What do you think is the best attitude to take to the thought tools, attitudes and body of knowledge known as Science, and which attitudes do you see commonly?

Is it total scepticism, or partial scepticism?
Do most of us start with scepticism and end up with belief, because the questions are answered even if we cannot remember the answers, and thus reply rudely to people asking the questions again?
Or should scientific answers be accorded respect?

I personally go for partial sceptiscism and the shading into belief, but always think that anyone claiming something is "scientific" should automatically be suspected.

but always think that anyone claiming something is "scientific" should automatically be suspected
Certainly if it's part of a product description.

Hmm, depends on the circumstances. If it's physics, maths or to a lesser degree, chemistry, I tend to be more sceptical as I have more knowledge in those areas. For biology, sociology, psychology etc. I'll generally tend to be more open-minded.
As to attitudes I commonly see, the most common one at the end of lectures is confusion!

id say partial skepticism, because it allows for more regulation, but also for open minded ness :m:

When I fly I have no alternative but to trust that the science that created these machines. When I pop some pills to help reduce pain, I once again must trust the science. As for the host of gadgets and labor saving devices that make my life easy I dont have to trust in the science, as a matter of fact I can be total ignorant of how and why they work. As for how the universe started, what we are made of etc.. I will tend to trust science, as long as it has had proper peer review.

I find in almost all non-scientists a dichotomy between either completely denouncing it or completely embracing it.
The scientists I know are both very cynical and very defensive about it.

Cynical and defensive? HHmm, I thnk i've met that once or twice. Thats partly why I put shade into belief. I have read bits and pieces about how things work etc, but over the years forget the details, and remember just the end result, thus, when challenged, can only say "but its true...".


What started this thread was arguing with a couple of people who disagreed with parts of modern science. Their attitude was generally "I dont understand it so it must be wrong" and no amount of explaining solved the problem. They take "science" so far, and are happy to use its methods, until the clash with what they believe.

I've also noticed in the media a tendency towards polarisation in science attitude. There was a shoutingly annoying report about some scientists at Edinburgh university making a nanotech sized motor, and the report wibbled on about nanotech and how it was going to be great etc, without actually mentioning its a protype and they dont know how to manufacture it en masse yet, etc. But other media outlets will ignore/ play up bad science, or ignore any scientific results at all. So you can often go from scepticism to belief and love in one day, if you read the papers.

Of course it doesnt help that defining "Science" is very hard. What makes science scienctific?

Science is not difficult to define. Science is a methodology by which we develop our understanding of the Universe. Scepticism should be reserved for all scientists, some of the time, because, being human, they do not always conduct their research or deliver their pronouncements in a scientific fashion.

Ditto Ophiolite.

I'd like to add that skepticism is not incompatible with science, but that in fact science depends on skepticism. Science is a way of moving forward by posing well-structured questions. The essential nugget of science is that the hypothesis may be supported or contradicted by hard evidence.

What is *not* science is when people come up with hypotheses that are unfalsifiable (either by their nature or because the people refuse to accept the evidence once it has been presented). That is common to most people at one point or another, but it reaches its apotheosis (pun intended) in religion.

Right, so hypatia is following the falsifiable theory approach, along with a conviction that a world exists and we can meaningfully interrogate it. Ophiolite, though undoubteldy he means well, has defined science in an extremely abstract manner.

Anyway, another nugget to throw in. Here in the UK, 2 university chemistry departments haev shut this last year, more are likely to go. Science doesnt seem to be interesting any more. More students are doing media studies than chemistry. Yet we still need some scientists, and as I think it was ophiolite, has commented elsewhere, it is helplful if more of the population has a scientific education. Yet the apparent public attitude to science is mixed scepticism and indifference.

(This whole topic made more sense and hade more of a direction to it when I was walking the dog a few days ago.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4063117.stm
"Image is at least partly to blame. With all those images of bubbling test tubes and madcap scientists, chemistry has, unwittingly become a whipping horse for public scepticism about science, say academics."

There was a shoutingly annoying report about some scientists at Edinburgh university making a nanotech sized motor, and the report wibbled on about nanotech and how it was going to be great etc, without actually mentioning its a protype and they dont know how to manufacture it en masse yet, etc. But other media outlets will ignore/ play up bad science, or ignore any scientific results at all. So you can often go from scepticism to belief and love in one day, if you read the papers.

I remember hearing that on NPR. They had the guy who created it (or was head of the lab or whatever) on the show, too. I can't remember much else though, I think it had to do with carbon nanotubes and magnets, but I could just be confusing my nanotech recent advancements.

This isn't my idea, it was penned by Kuhn in the book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He coined the phrase "paradigm shift," and pretty much described, for the first time, that even though science claims to accept change, scientists are actually very inflexible.

His basic premise was that empirical observations lead to a massive, all encompassing law that science begins to work under, called the paradigm. Evolution is a paradigm, Newtonian physics was a paradigm, phlogiston was a paradigm, the four elements were paradigms.

Under a paradigm, heaps of information can be gathered that would otherwise go uninvestigated. Over time though, things are discovered that clash with the paradigm. Despite the direct contradiction between evidence and theory, the vast majority of scientists ignore the discrepencies and continue with the theory.

Overtime, more and more scientists discover evidence that contradicts the paradigm. Eventually, some one like Newton will both declare the old science as false, and propose a new paradigm. Science then splits and scientists take sides. It usually takes about one generation for the paradigm to change, as the old scientists must die with their paradigm.

Kuhn's book is excellent, and should be required material for everyone. Unfortunately, it's a little more difficult to read than an American's 6th grade reading level.

Ophiolite, though undoubteldy he means well, has defined science in an extremely abstract manner.

Well, of course. I am middle aged, middle class, middle of the road, and poverty stricken. So, I can't afford to subscribe to any scientific journals. All I can do is read the abstracts on-line. So naturally I give abstract explanations. :)

I keep meaning to get Kuhn and poppers books. Maybe this christmas.

As for Ophiolites abstractions, can you run up and down the ladder of abstractions at all?
I am middle class and in my 20's, but have managed to assemble a library of over 2,500 books, some on science, which combined with a science degree and a job or two as well as the internet, have enabled me to understand more about how and why "science" works. (Lucky me)