The War On Science

dignin

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

What does AMT think? Is this becoming a real problem?

hedonist

I think the word "war" is mis/overused these days.

Doubting Thomases will always be around, and that's not necessarily a negative. Cause for thought, re-honing of views - hell, just another view.

brianlux

They left out the most important one:
The world is spherical: No, the world is flat.
Goes right along with anti-intellectualism/dumbing down of America.
Almost all of these attacks on science are perpetrated by big money (pro-GMO: Monsanto) or fundamentalist religious people (anti-evolution: fundamentalist Christians). I try not to give these people too much attention or any of my money because that is what they crave.

hedonist

One of the lines on the cover above is about the myth/misconception of GMO foods being "evil" (which is kind of ridiculous in itself - how can food be nefarious?). Anyway, this ties in to the thread above, about GMO corn fucking with bees.

So - as I'm still learning about all of this - which is it?

benjs

hedonist said:

One of the lines on the cover above is about the myth/misconception of GMO foods being "evil" (which is kind of ridiculous in itself - how can food be nefarious?). Anyway, this ties in to the thread above, about GMO corn fucking with bees.

So - as I'm still learning about all of this - which is it?

I'd say, if anything, pushers of GMO foods would be the 'evil' ones. But I also believe GMOs have a bad reputation: our consumption rates are greater than our production rates, so we have starvation in portions of the world (limited supply means the poorer parts of the world can't afford it compared to the wealthier developed nations). This boils down to simple math: increase yield or decrease population to keep all fed. Since mass murder is typically frowned upon, the yield increases are the logical next step. How do you do this? More agricultural development, or quicker agricultural development. So, we either move to a more agrarian lifestyle on average (unlikely in the developed world, already mostly agrarian in the developing world), or we stop stigmatizing GMOs and dedicate more funding towards research designed to minimize or eliminate negative byproducts of GMOs to the environment as well as our bodies.

As for this 'war' - I'm a big fan of skepticism, and think it's incredibly healthy.

rgambs

GMO is improperly maligned. It is monocropping and pesticide resistance that is the problem.
GMO tomatoes that resist Fusarium Wilt via a gene from Spinach are not evil.

brianlux

hedonist said:

One of the lines on the cover above is about the myth/misconception of GMO foods being "evil" (which is kind of ridiculous in itself - how can food be nefarious?). Anyway, this ties in to the thread above, about GMO corn fucking with bees.

So - as I'm still learning about all of this - which is it?

That line on the cover of Nat Geo is what reminded me of the bees article I saw recently. Another good reason to get hemp on the market. There's no need to artificially modify hemp, it would provide more in the way of food and other products than fucking GMO corn (oh wait, you said "corn fucking with bees", sorry, haha!) and hemp regenerates damaged soil.

GMO's are harmful for a number of reasons. They're closely tied to the rise in gluten disorders we keep hearing about. They have been linked to several health hazards. Their DNA can be transferred to humans. Toxins from GMO's have been detected in fetuses. GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel to other crops. They haven't been thoroughly tested.

You can find arguments to all of the points I've made here just like you can find arguments to the notion of climate change, the authenticity of the moon landing and the concept that the earth is spherical rather than flat. I guess it depends on whether you not one enjoys playing Russian Roulette. We know natural, organic, chemical free food (and particularly the heirlooms) are good for us but we really don't know yet what will be all the results of our tweaking with nature. And when we do find we have gone to far with changing the natural systems and cycles of the world we live on it may be impossible to reverse what we have done. We are insane Gods.

benjs

brianlux said:

hedonist said:

One of the lines on the cover above is about the myth/misconception of GMO foods being "evil" (which is kind of ridiculous in itself - how can food be nefarious?). Anyway, this ties in to the thread above, about GMO corn fucking with bees.

So - as I'm still learning about all of this - which is it?

That line on the cover of Nat Geo is what reminded me of the bees article I saw recently. Another good reason to get hemp on the market. There's no need to artificially modify hemp, it would provide more in the way of food and other products than fucking GMO corn (oh wait, you said "corn fucking with bees", sorry, haha!) and hemp regenerates damaged soil.

GMO's are harmful for a number of reasons. They're closely tied to the rise in gluten disorders we keep hearing about. They have been linked to several health hazards. Their DNA can be transferred to humans. Toxins from GMO's have been detected in fetuses. GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel to other crops. They haven't been thoroughly tested.

