Do you believe the scientific community in 2020?

190 posts / 0 new
Last post

Pages

raccoon city
raccoon city's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 39 min ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 02:35
Posts: 13973
Location: रॅकून सिटी Palm Desert CA USA
Do you believe the scientific community in 2020?

If the scientific community (in 2020) come to a consensus on a subject, I generally believe them.

I know sometimes modern science gets it wrong, but I think that they get it right the vast majority of the time.

What do you think?

Rayoui
Rayoui's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 08/06/2019 - 00:38
Posts: 187
Location: Portland, OR

The majority of the time that people question the scientific community, they are either politicians, CEOs or people who read some Facebook post. I tend to believe the scientific community over those other groups on most subjects.

forsh
forsh's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 min 38 sec ago
Joined: 01/15/2020 - 05:31
Posts: 220
Location: finland

i think the same, unbiased scientific studies are pretty much the goto and i belive them!

Convoy mad
Convoy c8 x4
convoys s2 x2
FW1A pro

Tumbleweed48
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 11/12/2012 - 23:21
Posts: 765
Location: Canada

Peer reviewed science is the only thing I have any faith in.

All else is conjecture, wishful thinking or deception.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 5 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16548
Location: Amsterdam

Tumbleweed48 wrote:
Peer reviewed science is the only thing I have any faith in.

All else is conjecture, wishful thinking or deception.


This.
Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 5579
Location: Ślōnsk

Tumbleweed48 wrote:
Peer reviewed science is the only thing I have any faith in.

All else is conjecture, wishful thinking or deception.


Machine-checked maths is the only thing I truly trust.
But science comes after that, it’s way better than roumors brought from fb or poor news sites. Even if the bringer is someone important to me, anybody, even wife.
CRX
CRX's picture
Online
Last seen: 8 sec ago
Joined: 04/02/2013 - 15:27
Posts: 4044
Location: Scotland

We know very little for sure, nothing is settled.
Yesterdays certainty is tomorrows revelation.
Science has to be funded and documented.
I like to know where the money comes from and the methods used before entertaining thoughts of unbiased acceptance on what I am presented with.

TheIntruder
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2018 - 02:11
Posts: 156

One of the least appreciated aspects of science is that it allows, for, if not encourages challenge and dissent.

Conclusions have to be founded on proof, and objectivity, not conjecture, or dogma.

It can be dynamic, not static. It asks questions, and doesn’t simply accept things as they are. It also accepts that there are questions we simply don’t have answers for, and may never have.

In short, hell yes, trained scientists are a lot more trustworthy than some random YouTuber, or a Facebook post, which are where a lot of people get their information today.

Henk4U2
Henk4U2's picture
Online
Last seen: 12 min 5 sec ago
Joined: 02/13/2014 - 17:52
Posts: 3177
Location: The heart of the Netherlands (GMT+1)

Tumbleweed48 wrote:
Peer reviewed science is the only thing I have any faith in.

All else is conjecture, wishful thinking or deception.

That, and knowing were the money for the study came from.

Being the older bro of a PhD, I hear stories about heads of department who spend three days a week fundraising. That’s not a bad thing per se, but pure academic study is rare these days. You can recognize them by fascinating titles like: “a study into the influence of placing a red filter in front of a CW flashlight on the growth of wild grass on a steep hillside at an altitude of more than 2,000 feet”.
Followed by similar studies on the same grass concerning the infuence of green and blue filters.

Sponsored studies focus on quick desired results, unless several manufacturers were involved.

On the other hand, if you read this:

Quote:
This ****** is just perfect. Everything I say here is 100% honest and manufacturer did not suggested me to give them 5 stars. In fact, so far one manufacturer strongly suggested me to give them 5 stars review, but their name will not be mentioned.

You are a flashaholic if you are forced to come out of the closet, to make room for more flashlights.

klrman
klrman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 11/07/2016 - 22:44
Posts: 2485
Location: Canada

The golden rule has always been to follow the money and then decide if the science is worthy or not.

MascaratumB
MascaratumB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 1 min ago
Joined: 10/29/2016 - 12:12
Posts: 4479
Location: Portugal

Not saying that everyone is the same, but…working within the academic/scientific “world” (of Social Sciences in this case) for some years, I tend to be at least…critical when reading some stuff…

I see people jumping steps on what is sometimes ethically and methodologically “adjusted” just to publish papers or to gain some more points in their CV!

