override what science tells us…such as the chicken pox vaccine. I think it’s a pointless vaccine, and yes I know it can kill you but it’s not on the top of my list of fears. You may call me an idiot because of this because of your line of work. But for me, outweighing the risks vs benefits, I feel I’m in the right.
I believe a lot of people in the industry are greedy, and it ruins it for the people who just want to get the information out there.

I smell a fight brewing.

I think you nailed it with the word “instinct.” Our brain is hard-wired to believe in stuff that, when we step back, doesn’t make sense. We think we see a pattern, some dopamine squirts out, and suddenly we have a “sense” that X -> Y. It’s hard to turn that switch off.

And I see scientists do this too. We joke about this in the lab a lot—that molecular biology seems like black magic sometimes. “I wore a red shirt the last time I ran this assay and it finally worked! Maybe I should wear red again…” That kinda thing.

When science is mixed with capitalisim it is sometimes hard to trust.
The first example that comes to mind is Premarin vs bio-identical hormones. Bio-identicals are more effective and cheaper since there is no patent but Doctors are trained py the pharmacidical companies and don’t even think of natural remidies that WORK.
We look elsewhere because there is so much money wrapped up in promoting things that we question the motives of the people pushing the stuff. Does my mother in law really need 16 medications to stay alive or does she need some good old fashoned exercise and a healthy diet?

Simple. Humans are emotional beings before rational.

Maybe it’s because, as an open system, science changes. (Think cholesterol: Eggs are bad for you! Oops, we were wrong, further study says eggs are ok for you!) Some people might feel that means it’s not trustworthy.

There are people who prefer that which is exciting, and that which inspires their emotions, and people who prefer that which is boring, but that which is rational.

It’s exciting to think there’s an afterlife, or that there’s a supreme being, or voodoo, faith healing, so on and so forth. And because it’s exciting, they prefer to believe in it without worrying about evidence.

For my Logic class, we’ve got to read a book called “How to think about weird things” which logically assesses a whole bunch of that bullshit, from bigfoot to alien abductions, from astrology to ESP. It’s really amazing to see all of the absurdities people think exist.

The reason I can’t expect most beliefs is that they essentially say “This is truth. I do not need to seek more evidence, I have the evidence I want.” while scientists are out there every single day investigating every aspect of our world and universe (as much as we can) to seek the truth.

Wow some amazing answers on here!!!! I’m really enjoying reading the thread.

@Facade Thanx for that :)
@Jayne I just prefer to ignore people when they are trolling around for a fight.

@RedPowerLady You’re very welcome

Science did give you the clean water you drink, the non-rotten food you eat, the plague-less environment you live in, the improved maternal and fetal survival you depend on, the vaccines that eliminated smallpox and polio (and reduced incidence of many diseases), the antibiotics that save your life, the (safer) cars you drive, the trains you take, the planes you fly, the internet you surf, and the cellphones (iPhones) you use. None of this is visceral, or faith based, or imaginary.

@Judi Doctors are actually trained at med school not pharmaceutical companies.
To suggest that doctors are all in the pockets of big business pharmaceutical corporations is untrue and marginalizes the entire profession.

@Facade; true, but it sure is fun :) And it’s past midnight and I have a prelim tomorrow, so I’m a bit sharpish.

What I’m saying is that in the past few hundred years science has revolutionized human civilization, making technologies mundane and commonplace that would have seemed like dare I say it magic or divine miracle just half a century before. Moreover, our understanding of the universe, while still painfully limited, undeniably outstrips anything people a few generations ago could have imagined. While on the other hand, millennia of mysticism, religion, and instinct have pretty much given us a bunch of guys in funny hats. It certainly has and has had its place, and it can certainly can compliment scientific analysis, but when the two come into conflict, science has most definitely proven itself the more reliable tool by far.

I agree science gave us lots of good “stuff”. Props for that. So has culture, faith, hope, instinct, (and the list goes on). I believe that having balance is really what is key.

Still this isn’t the question, is it?

@Jayne As am I :)

@RedPowerLady I too believe that a balance is best. Thank God for giving people knowledge so they may figure out a bit of what He created :)

@RedPowerLady What does culture or hope have to do with rejecting evolution or sound scientific data? Dare I say, nothing? Faith and instinct are all well and good, but in the modern era, I would favor good old fashioned, hypothesis and data driven science.

“Will hurricane Katrina hit us full on?” Science says yes -> evacuate. Faith says “Darn, I sure hope not….Those meteorologists are all in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry. I’m staying put….”.

@shilolo It doesn’t have to be a choice of one or the other. And we shouldn’t judge others based on the choices they make. People who prefer to work on a notion that science has flaws and thus equally balance faith and instinct in are no less intelligent.

