Scientific Method Mega Thread

[jedidia]

So you don't think that someone can be sane, and also go against the current 'opinion' of science?

If someone insists on being able to levitate because in his opinion there's no gravity, would you consider that sane?

 

[Hielor]

So you don't think that someone can be sane, and also go against the current 'opinion' of science?

Not what I said.

Progress is made in science by people challenging the previous beliefs. That's what differentiates science from religion. But advances aren't made by challenging obvious things like "the acceleration due to gravity at the earth's surface is ~9.8m/s^2.". Measurements like this aren't open to subjective interpretation.

Progress is made in science by asking "why" and setting out to answer that. If you're starting from "the moon might not have gravity" you're Doing It Wrong.

 

[JEL]

Subjectivism breaks down when you look at things like acceleration due to gravity. It can be measured. It can be calculated. there is one right answer, and it doesn't matter who does the calculating or the measuring, if they do it properly, they all arrive at the same answer. Me saying that there is gravity on the moon, based upon experiments and calculations that others have done, does not magically change the result.

I wonder how well you would do in math class if I asked you to add two and two in a base ten numbering system and you answered five, and insisted it's correct because that's what you subjectively believe.

I'm not saying that everything can be objectively measured or quantified, but there are some things that most assuredly can be. Like gravity. Someone who claims that gravity does not affect them is lying or insane.

You are wrong, Hielor. Subjectivism is impossible to bypass. If you weren't subjective you wouldn't be human. You can't elevate yourself above that limitation. You can't logically assume to know objectivity without BEING objectivity itself. You are strictly limited to whatever view you are presented with, whatever world-view you experience, and since you only have that one view you cannot really test if it's true or false. You can only believe it or dis-believe it. Those are your only 2 options.

It all ends with what YOU think.
It all ends with YOU.
(Or since YOU are reading this, if you speak the words to yourself I should perhaps say it all ends with ME )

That's why we are called individuals
That's why you are someONE and not NOone.

Anyway, the important thing is not really which answer you end up believing in, but that you are free to believe it without persecution.
We've seen so many examples through history where people with 'wrong' beliefs were persecuted and oppressed by those with the 'right' beliefs. From religious slaughtering of heathens and heretics to nazist cleansing of impure humans. All done by self-righteous truth-owners patenting right and wrong. Wanting to fire a teacher is less radical than burning her at the stake (is it possible that the term 'to fire somebody' may be a legacy from that dark-age behavior of burning people?), sure, but still in the same oppressionist category. We should progress away from that and allow real free competition of beliefs. If whatever YOU hold to be true, IS true, then have faith it will be the winning belief down the road. Don't try to support your world-view with threats like "anybody who teaches this or that should be considered criminal and barred from teaching" (apart from on your own school ofcourse, if you wish for it to be centrist around YOUR views)

If a community wants a school that teaches to their members the earth is 6000 years old, and the moon is made of cheese, let them have it. Just send your kids somewhere else.

 

[jedidia]

It all ends with what YOU think.
It all ends with YOU.
(Or since YOU are reading this, if you speak the words to yourself I should perhaps say it all ends with ME )

It also ends up with what works. The devices you construct and equations you find are objective, they don't care for your subjective opinion. They just work or don't work. And science has a pretty well track record in working really, really well in all kinds of stuff. No matter of how subjective your look on it, that's at least some degree objectivity right there.

We can continue dialectic discussions about the nature of objectivity and subjectivity for all we want, it all won't change the fact that with some opinions, no matter how subjective, you can build a computer, calculate the trajectury of an artilery shell, or construct an elevator that can lift exactly as much as it was designed to lift. And with some other opinions, you can't. Suggesting that formerly mentioned opinions are correct and later are not, at least if we take physical reality as a judge over correct and incorrect. And when it comes to opinions about physical reality (which is all science really is, no more, no less), you cannot deny physical reality to be the judge of wheather they are right or wrong.

Anyway, the important thing is not really which answer you end up believing in, but that you are free to believe it without persecution.

I do agree with that, though.