You can find arguments to all of the points I've made here just like you can find arguments to the notion of climate change, the authenticity of the moon landing and the concept that the earth is spherical rather than flat. I guess it depends on whether you not one enjoys playing Russian Roulette. We know natural, organic, chemical free food (and particularly the heirlooms) are good for us but we really don't know yet what will be all the results of our tweaking with nature. And when we do find we have gone to far with changing the natural systems and cycles of the world we live on it may be impossible to reverse what we have done. We are insane Gods.

But aren't they all? (Sorry religious fellows, couldn't resist)

HughFreakingDillon

benjs said:

hedonist said:

One of the lines on the cover above is about the myth/misconception of GMO foods being "evil" (which is kind of ridiculous in itself - how can food be nefarious?). Anyway, this ties in to the thread above, about GMO corn fucking with bees.

So - as I'm still learning about all of this - which is it?

I'd say, if anything, pushers of GMO foods would be the 'evil' ones. But I also believe GMOs have a bad reputation: our consumption rates are greater than our production rates, so we have starvation in portions of the world (limited supply means the poorer parts of the world can't afford it compared to the wealthier developed nations). This boils down to simple math: increase yield or decrease population to keep all fed. Since mass murder is typically frowned upon, the yield increases are the logical next step. How do you do this? More agricultural development, or quicker agricultural development. So, we either move to a more agrarian lifestyle on average (unlikely in the developed world, already mostly agrarian in the developing world), or we stop stigmatizing GMOs and dedicate more funding towards research designed to minimize or eliminate negative byproducts of GMOs to the environment as well as our bodies.

As for this 'war' - I'm a big fan of skepticism, and think it's incredibly healthy.

I disagree there isn't enough food to go around. North Americans throw out more than other countries eat. it's disgusting the amount we consume, but it's equally, or even more disgusting, how much we WASTE.

hedonist

Thanks, guys. Always appreciate the input - as as benjs mentioned (are you really only in your early 20's?!), skepticism.

I guess part of my question stemmed from the terms of "war" and "evil" on that cover, and how they're used to manipulate emotion instead of the pursuit of actual information - unbiased information, as B mentioned. Too difficult to find these days, and it's frustrating.

brianlux

paulonious said:

benjs said:

hedonist said:

One of the lines on the cover above is about the myth/misconception of GMO foods being "evil" (which is kind of ridiculous in itself - how can food be nefarious?). Anyway, this ties in to the thread above, about GMO corn fucking with bees.

So - as I'm still learning about all of this - which is it?

I'd say, if anything, pushers of GMO foods would be the 'evil' ones. But I also believe GMOs have a bad reputation: our consumption rates are greater than our production rates, so we have starvation in portions of the world (limited supply means the poorer parts of the world can't afford it compared to the wealthier developed nations). This boils down to simple math: increase yield or decrease population to keep all fed. Since mass murder is typically frowned upon, the yield increases are the logical next step. How do you do this? More agricultural development, or quicker agricultural development. So, we either move to a more agrarian lifestyle on average (unlikely in the developed world, already mostly agrarian in the developing world), or we stop stigmatizing GMOs and dedicate more funding towards research designed to minimize or eliminate negative byproducts of GMOs to the environment as well as our bodies.

As for this 'war' - I'm a big fan of skepticism, and think it's incredibly healthy.

I disagree there isn't enough food to go around. North Americans throw out more than other countries eat. it's disgusting the amount we consume, but it's equally, or even more disgusting, how much we WASTE.

I agree, Paulonious, we waste too much food and it is disgusting.

But if the problem is not that there is not enough food, why do we have to keep fucking with nature?* And is the question enough or not enough food or too many people? Again, we humans think we can live outside of natural cycles and parameters. Rather than look at our overpopulation problem we say, "What problem? We'll just artificially produce more frankenfood." As much as we wish it and as much as we keep tweaking nature, that can't go on forever.

*This same idea can be applied to oil. If there is plenty of oil, why to we go to such desperate, destructive and costly means such as fracking and scrapping the earth for dirty tar sand oil? We human are nuts. Insane Gods.

HughFreakingDillon

dignin said:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

What does AMT think? Is this becoming a real problem?

