This might be heresy, but I feel like saying that “science isn’t truth, it’s the search for truth”, and “if you disagree it’s not a disagreement, you’re just wrong” is internally inconsistent.
It needs to be “if you disagree without evidence.”
They can leave that whole “if you’re not a scientist” bit in the rubbish bin.
If you disagree without evidence, you’re not wrong. You can propose an alternative theory that is consistent with existing evidence and it’s just as valid as anybody else’s. The mission is then to find evidence which disproves one theory or the other.
Conjecture is fundamental.
If you disagree without evidence you may, even by pure chance be correct, however without evidence and methodology to discuss it, you may as well be wrong.
The “you” here is misleading. Consider any scientific field, then now consider all the people you know. How many people do you know, if any, who can propose a theory that is equally valid compared to scientific consensus on some topic in that field? It’s unlikely most people are friends with Aristotle or the like or are themselves in that boat.
Is it theoretically possible? Sure. Is it more likely that you or I or the stranger who fills this theoretical situation is actually an over confident moron? Overwhelmingly yes lol.
This thinking just leads to science being turned into a religion. Knowledge being passed down from blessed people who perform obscure practises, and the masses being expected to accept it without question. Science should be open and understood by all. Then it has the weight it deserves and then you can have proper public discourse about issues.
In no way does this make science religion. What it means is all opinions aren’t created equal and if you want to have a valid opinion you have to do work. If you dont want to do work that’s fine, but 998 times out of 1000 your “contribution” is you looking like a dipshit.
If you want to learn it learn it. If you want to participate, learn it. Science isn’t just discussion between friends.
Edit: To be exceptionally clear, scientific discussion is NOT open to everyone all the time, and you have no inherent right to participate without preparation and investment.
Without new evidence, disagreeing with established science is being wrong. Young earth creationists are wrong because they have no new evidence to contradict established science. Even thoigh the age of the earth was scientifically calculated multiple times and could be revised again with new evidence, flat earthers are wrong because conjecture about existing knowlege without evidence is just being wrong.
A young earth creationist’s hypothesis does not agree with existing evidence and so your example does not refute my argument.
I believe they ment “If you disagree in spite of evidence.”
I disagree lol.
This is conflating science and expertise, but it’s probably still closer to valid than only “disagree without evidence”. A person with no background on the area of interest (or science in general) is likely not to even understand what constitutes evidence of a claim. The set of non scientist people who can produce a reliable body of evidence disproving a theory that has not been found by experts in the same field is likely so small as to be negligible compared to the set of non scientist people with “evidence” from Facebook/other who are in fact just wrong.
No, that’s the point. Disagreeing is already part of the scientific method. To disagree with science as a whole is to argue with the method, not the findings.
Imagine two explorers searching for a lost ancient ruins. They come to a path running north/south. One says to go north and the other says south. That’s a disagreement. They are both still explorers seeking discovery.
A third observer sees them arguing and says “Ah, you don’t know the way. We should not be seeking ruins because I already know what is there. I was told in a dream that the ruins were made by Bigfoot, and he made them invisible and impossible to see. Searching is futile, but I can draw you a map from what I already know is there.”
That’s not a third opinion of equal validity. It’s not even a disagreement. It’s just being wrong.
While I do agree with what you’re saying, and it’s a way of reading it I hadn’t considered, I don’t think the distinction is clear from the meme. Then again, it’s just a meme, so my expectations can probably stand to be lowered a bit.
I feel it should say something like “science isn’t ‘unchanging truth’, written in stone, but rather the unending search for truth”.
I once had a colleague who was raised to live by the bible, never questioning it. He was also a massive shitposter. No matter what dumb shit he said, he’d always say that it was just a joke.
Well, one of the few times when I genuinely caught him off guard, was when I explained that science did not actually claim to know the one and only truth. That it wanted to be proven wrong.
