Do you explicitly believe in everything a scientist says?

Question

Here is why I ask this question over my life span I have heard scientist issue many statements that has turn out to be bunk, and one sometimes have to look where their funding is coming from. I will give you ex.... tobacco scientist testifying that there is no correlation between cancer and tobacco scientist stating that there is a global cooling in the 60's and that the world population will reach 60 billion by 2050 and there will be mass starvation.

That global warming is cause my us ignoring the the increase solar activity over the last decade and a half. Scientist always telling people that ulcers were caused by stress only to be proved wrong by 2 nobel prize winning scientist in 2005 that showed it was caused by bacteria are you one of those people that check your common sense at the door and just explicity believe anything a scientist says.

Answer 1

No, I do not just accept it all blindly. I study what they are saying. And I read books and web sites to learn WHY they are saying what they say. And then I make up my own mind. Sometimes I agree with the scientists and sometimes I don't And a frequently change my mind as I read new information. And I definitely do NOT just believe politicians. Almost everything you hear and read about global warming comes from politicians and not scientists.

Answer 2

No, I do not believe everything scientists say, one day coffee is bad the next day you see a report saying that it is OK

Global warming is another fear driven theory that people now site as fact. If you oppose the Global Warming theory, yes it is a theory, you are a Global Warming heretic or n**i depending on who is yelling at you.

There are scientists that believe what we are going through right now is just a normal climate change, in the seventies it was global cooling, now its global warming.  One fact that Al Gores, "Global Warming Inconvenient Truth" did not mention is that the Ice Cores taken out of Antarctica prove that there is a temperature rise before CO2 in the atmosphere begin to rise. Yes, you read right, CO2 rises are driven by temperature rises. Not CO2 drives temperature. I guess that truth for Al Gore and is sham movie was too inconvenient to mention.

Answer 3

Man when I first stumbled upon this question I was curious to read what you would have to say. However every single one of your 'arguments' or rants if you will, can be explained with just a little common sense.

1. Most funding today comes from "other than" government sources, mostly corporations hoping for a payoff. So your point with that is?

2.WTF with the tobacco scientists and global cooling? Are you for real?  OK the scientist that told you there was no connection with smoking and cancer WHERE PAYED FOR BY THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY!!!DUH!!! And global cooling was and is a real theory, one hypothesis had to do with how dirty the air was back then before the environmental movement of the late 60's and early 70's and cleaned it up. That is there was an increasing in particulate mater which was starting to block out the sun.

When you as the public receive scientific or  "news" about something scientific most times it is information that has been found through experimentation and has not been fully peer reviewed.

3. There never was any such estimate that there was going to be 60 billion people on the earth; h**l we can hardly handle the 6.5 billion as it is.  Sense your information is coming out of the 60's therefor I would bet you heard that population was going to be 6 billion and guess what, it is! Now to educate you on the current situation at hand ...Every single environmental problem can be directly correlated to over population...It is not what the single entity does but the billions upon billois that are all doing the same thing, that is why population is a big deal.

4. you are more susceptible to that bacteria if you are under stress, therefore stress causes ulcers.

Answer 4

There are two factors that nearly every scientist confronts - the desire to make a discovery and enjoy the resulting accolades, and the need to satisfy those who have granted research money which in turn, feeds their families.

There are some who will do anything to accomplish those two goals, even if it means lying.  Of course, sometimes they're just wrong.

Answer 5

In general people  believe what they want to believe.  If you believe in global warming you will believe all of the catastrophic consequences.  The new one being global warming is going to bring on an ice age.

Sorry, but I have to reply to crabby b's comment above.

In 1988, Newsweek published an article on global warming saying there was unanimous consensus among experts.  So the consensus was in even before the study even began.

Ten years ago they were saying there was consensus.  Crabby b above says that 10 years ago there was doubt, but now he wants us to believe there is consensus.   There is no consensus.  

Even if he is right, global warming supporters have cried wolf so many times, they have lost all credibility.

Answer 6

nah, i believe in science and mathematics but i do not believe everything a scientist says. ultimately, science is not subject to errors but a scientist is.

they are human after all and who can blame them for making errors? the only thing that we can do is to not that everything they say at face value.

Answer 7

Unfortunately, you, like a lot of people, never got taught how to interpret what scientists say--and you're also, like a lot of people, the victim of a lot of bad science writing on the part of journalists.

