Why make excuses or use statistics to make broad generalization?

Question

I can admit that religion has its faults and I don't make excuses for it either. However can you admit that science has its faults as well? I can admit that religion can be used to justify bad behavoir, however can you admit that science has been used to justify it as well? If a person can find a statistic to prove a point, does that mean that everyone in that demographic will most likey be a statistic? Commonly used statistic : "Statistics show that 90% of people who practice a religion are less educated" okay. However you do realize that there is such a thing as a "misuse of statistics"?

From wikipedia:
"If you have a statistic saying 100% of apples are red in summer, and then publish "All apples are red", you will be overgeneralizing because you only looked at apples in summertime and are using that data to make inferences about apples in all seasons. Often times, the overgeneralization is made not by the original researcher, but by others interpreting the data"

Never use the word never.

Okay some say "The crusaders tried to force their religion on other nations and killed 1000s of people in the process."

I can also say that "White man has tried to force their ideas on other nations and killed 1000s of people in the process". Both statements are using fact to make a point.

What's whny?

Sure have I am currently taking A&P and microbiology. That's a course I know.

Anyway, I can also say that "White man has committed more crimes against humanity than any other race."

To Meissah97, I don't believe I said "Science has claimed that it is always correct." Also unless there is a person named Science to whom are you referring to?

I simply said that science is "USED" to justify bad behavior. Science needs an interpreter. How one interprets something is often limited to the interpreter.

Do you only see what you want to see? I repeat "I simply said that science is "USED" to justify bad behavior". I am not saying that science is bad. I am merely saying that sometimes it is used to justify bad behavior or (just added) unethical situations. Scientist sometimes misuse science and theist sometimes misuse religion. You want examples, sure thing.

*Tuskegee syphilis study
*Heinrinch Gross (one of many)- (From a peer review article)
Opportunities offered themselves through either the concentrated collection of rare disorders and the availability of autopsy specimens (ie, Hallervorden) or through the egeneration of moral standards applicableto research subjects who were perceived to be "lives unworthy
of living" (ie, Schaitenbrand). Heinrich Gross, from his position at Am Spiegelgrund as an active, integral participant in child euthanasia, was aware of an almost unprecedented collection of rare congenital
malformations and inherited disorders and... (continue)

....inherited disorders and readily seized
on the possible scientific opportunity."

"The pathologic materials comprising the basis for the Ludwig Boltzmann institute for Research on Malformation of the Nervous System were transferred to the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of
Clinical Neurobiology on the 1981 merger of these facilities.-'Originally,
continued possession of material from child euthanasia was denied by the leadership of the merged institutes; however, an investigation instigated by the Senate of the University of Vienna
in 1998 confirmed both the- existence and location within the Clinical Neurobiology Institute or in the basement of the successor institute
to Am Speigelgnmd ' Under pressure from successive medical officers of the City of Vienna, almost 6OO urns containing materials from different individual victims of child euthanasia program were finally buried in 2002 at the Viennese Cemetary."
"Journal of Child Neurology I V.2,1, Apr. 2006"

Bet they were mad.

Answer 1

Broad generalizations are fun. They piss people off and get their attention.

Without broad generalizations... half the questions here wouldn't likely be read.

Answer 2

Science has NEVER claimed that it is ALWAYS correct. NEVER. Religion always has. You can look at the religiosity and low education statistics yourself. They were conducted over a period of fifty years. You can draw what conslusions you want from it.


Edit:
"However can you admit that science has its faults as well?"

You didn't huh? Sure seems implied right there to me. Science also has checks and balances so it isn't just one interpretation. All I am reading by what you are saying is you are purposefully trying to lie. I would never claim the name messiah. To quote a StabbingWestward song, "I am not your savior, I am just as f**ked as you. "

Answer 3

Where did the idea come from that religion and science are in some kind of war? I mean, granted that the fundamentalists have made war on a substantial segment of scientific thought, reasoning and information, but fundamentalists are not religion per se. Fundamentalists are actually a rather small subset of one particular religion. Small but dangerous, like the terrorist Jihad extremists of Islam. They are actually a small minority, but noisy and dangerous.

American Jihad, indeed!

Answer 4

All science related to mans existence are based in part on broad generalizations. That is why.

One gets used to doing things a certain way, bad habits are hard to break.
Have you read any good science lately!

Answer 5

i've got faith wide, sweeping generalizations and deceptive information will undermine every person.. regardless of if or no longer this is atheists, Christians, undesirable human beings, wealthy human beings, fat human beings, skinny human beings, etc... In any of those... some make those wide, sweeping generalizations and easily care whilst this is executed to them. possibly shall all of us learn from that.

Answer 6

science isnt the topic here...whny would we compare apples and oranges???
i rarely generalize...i can get specific

Answer 7

So right you are.