So…not saying that everyone in every area is the same, but always look to both sides before blindingly believe what is taken for scientifically rigorous. Both in Natural or Social Sciences (or any of the others).

And as some as said above, what its true today, may not be true tomorrow, even if it was thoroughly and objectively tested. Science is also part of our social and reality construction, so it can always fail or have errors.

This said, I do know that at least in my country there are many good researchers and centers in many areas, but unfortunately “academic” or “scientists” and their contribution to society are not always regarded as valuable or pertinent!…

[REVIEWS] ACEBEAM: H20 / TK16 /// AMUTORCH: S3 / S3 vs 219c / AM30 / AX1 / VG10 /// BLITZWOLF: BW-ET1 /// BRINYTE: T28 /// DQG: AA Slim Ti /// FIREFLIES: ROT66 GEN II /// HC-LIGHTS: SS AAA /// KLARUS: XT1C /// LIVARNOLUX: 314791 /// LUMINTOP: Tool AA V2.0 + Tool 25 /// NITEFOX: UT20 / ES10K / K3 /// ODEPRO: KL52 / B108 /// OLIGHT: M2R Warrior /// ON THE ROAD: M1 / i3 / M3 Pro /// ROVYVON: A2 + A5R / E300S / A8 /// SKILHUNT: M150 /// SOFIRN: SF14 + SP10A / SP32A / SP10B /// WUBEN: TO10R / E05 / T70 / E10 / TO50R / E19 /// XTAR: PB2 Charger ///

Tricks: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /// TIR Lenses: 1 / 2/// Others: Biscotti 3 + 1*7135 / Triple TIR w/ XP-G2 ///// My Collection ///// My Review's Blog (PT)

OL Contest 2019

GIVEAWAY: 1 / 2

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 5 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16548
Location: Amsterdam

MascaratumB wrote:
Not saying that everyone is the same, but…working within the academic/scientific “world” (of Social Sciences in this case) for some years, I tend to be at least…critical when reading some stuff…

I see people jumping steps on what is sometimes ethically and methodologically “adjusted” just to publish papers or to gain some more points in their CV!

So…not saying that everyone in every area is the same, but always look to both sides before blindingly believe what is taken for scientifically rigorous. Both in Natural or Social Sciences (or any of the others).

And as some as said above, what its true today, may not be true tomorrow, even if it was thoroughly and objectively tested. Science is also part of our social and reality construction, so it can always fail or have errors.

This said, I do know that at least in my country there are many good researchers and centers in many areas, but unfortunately “academic” or “scientists” and their contribution to society are not always regarded as valuable or pertinent!…

It is this kind of reports that make people reject science, pointing at the flaws without pointing at the merits that hugely predominate the flaws. The great majority of scientists that I know myself and the ones I read about, do their best on honest objective research that brings us closer to the truth. And it shows, if not for science the world would be a way way worse place to live, thinking about that differently is ignorant nostalgia.

Jack Kellar
Jack Kellar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 27 min ago
Joined: 03/09/2014 - 14:21
Posts: 1833
Location: Throwing bolts at anomalies

I don’t believe in “scientific consensus”. Most laymen don’t understand that science is HARD – either it is right or it is wrong, all based on facts and evidence and wide-sample statistics, not conjecture.

CRX wrote:
We know very little for sure, nothing is settled.
Yesterdays certainty is tomorrows revelation.
Science has to be funded and documented.
I like to know where the money comes from and the methods used before entertaining thoughts of unbiased acceptance on what I am presented with.

Damn straight there. Follow the money and you get your answers, always.

JamesB
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 32 min ago
Joined: 08/24/2011 - 14:43
Posts: 931
Location: France

The history of science is the history of being wrong, being proven wrong , the beauty of the scientific method is that the possibility of being proven wong is built into the process and encouraged.

It’s by far the best we have but it doesn’t mean it’s right, following blindly the current scientific consensus leads nowhere.

There is also the fact that science is made by humans, so there is a good dose of errors, bullshit, lazyness and greed involved.

Andrew_Debbie
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 11/18/2017 - 12:36
Posts: 629
Location: Isle Of Anglesey

Tumbleweed48 wrote:
Peer reviewed science is the only thing I have any faith in.

