Why don't skeptics embrace the science they praise?

Question

Take paranormal experiences for example, using quantum theory, all paranormal experience is possible. Scientists are charged with the responsibility to examine what IS happening in order to establish a model of it's actions so that they can be understood. But today, science and skepticism walk hand in hand more often to form a barrier against open discovery.

In my view, the scientific mind and the mind based on religious beliefs are not so far apart. Each side has denominations of thought, each side has killed to supress information, and each side can pretend that a little knowledge is enough to balk at the findings of others.

However, Skeptics often claim that their rationality and ways of reasoning are superior to that of the religious minded individual, yet it is not apparent in their blanket statements which belie accepted scientific findings. It is my belief that science and religion are two ways of telling the same story. Both are subject to human error and prejudice.

Answer 1

well  like in all things its what you make of it

i don't really care because  all thing are but illusion  every thing in the universe is what we make of it  things only have meaning if you make it that way

Answer 2

Hmm, good question! There is a difference between believers in science and skeptics. Someone who loves science would be thrilled with quantum mechanics. Skeptics are people who simply don't believe in what they can't see. They praise science because of a faulty belief that scientists have actually seen everything they discover. However, much of science is math and equations, theories and explanation for something that nobody has really seen. This is perfectly valid and proves things as much as seeing them, if not more, but skeptics are not prepared to accept being unable to see quantum waves and whatnot. They haven't seen it (and can;t expect to, it is too small for light!) but that is too much for them.

Skeptics tend to favor science over religion, but they can be a real pain for either one. A person who studies many religions will see connections and will understand things that are just as valid as knowledge from science. In fact, there are many scientists who maintain a strong faith in God, far more than the stereotypical image suggests. There is no real proof against religion as a whole concept, but that doesn't matter to a skeptic.

Answer 3

I don't know what you've been told, but there is no connection between quantum theory and the paranormal or supernatural. QM doesn't say that ghosts and telekinesis are possible, sorry.

What do you have to support that modern science is against open discovery? Just because it doesn't blindly embrace woo-woo paranormal claims?

Scientific thinking and religious faith are two very different things. They really have nothing in common. Science by its very nature has nothing to say about things beyond natural investigation, e.g., religious concepts. By the same token, religion deals in supernatural musings and lore and is ill equipped to offer any critique on scientific ideas. And while humans have killed for their religions for centuries, I can't recall of anyone saying that science asked them to kill.

Science and religion tell very different stories, using very different modes of thinking.

Answer 4

Science wouldn't be the same without skeptics. we can'ts just accept everything that is theorized.

Answer 5

to quote john zaffis, "to a skeptic, you never have enough evidence, and to a believer, you have an overabundance..."

yeah, i totally agree with you, they should all be more open minded!

Answer 6

Science and religion are two very different things.

Science requires facts that can be proven, experiments that can be repeated by others, getting the same results.

Religion only requires blind faith without proof.

Answer 7

Science is a way of investigating and explaining observations. For observations to be investigated they must be measurable and repeatable. Science does not involve the speculating about the possible or the unobserved.

To date NO paranormal phenomena have been reliably and repeatably observed. For example, even the most careful experiments on telekinesis and telepathy show effects that are small to non-existant, inconsistent, and unrepeatable.

Why should scientists accept mumbo-jumbo explanations using quantum theory of observations that are unrepeatable and unreliable?

Many scientists, though not all, feel the same about religious revelations and beliefs. They are unprovable and have to be taken on faith.

Rather than science and religion being two ways of telling the same story, they are difrerent ways of telling different stories. Science deals with measurement, observation and explanation. Religion deals with faith.

Answer 8

1)  Quantum theory does NOT account for or explain the paranormal.  I have taken 6 courses in quantum theory.  I know what I'm talking about.  If you would like to discuss it, provide the math.  Otherwise, drop the quantum stuff.  Because real quantum theory is all math.

2)  If the paranormal could be explained, it wouldn't be paranormal anymore - it would be simply 'normal'.

3)  Got a discovery?  Write it up and publish it.  But you have to be able to provide evidence for it first.  And paranormal researchers can't.

4)  Which scientists have killed to suppress science?

5)  You haven't provided any evidence for the supernatural.  Tell you what.  Find some, evidence for telepathy or god or demons or homopathy or dowsing, and we'll talk.  This guy will give you a million bucks (http://www.randi.org), you'll win the Nobel Prize, everyone will stop making fun of you.

Put up or shut up.  That's how science works.

Answer 9

You are clearly someone who does not truly understand science and how the methods of scientific inquiry and discovery bring us closer to a universal, objective understanding of nature.

Science is:

1) Logical (rational) and Objective

2) Testable and Disprovable

3) Systematic – following a logical progression of thoughts, ideas, tests, experiments, observations, measurements, interpretations, conclusions, hypotheses and theories

4) Self-healing/Self-correcting – seeks to prove itself wrong and fill in gaps in knowledge

5) Predictive – used to forecast or predict future events

6) Repeatable – results of tests and experiments can be repeated by others

7) Progressive – always increasing, moving forward

8) Universal – crosses boundaries of space and time, and cultures

Religion may have a few of these characteristics, but any system of thought must have them ALL to be called SCIENCE - there is no comparison.

Now, you may argue that scientists are human and thus capable of making mistakes and having subjective biases - this is true.  But, given sufficient time, the system of science itself, the collective population of scientists, and the peer-review process fix these problems (hence the self-correcting and progressive nature of science).

Of course, both skeptical and open-minded thoughts are important characteristics for scientists to have.  We are skeptical until reason and evidence tell us we don't have to be anymore, for example with previously controversial ideas like evolution or plate tectonics. Yes, I said "previously controversial" because anyone who thinks there is controversy about these is intellectually way off the map of reality.  

Oh, but that sounds so closed-minded of me to say... Certainly there may be some minor things about evolution and plate tectonics that we don’t yet understand, but I'm quite certain that the basics are there to stay.  In other words, there is a limit to how open-minded a person should be about some things.  Gravity, for example, is something that I think it's OK for us to be mostly closed-minded about.  If you decide that gravity does not mesh with your religious beliefs and you decide to be open-minded about it and take a step off of a cliff, you would prove my point very nicely.