Why science and history should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Dangermouse]

You make some great points. History has always been written by the victor, but these days science is very much for sale. Also many "scientific facts" are just our best understanding at the time.

That's essentially correct, but not in the way you intend. Science has never been anything but the best guess BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. If new data is found, the science changes to include the new information, so it's always as accurate as it is possible to be. That's a good thing.

[Dangermouse]

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective

• 1.
  (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

"Your chauvinist whimsy" is a statement of opinion on the "idea" you express. It's not an attack on you.

[Private Pickle]

"Your chauvinist whimsy" is a statement of opinion on the "idea" you express. It's not an attack on you.

Right. Yet it doesn't address the idea it addresses me. Hence an ad hom.

[MisterVeritis]

In today's world science and history has been bought and paid for.

Science is supposed to be based on fact and proof. Yet in today's world science is based upon preconceived ideas paid for by grants with a specific goal in mind. Grants awarded always have a goal in mind. A grant is awarded to find fact in an ideal.

For example a grant is awarded to prove global warming. The scientists then set out to prove global warming. If they don't their grant and as such their paycheck is denied.

So their science is based upon proving a goal of those who have paid to have their agenda proved.

The same goes for history. Historians are tasked with interpreting past events per the grants and monies given to them. Granted it is less so in comparison to science but the results are the same. They are given money to come to a predetermined conclusion that fits within the narrative of societal temperature.

For example the idea that the native American was a peaceable people who were set upon by the white man while true has history. While the native American was indeed set upon by the white man the idea that they were a peaceable people is false. The Native American would have been happy conquering not only the white man but also their Native American counterparts. The proof of this is the fact that they had done so for centuries.

We all need to take a step back and question our scientists and historians. They all have an agenda and unless we question them we will all be subject to a revisionist perspective.

I led a multimillion-dollar multi-year research and development program. No one from the government told me what to prove or disprove.

Very early in my small wars studies, I read a book on the Indian wars going back to the earliest colonial days. Historians do not claim the Indians were peaceful. Some were. Many were not.

[Private Pickle]

That's essentially correct, but not in the way you intend. Science has never been anything but the best guess BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. If new data is found, the science changes to include the new information, so it's always as accurate as it is possible to be. That's a good thing.

Incorrect. As we've seen sometimes new information is purposefully ignored because it's detrimental to the goal of the grant awarded to achieve a specific outcome.

[Private Pickle]

I led a multimillion-dollar multi-year research and development program. No one from the government told me what to prove or disprove.

Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position

Very early in my small wars studies, I read a book on the Indian wars going back to the earliest colonial days. Historians do not claim the Indians were peaceful. Some were. Many were not.

https://www.history.com/news/native-...-united-states

LOL

[MisterVeritis]

Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position

How many people do you know who ran government-reimbursed research and development programs? I knew a few less than 50. Not one of us was ever told what to prove or disprove.

https://www.history.com/news/native-...-united-states

LOL

Why, in your own words, does this make you laugh?

[MisterVeritis]

Incorrect. As we've seen sometimes new information is purposefully ignored because it's detrimental to the goal of the grant awarded to achieve a specific outcome.

Science does not work that way. Popular science might. Maybe you should stick with that.

[Private Pickle]

[/FONT]
How many people do you know who ran government-reimbursed research and development programs? I knew a few less than 50. Not one of us was ever told what to prove or disprove.

You missed the logical fallacy you're putting forward.

Why, in your own words, does this make you laugh?

Your selective ignorance.

[Private Pickle]

Science does not work that way. Popular science might. Maybe you should stick with that.

Yet today's science is all about the dollar and popularity. Hence my point. Thanks for proving it.