All else is conjecture, wishful thinking or deception.

Yeah.

Disclaimer: I am a technician at a research university.

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20643
Location: Heart of Texas

I believe nothing until Paul Harvey says it’s so!

And now you know …

…the rest of the story.

Wink

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 1626
Location: United States , Pa.

Science is all we have. Believe it or not. It has gotten us this far and yes it is sometimes wrong. My gripe is when laymen with 0 scientific training claim to know the answers.

BTW, what is the chance this thread lasts the day.

Photonica
Photonica's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 21 min ago
Joined: 09/20/2019 - 10:10
Posts: 310
Location: Midwest USA

It’s hard to know whether to trust the science since science reporting is so bad. It tends to focus on the sensational, extrapolating far beyond the science’s conclusions, ignore contrarian opinions, and lack context.

I believe the scientific process is the best method we have for finding the truth. It would be foolish to believe that the process could not be subverted for myriad reasons – ideology, money, personal benefit. Look at the Replication Crisis in medicine and the social sciences:

Quote:
According to a 2018 survey of 200 meta-analyses, “psychological research is, on average, afflicted with low statistical power”.17

Firstly, questionable research practices (QRPs) have been identified as common in the field.18 Such practices, while not intentionally fraudulent, involve capitalizing on the gray area of acceptable scientific practices or exploiting flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting, often in an effort to obtain a desired outcome

Consider Evidence Based Medicine, an attempt to return medicine to a science-based, rather than “anecdote-based” system.

More Photons!

Watermanchris
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 08/06/2019 - 09:12
Posts: 317
Location: Deerfield Beach, FL

CRX wrote:
We know very little for sure, nothing is settled.
Yesterdays certainty is tomorrows revelation.
Science has to be funded and documented.
I like to know where the money comes from and the methods used before entertaining thoughts of unbiased acceptance on what I am presented with.

This ^^^ The scientific method is phenomenal but “Science” with a big “S” is basically the modern religion.

You have the editor of the Lancet, Dr Horton, openly admitting that 50% of scientific studies are false. Here’s an article in another journal discussing Dr. Horton’s comments.

I don’t have faith in other humans. I regularly read scientific studies (not fakebook posts) and I am constantly surprised by the nonsense that gets published.

If I want to learn about something, I do my own research. I avoid logical fallacies – appeal to authority, appeal to consensus, non sequitur, ad hominem, etc – and focus on the facts.

I’m not throwing the baby out with the bathwater but I just don’t blindly accept what I’m told because it comes from some “scientific authority”.

These “modern plagues” – Coronavirus, Zika, SARs, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Ebola, etc. – are sold to us every year and I’ve never been affected. I’m not saying it can’t happen but my wife and I haven’t been sick in over 5 years so I doubt it will.

I say sold because the medical industrial complex is a business. Sick people are their customers and the more people that run to their doctor for a prescription at the first sign of a sniffle, the more money they bring in.

At 40, I’m in there best shape of my life and I got to this point by basically doing the opposite of what was taught to me in school as the ideal diet – the “food pyramid”

I’m not here to argue but the question was asked so I answered.

Peace

Watermanchris
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 08/06/2019 - 09:12
Posts: 317
Location: Deerfield Beach, FL

Photonica wrote:
It’s hard to know whether to trust the science since science reporting is so bad. It tends to focus on the sensational, extrapolating far beyond the science’s conclusions, ignore contrarian opinions, and lack context.

I believe the scientific process is the best method we have for finding the truth. It would be foolish to believe that the process could not be subverted for myriad reasons – ideology, money, personal benefit. Look at the Replication Crisis in medicine and the social sciences:

Quote:
According to a 2018 survey of 200 meta-analyses, “psychological research is, on average, afflicted with low statistical power”.17

Firstly, questionable research practices (QRPs) have been identified as common in the field.18 Such practices, while not intentionally fraudulent, involve capitalizing on the gray area of acceptable scientific practices or exploiting flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting, often in an effort to obtain a desired outcome

Consider Evidence Based Medicine, an attempt to return medicine to a science-based, rather than “anecdote-based” system.


I agree 100%! Great post
Muto
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 52 min ago
Joined: 09/04/2012 - 16:42
Posts: 2210
Location: Southeast, PA

pennzy wrote:
Science is all we have. Believe it or not. It has gotten us this far and yes it is sometimes wrong. My gripe is when laymen with 0 scientific training claim to know the answers.