I think it is. anyone with a computer can start a blog about (insert outrageous claim/conspiracy theory here) and "back it up" with flawed or even completely false evidence, and people will believe it because they don't want to do their own research or are simple falling into the "this website seems reputable" chasm. "hey, that link was on facebook, liked by (someone I know that I think is smart), so it's probably true".

people are also too willing to believe the claim of ONE CELEBRITY over a million scientific experts. It blows the mind how stupid and irresponsible some people can be in spreading lies that they know nothing about.

you also have a general mistrust these days, some would call it a blowback, of the scientific community over their occassional inability to be correct:

One day, butter is awesome for you. next, it causes heart disease. eat margarine, it's better for you. Oh, shit, wait, don't eat margarine! it's like plastic! go back to butter! it's natural and healthy!".

doctors once PRESCRIBED smoking as a means to relieve stress. and the thalidamyde debacle. can I come up with recent examples? No, I cannot. but others look at these examples from 30+ years ago and believe they are credible reasons of why not to trust the scientific community.

not to mention the medical/big pharma having the reputation of being a for-profit business, and you have many good reasons for the aveage joe not to believe in science. so many studies out there, apparently administered by real scientists, are conflicting. why? who commissoined this study? were they looking for a specific result, or the truth? science can be bought and sold to the highest bidder, just like anything else.

i_lov_it

Yeah I wouldn't say it's a war on Science that's probably too strong of a word...there's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and questioning things in a healthy way of course.

rr165892

I don't think it takes a scientist to see the relationship between What Brian called"Frankenfood" and Obesity,diabetes and increase in heart disease.
I'm a bit up in the air on GMOs.The modification of wheat/flour is kinda what helped play a part in the whole processed food thing right?like what Lux was saying about Glutens and such.I get what Gambs is saying though that it's not all bad.Maybe it's just WHAT organic substance is being modified.And where.

At least we have learned the evils of BPAs and what that can do to the cells in the human body.Thats progress.I know we slowly weened out of Tupperware into all glass containers.Still working on complete elimination.

ITs almost scary listening to religious zealots talk against evolution and try to explain away creationism.Do we really still need to have that argument.Are facts and evidence not enough.Arent these same people ,or those with similar thoughts the same ones who continue to work against Stem cell development and the advances that could be had with more testing?

I had a friend who didn't believe in the moon landing...............lWe haven't spoke in about a decade.Thats just one of his wacky theories.I think that's ridiculous.

blueandwhite

I'm all for a healthy dose of skepticism when it is informed by research and supported by evidence. Unfortunately, in today's wired community it is far too easy to find information that supports your own biases and ignore information that challenges your beliefs. I'm not an expert in any field of science, so when push comes to shove I am inclined to place my faith with the majority of the scientific community rather than listening to a small minority of outliers who are often rejected by their peers. I mean, if I want a bridge built I need to trust an engineer. If I need surgery I'm going to have to trust my surgeon. When it comes to global warming or vaccinations it stands to reason that I'm going to have to place my trust with experts as well. It's not as if there isn't a huge body of research that supports their positions.

brianlux

rr165892 said:

I don't think it takes a scientist to see the relationship between What Brian called"Frankenfood" and Obesity,diabetes and increase in heart disease.
I'm a bit up in the air on GMOs.The modification of wheat/flour is kinda what helped play a part in the whole processed food thing right?like what Lux was saying about Glutens and such.I get what Gambs is saying though that it's not all bad.Maybe it's just WHAT organic substance is being modified.And where.

At least we have learned the evils of BPAs and what that can do to the cells in the human body.Thats progress.I know we slowly weened out of Tupperware into all glass containers.Still working on complete elimination.

ITs almost scary listening to religious zealots talk against evolution and try to explain away creationism.Do we really still need to have that argument.Are facts and evidence not enough.Arent these same people ,or those with similar thoughts the same ones who continue to work against Stem cell development and the advances that could be had with more testing?

I had a friend who didn't believe in the moon landing...............lWe haven't spoke in about a decade.Thats just one of his wacky theories.I think that's ridiculous.

Thanks for mentioning BPA's rr! Nasty stuff and good to avoid it as much as possible. Thermal register receipts quite often have lots of BPA's as well.

blueandwhite said:

I'm all for a healthy dose of skepticism when it is informed by research and supported by evidence. Unfortunately, in today's wired community it is far too easy to find information that supports your own biases and ignore information that challenges your beliefs. I'm not an expert in any field of science, so when push comes to shove I am inclined to place my faith with the majority of the scientific community rather than listening to a small minority of outliers who are often rejected by their peers. I mean, if I want a bridge built I need to trust an engineer. If I need surgery I'm going to have to trust my surgeon. When it comes to global warming or vaccinations it stands to reason that I'm going to have to place my trust with experts as well. It's not as if there isn't a huge body of research that supports their positions.