I think, that idea itself conflicted with his whole world view. Like, I imagine, his parents also raised him to never question their authority.
Which is why my father will die alone and without love. You do not demand authority, you earn it, and you better recognize when you’re being an asshole to your adult children. Also, don’t molest my niece and lie to the cops.
Also, don’t molest my niece and lie to the cops.
WHAT. I’m so sorry…
We believe her and he’s a piece of shit. Don’t be sorry for me and she’s doing great! She’s got a lot of supportive and loving uncles. It’s crazy how fucking common the crime is and how a grown man can just… Tell the cops, it didn’t happen. Case closed.
She’s got a lot of supportive and loving uncles.
Lucky girl.
It’s crazy how fucking common the crime is
EXCUSE ME WHAT
And how a grown man can just… Tell the cops, it didn’t happen. Case closed.
Wait, so nothing happened? The cops left him?
That’s an unfortunately common occurrence when the police are brought in for crimes like this. Most sexual abuse is perpetrated by people who have a relationship with the victim, usually family. 1 in 5 women have been raped, a third of those women were raped between the ages of 11 and 17. 81% of women will experience some form of sexual harassment or assault in their lifetimes. Only 20-40% of rapes are reported to the police. Only about half of those result in arrest. 80% of the arrests are prosecuted. 58% of the prosecutions result in conviction. And 69% of the convicted offenders will serve time in jail/prison. So for every 100 rapists, about 3 of them will go to prison.
Uk those times where u see something that changes ur worldview quite a lot? Yea, I think this is it. Didn’t know the world was SO fucked up.
I feel that, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I won’t take the opportunity to shill any specific outlook or worldview. Just know that there are people out there who have made it their life’s mission to fix societal ills like these. While it may be tempting to condemn the entire human race, it’s not particularly productive in the long term. The things you’re thinking and feeling now can be turned into action down the road once you’ve had time to process them and deconstruct.
Other than losing his family, no. Nothing happened. The cops thought my sister was lying or there wasn’t enough evidence.
:(
deleted by creator
I know why people are voting you down, but it’s generally considered bad taste to ask details about sexual abuse. Giving details actually acts as a way for other pedophiles to get off.
I’ll leave it vague but factual. He was babysitting her when she was young and he molested her. She told my sister about it and she called the cops. The police believed my father and made it a “he said she said” situation between my sister and father.
I feel like this is a very “shoplifting, public intoxication, nuclear warfare, and jaywalking” way to present things.
This didn’t come out until later, because my sister and niece didn’t want to “destroy the family.” Once my niece was old enough she told us on her own and I guess that’s why I presented in that order. But yes, I agree.
We all die alone. Get over it.
Wtf?
Nobody is going with you. Whenever it’s your turn, it’s only you. Sorry for it.
But there’s a difference between “dying and going somewhere with others” and dying surrounded by loved ones.
Yeah. I guess. Seems like it ends the same. Also, watch out for busses I guess?
Well yeah sure but if I have the choice I know which I’d go for! I don’t know what you mean though, what bu
As a young scientist who’s yet to gain PhD:
Absolutely do challenge scientists, no matter your qualification. Sometimes (granted, that’s rare) you might be right.
Just do it in a respectful way and make sure you check your arguments.
Also, while scientists are generally more educated overall, they can absolutely be foolish in what falls outside their scope. “I’m a scientist” is not a valid argument.
And yes, always check for a conflict of interest.
There is a difference between informed skepticism and motivated skepticism or skepticism from ignorance. Informed skepticism is good. That’s what solid science is based on. Being skeptical because the conclusions don’t align with what you believe or because you don’t actually understand what is going on is bad.
Even motivated skepticism can be just fine with appropriate rigor and the clarity to see when evidence does or does not back up what you’re saying. (Heliocentrism is a good example.)
