Do you believe the scientific community in 2020?

Off-topic Chatter
19

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

20

I agree 100%! Great post

21

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

Keeping it flashlight related;

She Blinded me with Science,
Science!

22

Yup ^

23

Sorry, I didn’t mean to mention the magic word. It’s just the way I see it.

24

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

25

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

26

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:

27

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.

28

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

29

Now I understand your point more clearly and perceived why my post/opinion might have been more “conflicting”! :+1:

Thanks for clarifying it too :beer: :beer:

30

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.

31

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.

32

What would these agendas be? I see political or corporate agendas but what would be scientific agendas. Money? Research money can be achieved without an agenda.

33

I believe in science. As for the community of scientists, there are good and bad as in every community.

Good science is still the most reliable method we have of knowing reality. The quality of the work has to be evaluated, as with any product from any community. Fortunately, the means and methods to do that evaluation are well known and readily available, to those people willing to learn.

34

I have always been a believer in science and the scientific method. .

35

Well right now people believe men can be women and women can be men....or there is no difference between them at all. So yeah, I'd say science today is a little worse than before.

36

:person_facepalming: I do not see any point in this remark

37

Some fields of science are most likely unbiased. Astrophysics, for example. Discover weird x-ray lines in a distant galaxy’s spectrum that make you rethink a particular theory, and it might be quite an upheaval to the AP world, but you won’t have anyone shouting you down as a Heretic.

Talk medicine, climate, anything along those lines, and money and politics both rule, and influence a) what studies get funded (or defunded), and b) the desired outcome of the study.

If you wouldn’t trust Big Tobacco to come up with a study that “proves” <coff!> how harmless smoking is, why would you trust Big Pharma to come up with a study that “proves” their intended outcome?

Statins are the a Boon To Mankind, according to Big Pharma, a billion-dollar industry that keeps repeating the same mantra of “controlling bad cholesterol”, yet they have effects that no one likes to talk about, not even your doctor who’s pushing them on you. See The medications that change who we are - BBC Future for a quick rundown.

With all the news reports about the New Way Of The Week to cure cancer (gold nanoparticles, targeted delivery, etc.), it’s still all about cutting/poisoning/burning (ie, surgery/chemo/radiation). It ain’t about curing cancer, but managing it.

Definitely follow the money, but also be aware of Orthodoxy. If you’re branded a Heretic, you will be defunded, shouted-down, blackballed, and so on. That’s where politics comes in (what money influences).

Science is supposed to be about keeping an open mind, but when politics and funding determine what’s Good Science and Bad Science, it’s tainted.

38

That's probably the problem.