If a community wants a school that teaches to their members the earth is 6000 years old, and the moon is made of cheese, let them have it. Just send your kids somewhere else.

sure, as long as nobody starts whining about discrimination because noone that finishes that school can find a job.

 

[Hielor]

Explain to me please, JEL, what exactly is subjective about "the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface is 9.8m/s^2"?

It's either wrong or it's right. This isn't English class where you can write an essay full of wishy-washy ideas and still get an A. This is science.

---------- Post added at 11:51 ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 ----------

You are wrong, Hielor. Subjectivism is impossible to bypass.

I can't be wrong, everything's subjective, remember?

 

[N_Molson]

You are wrong, Hielor. Subjectivism is impossible to bypass. If you weren't subjective you wouldn't be human. You can't elevate yourself above that limitation.

That elevation is commonly named [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method"]Scientific Method[/ame]. Confrontation with others opinion is in this context supposed to help you to bypass subjectivity.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results.

 

[Wishbone]

For goodness' sake, we are not talking about a scientific argument here. First and foremost, how old is the lady in question? There can be dozens of explanations for this mild manifestation of what we call "moon conspiracy nutcase syndrome", from a drinking husband to age-related disorders. Second, almost all Orbinauts (your humble servant included) are not much better and can be considered nutcases themselves, having a hobby many A.U.s away from "normality".

Third, and it troubles me the most. I hear calls to report the teacher to her superiors for something she said in a private conversation with one student she evidently considered bright enough, a conversation totally unrelated to her subject. That's really shameful.

 

[Urwumpe]

You are wrong, Hielor. Subjectivism is impossible to bypass. If you weren't subjective you wouldn't be human. You can't elevate yourself above that limitation. You can't logically assume to know objectivity without BEING objectivity itself.

Wrong.

Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work. -- James Randi

Science is subjective, even if scientists are not. A digit is not changing its behavior because you treat it with more respect than others.

What counts, and that is the difference between science and pseudo-science, is that you go by evidence, know your evidence, and don't introduce new entities, that are not helping explaining the evidence.

Science does not even assume to be the ultimate truth. It is the best known way to the truth. No religion ever promised you that a god will just come and unveil the truth to you. All tell you that you have to earn this truth, most will even tell you that you have to literally take the truth from god.

 

[Hielor]

Science is subjective, even if scientists are not. A digit is not changing its behavior because you treat it with more respect than others.

I think you meant "science is objective" here...

 

[Eli13]

I'm sorry to say it, but she should take a basic class in physics. Besides, this is my belief: all teachers are merely educational puppets and that if you fail to disagree with them, then you will have truly learned nothing. Sure, many things they teach are true, but they tend to argue about things that they surely must know are wrong. But thats just me. I don't mean to start an argument, i just needed to say that.

 

[tblaxland]

I've been holding my tongue for 50 posts already, I just can't keep it in any longer... :lol:

I hear calls to report the teacher to her superiors for something she said in a private conversation with one student she evidently considered bright enough, a conversation totally unrelated to her subject. That's really shameful.

:goodposting:

Besides, this is my belief: all teachers are merely educational puppets and that if you fail to disagree with them, then you will have truly learned nothing.

You should have that attitude not just toward teachers that are officially part of the educational system. Cameron M Semmens' take on an old proverb: "Give a man a teacher, and he'll learn many a thing. Teach a man to learn, and he'll learn from everything." Everything (including everyone) is potentially your "teacher". Allow everything to be your "teacher" by questioning everything (including yourself).

Sure, many things they teach are true, but they tend to argue about things that they surely must know are wrong.

Do not underestimate the power of delusion (including delusion which is self-induced). You can pretty much make a mind believe anything. Another old proverb "Seeing is believing" is not an objectivist actuality. You do not believe what you see, but rather see what you believe.

 

[JEL]

Explain to me please, JEL, what exactly is subjective about "the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface is 9.8m/s^2"?

That YOU are the one stating it.
You are a subjective being, are you not?

It's either wrong or it's right.

Well, that is what you THINK, isn't it?
That is what you feel. That is what you are sure of. That is what you experience. You, you, you. YOU are constantly part of this.

