Doesn't science kind of make up whatever is popular at the time?

HEY HEY NOW, HOLD IT, I'M SERIOUS. I'm not trolling (I always give you guys heads up when I'm not trolling. I don't know why you all continue to get mad when I am...)



Science used to claim that black people weren't quite human but were more evolved than animals and crap like that. Some chick asked me if black peoples skin gets leathery in the sun if we stay outside to long (I almost punched her in her face). I bet that was a scientific "fact" at one point too, huh?Doesn't science kind of make up whatever is popular at the time?
Science used to claim that black people weren't quite human



Sources please?
No it makes hypotheses then tests them with a process known as the scientific method. If through testing multiple times the hypothesis is not refuted it becomes a theory and if the theory is shown to apply in many different situations it becomes a law. You obviously have a very poor understanding of science if you assume it just declares things facts without testing them.Doesn't science kind of make up whatever is popular at the time?
The actual thing is that true science changes as new evidence comes available to discredit earlier observations....

Many racial stereotypes have been created and disseminated by religions and others by other 'races' through teaching to their kids...

Sorry to say there are still some 'people' that create, believe and repeat racial stereotypes. These are not scientists, but idiots...

and, sorry to say, will always exist...

IMHODoesn't science kind of make up whatever is popular at the time?
Yes! You finally figured it out. Now you know that the theory of gravity is just what ever they want it to be on some particular day. So tomorrow things will be falling up. You can test this out by finding a tall building and jumping off.

Science never claimed any such thing. Give us a source.
No, not at all



And actually, the irony is that the Bible is full of crap that was popular at the time



You know, like keeping slaves.



Science never made that claim.If you see something racist in science, that's your problem.
Unlike religion, science makes advancements. I'm sure it says in the Bible about a girl being a prostitute and stoning disobedient children. It's only secular-based morals that have changed that from being an occurrence.
Could you please provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific source every time you say "Science used to claim"? Thank you.
I cannot wait until tomorrow, when all the kids are back in school and we grownups can have some time for intelligent discourse.
║█║█║║█║█║█║║█║█║║█║█║█

║█║█║║█║█║█║║█║█║║█║█║█

║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║║

╚╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩╩OH BOY
Sup, Flowertower? Does "Mega Savage" ring a bell? YouTube? Marky?
Yes. Charles Darwin believed in the spontaneous generation theory. He was such a smart man.
Right now I'm sitting here looking at you trying to see things from your point of view but I can't get my head that far up my ***.
"Science used to claim..." science is not a being with intelligence, and neither are you for that matter.
NO, science never did or does. Psychotic people who want to control other people SAY that science does or says many things, but in the end, no science does not.
Are you trying to say all people who support science over religion and creationism are racist?
Where are you getting your information from? I know that science says that we're all apes, and just another animal.
la la la ????? la laaaa ????
You know today Blackss-hole as you are popular
Well, if not trolling, then very stupid.
barf
Depends on the science.

The scientific method - that thing you hear about in school where you hypothesize, experiment, and throw things out if the experiments don't prove them - that always produces good results. Universal law and reality don't care about contemporary trends - they're always going to come to the same conclusions.

But the times and the culture can definitely influence the types of experiments that are performed, the types of results that are ignored, and what gets publicized and what doesn't. And often, journalism will deliberately try to confuse the opinions of individual scientists with the results of the science that they had done. (Newton, for instance, literally believed he could cast magic spells. He also discovered an enormous amount of useful information about physics. The science is the physics; the magic was Newton's opinions. He didn't scientifically test his magical opinions - not rigorously and properly, anyway.)


In today's world, I'd say you're pretty safe trusting information out of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and most branches of biology - those are sciences that are from the most part free of political influences and journalistic distortion. Sciences like economics and medicine are murkier, not because the science isn't sound, but because they make good grounds for journalistic sensationalism. And sciences like psychology and sociology are, frankly, still maturing as scientific disciplines - there's still a lot of opinion and tradition that gets mixed in with scientific results in those fields.
"Science used to claim that black people weren't quite human but were more evolved than animals and crap like that."

No, certain Scient-ISTS claimed that.
You're talking about the self-serving conclusions of a couple racists like Arthur Jensen and Rushton. If you read others, and more recent research and studies on the subject you'll see just how debunked they are. They took human development and attributed intelligence and behavior to genetics without proper justification.

Science itself is a CORRECTING method, the one that has demonstrated the most reliability for determining the truth. I've see a LOT of non-scientist racists, more, to be specific. You'd prefer people just based their lives around BIASES and unquestioned MISATTRIBUTIONS, often resulting in irrationality and racism, rather than correcting them through study and consideration? Science destroys racism when given the time/studies to correct biases like Rushton and Jensen.

Watch some videos by this user if you want to see a geneticist dismantling racists who think Rushton and Jensen are legitimate.
http://www.youtube.com/user/EvoGenVideos

"I bet that was a scientific "fact" at one point too, huh?"
You do you know what a fact is, right? A confirmed observation. A scientific fact would be a confirmed observation that has had the scientific method applied. Rushton and Jensen's conclusions are NEITHER.

Below are some sources that ALL contradict your initial statement that science(observations of reality put through a strict correcting process) supports racism. I hope you will do better research in the future so you do not contribute to the propagation of misinformation.

http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Rav…
http://tv.isg.si/site/ftpaccess/elogedus…
http://pubget.com/paper/19205953
http://asm.sagepub.com/content/18/2/156
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pas/22/1…
Yes, to a point. Darwin was a sexist, racist man. Now they avoid some of his writings and deny he ever was. There was a time when science thought the universe was eternal, unchanging. It's not like it is ALL science or even good science, it's just scientists are human and subject to the failings of humankind.

Darwin on women

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses.”

“It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man: but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a pas.”

The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the ***** or Australian and the gorilla.”
No, there was no and is no science behind racism just people being dumb.





































































































































































































































Go Away, *****.
Yup ^___^

Just asked a question about it in fact... atheists too stubborn to be truthful !