Hope. Many people will choose hope over science. Science will say that the cancer is going to take over. Hope says I’ll live, I can fight it. Sometimes hope wins.

Culture. Many cultural beliefs go against scientific data to date. Although science often ends up “realizing” that many cultural beliefs are based in science themselves. Too often do cultural beliefs get pitted against science and people choose to continue with their cultural beliefs and systems despite this.

“Will hurricane Katrina hit us full on?” Science says yes -> evacuate. Faith says “Darn, I sure hope not….I’m staying put….”. A bit judgmental and stereotyped don’t you think? Do you mean to assume that those who follow faith are just plain idiots?

@RedPowerLady No, the question isn’t whether hope should be lost for Spock-like rationalization. Simply it is my impression (and that of others, including Bill Gates), that science education is failing in the US. I see the fundamental lack of appreciation by the general public of science as a failure to adequately educate and prepare people to interpret complex problems. As a result, people fall on “instinct and faith”, which is no match for math, science, statistics and probability.

@RedPowerLady Science will say that the cancer is going to take over.
Science says “You have cancer. We have Chemotherapy. Interested?”.
There is not a single documented case in which hope, faith and/or prayer got rid of cancer.
If there is, I’d love to see it.

@shilolo As a result, people fall on “instinct”, which is no match for statistics and probability. But as you have seen in these answers many people are well aware that their instincts may not be scientific and choose to follow them (with good results nonetheless). Sometimes it works.

Science education may be failing. But that does not mean that I believe that science is any more important or any more powerful than faith, instinct, hope, or cultural beliefs. I would argue that not only is science education failing but so is education in human compassion and the ability to love yourself, your culture, your life, your inner voice without having to have it “proven”.

@RedPowerLady Many people believed the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It took Copernicus and Galileo (and look what the faith-based Catholic Church did to him) using math and science to dispel that belief. That similar “beliefs” continue today despite hard scientific evidence to the contrary is concerning.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic, But who funds and gives grants and scholarships to the med schools?
Edit: I don’t blame the Doctors at all, I blame the schools. @Shililo, how many nutrition credits were you required to take before you graduated med school?

@Judi Do you have empirical data to suggest that pharmaceutical companies policies are influencing the curriculum of med schools?

Look what they’re doing to congress. It’s common sense. Itswhat I would do if I was marketingtheir product.

@Sarcasm I’m not going to argue that science can say hope, faith, prayer has worked. That would be complying to the idea that science is the end-all answer. And I don’t believe that. Just talk to cancer survivors and you may get the feel of what I am saying.

In reference to the chemotherapy. There have been suggestive studies and individual accounts of people who were just not surviving the cancer. Until they had a sudden change in attitude, more hope or faith. They started fighting. And with the help of science (yes) they overcome the cancer. They had the help of science before their attitude changed and it didn’t work. They had the help of science and then had hope and they overcame cancer.

Of course a better example may be people who overcome severe depression. Either way you understand the point that is being made regardless of the specifics behind it.

@shilolo That is true. There will always be people who don’t follow common sense or science. Some even to what we consider the extremes. That doesn’t mean that the rest of us who live in the in-between or who prefer balance are less intelligent than the science die-hards. People have given many reasons here why one would intelligently distrust science or prefer hope/faith. The extremists are a bit scary and we could question the stability of their thought but that doesn’t quite apply to the rest of us. I suppose I am saying that most of these “beliefs” you speak of aren’t quite that scary. One example, that I know is a pet-peeve of yours, would be the belief in homeopathy. To you it may be idiotic but I’m not sure you could argue it is scary, there is some suggestive data that says it works at the level of the placebo affect (providing an intellegent reason that someone may believe it works “for real”).

@Judi Congress? What are they doing to congress?
Also, congress is not the ruling body over doctors. I’m pretty sure Shilolo isn’t being coerced by congress during his daily activities.

If people don’t trust their doctors, they are free to get second opinions.
The pharmaceutical industry has done some ethically questionable things.
You can’t logically lump all doctors in with the pharmaceutical companies.
At some point, you have to admit that some doctors in the world have some level of professional integrity.

If they are pumping money into lobying congress, why wouldn’t they also “loby” medical schools? It would be bad business not to.

@RedPowerLady How is that not the same as rejecting evolution (as an example)? Evolution is as strongly supported as the heliocentric theory. Likewise, the lack of an association between mercury-thimerosal-vaccines and autism is very robust or the fact that homeopathic dilutions are so minute as to contain no active drug. These are hard to dispute. That is why many people don’t argue those principles using data (since they can’t), but simply say “I don’t believe in evolution, or, homeopathy just works.” Much like (at the time) people said, “It cannot be that the Earth orbits the Sun. I don’t believe it!”