Skeptics are a big reason why I don’t argue with people on the internet anymore, some people will literally only accept evidence if it supports their world view, anything that doesn’t “Must be fake”, and the only explanation they give is throwing around insults…
I’d probably still have a working Reddit account if I learned that sooner, ah well…
That’s something I wish more people would actually give some thought to. As someone from a group who gets discussed ad nauseum in the media it really is the case that a lot of the skeptical people that become our problem really don’t have a personal data point for us. So many assumptions are made with things we theorize about but do not personally know. For us it can become plain very quickly when someone has never really interacted directly with us and are just operating on assumptions. I think the world is generally a better place when one is willing to be humble about what they choose to be skeptical about. Admitting to yourself and others that something is at present and maybe forever beyond your ken isn’t a weakness. It’s a strength.
This sounds like what a lot of neurodivergent people like myself deal with. eg. ADHD, Autism etc. Lots of people talking on our behalf that aren’t actually neurodivergent themselves.
Autism and ADHD definitely fits that bill. A lot of my friends are on the spectrum. I am a Non-binary trans person so a lot of the people I know IRL who also identify as Non-binary trans are autistic but I ended up with just ADHD. Still it makes me angry to hear my friends talked about as though they are a problem that was caused by somebody’s lack of oversight. They are incredible, funny, loving, worthwhile people to know. They struggle and it’s not always okay but that doesn’t make them a “problem”.
I get a dose of the same nonsense when I tell people that I am non-binary on here. People’s immediate assumption is I am very young. That I will “change my mind”. That all non-binary people are flighty star chidren who want to live in a land of make believe, feel special or be lavished with attention and it’s so frustrating. I am 38. I knew I was trans since I was 21…I think barring an extreme brain injury I’m pretty set in my ways. I am told that I am at times infuriatingly practical. I worked in crews with fairly conservative people for three and a half years straight being rehired for the gig when they had plenty of opportunities to ditch me. None of whom have any idea I’m enby. If they suspect anything with the name change they never said. I think being non-binary is functionally one of the least interesting things about me. It says very little about my personality and interests. When conservative people do talk to me on platforms a lot of them cannot reconcile me with their assumptions of trans people. They might label me “one of the good ones” … which believe me really doesn’t feel great to hear them say… but that’s how they rationalize the disconnect. Their pride demands not that that they review whether their skeptism is misplaced but instead I must be the exception that proves the rule. Ignoring that I know a fair number of other trans people my age and I am more similar to them than not.
It took a long fucking time for doctors to stop talking to me like I’m a damn child, thankfully things have gotten better… But I recall a time when doctors straight up refused to speak to me directly about my health issues or would use small words and talk very slowly.
A lot of the time they’d start out talking normal, see my diagnosis on the chart, and suddenly I was “five” in their eyes and nothing I could say would change that, they’d just assume I “heard that on TV!”
Thank God that Rainman doesn’t seem to be the public perception of Autism anymore.
Now when they see that, they just ask if I have a safe living situation and a good support network.
This ^
I actually find myself skeptical of skeptics these days, I feel like we’ve gone from questioning bad science to “An incessant need to be right and fuel that ego, without letting things like conflicting evidence get in the way of a perfectly solid pre-established worldview.”
Of course - that’s what I meant by “check your arguments”. Thanks for the clarification with this point!
It’s always important to remember that something can be obvious to a layman, but be considered ridiculous by an expert, as the expert’s view is likely rigid and unlikely to deviate from their experience.
This does not mean experts are morons (They’re considered experts for a damn good reason). it simply means an outsider perspective can be valuable from time to time.
Exactly!
I am kind of a scientist myself.
It’s not entirely wrong. There is absolutely a bias in what gets studied simply because it requires money to be given to study most things. For example, it’s why some more natural remedies like taking fish oil to help lower cholesterol took so long to have actual scientific backing; there’s no money in widely available remedies so finding funding to do the study was difficult.