Good ideas here blueandwhite! I like that idea of trusting the majority of scientific experts.

I'm not sure if there is a scientific consensus on GMS's because the companies who use them (especially Monsanto) can afford to hire legions of "experts". "Pay me enough and I'll tell you what you want to hear" types.

benjs

rr165892 said:

I don't think it takes a scientist to see the relationship between What Brian called"Frankenfood" and Obesity,diabetes and increase in heart disease.
I'm a bit up in the air on GMOs.The modification of wheat/flour is kinda what helped play a part in the whole processed food thing right?like what Lux was saying about Glutens and such.I get what Gambs is saying though that it's not all bad.Maybe it's just WHAT organic substance is being modified.And where.

At least we have learned the evils of BPAs and what that can do to the cells in the human body.Thats progress.I know we slowly weened out of Tupperware into all glass containers.Still working on complete elimination.

ITs almost scary listening to religious zealots talk against evolution and try to explain away creationism.Do we really still need to have that argument.Are facts and evidence not enough.Arent these same people ,or those with similar thoughts the same ones who continue to work against Stem cell development and the advances that could be had with more testing?

I had a friend who didn't believe in the moon landing...............lWe haven't spoke in about a decade.Thats just one of his wacky theories.I think that's ridiculous.

I think it's conceivable the first lunar landing didn't actually happen then, but I also don't think it really matters. Either way, a hero was born in Neil Armstrong, a nation was united through a 'victory', and the guys in charge proved their superiority to Mother Russia. Nyet nyet Soviet!!

blueandwhite said:

I'm all for a healthy dose of skepticism when it is informed by research and supported by evidence. Unfortunately, in today's wired community it is far too easy to find information that supports your own biases and ignore information that challenges your beliefs. I'm not an expert in any field of science, so when push comes to shove I am inclined to place my faith with the majority of the scientific community rather than listening to a small minority of outliers who are often rejected by their peers. I mean, if I want a bridge built I need to trust an engineer. If I need surgery I'm going to have to trust my surgeon. When it comes to global warming or vaccinations it stands to reason that I'm going to have to place my trust with experts as well. It's not as if there isn't a huge body of research that supports their positions.

There's an unfortunate reality about the experts in the fields, and the issue is that they're susceptible to corruption just like any other human being. My background is in structural engineering, and just a short time in the civil industry, I lost track of how many "lunch and learns" we had: organizations trying to promote usage of their product, so they buy the whole firm lunch and "teach" about it. What they're typically saying is "we're cheaper", "we're almost at the government-approved stage", and "we're new, so you can be the first to adapt". These were interesting sales pitches to me, as they weren't selling on quality or integrity, merely on price (often, they would say that their prices are so low, that you can afford to over-reinforce with their products, hence reducing any qualms had with the untested or barely tested nature of the products). Unfortunately, even construction of a bridge boils down to a cost/benefit optimization analysis, and the skew typically seems towards a lower cost and shorter life span. Our building codes reinforce this nature: building codes across North America have typically referred to permanent structures, as temporary ones aren't held to the same stringent requirements. This conflicts with the desires of builders who wish to build cheaply, and thus can't hope for 'permanent' in the truest sense of the word. So what happens next? (Well, in the state of California, for example, lobbyists from the construction industry managed to redefine the word permanent. In California, a permanent structure is one defined with a no-service-required life span of a mere 20 years EDIT: A friend told me this and I realized it's unverified - please ignore this statement until I can find a source). This is why I think it's important to embrace the Renaissance mentality, and learn what ever you can, whenever you can. And given our easier-than-ever access to an insanely vast reservoir of information - why not?

rr165892

20 years is also the amount of time used when we refer to a lifetime warranty on a item.

dignin

benjs said:

rr165892 said:

I don't think it takes a scientist to see the relationship between What Brian called"Frankenfood" and Obesity,diabetes and increase in heart disease.
I'm a bit up in the air on GMOs.The modification of wheat/flour is kinda what helped play a part in the whole processed food thing right?like what Lux was saying about Glutens and such.I get what Gambs is saying though that it's not all bad.Maybe it's just WHAT organic substance is being modified.And where.

At least we have learned the evils of BPAs and what that can do to the cells in the human body.Thats progress.I know we slowly weened out of Tupperware into all glass containers.Still working on complete elimination.