@Judi That is a basic logical fallacy.
You cannot assume all doctors are unethical because some doctors are unethical.

@Judi I’m sorry. I cannot answer that question. My pharmaceutical representative lawyer instructs me not to.

I think the answer is as simple as this (though not so simple that it didn’t take me until last year to figure it out):

If you want something permanent, and immutable, you want to stay away from anything based on fact.

And many people do want, need, crave something constant and dependable. A feeling of having a grasp of capital-T truth is comforting. Having to revise what you Know with the changing times is unsettling, and many people cannot abide uncertainty. The assurance of an abiding Truth matters much more than the niceties of accuracy.

Science and fact-based knowledge are by their very nature subject to change as discoveries are made and old ideas are overthrown. What used to seem safe is no longer safe. Planets come and go. Treatments and processes we trusted in lose their credibility. Natural history itself evolves. What can you rely on? If you need something to place your faith in, something that won’t reverse itself or become outdated or be overturned by research, your only hope is something that isn’t real in the first place; because real things do change with time, and what we know about them changes too.

As for people’s beliefs, even smart people’s beliefs, in things that are patently nonsensical, there’s a very good account of this phenomenon in a book by Miachael Shermer entitled Why People Believe Weird Things. Essentially the author says that the believing part is not the rational part and that people are good at using their rational faculties for defending their irrational beliefs. Smart people are very good at it.

Another illuminating book on this topic is Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

@shilolo I know it is so rude to answer a question with a question but my response would be this: How is rejecting evolution scary? How does it do any damage at all? Why cannot the scientific minded allow the faith based to believe in Creationism without judging them as unintelligent?

As someone who believes strongly in science it is understandable that evolution is clear as day to you. But as others have suggested above many understand science to be fallible and open to change. This may lead them to believe the theory of evolution could change. Others prefer to rely on instinct and faith which have served them well in other areas of life. There are many reasons for someone not to believe in evolution. For you this may make you want to rip out your hair and that is understandable. But it makes the world a richer place and not anything other than that. Furthermore the reason people don’t argue science against evolution is because they aren’t scientists. It follows logic that someone who doesn’t believe in logic wouldn’t become a scientist. So really you are just getting more people into the career who support the beliefs and not many who challenge them. For science to be truly respected it should undergo challenges (imho). Anyhow it would not make sense for the faith-based to argue science against evolution. That too may make you crazy but likewise you don’t argue faith (without the use of science) to prove that evolution does exist. It’s just the way balance in the world works. We may drive each other crazy with our insane beliefs but the balance of it all makes the world so much richer. And it doesn’t become scary until those beliefs are used for oppression. And I would argue that by believing we must force the belief of evolution on everyone with better scientific education may be a form of oppression, just depends on how far one goes with it of course (and of course it could work visa versa).

I have never had a hard time understanding mathematical concepts and I excelled in science, but most of my fellow students didn’t seem to be able to follow the concepts as presented in class. I have since read and heard that it is common for most to not understand them.

It may be similar to my inability to understand clothing fads/fashion, or how sculptors can make hunks of stone look like people. It’s just a talent that some have and others don’t.

@RedPowerLady Societal advances are based significantly on “science” (as my list of examples above illustrated). The less we understand on the whole in science and math, the more we inhibit progress and move towards a “Dark Ages” type of society. Thus, to not understand or appreciate evolution is to disregard the scientific method in general, comparable to not believing in or understanding gravity.

We need a sophisticated society (and workforce), capable of making great innovations in computers, engineering, science and math in order to overcome massive problems like global warming, pandemics, energy and agriculture. If we allow “faith” and mysticism to persist and spread, we will not progress as a society, to the detriment of us all.

Humans have relied on their instinct for much longer than we have had any concept of science. There is a reason people rely on their “gut feelings” – they are often correct and they helped the species survive for a damn long time. Without it, we would never have been around long enough to accomplish the wonders of science.

Now that we have science, which I happen to think is fabulous btw, it doesn’t mean we should discard the our natural instincts. Of course we need to use common sense to know better than to live by “kill or be killed” or other barbaric ways of life – they simply don’t work in society – but we shouldn’t abandon them altogether.

I guess I think about it like this. People used to communicate through grunts and snorts and screams. Now there are several complete languages that have been in wide use for thousands of years. Yet, what do we automatically do when something takes all of our strength? We grunt. We could say, “My goodness, this is difficult,” but we generally don’t. We have embraced our new methods of communication while still retaining remnants of the very, very old.

