Why do people think scientists make everything up?

Answer 1

they dont make it up ... i just think the human ability to have a vision to apply the information that is gained in a positive and correct way is lacking ...

Answer 2

Science has changed their minds so many times over the years that some people have lost faith in science. Even my mother with her bachelor of science degree is iffy about what scientists say now.

In the 50s and 60s scientists were concerned that the earth was getting too cold.

But it's still no excuse to believe that scientists are making things up. Of course you can't blindly follow science, but you have to know scientists don't make things up.

Answer 3

I don't think the true matter at hand is whether scientists make everything up or not. I think the issue is whether or not scientists have an exhagerated confidence in the validity of scientific theory. The issue is whether scientists are a little bit to full of themselves.

Consider the following examples. First consider a frog. Do we have theories of frogs? Not really. We can take frogs, dissect them, put the various organs under a microscope. We can explain what frogs are by what we have directly observed. Therefore, we need to sophisticated theories or fanastic ideas about what makes up frogs.

Now consider something like gravity. Unlike our frog, we cannot take it and examine it under a microscope. In fact, there is very little we can do to observe it directly, except perhaps for our own proprioception or kinesthesia[1] (in otherwords, we might feel our own bodies as being "heavy" during positive G's and "lighter" during negative Gs). The most common type of observation we make concerning gravity is "indirect" observation. We are observing the "effect" of gravity on things.

Since we cannot directly observe the "parts" that make up gravity, we appeal to theory to sort of "guess" what gravity is and how it works. On one hand, we have the Newtonian conception which states that gravity is a force of attraction between to masses. On the other hand, we have the Einsteinian conception that gravity is the bending of space time.

The problem that many "novice" or "arm-chair" scientists tend to make is that the validity of their theories concerning things like gravity are grounded objectively by empirical observation. This problem is expressed in philosophy by the problem of underdetermination[2]. Basically, there is no possible observation that clearly establishes which theory is actually correct. In the terms of gravity, since we are only accessing the "effects" of gravity, no possible observation can truly allow us insight into how gravity works "internally."

Theories are chosen by far more subjective and non-empirical measures. Typically, scientists will invoke principles like "Occam's Razor"[3], which states that, all things considered, the simplest solution is the correct one." But, again, the point is that the validity of this principle cannot be verified indepently and objectively, at least not in the strictly objective and empirical manner than scientists espouse.

Ultimately, science is not as "grounded" in "fact" as most people give it credit for. Fundamentally, the practice of science and the scientific method itself are only validated by the faculties of common sense and reason. The problem for scientists is that there is no available evidence that requires us to conclude that the universe is constituted in a way that it always aligns with the faculty of human reason.

Answer 4

I don't think that scientists make things up. My major irritation is people not going to the source and learning for themselves. The door swings both ways for science and religion, in my opinion.

Wow, the above comment states that Christians don't accept science? That's a load of bull. Maybe SOME have issues, but not all. Generalizing is just so demeaning and frankly a thin way to win an argument.

Answer 5

Are you asking about scientist that believe in God and creation or about scientist that are non believers?

Two different scientist can approach the same problem and come up with two different solutions because of their preconceived ideas.

Answer 6

Something to do with next years grant perhaps or for their 3 minutes of fame, good example is the bold Richard Dawkins aka, the Ego has landed.

Answer 7

Because thats what they're told.

If they were told about the scientific method and compared it to the idea of simply taking a mythical textbook from the bronze-age as the word of a supernatural creator... they might not listen to their teachers much longer.

I'm so tired of correcting creationists who insult Darwin - because they think it will be offensive -because they don't understand that scientists aren't interested in arguments from authority.

Answer 8

Because if it can't be proven 100% concrete, then its completely wrong and "god did it."

I actually saw a Christian who wrote they didn't believe in evolution because "it can't be proven in so many ways."

Answer 9

Maybe cuz there's enough of them to make us think they do, even though a lot of them don't

Answer 10

They don't understand how someone could logically come to a conclusion that doesn't include their tiny window of supposed history... mainly because they don't want to, but more or less due to uninformed teachers...