BTW, what is the chance this thread lasts the day.

I was gonna say 3 days but now have seen the word religion used so all bets are off.
New odds, end of tomorrow Smile
Get your popcorn and beer!

Keeping it flashlight related;

She Blinded me with Science, Science!

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes,” Mark Twain

After the Apocalypse there will be only 2 things left alive, Cockroaches and Keith Richards
..

Big Sky Country

pennzy
pennzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 19:45
Posts: 1626
Location: United States , Pa.

Yup ^

Watermanchris
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 08/06/2019 - 09:12
Posts: 317
Location: Deerfield Beach, FL

Muto wrote:
pennzy wrote:
Science is all we have. Believe it or not. It has gotten us this far and yes it is sometimes wrong. My gripe is when laymen with 0 scientific training claim to know the answers.

BTW, what is the chance this thread lasts the day.

I was gonna say 3 days but now have seen the word religion used so all bets are off.
New odds, end of tomorrow Smile
Get your popcorn and beer!

Keeping it flashlight related;

She Blinded me with Science, Science!


Sorry, I didn’t mean to mention the magic word. It’s just the way I see it.
Muto
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 52 min ago
Joined: 09/04/2012 - 16:42
Posts: 2210
Location: Southeast, PA

No hate here brother, you’re right.
Everything has become big business nowadays including the big R word.

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes,” Mark Twain

After the Apocalypse there will be only 2 things left alive, Cockroaches and Keith Richards
..

Big Sky Country

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 5 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16548
Location: Amsterdam

LOL, the two sciences that are mentioned in this thread to prove that science is weak are social sciences and psychology.

MascaratumB
MascaratumB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 1 min ago
Joined: 10/29/2016 - 12:12
Posts: 4479
Location: Portugal

djozz wrote:
MascaratumB wrote:
Not saying that everyone is the same, but…working within the academic/scientific “world” (of Social Sciences in this case) for some years, I tend to be at least…critical when reading some stuff…

I see people jumping steps on what is sometimes ethically and methodologically “adjusted” just to publish papers or to gain some more points in their CV!

So…not saying that everyone in every area is the same, but always look to both sides before blindingly believe what is taken for scientifically rigorous. Both in Natural or Social Sciences (or any of the others).

And as some as said above, what its true today, may not be true tomorrow, even if it was thoroughly and objectively tested. Science is also part of our social and reality construction, so it can always fail or have errors.

This said, I do know that at least in my country there are many good researchers and centers in many areas, but unfortunately “academic” or “scientists” and their contribution to society are not always regarded as valuable or pertinent!…

It is this kind of reports that make people reject science, pointing at the flaws without pointing at the merits that hugely predominate the flaws. The great majority of scientists that I know myself and the ones I read about, do their best on honest objective research that brings us closer to the truth. And it shows, if not for science the world would be a way way worse place to live, thinking about that differently is ignorant nostalgia.

djozz, I am not sure if I misread your words or if you misread mine here, so please bear with me in this explanation: I do believe in scientists; I do believe in science; I think that unfortunately many contributions (studies, experiences, etc) from science and scientists are not seen as valuable, pertinent, usable in our societies (maybe due to the ignorance or the bad will of people/governants); I think that many of the scientists’ work/research only circulates within the academy, when it should be widespread for the common knowledge.

Despite this, as a “scientist” myself, I cannot stop being critical about many people/works called scientists/scientific because I know that they can have flaws, even if they are honest. Hence, my option is to complete or confront those works/perspectives/facts against others to create a broader perspective of things.

Just wanted to clarify this as my report is a statement not against science or scientists, but against the reification and the passive and a-critical belief in everything that is called as scientific.