You can see this really clearly if you look at more politicized areas, like economics. And for what it’s worth, it doesn’t mean that the evidence that’s generated is bad (although the conclusions drawn from it may be), but that it results in a lack of evidence for opposing viewpoints.
All those studies being funded by mars to make chocolate seem healthy. it was on last week tonight
Wine producers were behind wine being “healthy in moderation” roo.
Which I find to be such an excellent example. Since red wine has prolonged contact with grape skins, letting it keep a lot of the flavonoids. It’s not incorrect exactly, but you’d still be better off eating grapes or drinking grape juice.
There absolutely is more money to be made in natural remedies, these days. People are selling chakra activating light emitting bracelets online citing studies that find no physical evidence of chakras. We live in a mad world.
The part which annoys me is about intentions.
Sure, lobby groups do pay off some people with a PhD to lie for them (Patrick Moore), that’s not up for debate.
But to imply that this is the norm is just ignorant of how research is conducted.
Most scientists are either employed by a company, working towards a very specific, non contentious goal (like developing cold fusion), or are involved in research at a university, paid for in grants by their government to research whatever has been approved as worthy of investigation.
Nobody is pressuring these researchers to find evidence to support any particular agenda, the chips land where they fall. There’s no fat cat smoking a cigar telling the climate science team at their local university that they need to find more evidence to crash the petrol stocks so they can sell more solar panels.
Nobody? There are quite a few counter examples. Cigarette and fossil fuel companies have done this quite a lot.
Isn’t the sugar industry responsible for everyone thinking fat is the main cause of heart attacks instead of sugar?
There is no need to actually bribe researchers. IT is much more effective to find some that happen to already be in your favor and boost their signal.
Say that out of 100 scientists of the relevant field, 90 think your product is toxic, two think your product is perfectly safe, and the remaining eight think that the evidence is not strong and/or significant enough to determine the product’s danger. Because as much as we’ve wished science to be clear-cut and deterministic, and as much as the scientific method tries to root it out, human’s opinions and prejudices will always have some effect. Maybe after many decades science will reach a (near) 100% consensus - but your product is still new, so disagreement can still be found.
You can try to bribe these 98 scientists to say that your product is safe, but that’s a risky move because even if a handful of them has some conscious they can go public with it and you’ll have to deal with bad PR. So instead, you reach out to the two scientists that already think that it is safe. You fund their research, so that they can publish more papers. You send them to conferences all around the world, so that they can talk to other scientists and to journalists and spread their opinion on your product. You get your marketing/PR/social media teams to increase the reach of their publications.
These two scientists are not being “pressured” - they can still honestly claim that their belief in your product is not a result of the money you spend on them, and that will be true. The thing that is a result of the money you spend on them is their impact. These 90 scientists that warn against your product can’t conduct as many researches, because they need to find funding for these researches themselves. They can’t go to as many conferences, because they don’t have anyone working their connections to get them invited (and to pay for their flight tickets). They don’t have professional promoters advertising their findings.
So even though only two scientists support you while 90 oppose you, these two scientists have - thanks to your money - more impact on the public opinion than these 90.
All without any scientist having to utter a single lie.
I mean… Science does sometimes lie. Plenty of research papers out there with fudged results or questionable methodology. Also the fact that scientists don’t always agree with each other on things.
You should always question authority. Just don’t question the truth once it’s actually been proven.
Science does sometimes lie.
Hm, imo, science doesn’t lie — scientists lie. It need not even be a lie — it could simply be a misinterpretation of data. As long as proper science was done, and documented, reproduction of the experiment will get to the bottom of its accuracy.
Question the proven truth all the time,cas long as you’re not fighting against observations and evidence
as long as you’re not fighting against observations and evidence without additional observations and evidence.
Observations and evidence could be non-maliciously incorrect. New observations could be made that invalidate the old after another change in our perception occurs.
Observations and evidence just show to the best of our abilities at the moment.