@shilolo Well perhaps some of us don’t feel the need to keep “advancing”. I would prefer to live in the days of my ancestors where culture was appreciated and science was a part of culture and not it’s own genre.

We need a sophisticated society (and workforce), capable of making great innovations in computers, engineering, science and math in order to overcome massive problems like global warming, pandemics, energy and agriculture.

This has been true in the area of illness, I can’t argue that. But as far as agriculture and environmental wellness pre-colonized societies did just fine without “science” (or rather I should say formal science).

If we allow “faith” and mysticism to persist and spread, we will not progress as a society, to the detriment of us all.

This is Very scary. This is what I mean by allowing your beliefs to cause oppression. You would put an end to faith and mysticism if it were your choice. How is that not similar to genocide? You think your beliefs will advance the world so other beliefs should cease and desist. Can you see how that statement would be scary???? Well many believe that a world ruled by culture and faith would be more advanced than one ruled by science. It is just part of human nature. You value technological/scientific advancement. Not everyone does. Some believe that what faith offers would create a better world even without scientific advancement. Furthermore many socities have/had undergone progression with or without formal science (i.e. Aztec/Mayan cultures).

If we allow “faith” and mysticism to persist and spread, we will not progress as a society, to the detriment of us all.

We have come a long way with faith and mysticism (I assume you mean religion) being a very important part of life. I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m going to guess that just about every society in history had some faith in a “higher power” of some sort. We have gotten this far with it. I am curious to hear why can we not continue to do so.

People aren’t stupid. We no longer believe that thunder is caused by Zeus getting pissed off. The more science is able to prove, the more people will edit their beliefs. I would imagine it takes a lot time for their beliefs to evolve. You know, the same way evolution is not instantaneous – it occurs slowly over time, but the changes are significant.

my apologies but it is bedtime for me, will re-visit tomorrow and check things out, good discussion. i wanted to wait till your next response as I see your shadow pop up like you are writing but i can’t wait any longer, take care and have a good night/day

@RedPowerLady You lost me when you tried to conflate my suggestion that persistent mysticism is detrimental to genocide. Really? Were people killed for altering their perception of the universe from an Earth-centric to Heliocentric one? No. Though in actuality, it was the rational scientists that were put before the Inquisition, but I digress. Were people killed when germs were discovered as the cause of disease rather than evil humors or spirits? No. Education (and scientific advances) do not cause genocide (and frankly, I am deeply offended you would make such a suggestion). In fact, more genocides have been committed in the name of faith and mysticism (the Inquisition, Crusades, Russian Pogroms, The Holocaust, Armenia, The Balkans, Rwanda, and Sudan come to mind, to name but a few). Thus, your statement that “Well many believe that a world ruled by culture and faith would be more advanced than one ruled by science” is patently false. We’ve tried that, and it doesn’t work (actually, it fails miserably). Would anyone really exchange their current life for one during the Dark Ages? How about living currently under Sharia law?

I would add that the Aztec/Mayans are now gone, and many archeologists believe it had to do with poor water management (which science might have helped with). Likewise, prior agricultural societies didn’t “do just fine”. There were massive variations in crop yields owing to changes in water availability or pests. Just look at sub-Saharan Africa today. Many cannot produce enough food for themselves, and, left to their own devices, would probably experience genocidal famines. Science has improved crop yields, created fertilizers, (dare I say) pesticides and has provided the genetic links to why some crops or plants are better than others. These are all positives for the people at risk for yearly famines that now have a stable food supply.

In short, science has greatly improved the world on average. Faith and mysticism may have served a purpose in the past by providing a structural framework for an organized society, but we no longer need such strong “beliefs”. What we need is logic and critical thought applied to modern problems.

Hey, I never said doctors were unethical! I love and appreciate them. Some of my best friends are doctors!!!
I just said that capitilist interest influences the science they are taught. People feel that they may not be fully educated (nutrition for example) because someones financial interest influenced their required course work.
I was just answering the question about why someone wouldn’t fully trust what is presented to them as science. It’s because money may cause them to avoid the entire scientific picture. I am not bashing doctors or science. I am skeptical of the system.

i was just reading a readers digest at the doctors office last week. One of the articles said something along the line of 94% of the doctors practicing in america right now have accepted some sort of gift from pharmaceutical companies.

Nudge, a book by Thaler and Sunstein has several great chapters about why we make irrational decisions; including distinguishing between our use of the Autopilot (automatic system) as well as the Reflective system; and how difficult it is to buck social norms.

I think it answers some of your questions on gambling, etc. (I read this a while ago, I’ll have to go back for the details)

Because sometimes “Science”, with it’s “Culture of no Culture” cannot accommodate the narratives that people tell themselves and one another to account for events in their lives.