ITs almost scary listening to religious zealots talk against evolution and try to explain away creationism.Do we really still need to have that argument.Are facts and evidence not enough.Arent these same people ,or those with similar thoughts the same ones who continue to work against Stem cell development and the advances that could be had with more testing?

I had a friend who didn't believe in the moon landing...............lWe haven't spoke in about a decade.Thats just one of his wacky theories.I think that's ridiculous.

I think it's conceivable the first lunar landing didn't actually happen then, but I also don't think it really matters. Either way, a hero was born in Neil Armstrong, a nation was united through a 'victory', and the guys in charge proved their superiority to Mother Russia. Nyet nyet Soviet!!

blueandwhite said:

I'm all for a healthy dose of skepticism when it is informed by research and supported by evidence. Unfortunately, in today's wired community it is far too easy to find information that supports your own biases and ignore information that challenges your beliefs. I'm not an expert in any field of science, so when push comes to shove I am inclined to place my faith with the majority of the scientific community rather than listening to a small minority of outliers who are often rejected by their peers. I mean, if I want a bridge built I need to trust an engineer. If I need surgery I'm going to have to trust my surgeon. When it comes to global warming or vaccinations it stands to reason that I'm going to have to place my trust with experts as well. It's not as if there isn't a huge body of research that supports their positions.

There's an unfortunate reality about the experts in the fields, and the issue is that they're susceptible to corruption just like any other human being. My background is in structural engineering, and just a short time in the civil industry, I lost track of how many "lunch and learns" we had: organizations trying to promote usage of their product, so they buy the whole firm lunch and "teach" about it. What they're typically saying is "we're cheaper", "we're almost at the government-approved stage", and "we're new, so you can be the first to adapt". These were interesting sales pitches to me, as they weren't selling on quality or integrity, merely on price (often, they would say that their prices are so low, that you can afford to over-reinforce with their products, hence reducing any qualms had with the untested or barely tested nature of the products). Unfortunately, even construction of a bridge boils down to a cost/benefit optimization analysis, and the skew typically seems towards a lower cost and shorter life span. Our building codes reinforce this nature: building codes across North America have typically referred to permanent structures, as temporary ones aren't held to the same stringent requirements. This conflicts with the desires of builders who wish to build cheaply, and thus can't hope for 'permanent' in the truest sense of the word. So what happens next? (Well, in the state of California, for example, lobbyists from the construction industry managed to redefine the word permanent. In California, a permanent structure is one defined with a no-service-required life span of a mere 20 years EDIT: A friend told me this and I realized it's unverified - please ignore this statement until I can find a source). This is why I think it's important to embrace the Renaissance mentality, and learn what ever you can, whenever you can. And given our easier-than-ever access to an insanely vast reservoir of information - why not?

I disagree with your idea of renaissance mentality (if I'm reading this right).

Experts are experts for a reason, whether it be years of education and experience or just experience. I can trust in their experience, for no other reason than I have to. I and you can research on the internet as much as we like and feel we have a good grasp of something....but that is no substitute for years of experience and education. Are there some people that are bad at their jobs, yes. That's the case in any field. But lets not cloud the argument here, there is a huge consensus surrounding these issues in the scientific field. That is as good as fact.

And just because corruption exists, that doesn't mean the process is corrupt. Questioning is fine, but when given the evidence and answers.....by people much more qualified than you or I.....and we still doubt......well to me that says more about us than them.

Science is at war with a belief system. It is a war. These things being questioned will effect you, me, our children....and ultimately the survival of our human race.

rr165892

Digin,what about the "experts" that dig their heels in and are stubborn to change or see things for alternative points of view? My best example would be traditional MDs not exploring alternate healing methods or herbal cures(MJ) because it's not standard practice or hasn't been cleared by the FDA.Im sure in groundbreaking cutting edge sciences this is happening regularly.

benjs

dignin said:

benjs said:

rr165892 said:

I don't think it takes a scientist to see the relationship between What Brian called"Frankenfood" and Obesity,diabetes and increase in heart disease.
I'm a bit up in the air on GMOs.The modification of wheat/flour is kinda what helped play a part in the whole processed food thing right?like what Lux was saying about Glutens and such.I get what Gambs is saying though that it's not all bad.Maybe it's just WHAT organic substance is being modified.And where.

At least we have learned the evils of BPAs and what that can do to the cells in the human body.Thats progress.I know we slowly weened out of Tupperware into all glass containers.Still working on complete elimination.