This isn't English class where you can write an essay full of wishy-washy ideas and still get an A. This is science.

It is semantics none the less. You couldn't have any meaningful information-exchange without it. Semantics are subjective.

The concept, or the thought, of gravity exists only when thought of, when conceived, by someone, you, the subject, unless we go really deep and begin to ponder if thoughts perhaps happen to exist as objective free-floating pieces of self-contained information existing truly separate from a human being. If you believe that thoughts arise within your brain or mind, as a product of your brain or mind, which I believe is the mainstream view by contemporary science, then the structure of your brain or mind must most certainly play an integral un-separable part in this thought-process and must therefore color it = YOUR brain forms YOUR thoughts.

So does gravity exist objectively when we don't think about it, which you apparently strongly believe?
It might exist, you either believe in it or you don't, but we can never truly know for sure. The objective truth is impossible to access, because it would require the absence of the subject, and without the subject, you, there's no way you can do any thinking or information-processing.
So the soup of reality always boils down to a matter of pure belief. It ends with subjectivity.

Your mind processes the information. Your mind is part of the information. Heck, maybe your mind even creates ALL the information. We can't really tell, because we can't separate us from our mind and look at things from outside our mind. If you separate yourself from yourself... then who are you?

Is there any way, that you know of, where you can process information (as in thinking or dreaming or experiencing) WITHOUT involving your own mind?

Whatever the world truly looks like, you see/experience it through your own personal human senses. So the known looks of the true world can only be subjective and personal.

I can't be wrong, everything's subjective, remember?

True. And you're not wrong. In your mind gravity apparently exists. That's how I read you, or atleast what you write (but ofcourse I could be self-delusional)
Peace man

Didn't you like Tron-legacy, the movie? (I think you wrote that earlier on, but forgive me if I remember wrong)
- Don't be CLU, just let the ISO's live man

The really big problem, I think, with science is that it scares a lot of people. It's easy to reject what you are afraid of. What you think might dis-empower you. Science today can be really hard to get a grasp on, to understand. Think Fukushima, just as an example, nuclear power is like dark magic to many I'm sure. And if people, in the name of science, then begin to bash, or hand out berufs-verbot to, anybody who aren't properly conformed or in line ("it should be a crime to teach so and so idiocies"), I'm pretty sure it will turn out to be counter-productive. It's like trying to force-democratize countries by use of military and war. If you want science to 'win', then make sure people don't feel threatened by it, but rather feel safe by it and maybe even attracted to it. And nobody, well there's probably always somebody, gets attracted to something they don't trust.
Think of it this way: If science is the person sitting with a loaf of bread, and the 'stupid' people are the bird in the garden you want to feed, you most certainly wont get them to come closer if you attack them. Let them be assured they're not in danger, and things will go by itself from there.

Protect freedom before truths. In my mind, that's how you win the battles of belief-systems. But that's just MY opinion.

Sorry for such a long post, hope I haven't made too many enemies with it

 

[jedidia]

Explain to me please, JEL, what exactly is subjective about "the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface is 9.8m/s^2"?

That YOU are the one stating it.
You are a subjective being, are you not?

Yes, but the elevator I just rode that was constructed based on that subjective statement astonishingly failed to crash and burn although most of its users were convinced that the earth's surface acceleration was 14 m/s^2. Thus giving the strong impression that Hielor, no matter how subjective his opinion about the matter, was right, and they were wrong.

As I said before, we can discuss dialectics all eternity long. It immediately stops when something needs to WORK. And suddenly everyone is entrusting their very lives day by day to the oh so subjective opinions of scientists, because despite all the naging and philosophical mumbo-jumbo, those opinions have proven again and again that they work when confronted with physical reality. It's a kind of hypocricy, really.

I'm not saying subjectivism doesn't have its place. I'm working interculturally, where you have to be very well aware of subjectivism if you don't want to make a complete mess out of things. But the cold hard field of nature simply doesn't care about it. There's a right and wrong whenever you make an assumption about nature, and it will tell you sooner or later which is which.