Beer

[REVIEWS] ACEBEAM: H20 / TK16 /// AMUTORCH: S3 / S3 vs 219c / AM30 / AX1 / VG10 /// BLITZWOLF: BW-ET1 /// BRINYTE: T28 /// DQG: AA Slim Ti /// FIREFLIES: ROT66 GEN II /// HC-LIGHTS: SS AAA /// KLARUS: XT1C /// LIVARNOLUX: 314791 /// LUMINTOP: Tool AA V2.0 + Tool 25 /// NITEFOX: UT20 / ES10K / K3 /// ODEPRO: KL52 / B108 /// OLIGHT: M2R Warrior /// ON THE ROAD: M1 / i3 / M3 Pro /// ROVYVON: A2 + A5R / E300S / A8 /// SKILHUNT: M150 /// SOFIRN: SF14 + SP10A / SP32A / SP10B /// WUBEN: TO10R / E05 / T70 / E10 / TO50R / E19 /// XTAR: PB2 Charger ///

Tricks: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /// TIR Lenses: 1 / 2/// Others: Biscotti 3 + 1*7135 / Triple TIR w/ XP-G2 ///// My Collection ///// My Review's Blog (PT)

OL Contest 2019

GIVEAWAY: 1 / 2

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 5 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16548
Location: Amsterdam

I understand! Beer

The problem however is the translation of science to society, usually via the media, of which Facebook is one of the most dubious, but even serious newspapers often fail to do science justice. Doubt is an integral and essential part of science but people can not deal with doubt, it leads to dismissal of the research. So the expression of doubt to the media must be done rather carefully because the interpretation of the general public is completely different from what a scientist intends.

Unheard
Offline
Last seen: 51 min 8 sec ago
Joined: 01/16/2019 - 11:38
Posts: 386
Location: Germany

No. Believe is a religious concept. A scientific theory contains some means to test it, maybe falsify it.

MascaratumB
MascaratumB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 1 min ago
Joined: 10/29/2016 - 12:12
Posts: 4479
Location: Portugal

djozz wrote:
I understand! Beer

The problem however is the translation of science to society, usually via the media, of which Facebook is one of the most dubious, but even serious newspapers often fail to do science justice. Doubt is an integral and essential part of science but people can not deal with doubt, it leads to dismissal of the research. So the expression of doubt to the media must be done rather carefully because the interpretation of the general public is completely different from what a scientist intends.


Now I understand your point more clearly and perceived why my post/opinion might have been more “conflicting”! Thumbs Up

Thanks for clarifying it too Beer Beer

[REVIEWS] ACEBEAM: H20 / TK16 /// AMUTORCH: S3 / S3 vs 219c / AM30 / AX1 / VG10 /// BLITZWOLF: BW-ET1 /// BRINYTE: T28 /// DQG: AA Slim Ti /// FIREFLIES: ROT66 GEN II /// HC-LIGHTS: SS AAA /// KLARUS: XT1C /// LIVARNOLUX: 314791 /// LUMINTOP: Tool AA V2.0 + Tool 25 /// NITEFOX: UT20 / ES10K / K3 /// ODEPRO: KL52 / B108 /// OLIGHT: M2R Warrior /// ON THE ROAD: M1 / i3 / M3 Pro /// ROVYVON: A2 + A5R / E300S / A8 /// SKILHUNT: M150 /// SOFIRN: SF14 + SP10A / SP32A / SP10B /// WUBEN: TO10R / E05 / T70 / E10 / TO50R / E19 /// XTAR: PB2 Charger ///

Tricks: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /// TIR Lenses: 1 / 2/// Others: Biscotti 3 + 1*7135 / Triple TIR w/ XP-G2 ///// My Collection ///// My Review's Blog (PT)

OL Contest 2019

GIVEAWAY: 1 / 2

Hank33
Hank33's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 13 min ago
Joined: 11/22/2019 - 16:00
Posts: 381
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

I think public trust in information is stronger for medical scientist, climate scientist, food scientists etc…
But for the same people above, maybe only half believe in the answers for certain remedies like Colds, measles etc while the rest believe strongly in technology like X-rays, MRI’s etc.

“The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invincible.”

mattlward
mattlward's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 2 hours ago
Joined: 06/19/2015 - 09:20
Posts: 2822
Location: Illinois, USA

I believe them when true scientific methods are followed. Group think or consensus science is not science. Many times I think that science or the results are agenda driven and as such generally do not fit true science.

EDC rotation:
FW1A, LH351D 4000k (second favorite)
FW3A, LH351D 3500k
FW3A, SST20 FD2 4000k
FW3A, Nichia 4000k sw40 r9080 (favorite light!)
FW3A, Cree XP-L Hi 5A3
Emisar D4V2, SST20 4000k
S2+, XM-L2 T6 4C

Pages