I completely agree, heck there’s also times when all the science is done perfectly but the result is incorrect because the people interpreting the data got Cause and Effect backwards… Or worse, when the data checks out, but violates the current paradigm so much that the academia of the time rejects it out of principle alone and refuses to acknowledge you. (This literally happened when we discovered germs, and the first person to pitch the idea of the Big Bang was mocked over how “religious” the idea sounded, so yes, there’s precedent for this shit.)
But at what level of “proven” is it actually “proven”? That’s where a disconnect lays.
Haha I love this
I agree with
Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth.
That being said, you certainly can disagree with a scientific outcome. Good science relies on such types of discussions. If someone has a disagreement, then, by all means, please conduct an experiment to show that it’s wrong, or express your opinion and be open to discussion.
I think it’s more about the spirit and legitimacy of the disagreement. “I checked the numbers and stuff seems fishy” is very different than “Facebook told me essential oils cure cancer and doctors are lizards harvesting our brains”. Discussion with people who are also seeking the truth helps. Denial of a point you don’t like because Infowars says otherwise doesn’t.
Keep in mind that dismissing an argument as unworthy, is not an argument for why it is unsound. Furthermore, refusing to engage someone’s argument also doesn’t help in pointing them on a better path.
Dismissing an argument for lack of substantive foundation is absolutely an argument for why it is unsound. And I am all for pointing someone on another path. Unfortunately the vast, vast majority of people I have encountered in this vein have had this problem with doubling down when presented with evidence contrary to their belief.
People living with those kind of delusions, that evidence proving their point wrong doesn’t at least warrant a second look, cannot be reasoned with. I reserve my efforts for people with any level of an open mind. Disagreement can be productive, but only when people engage honestly.
Dismissing an argument for lack of substantive foundation is absolutely an argument for why it is unsound.
Sure, the argument could be unsound, but do note that that doesn’t necessitate that the conclusion is also false. That would effectively be an argument from fallacy. Also that isn’t exactly what I was trying to say — I was talking about how some people avoid engaging with certain classes of people because they don’t think that their arguments are worthy — e.g. flat earthers.
Unfortunately the vast, vast majority of people I have encountered in this vein have had this problem with doubling down when presented with evidence contrary to their belief.
This is indeed an issue. I’m not entirely sure what its cause is. Perhaps it’s fear of ridicule, or ostracization? I think the best grassroots method to fix it would be teaching and advocating for proper critical thinking skills.
People living with those kind of delusions, that evidence proving their point wrong doesn’t at least warrant a second look, cannot be reasoned with.
Dealing with irrationality is a tricky thing. How does one reason with someone who is unreasonable? I personally don’t think abandoning them is the best solution, but, that being said, I also don’t have an alternative.
While conflicts of interest can and do exist, a lot of, if not most, science is done by grad students who are just trying to get their degree and are really there because they are passionate about discovering new things more than anything else.
That just makes it sound like grad students are excellent targets for corporate influence.
it is what it is
“The Science is settled” and “I believe in Science” are both equally frightening sentences.
I completely agree. A lot of the time “I believe in science” is usually used in reference to comparing it to feelings or faith, and in those cases it makes sense to say you trust science over someone’s gut feeling or their “own research”. If you are someone who just blindly goes around proclaiming “I believe in science” then you need to go back to school and take a critical thinking course.
I’ve had people tell me things were impossible because they “Aren’t in our list of known unknowns” or they violate some principle for vague reasons they don’t understand… then a month later an article shows up saying “We proved that thing Sera said was totally possible”
Scientism is such cringe
Critical thinking courses would indeed be very great to have.
Mere factual knowledge transfer is not effective in forming mature and responsible minds if critical thinking is not a focus of education as well.
I have been wishing that Formal Logic was a K-12 class like English.
Sadly I find people who most proudly preach the wonders of Critical Thinking, are the ones least capable of it.
Depends on your audience.