And if people, in the name of science, then begin to bash, or hand out berufs-verbot to, anybody who aren't properly conformed or in line ("it should be a crime to teach so and so idiocies")

I wholeheartedly agree that it would be completely out of proportion for the specific case mentioned in this thread. However, if a math teacher starts to teach that 1+1 = 3, or a physics teacher starts to teach that the surface acceleration of the earth is 8 m/s^2, I'm sure you'd agree that a dismissal would be in order, based on the simple fact that they are wrong, and provably so. No matter how much anyone is into subjectivism, I know that none of them want the next generation of elevators built under the assumption that 1g = 8m/s^2.

 

[Hielor]

So, JEL, are you saying that an apple which is affected by gravity is only affected because it believes it should be affected?

How about a rock?

 

[JEL]

There's a right and wrong whenever you make an assumption about nature

Maybe. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's not absolutely certain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

we can discuss dialectics all eternity long. It immediately stops when something needs to WORK.

I don't see any difference.
That something appears to you to 'work' doesn't take away the possibility that it could still just be a dream or self-aware experience that you're the only individual having.
It doesn't prove that you're wrong, but just says that there's always a chance that you're wrong.

if a math teacher starts to teach that 1+1 = 3, or a physics teacher starts to teach that the surface acceleration of the earth is 8 m/s^2, I'm sure you'd agree that a dismissal would be in order

I would agree so far as to say that any school has the right to select which teachers they allow to teach at their school, without any outside interference.

//RANT begin//
Look, I'm not really anti-science, and I don't believe the moon is made of cheese. The reason I get worked up over issues like this one is because of how I see society regressing into a state where oppression of minorities are becoming more and more acceptable in the name of science.
Science-believers (or atleast those in authoritative power who abuse science) are becoming a supremacist group that feel they have the right to make decisions on everybody else's behalf. I'm vehemently against this in all forms it shows itself in.

Here, for example, is a case I'm following that I find greatly disturbing, where science (medical in this case) was literally forced down the throat of someone who doesn't want it:
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/maryanne-godboldo's-daughter-back-with-family-20110506-da

Even if I may believe in science myself, I have an even stronger belief in everybody's right to say NO to it. Science may not become a new holy shrine or alter upon which it becomes legal to strip people of their rights to self-determination. Regardless of what kind of life people choose for themselves, science MUST be sub-ordinate to individual freedom.
//RANT end//

So, JEL, are you saying that an apple which is affected by gravity is only affected because it believes it should be affected?

No. I'm saying that gravity, apples and rocks might all just be products of your mind. That they, and everything else, might just result because of how your mind works. If I cut away half your brain, then gravity, apples and rocks might just become something completely different to you.

 

[jedidia]

I don't see any difference.
That something appears to you to 'work' doesn't take away the possibility that it could still just be a dream or self-aware experience that you're the only individual having.
It doesn't prove that you're wrong, but just says that there's always a chance that you're wrong.

And here we get a problem with concepts of superiority. You see, you argue against an objectivists viewpoint in the potential damage it can cause (stagnate in arogance and supress free thinking). I could argue against subjectivism on the same basis of potential damage it could do, namely people becoming perfect sociopaths that don't care about anything or anyone because all of it is potentially an illusion.

Such a discussion would be rather fruitless, as we'd both have the same basic argument to go on and the same goal, to prevent potential harm. We'll have to meet somewhere in the middle using a bit of common sense, and I mean that term quite literally.

Common sense in this matter, in the meaning of what we both can perceive equally, would be to aknowledge each others existance. From my point of view it is absurd to assume that you are an illusion, from your point of view it would be pointless to argue IF you would assume I was an illusion. Hence, I hope we can agree on that we both exist, and that therefore, there has to be a framework in which we both exist at the same time, which we call reality.

This realty follows certain rules, or we would both perceive it utterly different. However, if you and I were to measure the surface acceleration of the earth, and a few 1000 people more, most of us would get the same result independantly (and some would probably screw up the measurement, that's why I expanded the scope beyond "you" and "I"). Since we already aknowledged each others existance, we can therefore conclude that we can asses the reality we both exist in on a common basis. That basis is objectivity, or as objective as we can get. The more people put their observations about reality together, the more objective it gets. The result formed is NOT depending on the partakers opinions, but solely on the results of their measurements. That's what we call science, and we can use it to describe the reality we both exist in. And we can use it to build awsome stuff like spaceships, that work.

