If secular science publications and scientists continue to ignore evidences that?

Question

clearly question their theories, then is that true science?

Mountaingym
There is no need to be insulting. If I had used the word "mainstream" or "common" or possibly "accepted" instead of secular would that have perhaps been more acceptable to you?
I understand fully what science is. My question was meant to give pause. I am simply curious to know what people think - especially in the area of elementary and secondary textbook science, which is clearly biased to one theory over all.

Answer 1

Not to me. Because science is made up of scientists, it's completely fallible. Science is supposed to be about proof and FACTS, not theories stated as facts. Science is about proving things wrong, not proving things right. You'd think people with a thirst for knowledge would remain objective. It is not true science, it's becoming a collection of circumstantially-backed sensational theories designed to get somebody's name published, not their work. I think there are plenty of scientists out there who still work with integrity, but then there are others who have no interest in what's actually the truth.

Answer 2

You're right. There has to be clear separations between science and religion, but many people in the science community go so crazy about religious issues, or the thought that religious feeling from another is present, that they attach it with an almost 'religious' zeal. In a sense, a lot of people in the scientific community have made science into their own religion, and have lost as much objectivity as the person who rejects science all together in place of an oral belief.

But, I must add, that I imagine there are two real sides to this. First there are the people on this site that only know enough science to make them dangerous, who have simply traded dogmatic religious views for dogmatic scientific views. But then there are people in the actual science community that fight opposing views because they want to be proven right- and this has been the same since the beginning, science is very slow to change- and has always been oddly accepting of traditional views.

Answer 3

The best thing about "secular" science publications (and scientists) is that they put out the evidence so that their ideas can be challenged. I do not know what you mean by "continue to ignore evidences that clearly question their theories", perhaps you would like to cite some "for instances". Would that be too much to ask you to do? I doubt you understand what "true science" is, given your use of the word "secular". Religious-minded people have been challenging science since at least as long as the Inquisition, when they silenced Galileo. Pope John Paul, Jr. recently said the Inquisition was wrong and Galileo was right, in light of modern science proving the Earth was not the center of the universe. How many times does science have to prove itself right? You are using the Internet, which is a result of science. Are you going to challenge that also?

Answer 4

There are scientific publications which accept controversial theories, provided that they are backed up by real, scientific evidence, which can be repeated and or observed by other scientists, and which do not require any "leaps of faith" to be understood.
Many theories have been proved wrong or have been modified because of such publications. Einstein, for instance, showed the inadequacies of Newtonian physics when he published his theories. And of course Darwin with his elegant theory of Evolution by natural selection wiped the floor with the Lemarckian theory of inherited characteristics.

So, there have been some major instances of successfully questioning prevailing theories. All you need is evidence, not faith in your opinions.

Answer 5

I don't know why the people are worrying about the spelling and the language in science subject. I have seen several leading scientist who are very very brilliant but can not speak proper English. It is only a language .Nothing else to commend on when we talk about science.

Answer 6

First, your command of the english language is questionable at best. Second, I have no idea what your question is but it sounds like you are a creationist bent on...yawn..."proving" Darwinian evolution wrong. Good luck to you, the rest of us will be dealing with reality.