If your audience is stupid, tell them to stfu and listen to the science. They’re too dumb to think about why they believe anything, they just need to be told what to believe. So as a bulwark against religious superstition, you tell them to stfu and listen to science.
If your audience is intelligent, then there’s no risk of them being suckered in by religious superstition, then you can have a discussion about the merits and processes of current scientific methods and theories, differing viewpoints, and degrees of confidence in the scientific community.
This applies to a lot of topics.
Talking to a stupid independent voter? “Vote for Biden or Trump will destroy democracy.” Talking to a smart independent voter? “Biden is definitely wrong on several issues, we should try to push him in a better direction.”
Talking to a stupid computer user? “Don’t try to change any of these files.” Talking to a smart computer user? “Here’s what happens when you change these files.”
To a stupid person, about the economy: “listen to the data!”
To a smart person, about the economy: “The metrics which the CPI uses are flawed.”
Etc etc. There’s always a complex, nuanced, correct answer, and a simple, straightforward, wrong answer. Because reality is complicated. So for stupid people you give them a simple, straightforward, mostly true answer to combat the simple, straightforward false one vying for their pair of brain cells.
True, but I feel like this should be saved for the dumbest of the dumb. Too much cringe has been created by things like Rational Wiki inadvertently getting otherwise intelligent people to believe that doing science is just the ability to shout the name of a fallacy you feel your opponent has committed, whilst oversimplifying anything you don’t understand until it sounds stupid… Ya know like Evangelical Fundementalists do to defend their biblical literalism?
It has culminated into a behavior I like to call the Fallacy Fallacy
It leads to shit like this
Normal Person: The doctor says I have cancer, but it’s still treatable, so I should take this medicine, it’s expensive, but it’ll be worth it.
Scientism Worshipper: I dunno, you think you have cancer because the doctor told you? Sounds like an appeal to authority. Normal Person: Look, my aunt ignored her diagnosis and she was terminal within weeks and dead within days after that. I’m not taking any chance
Scientism Worshipper: Hrmm… So the only thing that has you trusting this doctor is anecdotal evidence?
Normal Person: You’re right! These meds are too expensive anyway -Weeks Later-
Scientism Later: Well my friend is dead
Third Party: Because you killed him, he died because he didn’t take his medicine…
Scientism Worshipper: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION YOU BIBLE-THUMPER! GO BACK TO WORSHIPPING YOUR SKY-DADDY SHEEPLE!
That’s a Strawman in and of itself, but you get my point
Now it may sound like “Well, I guess we shouldn’t question the science then.”
No, always question the science, that’s how you do science. The problem comes when you think you’ve mastered the science so well (despite evidence to the contrary) that you refuse to let what you know to be questioned.
Are these people really “otherwise intelligent” though?
Given that a lot of them are in my writing group, I’m going to say yes.
It sounds to me like they should be at the “stfu and listen to science” little kids’ table if they’re in danger of falling victim to superstitious bullshit.
What is “dumb”? What is “intelligence”?
I think, as long as people have normally functioning brains, it is possible for them to understand. And I think nurturing critical thinking is an important aspect of how to approach this.
You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn’t educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.
You don’t need to give definitive answers, you may give recommendations, but you can always explain a bit and note that there is also a lot more to it than what you explained and that one must take care before making some further conclusions.
Interested people in your audience then have some first basis and grasp of a topic and can take it up on themselves to dive deeper; for example, by asking questions or finding further sources (you might refer them to these).You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn’t educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.
I vehemently disagree. Some people (maybe most people) are too stupid to understand nuance. They need to be told what to think.
Perhaps this is just a failing of our educational system and not a fact of human psychology, but it’s still the condition of the world today.
Though the first is abused to death, yes, I vehemently disagree with the second. I do believe in science. Just because here and there there are cheaters doesn’t mean that science is valid. Cheaters eventually get caught and science continues. Because of science you have that phone in your hand on which you write your post and read my comment, because of science you are alive. Science is trying to find out what is and why.