For a revealing exegesis of this phenomenon in the area of Medicine, it is very instructive to read a book called “The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down” by Ann Fadiman, about the cultural tensions between the family of a young Hmong girl with epilepsy end the medical community in Merced, California which treated her.

These are all good arguments and good discussion.

For me, it boils down to the consistent perversion of science to suit political will, and I’m sure we could think of a hundred examples. Locking down the food supply by genetically altering seed to terminate and to require brand x pesticide (and to sue farmers who infringe on these patents if these seeds happen to fall on their land and germinate). Using math to spawn crazy derivatives that crash everyone’s 401(k). Oil and auto lobbying against CAFE standards and burying patents in efficiency technologies.

Regarding Katrina, science didn’t overcome political will to
get the levees built correctly. Science, in the form of a world
class hurricane research center at LSU, which had modeled down to the meter various flooding scenarios wasn’t even consulted during Katrina because BushCo awarded a patronage contract to a private firm that did nothing.

So that’s my lens. Science can and probably does a million wonderful things, but it hasn’t freed the world. Maybe in that sense I’m making your argument for you… if agents of political will also believed so strongly in science, then we’d be getting somewhere.

~True scientists are not afraid to be proven wrong. They’re out to find the truth, not to be right. Sadly, there are human factors that curb the true scientist and his findings. Greed, stupidity, mistakes, pride, sabotage, etc. Science can’t be necessarily relied on as a constant. Though, it does have merit over some things and been right probably more often than not. Nothing is 100% when it comes to the humans who operate it.

~The deeper we get, the more we find out we were scientifically wrong about things. This is a good thing because that means we are working toward the truth. BUT, in contrast, religion, faith and our gut feelings remain relatively stagnant because it’s ingrained in our nature. It’s much easier to cling to something that is faithful and unchanging than something that cannot decide whether or not eggs are good for you.

I agree there is stupidity in people who deny the undeniable “facts.” I’m just giving the reasons some do deny it.

@kevbo- GA

“But as far as agriculture and environmental wellness pre-colonized societies did just fine without “science” (or rather I should say formal science).”

No offense @RedPowerLady, but you couldn’t be farther from the truth. We, as a species, are facing a major crisis right now in no small part due to outdated agricultural methods. Some of these methods are fifty years old, many are centuries, but in either case we’re losing farmable land at a sky rocketing pace due to over farming and erosion. I find it exceptionally comforting that there are people out there researching this phenomenon, observing it and documenting it and trying to do something about it. I absolutely would not have the same warm and gooey feeling from people praying and hoping tons of fertile soil just magically appear so humanity and its booming population could be saved.

psst… @MrMeltedCrayon… what do you think spawned these unsustainable farming methods? Ever hear of better living through chemistry?

Eventually today’s science will be seen as mysticism, anecdotes and instinct.

@shilolo, re: “Faith and mysticism may have served a purpose in the past by providing a structural framework for an organized society, but we no longer need such strong “beliefs”. What we need is logic and critical thought applied to modern problems.”

I would submit that global warming/climate change is being sold as the new religion to organize society.

@kevbo – Yes, because clearly there aren’t place in the world where people are still farming the way they were hundreds of years ago. ~

I never said we did things perfectly in the past; I never said we were doing things right now. My point remains, however, that practicing destructive, archaic techniques is far from what I would call “just fine.” I also seem to recall saying there were intelligent minds studying the phenomenon and trying to do something about it. The fruits of their labors may amount to nothing, or even to more harm, but in the end I’d still say they’re contributing more to the cause of soil conservation than any religion or spiritual belief is.

On a some what related note, I don’t see what hope has to do with mysticism and faith, and why people keep bringing it up as if hope is specific to spirituality. I see more hope in people trying to work things out than people suspending fact to preserve their beliefs.

Farming the same land for hundreds of years? How is that possible?

After sleeping on it a bit, I need to clarify something. It’s not that us non science types don’t BELIEVE in science, it’s just that we are not science savvy enough to know when we are being told true science or when the science is being contaminated by money. I found out on my own about the hormones and it makes me wonder what else is out there that may come better naturally than from a test tube.

@shilolo It would be quite silly of you to argue that the Mayans and Aztecs are now gone as they are still alive and well…

Education (and scientific advances) do not cause genocide (and frankly, I am deeply offended you would make such a suggestion). As a matter of fact they can cause cultural genocide and they have. If you look at the Native American and Aboriginal boarding school systems you will find that Education (sometimes in the name of scientific advancement, one example would be of formal agricultural standards) did cause a cultural genocide.