If someone were to build a spaceship on other assumptions, it wouldn't work, and would probably kill the astronauts. We can therefore conclude that ignoring the data so many have gathered by hard work can be dangerous in certain situations.

We can therefore not allow our engineers to be taught otherwise. We simply can't, people will die if we do. If someone wants to become an engineer later in his live, and finds out he can't because he went to a school where everything was taught a bit different than in others, he'll feel betrayed, and rightly so. He spent as much time and effort learning it all as a kid going to another school, yet what he learned has no practical application, or would potentially result in accidents and death if he tries to use it in practice.
This tells us that there has to be a certain standard for teachers, or our kids will pay the price.

However: Not everything can be measured reliably, and many times observation influences the results. What works very nice with the indifferent, objective nature of physics can fail horribly when aplied to us comparativly hyper-sensitive and subjective humans. That's why psychology isn't yet really getting much anywhere until it will be given a hand by some seriously advanced neurology that can actually measure causes and not just cathegorize effects. I therefore agree with you that it is quite problematic to alevieate science to an absolute value, and even the very concept of science would not have it so. It is happening non the less, with some scientific research even trying to establish a "natural law of ethics" and similiar nonsense, which can be scarry. I'm a religious person, so you can rest assured that I understand your fears there.

However, Denying the existance of reality and therewith of everyone else on the planet is an inefficient and utterly terifying way to counter this. After all, you just doubted the existance of anyone opressed by anything at all, so what does it matter anyways?

Well, this got way too long... :lol:

 

[JEL]

And here we get a problem with concepts of superiority. You see, you argue against an objectivists viewpoint in the potential damage it can cause (stagnate in arogance and supress free thinking). I could argue against subjectivism on the same basis of potential damage it could do, namely people becoming perfect sociopaths that don't care about anything or anyone because all of it is potentially an illusion.

So how would you solve this?
By ordering/dictating people to believe in a certain truth (and what would you do to those who dis-obey?), or by allowing people the freedom to make their own choices (even when those choices may appear irrational to you)?

You can probably infer from how I wrote that question what answer I would go with myself

If relativity sticks, each side must be the other side's alternative

 

[jedidia]

By ordering/dictating people to believe in a certain truth (and what would you do to those who dis-obey?), or by allowing people the freedom to make their own choices (even when those choices may appear irrational to you)?

Why so black and white? why not simply admitt that there are things that simply make no sense to decide, no matter how free our will? The discussion from "life of Brian" comes to mind, where a man that decided to be a woman feels opressed because he cannot get pregnant. That makes about as much sense as "deciding" that there's no gravity on the moon.

Now, how much someone may decide to believe anything he wants certainly depends on what he's doing. As I said, a structural engineer simply cannot be allowed to decide that gravity on earth s 8 m/s^2. Yes, I will deny him that decision by law, if must be, but most probably natural selection will take care of it: The guy isn't going to find work.
If he chooses to believe the moon is made out of cheese, I couldn't care less. It doesn't make much sense, but it doesn't matter to or affect anyone else either.

However, if an Astronomer were to decide that the moon is made out of cheese and starts to develop a new model of planetary formation, I would fire him, because certainly the man is throwing away my money for naught. If the same man chooses to believe that apples are indeed lemons, I won't bother about it.

If a cook should decide that apples are lemons, well... you get the point. Am I in favour to enforce a "truth-law" that demands adherance by each and everyone on the same level? no. Absolutely not. Do I think that all knowledge is therefore completely open to negotiation? No and yes. Everyone is free to doubt everything, but before their opinion can be accepted and, for example integrated into a schools curiculum, it takes a lot more than just deciding to believe. It takes hard work to gather some proof that your opinion stands the confrontation with reality, at least where reality is concerned (If you want to establish something in phylosophy class, it's a lot easier). That's what science basically is: a lot of subjective opinions that get filtered by confronting them with reality, over and over again. It's hard work, and what's being taught at schools has earned the right to be taught there by hard work of many people. A simple "I decide tobelieve such and such" simply cannot have the same privilege. But if it isn't critical to the person, it shouldn't be forbidden either.