I believe in science and there is nothing scary about that.
I think you missed the point, I believe in the Scientific Method as one of the best ways to measure that which is objectively true. It can make no statements on the subjective however, nor the metaphysical.
However the problem is, too many people act as though we’ve reached the limits of what is possible to know with the sciences and treat it to be “Science’s Infalliable Word”, when the very nature of Science means we’ll gladly throw out anything we already “know” to be true if we find conflicting evidence, and the world has been better off for it.
Heck the definition of “Dead” has changed several times because we keep learning that it’s more like a spectrum than an on and off switch, which has so many implications that it makes my head hurt.
I know that scientific knowledge gets updated all the time and with that, things sometimes change. That is fine, but at the same time you use what we have up to that point. If today scientific knowledge tells us that eating worms is healthy, we will do that more. If tomorrow it turns out that, oops, it’s healthy on the left but unhealthy on the right, well stop eating them.
Either way, we go with what science has discovered so far. That is my point. Too many people these days don’t understand how these discoveries are made and as such push against it.
This is how you get anti vaxxers who are hell bent on destroying humanity while thinking they are saving it. This is how you get flat-earthers.
Screw that, people need to learn in school how science works, how we get where we are with our knowledge, where that knowledge comes from. They need to learn the scientific method.
Then of course there are places like Texas where they keep shoving bibles in the schools to ensure kids stay dumb, gotta get them to vote against their own needs somehow…
Science is not the truth. Science is a mechanism for finding the truth.
And studies are scientific, but are not science itself. A study can be intentionally misleading in bad faith, but that doesn’t mean every researcher in that field is acting in bad faith, just the author, publisher, and perhaps reviewing peers.
Anyone can right a paper. And if they right it on something obscure and bespoke enough, it can be difficult for someone to question their work. Doing so is the duty of peer reviewers, and sometimes these peers for whatever reason will fail to smell the bullshit or raise issue about smelling it. Then the honus is on the publisher to retract falsified papers.
This is why citations are like gold to postdocs. It’s what builds their credibility, and that credibility is one of the most important aspects of the academic and scientific world.
What is truth?
If you take a materialist philosophical view, maybe you can arrive at some kind of understanding of the universe through the scientific method.
If you have other views things get far more complicated.
I’m a materialist atheist btw but delving into philosophy makes me less certain we can ever arrive at ‘truth’.
That’s literally the opposite of what “theory” means in a scientific context. You know nothing of science and your opinion is wrong.
I don’t think a study like “Aspartame is actually super good for you and makes you run faster” funded by the “American Beverage Association” would ever make it to Theory status, and even concieving of such a silly notion reveals widespread misunderstanding of what a theory is.
On a bit of a tangent, but it’s all about positioning, you repeat and broadcast the positive outcomes that you can manufacture supporting data for as much as possible and don’t engage with the negative ones. So, we don’t even talk about cancer, we just show you how much weight you can lose, and weight loss is obviously good for you, something like this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523175897
It’s real easy to miss, but you’ll find a ‘Supported in part by the Nutrasweet Company’ in the foot notes on one of the pages. The study is not specifically ‘Aspartame is good for you and makes you run faster’ but… it’s pretty close and people are going to draw similar conclusions from it. They don’t have to lie, you just have to make sure the ‘right’ data is prevalent enough that it buries the ‘wrong’ data.
Well that’s fair, but science literate people would then direct you to the largest study ever performed on sweeteners and artificial sweeteners, the NutriNet-Santé population-based cohort study, found the highest risk from any artificial sweetener was Aspartame with a breast cancer hazard ratio of 1.15 which is to say a 15% increase correlation of breast cancer forming in consumers of aspartame over about a decade. The study didn’t control for potential selection bias or other outside factors and the CI=95%, range from 1.03-1.22.
