" Science Says Bf Does Not Exist..." So What?

[Guest]

Seriously..so what?

I know that this is the image that science wants us to have of it:

http://www.holoscien...loom_County.jpg

But we really need to stop and ask ourselves just how warranted that image is.

Who gave Science the sole and absolute authority to declare truth and falsehood? Was there a vote? I seem to have missed it. Did any of you vote for this grant of power to Science? Or did you miss it too?

In reality, the words "Science says..." are nothing more than a meme, a trigger for the conditioning that we've been subjected to in school from the day we start. Invoke the magic words "Science says..." and the bobble-heads start nodding, the brain shuts down, and we just stop thinking.

This in spite of the ample evidence that "Science" is as flawed and fallible as any other human institution. "Scientists" are nothing more than flawed human beings with all the prejudices and foibles we are subject to. The only difference between us and them are a few years of schooling and a bunch of letters after their names.

Now I fully expect the usual suspects to come swarming in with accusations that I am "anti-science". I'm most emphatically NOT. The scientific method is a legitimate tool for inquiry. That said, it is NOT infallible, and not always the right tool to be using. And it NEVER not EVER should it's produce be treated as some sort of revealed truth from on high, immutably fixed and never to be questioned.

ALWAYS question. ALWAYS think for yourself. To invert another meme that used to be drilled into us via kid's programs: "the group" is NOT always right.

*ETA: I've said all this before in other threads, but with the newbies around I thought it would be a good issue to bring front and center into the open as it's own issue.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Mulder

[Rockape]

"science Says Bf Does Not Exist..."

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

[LeafTalker]

You are nice to us newbies. I saw you in chat there, for a few moments, anyway!

I totally agree with you. And when you consider all the fights that science has with itSELF -- poor, poor Galileo (and I know his fight was mostly with the Church, but the general idea might still work, or does for me, anyway) -- it hardly seems like a fun place to be duking this out.

I would much rather trust the testimony of my own eyes (and ears). "Mediated" experiences just aren't, well, fun.

I don't want anyone to come between me and my Calvin Klein's.

[Guest crabshack]

Its not so much that "science" accepts it that that matters, but if society will.

[LeafTalker]

Society likes to anoint experts to make its decisions for it. Poor society.....

[Guest Ishcabibble]

"Who gave Science the sole and absolute authority to declare truth and falsehood? Was there a vote? I seem to have missed it. Did any of you vote for this grant of power to Science? Or did you miss it too?"

I don't think science is to blame here. The problem these days is that when research results are published, the media and society in general latch on and run with it with claims of "science says so!"

I agree with you though. We should never stop questioning anything. If we stop asking questions, we stop finding answers.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Ishcabibble

[Guest]

OH....here we go AGAIN...

If ya wanna believe...please do so. I have no problem with this. However...don't try and bridge the gap between your *belief* and what is considered science. Ergo, no matter how hard you try..BF will not be categorized as being in the animal kingdom...ie, not within taxonomy...until such time it meets the criterion. So...don't continue to bang your head against this wall...it's a lost cause.

Edited February 1, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest]

"Science says bigfoot doesn't exist."

Correction — Science says there is no definitive proof of bigfoot's existence.

And, science is not flawed; scientists can be flawed. Science has limitations, but that doesn't make the method flawed.

[Guest]

Our society has an appeal to authority obsession. We lean upon experts to tell us what to eat, think and do. We trust their interpretations of reality. We trust their judgement. We defer to their knowledge and expertise. It is inherent in our upbringing. We, as young children, are taught to conform while being educated. Then, as we advance in our education we are expected to regurgitate what is taught. If you were to look at science objectively you would recognize that it doesn't serve for the benefit of life on this planet. Major science has been bought out by dark, nefarious and greedy interests. Interests involving perfecting consumption of finite resources while derailing alternative and benign sources of energy. Other interests include the scientific advancement of inflicting mass casualty and destruction. And we've added a new one of late and that is playing god by genetically modifying nature itself with the food we eat. Thanks to science we are upon the brink of destruction and have been for some time. But this isn't all upon the nature of science, it is the nature of man within science who haven't had the courage to stand out, lead and be heard. Most scientists remain all too comfortable in their consensus cocoon. It is up to the vanguards (scientist and layman) to lead into new undiscovered territory. So if science says it doesn't exist, it means very little. It is just another appeal to authority for the bystander to latch onto. Science can only help clarify and describe reality. It cannot determine it. Reality as we know it is ever changing and evolving. There will always be room for the undetermined and unknown.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

[LeafTalker]

Cornelius, you said a mouthful! And I agree with every word.