 

[JEL]

Why so black and white? why not simply admitt that there are things that simply make no sense to decide, no matter how free our will? The discussion from "life of Brian" comes to mind, where a man that decided to be a woman feels opressed because he cannot get pregnant. That makes about as much sense as "deciding" that there's no gravity on the moon.

I think we view this from 2 different view-points... ...making it hard for us to find a common objective ground to unite upon...

But anyway, one last comment on all of this, even though this is now getting somewhat detached from the debate about possible lunar gravity; life-shattering decisions are already being made! And in my view, they are already being made in a way that have gotten completely out of hand. It's not common sense what we see anymore, it's common sense gone bad.

The Maryanne Godboldo case is one such recent example (it's still going on) where a family is being broken to pieces by conflicting belief-systems. Where individual freedom to make your own life-style choices are being denied by elitist supremacy groups basing THEIR decisions on science, not religion. Had they based their decisions on religion there would have been an outcry. This is nothing but the dark-ages in reverse mode. It's the same detrimental suppression of individual liberty as it was back then. Only now it's done by the opposite side.

According to the reports the state literally gave Maryanne Godboldo 2 choices; either stuff this scientific drug down your daughter's throat (because WE know it's good for her, and you don't) or we'll take her from you by force. That's crossing the line! Big-time! At-least in my world.

I'll stop here, otherwise my writing will turn into a long political statement.

That's what science basically is: a lot of subjective opinions that get filtered by confronting them with reality, over and over again.

I'm still going to have to disagree with you. How do you confront subjective views with reality when you don't know reality but only know the subjective views? You can at best end up with a degree of probability, but never with certainty.

What do you see here:

Flowers? Real or artificial? Is it just paper or some other fabric and not really actual biological flowers?
If you don't know what it really is in advance, then how do you tell from just your observation?
(According to the website they're artificial )

Or what about this one:

Where's this image taken? Do you know the location? Is it Afghanistan? Does the location even exist? What altitude is the aircraft flying at? (Apparently it's a USAF aircraft so I guess we could assume it's Afghanistan). Is it inside a computer? How do you tell?
Well, according to the website this photo isn't taken anywhere, and isn't even a photo but a computer-rendition of imaginary scenery made with a software program called Vue
Maybe your brain is just an excellent scenery generator...

Or let's take it a step further. Do you know the world famous singer Hatsune Miku?
Here she is in concert, LIVE and in HD... or is she... :

I'll even turn it up another notch, now that we're so deep into this discussion anyway, all you see is just photons hitting your eye, correct? How do you determine, aka KNOW, the natural objective state of those photons before you detect them? How do you know them before you see them?
And to know objectivity with certainty you have to know the state of the entire system, not just part of the system:

Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur. (...)

It is widely held that certainty about the real world is a failed historical enterprise.... This is in large part due to the power of David Hume's Problem of induction. Physicist Carlo Rovelli adds that certainty, in real life, is useless or often damaging (the idea is that "total security from error" is impossible in practice, and a complete "lack of doubt" is undesirable).

Science must NEVER be taken for an absolute truth, but only for a POSSIBLE truth. Because as long as there is still UNcertainty, alternatives ARE possible.

Can we squeeze more juice out of this lemon do you think?
My interest is mainly in the political aspects and ramifications of different belief-systems, since that is what trickles down from those in power onto our personal lives and thus affect us most directly (and yes I do have a super-distaste for power-absorbing people, be it politicians, priests, company-leaders, or other)

 

[jedidia]

I'm still going to have to disagree with you. How do you confront subjective views with reality when you don't know reality but only know the subjective views? You can at best end up with a degree of probability, but never with certainty.

err yes, the scientific method itself makes that very clear. It isn't its fault if that gets forgotten, as it isn't Gods fault if his followers forgett about him...