ITs almost scary listening to religious zealots talk against evolution and try to explain away creationism.Do we really still need to have that argument.Are facts and evidence not enough.Arent these same people ,or those with similar thoughts the same ones who continue to work against Stem cell development and the advances that could be had with more testing?

I had a friend who didn't believe in the moon landing...............lWe haven't spoke in about a decade.Thats just one of his wacky theories.I think that's ridiculous.

I think it's conceivable the first lunar landing didn't actually happen then, but I also don't think it really matters. Either way, a hero was born in Neil Armstrong, a nation was united through a 'victory', and the guys in charge proved their superiority to Mother Russia. Nyet nyet Soviet!!

blueandwhite said:

I'm all for a healthy dose of skepticism when it is informed by research and supported by evidence. Unfortunately, in today's wired community it is far too easy to find information that supports your own biases and ignore information that challenges your beliefs. I'm not an expert in any field of science, so when push comes to shove I am inclined to place my faith with the majority of the scientific community rather than listening to a small minority of outliers who are often rejected by their peers. I mean, if I want a bridge built I need to trust an engineer. If I need surgery I'm going to have to trust my surgeon. When it comes to global warming or vaccinations it stands to reason that I'm going to have to place my trust with experts as well. It's not as if there isn't a huge body of research that supports their positions.

There's an unfortunate reality about the experts in the fields, and the issue is that they're susceptible to corruption just like any other human being. My background is in structural engineering, and just a short time in the civil industry, I lost track of how many "lunch and learns" we had: organizations trying to promote usage of their product, so they buy the whole firm lunch and "teach" about it. What they're typically saying is "we're cheaper", "we're almost at the government-approved stage", and "we're new, so you can be the first to adapt". These were interesting sales pitches to me, as they weren't selling on quality or integrity, merely on price (often, they would say that their prices are so low, that you can afford to over-reinforce with their products, hence reducing any qualms had with the untested or barely tested nature of the products). Unfortunately, even construction of a bridge boils down to a cost/benefit optimization analysis, and the skew typically seems towards a lower cost and shorter life span. Our building codes reinforce this nature: building codes across North America have typically referred to permanent structures, as temporary ones aren't held to the same stringent requirements. This conflicts with the desires of builders who wish to build cheaply, and thus can't hope for 'permanent' in the truest sense of the word. So what happens next? (Well, in the state of California, for example, lobbyists from the construction industry managed to redefine the word permanent. In California, a permanent structure is one defined with a no-service-required life span of a mere 20 years EDIT: A friend told me this and I realized it's unverified - please ignore this statement until I can find a source). This is why I think it's important to embrace the Renaissance mentality, and learn what ever you can, whenever you can. And given our easier-than-ever access to an insanely vast reservoir of information - why not?

I disagree with your idea of renaissance mentality (if I'm reading this right).

Experts are experts for a reason, whether it be years of education and experience or just experience. I can trust in their experience, for no other reason than I have to. I and you can research on the internet as much as we like and feel we have a good grasp of something....but that is no substitute for years of experience and education. Are there some people that are bad at their jobs, yes. That's the case in any field. But lets not cloud the argument here, there is a huge consensus surrounding these issues in the scientific field. That is as good as fact.

And just because corruption exists, that doesn't mean the process is corrupt. Questioning is fine, but when given the evidence and answers.....by people much more qualified than you or I.....and we still doubt......well to me that says more about us than them.

Science is at war with a belief system. It is a war. These things being questioned will effect you, me, our children....and ultimately the survival of our human race.

Callen, hm, those are some good points. I suppose I'm not thinking of renaissance mentality in the sense that we should act as self-proclaimed experts in a field. Rather, learn enough to question something if it seems illogical.

As far as scientific consensus goes - I'm not sure it's as good as fact. The example that jumps to mind is the global warming discussion. I do happen to believe in the correlation between carbon emissions and global warming, but scientists who don't (even in spite of respect in the scientific world based on prior scientific successes) are often ridiculed to the point that their opposing theories are ignored, or not given the attention necessary. When observing the causality relationship between carbon emissions and global warming, the trend is not perfect. That alone should be valid reason for further investigation - but it's accepted as factual, and anything but that notion is largely written off as nonsense.

In terms of buying into rhetoric without questioning based on expert opinions, sometimes that facilitates situations as seen in the picture below, where the 'experts' take the recognition, unconcerned about right or wrong.



On the other side of the coin, I'm sure you're right that there are times where questioning nearly-factual science will amount to nothing more than a waste of time and energy, but I'd rather lean closer towards the 'question everything' than 'question nothing'.