Organizations tend to forget why they came into being in the first place -- medical organizations, to heal the sick; religious organizations, to heal the soul; etc. -- and start focusing on keeping themselves alive as organizations. That becomes the first priority, at the expense of other things. Those organizations stop wanting to heal people anymore, because then their reason for being disappears.

I think we were never intended to congregate in the huge groups some of us have ended up in, meaning cities. I think we were supposed to be in smaller units, where we all knew each other and could pull together for one another in ways that aren't possible in bigger associations.

I'm a city person, and not very competent in the woods, so I used to feel very grateful that I was born long after the industrial revolution.

Now I'm not so sure that was the best time to be born, after all...........

And yeah, what Bipto said! (Thanks, OntarioSquatch.)

"Science says bigfoot doesn't exist."

Correction — Science says there is no definitive proof of bigfoot's existence.

And, science is not flawed; scientists can be flawed. Science has limitations, but that doesn't make the method flawed.

Absolutely. I think that's true.

Edited February 1, 2013 by LeafTalker

[Guest]

Science is a HUMAN endeavor and, in so being, is subject to human error. As someone here mentioned....science is NOT ABSOLUTE and subject to perpetual revision. That doesn't nullify it's validity. It's the only game in town. As I stated...you can't bring BF into the animal kingdom without the proper credentials. That will never change...so trying to *argue* around this is futile. Carry on.

[Guest COGrizzly]

"Science says bigfoot doesn't exist."

Correction — Science says there is no definitive proof of bigfoot's existence.

And, science is not flawed; scientists can be flawed. Science has limitations, but that doesn't make the method flawed.

A plus 1 to you Pt. Never thought I'd do that (plus one you and your opinion), but you are correct.

I...I...I....I think I may have a fever.

ETA - hopefully a bit of humor!

Edited February 1, 2013 by COGrizzly

[Guest]

Science has never been in the position of absolutes. What science requires is a preponderance of evidence. Much of science deals I'm theories, which require, of course, a preponderance of evidence supporting them. Science accepts the possibility of theories being proven wrong, and often, many prevailing theories are proven wrong. Given that they is, so far, no concrete evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot, science can not say whether it exists or not. Anyone who says different is blowing smoke up your bottom.

[Guest]

Our society has an appeal to authority obsession. We lean upon experts to tell us what to eat, think and do. We trust their interpretations of reality. We trust their judgement. We defer to their knowledge and expertise. It is inherent in our upbringing.

A relatively recent development, as America has been abandoning our Constitutional founding in favor of progressive Euro-type socialism.

If you were to look at science objectively you would recognize that it doesn't serve for the benefit of life on this planet. Major science has been bought out by dark, nefarious and greedy interests. Interests involving perfecting consumption of finite resources while derailing alternative and benign sources of energy. Other interests include the scientific advancement of inflicting mass casualty and destruction.

An objective look at science shows, like any methodology or institution, can be used for good or evil. I believe science and technology has benefitted mankind far more than it has injured it. For example, assume Homo sapiens sapiens has existed for 50,000 years. In the last 100 years, 0.2% of that timespan, 10% births, out of all modern human births ever, occurred. Time and exponential growth explains today's large population, but history shows that disease, famine, war, and natural disaster has put significant dents in the human population at times, and modern science and technology has helped to keep disease, famine, and war in check more that it has fostered such events.

And we've added a new one of late and that is playing god by genetically modifying nature itself with the food we eat.

Man has been genetically modifying his food ever since he invented agriculture 10,000 years ago.

Most scientists remain all too comfortable in their consensus cocoon.

Consensus is not a step in the scientific method. A primitive herding instinct is a human fraility.

It is up to the vanguards (scientist and layman) to lead into new undiscovered territory.

Despite the relentless Euro-ization of our society, enough of a remnant independent and rebellious spirit remains in some that this is exactly what is happening today in bigfootology. To the point where even a few in the stodgy ivy-covered halls, where youth are more often taught what to think rather than how to think, have entered the fray.

A plus 1 to you Pt. Never thought I'd do that (plus one you and your opinion), but you are correct.

That's okay, COG. My last post undoubtedly contains material you can disagree with.