However, probability can in some cases reach as close to certainty that it's practically just that. It's rather rare, and really only possible in the field of physics. Biology already gets more uncertain, although some basic foundations (like e.g. the celular structure) are pretty close to it, but biochemical interactions like for example for medicine can get rather complicated. And patient diagnosis is another matter altogether, especially when psychological processes become involved, where something like practically certain probability is a darn long way off.

The line for those who have to make a decision, like in the case you mention, is a thin one, and mistakes are bound to happen, especially where children are involved.
There's still no denying that there are clear cases and unclear ones. There are instances of parents not letting their child have a life-saving blood tranfusion because of some pretty messed up beliefs (which are already very dubious on a theological basis, much more so on a scientifical). Force the transfusion to save the life of the child, or let the child die to protect the free will of its parents? You can bet I'd go for the first!

However, especially if psychology gets involved stuff can get *really* nasty, especially because it's one major discipline of pop-science that gets politicised more and more lately. The pro/contra homosexuality debate between liberals and religious right is a nice example for that, where everyone is citing some humdrum studies to support their points, while serious and unbiased research is rarely done and even more rarely funded. Yes, this is a problem. But as said, it isn't exactly a philosophical problem, but a political one, and can only be solved politically, not philosophically. Attacking the whole premise of science because of that is the same fallacy as attacking all of religion for whatever atrocities were commited in its name.

I'm still going to have to disagree with you. How do you confront subjective views with reality when you don't know reality but only know the subjective views?

By putting thousand and even millions of subjective MEASUREMENTS (Not views. Not opinions. Measurements!) together, thus making them more and more objective. Although never able to reach quite there, the more they are challenged the more probable they become. As such there's absolutely nothing wrong with challenging them, they'll be all the better for it, and if they turn out to not stand the challenge, very good ridance indeed.

However, simply believeing something else is not challenging. A challenge consists of an attempt to refute, not to just put forth an alternative, unless that alternative delivers more precise results when challenged. Again, there's a lot of work involved here.

I can understand how outright ignoring a challenge to an established theory can cause concern. But that often is for good reasons: Either the challenge has been made and has not managed to refute the theory or failed to be a better alternative, and is put forth again without significant changes. That's pretty much what happens with creationism nowadays.
Or the challenge hasn't had the neccesary effort put into it to give it a fair chance.
And then of course there's the case I mentioned above already, where everyone is just talking scientifically, but nothing is really done. No theory is really established, neither of the aspirants presents a conclusive result, and istead try to get their theory established by dicing the political system. I agree, that's bad. Very bad indeed.

What do you see here:

A digital image in jpg compression. I could get you the binary data and tell you the exact RGB values of every pixel (and if you'd check them on your machine you'd see that they are exactly the same, thus increasing the probability that indeed this is a digital image with pixels clored in said RGB values, and if we do that a few thousand times with other people, that probability would reach practical certainty), but beyond that I can't really make any objective statements, because it's a digital image, after all.

Now I know what your counterargument will be, but consider this: This is a digital image. I can do with it everything I can do with a digital image. I cannot do with it what I could do with the actual flowers. So if the actual flowers again are some kind of reality projection, it doesn't really have any practical meaning, because I can only do with these flowers what I can do with flowers, and what indeed everyone can do with these flowers. Even if I knew that these flowers are in truth something else, I still can only do with them what I can do with flowers. Just the way that I can only do with the image what I can do with an image, even though I know that it is an iimage of flowers. The object I objectively see is a digital image not flowers. If I see some real flowers in nature, the objec I see is a real flower, and I can analyse and study it as I can study a flower, and not what I see in this flower in my subjective perception.

Here she is in concert, LIVE and in HD...

Live certainly not, as the video is from YouTube... Although, since the whole thing is virtual anyways, it could be argued that she's always live when watched on a computer, but that's a topic for cyber-ethics, not science.

My interest is mainly in the political aspects and ramifications of different belief-systems, since that is what trickles down from those in power onto our personal lives and thus affect us most directly

Then you will achieve better results if you deal with the topic politically.

and yes I do have a super-distaste for power-absorbing people, be it politicians, priests, company-leaders, or other

That makes two of us.