+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 125
  1. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,283
    Thanks
    8,215
    Thanked
    3,927
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    God this debate makes me feel really dumb, I used to be intelligent before babies sigh .... Can't follow it at all too many big words and stuff :/

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    19,776
    Thanks
    5,212
    Thanked
    7,063
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Daptoamy View Post
    God this debate makes me feel really dumb, I used to be intelligent before babies sigh .... Can't follow it at all too many big words and stuff :/
    Don't worry, I could hardly understand the research papers

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,729
    Thanks
    1,522
    Thanked
    1,959
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    I haven't read the responses yet, but I will. Just saw the thread and had to respond.

    Science does not PROVE things - that's kind of the point. Ideally, you set out to disprove a hypothesis. If you CAN'T disprove it, despite having an experiment that should be able to, then you've got a pretty good link.

    This is a good way of distinguishing people who want to find the truth/reality from those who just want to confirm what they believe. Do they actually TRY to challenge it? Do they want to acknowledge anything which might be a challenge to their beliefs?

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Renn For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (29-10-2013)

  5. #74
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Any examples?

    Quote Originally Posted by SoThisIsLove View Post
    Science IS biased in certain areas without a doubt.

  6. #75
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Of course scientists get it wrong sometimes. It is evolving and there is a never ending quest for information. Every now and then we have major break throughs that completely change our way of life. Smallpox vaccine for example. These things don't happen every day, and no denying mistakes have been made with vaccines. But it doesn't mean we should disregard them completely as they have made our lives dramatically better.

    When the evidence points overwhelmingly in a certain direction, (and this is just my opinion), then I am happy to go with the Scientific consensus. Like Climate change, I am not a scientist, but most climate scientist are replicating the studies showing that we are causing a speed up of climate change, so I will err on the side of caution and go with them. If the consensus changed, then I would reconsider my stance.







    Quote Originally Posted by Benji View Post
    Interpreting data is a matter of opinion. Not all scientists agree on everything but I hope they are open minded. Research is also proven to have been wrong and what we thought was evidence can be incorrect

  7. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked
    376
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    It is one study, with 53 people in it. To form any kind of opinion either way you would need more studies, with more people showing the same results. Are there any other studies? Or are you really trying to get people to say they either agree or disagree that homeopathy is effective based on one study with 53 people?
    My aim wasn't to convince people of the virtues of homeopathy. I was just interested to hear the opinions of all these non-scientists who say they have faith in the scientific method, when shown a scientific study that adheres to the scientific method and concludes that homeopathy may have some benefits. There are a lot of non-scientists here saying that the study is meaningless - yet scientists who work in the field thought it was valid and supported it being published. I don't know if it is a very rigorous approach to say that you believe what learned scientist are telling us, but only if it agrees with your preconceived ideas.

    ETA. Just thought I'd disclose that I am a scientist, so have a reasonable insight to how science works in reality (as opposed to how it is taught at uni). When it comes to the 'hard' sciences like physics and chemistry I'm pretty happy to believe whatever the experts tell me. But when it comes to disciplines where there is natural variation in the populations (eg any biological) there is a lot of room for error, and a lot of room for subjective interpretation of ambiguous data, and also a lot of 'group think' (where people tend to believe whatever other researchers believe). Therefore, when someone points out what 'science says' about a topic like this, I tend to be a bit more skeptical.
    Last edited by Meg2; 29-10-2013 at 08:27.

  8. #77
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    No preconceived ideas here, there is just not enough evidence in that one study to show anything either way. There is however large amount of studies that show the opposite.

    It is absolutely a rigorous approach to agree with the vast majority of scientist. There will always be scientists and research that show different conclusions. Nothing in science is 100%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meg2 View Post
    My aim wasn't to convince people of the virtues of homeopathy. I was just interested to hear the opinions of all these non-scientists who say they have faith in the scientific method, when shown a scientific study that adheres to the scientific method and concludes that homeopathy may have some benefits. There are a lot of non-scientists here saying that the study is meaningless - yet scientists who work in the field thought it was valid and supported it being published. I don't know if it is a very rigorous approach to say that you believe what learned scientist are telling us, but only if it agrees with your preconceived ideas.

  9. #78
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Re the alternate medicines for minor illness, I have absolutely no problem with that. But when it comes to important things like Homeopathic "vaccines", then that is when it gets worrying.

  10. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,729
    Thanks
    1,522
    Thanked
    1,959
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg2 View Post
    My aim wasn't to convince people of the virtues of homeopathy. I was just interested to hear the opinions of all these non-scientists who say they have faith in the scientific method, when shown a scientific study that adheres to the scientific method and concludes that homeopathy may have some benefits. There are a lot of non-scientists here saying that the study is meaningless - yet scientists who work in the field thought it was valid and supported it being published. I don't know if it is a very rigorous approach to say that you believe what learned scientist are telling us, but only if it agrees with your preconceived ideas.
    On the publishing of results...unless something is pure pseudoscience, it will (or should) be published. This is part of good science, that results must be published. The point is that it adds to the body of knowledge. It can then be picked apart and repeated, to see what value there really is in its results. The fact that something is published in a reputable scientific journal does not so much mean that knowledgable people think that it was a great study with believable results, but that they want to acknowledge and analyze ANY information which might be relevant.

    I'll have a read of the study when I get a chance, but yes my first thoughts would be were there errors in the design, how large was the scope etc.
    Why? Because it goes against the current, massive, body of evidence and all known mechanisms. I would do the same if a published paper suggested that gravity may not exist, that cancer is in fact one single illness, that eating lots of sugar leads to fantastic health etc.

    The larger body of understanding may well be wrong, no question there. But if one single piece of information contradicts the majority, the reasonable approach is to question the validity of that information first. If it's NOT found wanting, if it appears to be well-researched and no other likely reasons can be found for the results...then by all means repeat it, test it, and if the results keep coming up CHALLENGE THE CONSENSUS! look for errors wherever you can find them, but start with that which doesn't fit current knowledge of how the world works.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Renn For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (29-10-2013),delirium  (29-10-2013)

  12. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked
    376
    Reviews
    0
    (I'll leave it alone).
    Last edited by Meg2; 29-10-2013 at 08:31.


 

Similar Threads

  1. No science minister for the first time since 1931
    By Atropos in forum General Election Discussion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 17-09-2013, 13:54
  2. Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Anti-Science?
    By Maybelline in forum Immunisation & Vaccines
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-06-2013, 12:43
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-12-2012, 17:09

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
WaterWipes
Give your babies bottom a gift this Xmas! They are the only wipe made using just water and a drop of grapefruit seed extract and may help avoid nappy rash. Check out the great reviews on bubhub and see our website for more info and availability.
sales & new stuffsee all
Bub Hub Sales Listing
HAVING A SALE? Let parents know about it with a Bub Hub Sales listing. Listings are featured on our well trafficked Sales Page + selected randomly to appear on EVERY page
featured supporter
Sarah Tooke Childbirth & Parenting Education
Providing private, personalised antenatal childbirth & parenting education to expectant parents in the comfort of their own home. Sessions are flexible, including everything that hospital based programs cover. Click to find out more!
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!