Thus, your statement that “Well many believe that a world ruled by culture and faith would be more advanced than one ruled by science” is patently false. We’ve tried that, and it doesn’t work (actually, it fails miserably).
Again I believe you are over-reaching. There are many cultures that exist not just the ones that have caused problems. Pre-colonized Indigenous cultures, for example, thrived before the surgence of formal science. We tried it and it worked wonderfully. Contrary to what you may want to believe there is the possibility that faith and culture can create a wonderful world. So may science. That is why we need to focus on balance and not eliminating one or the other. In fact all of your statements are very skewed towards eliminating “faith and mysticism” and regardless of what you want to believe that would be a form of genocide, cultural genocide perhaps (and for many people it would be more than that).

Having said that the point was not if genocide has been committed in the name of science. But rather my point was that your statement is one similar to those who perpetuate beliefs of genocide, it is a statement of intolerance. You quite clearly stated that If we allow “faith” and mysticism to persist and spread, we will not progress as a society, to the detriment of us all. It is absolutely not the choice of anyone to allow or not allow a system of beliefs to exist. I quite clearly stated that “You think your beliefs will advance the world so other beliefs should cease and desist.” which is a very scary way to go about any argument. Your argument is too all-or-nothing. I suggest that you find a way to allow for balance, for both forms of life to exist. Science does not always trump culture, faith, hope, mysticism, instinct etc… It can trump it but it doesn’t have to. That is balance and what creates a wholeness in the world.

@MrMeltedCrayon I didn’t state that we shouldn’t use science to observe agriculture. What I stated was that pre formal-science agricultural methods existed that did not cause such problems. So really I don’t see what you are arguing. Again it is not an either-or scenario. Both can exist and be true. Balance.

I really think that we should consider not creating a system of one-against-the-other. The world exists now with both extremes (and everything in between) co-exisiting. Some lean towards one side or the other. That is the beauty of balance in the world. It strikes me that everytime I’ve made a statement it is assumed that I am saying that science is no good. Not once have I said that. What I have said is that there is the possibility that science is not the end-all answer and that instead the answer is accepting all forms of belief systems and thus have given examples of possibilities on the other side of science. We can benefit from culture, mysticism, faith, hope, and instinct as much as we can benefit from science. Anyone who chooses to live in a world where all of these do not exist, well I feel sorry for them. I suggest to you that we accept that the world is a better place with competing belief systems and that we not try and advance or society while at the same time oppression other belief systems.

@shilolo I feel as perhaps we are, once again, at the point of arguing circles. We obviously do not have the same belief systems and that is okay with me. I’ve found the argument quite interesting and intelligent anyhow. I apologize if I got a bit emotion felt there in the end. Thank you for the conversation. I’m not sure that I will have much of anything new to add as we’ve had this conversation before, in other forms, anyhow.

You may think i’m a bit bonkers for my belief system, or at least for the arguments I make in favor of it. And perhaps I think a little bit of the same for you. But at least we are able to have an open discussion about our differences. That is nice :)

@RedPowerLady I agree that we have different viewpoints, which I would argue have much to do with education and depth of understanding of science in general. Oddly, you seem quite accepting of science when it suits you, but ignore clear cut science when it does not. So, science shows taste buds are different in kids vs adults, and that’s “ok”, but science also proves that homeopathy is a bunch of BS, and that is not “ok” simply because you want to “believe” in the later?

@Judi That is precisely my point. How do scientists present information in a way to make it understandable. Is it better education? A structure by which people are exposed to science? As it stands, most people know more about who wore what and won what award in movies and TV than the latest advance in science/math/medicine. I am curious to know how that changes, and how do we change the notion presented in various forms above that since some science is tainted by outside forces, that all science is the same?

@kevbo – Did you even read what I wrote?

@RedPowerLady – I’m arguing that in a good majority of the cases, these “pre formal science” methods you’re mentioning were just as ignorant and harmful to the environment (if not more so) then our modern day techniques. We’re far from perfect, of course, but you implying that “formal science” all of a sudden introduced all of these problems is preposterous as hell.

@MrMeltedCrayon There is often this notion that the “simple past” was “better” than the complex, modern present. People made their own clothes, grew their own food, provided what little education they could to their offspring, and generally kept to themselves. This was/is somehow preferable to modern living, despite the fact that the majority of people live longer and healthier lives today than even 100 years ago, but certainly thousands of years ago. Clouded by this romanticism, people do not look objectively at the major mistakes people made, nor the difficulties they were encumbered with that we no longer have do endure. Modern life, for lack of a better word, is good.