Technically speaking, Aspartame would still be preferred for health outcomes over an equivalent consumption of sugar in cases where calorie consumption is high, in the assumption that the Aspartame product in question doesn’t contain calories.
Ok but there’s a given value of this. I have a friend with a PhD in hpv. On matters of hpv I’m definitely wrong if I’m arguing with her, and same for any matter of microbiology or virology. I’m probably wrong in any argument with her about any biology. But when we start talking physics? Nah I’m an engineer and she studies a cancer virus. I’m more likely to be right about how electricity works. Astrophysics though? We might as well be art majors.
Yea but I’d like to think most people who are educated in 1 field to know to “stay in their lane” so to speak, and trust the experts in other fields.
I’d like to think that too, but I keep being proven wrong. There’s plenty of people who think that their expertise in one realm means they have expertise in many other realms.
Ha!
It’s ironic that what most people think of as a highly intelligent person is a polymath aka somebody who is an expert in multiple topics.
Academia today is designed for extreme specialization of knowledge. So it actively selects against anyone that would be classified as a polymath.
It’s a pretty big disconnect between expectations and reality.
I think you’re right, and maybe add a modification. As a fellow engineer, I’ll suggest there’s a third option that’s more realistic when it comes to knowledgeable and lay people having a discussion:
- as mentioned in the meme, scientists can and do learn stuff that improves overall understanding.
- the quest for improved understanding is usually sparked by a strange or unique observation, sometimes by scientists, sometimes by the much larger population of regular folks
- Provided there is good intent and respect from both parties, I believe it’s critically important that people who have observed something unique be able to discuss it somehow with people who have particular skill related to that phenomena
What seems to be missing out of a lot of these misinformation tikTube fights is precisely that fundamental lack of respect. I’ve observed it’s very easy to destabilize a calm discussion with small amounts of inconsiderate speech by people within or outside the discussion. Sometimes it seems purposeful, but the result is a much slowed ability to communicate. That’s bad for us all.
Having qualifications doesn’t automatically make you right. Having data and logic makes you right. It is more likely that she is correct in any discussion about her subject of expertise, but having a degree doesn’t make her automatically correct and you automatically wrong. That attitude is the exact opposite of the principles of science.
Just because one doesn’t have equal post secondary education in one topic as another doesn’t mean that their arguments are unsound. That’s effectively an appeal to authority.
He has a degree in Human Papillomavirus? Did he get it from Florida State?
Bravo
Idk how to curtsy online….
You’re going in the chokey for using an obscure abbreviation without saying what it means.
Oh sorry, it’s a doctorate in philosophy, it means she’s advanced scientific knowledge and has been recognized by the scientific community for it and now has the right to be addressed with the title Doctor.
Sure, science is great and has lead to several great advancements. Science is done by people.
People will lie, cheat, and steal.
Big little lies: a compendium and simulation of p-hacking strategies
In an academic system that promotes a ‘publish or perish’ culture, researchers are incentivized to exploit degrees of freedom in their design, analysis and reporting practices to obtain publishable outcomes [1]. In many empirical research fields, the widespread use of such questionable research practices has damaged the credibility of research results [2–5].
A recent Retraction Watch investigation allegedly identified more than 30 such editors, and kickbacks of as much as US$20,000. Academic publisher Elsevier has confirmed its editors are offered cash to accept manuscripts every single week. The British regulator said in January that one unnamed publisher “had to sack 300 editors for manipulative behaviour”.
AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing
At least 60,000 papers—slightly more than 1 percent of all scientific articles published globally last year—may have used an LLM, according to Gray’s analysis, which was released on the preprint server arXiv.org and has yet to be peer-reviewed
It’s important not deify science instead realize that it has issues. We should address those issues to help science become the ideals that we want believe science to have.
Edit: Missed a word
Also: https://xkcd.com/882/
It doesn’t have to be corruption.
Incompetence or Corruption, my favorite game show