Here's a quick overview of HOW to understand what schientists say:

1) When you hear a statement like "statistics "PROVE" something"--watch out.  Statistics, however good, only tell you probabilities.  You hear a lot of this in ads for drugs.  A good way to learn the ins-and-outs of understanding what statsreally mean is to read a short book: "D~mn Lies and Statistics" (Joel Best).  The author--a social scientist--explains in everytay terms (no math!) how to understand statistics.

2) When is a scientist a scientist?  Anybody can call themselves that.  Just as important--scientists have their own opinions about things outside their field--and it may be a well-thought one, but in areas outside their own field, its not a professional one.  Example: Stephan Hawking (Novel winner) is the greatest physicist alive.  Recently he voiced the concern that global warming could have a "runaway effect" and wipe out all life on earth.  Now, because Hawking is as smart as he is, scientists in the field of climate study might look at his idea to see if he's hit on something.  But no scientist would ever think to take Hawking's idea as anything more than what it is--speculation.  Unfortunately (not Hawking's fault) reporters picked this up and wrote about it as if it were a scientific finding--which was their mistake, not the scientist's.  You need to watch for that kind of thing--reporters like sensatiional headlines--and some don't care if they get the facts right.

3) MOST IMPORTANT!  There are TWO kinds of scientific "discussions."  One is the debates scientists have when they are investigating something new.  The other is what scientists say after they've finished studying a new area and understand what's going on. Early on in any investigation, no one knows for sure what the final answer will be--and it sometimes takes decades to get to that point.  In the meantime, different scientists come up with different ideas (hypotheses) to explain whatever it is they are studying.  Some will be right--and some will be flat wrong. Eventually, the research reaches the point where the scientists have enough information to sa what's real true--that's called a scientific consensus--and the outcome will be a proven theory that isn't open to debate anymore.  When used in science, BTW, the word "theory" does not imply uncertainty--as it does in everyday speech.  In science a "theory" is defined as "a well-supported explanation of a phenomenon in the natural world"--in other words  it is certain.  If its not certain, its called a hypothesis.

Here's an example of how NOT understanding what scientists are saying can lead to confusion--one you mentioned.  In the 1970s  scientists were first starting to study world-wide climate.  They knew that there had been different climates (the Ice Ages) in the past.  One of the obvious questions was "could this happen again"  And the did have discussions about the possibility.  Now, some science reporters (for TIME and NEWSWEEK, among others) picked this up and wrote popular sciences articles about this.  But if you go back and read those articles (I read them at the time) you'll see the scientists were very clear: this was a hypothesis--they were speculating, but that no one knew whether the earth was warming or cooling, much less if there woud be another Ice Age.

That was 30 years ago.  That--and a lot of other hypotheses were put forward by scientists as they studied climate changes.  And there was naturally a lot of debate.  But--as it always does in science, the evidence began to mount up that supported just one picture of climate change: that the earth was getting warmer.  And that the primary cause was increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere--caused by humans burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.

Eventuallly (today) that's a settled question--there is no debate among scientists, because that's the theory that proved to be right.  And it IS proven.

But what about the stuff you see on the Internet about "many scientists don't agree?"  Look at EXACTLY who is saying what--and when.  10 years ago many scientists did indeed doubt that human activity had anyting to do with global warming--but that was the period in which the debate had not yet been settled--so of course there was disagreement.

Finally, not all the stuff labeled "science" is science.  Sorting that out is harder.  But if you want real science, not junk science, stick to places like nasa.gov (space/astronomy/climate) or to reputable sites like the pbs.org popular science shows.  But even here you HAVE to pay attention.  PBS NOVA, for example, is great.  But they have shows that talk about current scientific issues that aren't settled yet and ideas that are being studied but may still prove to be wrong.  NOVA and other PBS shows are reputable--they will make clear whether they are talking about settled science or stuff that s still open for debate.  But you have to listen.

Hope this helps!

Answer 8

Absolutely not. I believe that science should constantly be challenged and re-examined in a critical manner. As you mention, theories are often prove incorrect, even when they are based on sound scientific principle. This is the reason why I do not like the global warming debate in general. There is too much talk about consensus for my liking. Consensus is not science. Then when you couple this with the fact that those who believe in global warming want the case to be closed on the matter. This is not the way science is supposed to work and if the theories are sound they will stand the test of proper scrutiny. Global warming may indeed be occurring and man may or may not contribute to the effect significantly, but even if they are totally correct it does not mean we should not continue to question the conclusions.