@MrMeltedCrayon @shilolo
Just a quick note that I am by far not ignorant about the “simple past”. I am quite educated in my own culture, including their environmental techniques. And I can say that within my own culture their techniques were less environmentally devastating than the ones we have today. Anyhow again you are stereotyping people, ugh. How frustrating.

@RedPowerLady – Well then, instead of doing nothing but whining about stereotyping and giving only vague rebuttals, why don’t you tell us what culture you’re from and give us examples of their agriculture techniques? I’m sure it is frustrating to be stereotyped, but I’ve no sympathy for you if all you’re gonna do is whine about. Try educating. It’s a wonderful counter.

@MrMeltedCrayon, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems as if what you are saying (which I did read) is that we need to upgrade our agricultural methods to head off the problem of disappearing farmland. This includes “archaic” agricultural methods, which I am too dumb to understand have been used in some parts of the world for hundreds of years.

So we’re supposed to save disappearing farmland from the agricultural methods that have been used on said farmland for hundreds of years and are still being used today.

Am I understanding you correctly?

@MrMeltedCrayon In fact i’ve gotten into this debate many times and educated many times. Most the time I enjoy doing so but not in this case as I feel too much hostility and not enough open minds. However it is not my responsibility to educate you on the topic if you are intelligent enough to educate yourself. That is what being a Tolkien person of color is all about. We are always expected to educate others on our culture when you are quite capable of educating yourself. You are saying I am responsible for being educated about scientific advancements in agriculture and I would argue that you then are responsible in knowing pre-colonial agricultural techniques. I am Native North American. We never hunted one animal species to extinction. We lived for thousands (perhaps longer) of years off the environment without causing environmental damage that would harm our people. There are over 500 nations recognized by the US government today, pre-colonial they were many many more. There is no possible way I could educate you on all their agricultural methods. But if you are so inclined, pick a tribe and research the topic yourself.

I did a quick google search and found this book that you may find interesting: http://www.ecobooks.com/books/endure.htm

Here is an article you might find educational:
http://nativeamericanfirstnationshistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/native_american_and_european_early_contacts

And another:
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/extension/local/Howard/files/mg/schrise.htm

(to be fair I found these from a simple google search and only browsed them but i’m sure you can do the same and find numerous articles and information that supports what I am saying)

just a quick note that i am getting too frustrated and i try and avoid that so please do not expect further responses from me, i just thought it polite to say something, it’s quite obvious this discussion is no longer progressing rather it is becoming offensive (and not scientifically accurate if you want to really get to the point, if you studies indigenous cultures, for example, you wouldn’t argue with me about their environmental techniques, particularly north american indigenous cultures, now who is choosing what science that suits them?)

@Shilolo , We don’t all need to be scientists. It would be a pretty boring world (and probably quite Vulcan like) if we were. This world takes all kinds. I just wish that money didn’t have such an influence on the scientists.
I may not understand science real well but I do understand marketing. I wish government shouldered more of the burden for research rather than corporations. What incentive is there to cure disease? From a marketing standpoint, it doesn’t make any sense to eleminate your customer. Just treating symptoms is much more profitable.

@MrMeltedCrayon: I think @RedPowerLady is making an interesting point, but I’d like to tweak it a little.

Valuable technological advances do sometimes solve one problem at the expense of creating another. One of the best examples of this is the Haber-Bosch process, which is used to synthesize ammonia on an industrial scale and therefore produce mass amounts of fertilizer. This fertilizer is sustaining up to fifty percent of life on earth.

Unfortunately, the 100 million tons of nitrogen produced by this annually are having serious environmental consequences. Aside from the fact that this also uses 1% of the total energy expenditure in the world, the runoff from using these fertilizers produces algal blooms which in turn kill basically every living thing in the ocean space underneath it, which in turn reduces biodiversity in the ocean.

So science got us into this mess, and there’s no denying that. We have two options:

(1) Revert to a primitive form of agriculture that doesn’t rely on this process. But that one sure sucks for the two or three billion people who are only alive because of it, right? So how about instead,

(2) Make science get us out of this mess. Find new fertilizers, ways to process the nitrogen, facilities to control runoff, etc.

Yes, the products of science and technology often have problems. But that calls for more science and more research to deal with those problems—not less.

@Judi It is short-sighted to assume that research is designed to treat symptoms and not the underlying disease. I could run off a list of hundreds of diseases that have either been eliminated altogether (like many types of infections) or reduced (same) or can be cured. It is naive to assume that since there is no “cure” for diabetes or hypertension, that it is because companies simply want to maintain their customer base. Some would argue that insulin IS a cure for type I diabetes, or thyroid replacement for hypothyroidism as an example. Once the damage to the pancreas and thyroid is done, it is impossible to regenerate.

