When you think about it, Scientifically we really dont know anything.......

[Mazty]

GameOver22 said:

BenVTrigger said:

Mazty said:

BenVTrigger said:
Surprised this thread is still going.

But anyways while most of what I was saying abiut how its impossible to "know anything" was complete devils advocate I do stand by one thing I said

We in general do through way too kany theories and hypothesis around as fact. Of course we have real science. Of course we have concrete things we know.

Science in general though is filled with huge egos, most of which have firm agendas they want to get across. This thread was half joking, half baiting but still real on a few things.

The general point to take is always aproach everything, even the things taught in the classroom, with a huge dosenof skepticism. Research for yourself dont blindly believe because someone else tells you its a fact.

No it really isn't...

Mistaking the ignorant for the educated is more of a social issue then science misreprenting anything. For example, a 2nd grade teacher may think that gravity is fact - a scientist will tell you that actually it's still just a theory. On the other hand some people will say that global warming is a theory. Wrong; it's fact, what the real question is, is what is causing the global warming. 

You sure do like to argue....

And I assure you science is filled to the brim with egos.  You put far too much faith in man my friend.  Even a scientist with all his instruments, calculations, tools, and methods at his core is a human.  All humans have ingrained beliefes and agendas some more so than others.

The realm of science attracks strong minds, and with that stronger egos.  Dont put science on such a high pedistal that it is beyond scrutiny.  Its a method made by man used to describe the universe around us.  Just as any system with a human element within it it will have flaws and shortcomings.  

You know....I'll actually second this. The big problem I always see is that science as conducted in academia is much different from the science presented in popular works. I mean....if you read a peer reviewed article, scientists hedge, qualify, and self-criticize their own work, which is something you often don't see in the popular presentations of science on tv or in mass market books.

In my experience, scientists are pretty well-aware of the flaws in their work and the limitations of the scientific method, and they take extreme precautions to ensure that their research accounts for these limitations (they also openly discuss these limitations in their academic work). However, when they have to explain their work to the public, they aren't very good at communicating the tentativeness and uncertainty of their work. Now, whether they do this because of egos, laziness, or just the fact that they don't really think the public is capable of analyzing the scientific process....I really don't know.

When presenting work you present hypothesis, results and the potential meanings of the findings. There is usually little time to be critical of the work when giving a presentation; it's just not the done thing. If someone wants to know exactly what the scientist is presenting, they will then read the paper themselves. 
However scientists are known for not being the best when it comes to communicating. However I would say that I've never come across one with an ego. The cast of Jersey Shore have an ego. Someone studying magnets on a nano scale tends to be less outgoing...