Many diseases arise due to multifactorial problems, and as such, not one simple “cure” is available. Take cancer for example. Breast cancer behaves differently than prostate cancer. So, you cannot treat them the same, no matter what some people might say. Likewise, not all infections are the same, and require different treatments and antibiotics. But, as an example of a recent major advance, it used to be that stomach and duodenal ulcers required surgery. Now we know that they are caused by a bacteria, and that 2 weeks of antibiotics are curative.

To answer your question about the government, it is in the research business. The overall NIH budget is 30.5 billion dollars which imho is not enough, but does support many major advances in basic science as well as treatments and cures.

@nikipedia, 1000 GAs. The statistic regarding fertilizer is really quite staggering. Certainly puts things into a perspective.

And your anecdote about your colleagues above is really amusing.

Why must it be one or the other? Science has made many life enriching discoveries. Some of them based on ancient cultural medicines. A properly outfitted cupboard should have it all. A chinese hot patch will not help a broken leg but it is very helpful for a strain. Acupuncture has been around a long time and has been beneficial to a lot of people, why dismiss it?

Solutions based strictly on science have not always been perfect. Some of the discoveries of science has played a part in creating a new problem as they are solving an existing one such as the super bugs that are now found in hospitals.

I will use the best of both worlds and not be drawn into a tunnel vision situation where it can only be one or the other.

Many folks accepted a flat Earth as scientific fact once.

The very definition of science suggests that it is a moving target, with theories proven and disproved as more and more empirical evidence is assembled and analyzed with more and more power and more and more data points. To point out an old belief as once having been considered a scientific fact is to demonstrate science’s alacrity.

@pdworkin . . . in a very verbose manner. . .

are you suggesting that it is time for me to stfu?

oh heavens no

I would say some outspoken scientists have failed to stay within the realms of science. A good example is Richards Dawkins using words like blind, pitiless and indifferent when describing evolution which are completely non-scientific qualities.

Evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller notes that apparently it’s legitimate to mix a philosophy in with science, as long as it’s the right kind philosophy, the one Dawkins happens to hold. To say that we live in a universe bursting with evolutionary possibilities would be dishonest, but an assessment of “blind, pitiless indifference” isn’t philosophy at all?

He goes on and I quote: “One can indeed embrace science in every respect, and still ask deeper questions. Why does science work? Why is the world around us organized in a way that makes itself accessible to our powers of logic and intellect? The true vow of a scientist is to practice honest and open empiricism in every aspect of his scientific work. That vow does not preclude the scientist from stepping back, acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge, and asking the deeper questions of why we are here, and whether existence has a purpose. Those questions are genuine and important, even if they are not scientific ones, and I believe they are worth answering. To me, those answers lie in faith. Others find their answers elsewhere, but our science is the same.”

My point is when vocal atheist scientists reject mysticism, spirituality and faith, they trigger a backlash which results in more and more people rejecting science. So there is a way to correct this. We need more scientists who can point out to people how science and faith can coexist. This way more people will embrace science.

This story speaks for itself.

@scamp, I have to ask, are you saying that prayer retroactively put the boy in the attic? Or is this Schrodinger’s Cat part II, where the boy is both in the box and in the attic simultaneously, until the force of prayer collapses the probability waves to a singularity?

No I’m not.

The only reason that I see religion still in effect is not because of a lack of education but some kind of control that the government doesnt want to give up yet. If they realize that more people are becoming atheist and realizeing the truth they will change to the people and somehow learn how to control the atheist. It doesnt matter what you believe in you will be controlled one way or another. Don’t fight it, I would say use it to your advantage. You can notice that their are so many people in the world that arent really motivated for anything and that have a lack of education so think of it like this, If your smart and others arent then it will be easier to get to the top. Less obsticales.

More education and a better understanding of the world can lead to believing in God and it can lead to not believing in God. I see a slow transition happening so eventually we (the human race) will neither fall prey to atheist fundamentalists with all their arrogance and counterproductive polemics and religious fundamentalists with all their arrogance and counterproductive polemics. No one can claim an absolute monopoly of truth. People will apply critical thinking and be in a position make their own educated choices.

@vicnav – Welcome to Fluther!

@mattbrowne Thanks, I like this place so far.

@vicnav – Glad to hear it. Stick around!

Occam’s Razor. The answer that’s simplest in the mind of the person asking the question is the one that he/she holds as true. Stupid people believe in stupid crap. For some, it’s easier to believe that there’s an omni-potent, omni-present deity who can strike you down with a bolt of lightning at any moment.

Failures in education. We’re taught mysticism long before we’re taught science, because the former is more palatable for kids.