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.
Itâs 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 scienceâs 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:
Consider Evidence Based Medicine, an attempt to return medicine to a science-based, rather than âanecdote-basedâ system.
This ^ The scientific method is phenomenal but âScienceâ with a big âSâ is basically the modern religion.
You have the editor of the Lancet, Dr Horton, openly admitting that 50% of scientific studies are false. Hereâs an article in another journal discussing Dr. Hortonâs comments.
I donât 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.
Iâm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater but I just donât blindly accept what Iâm told because it comes from some âscientific authorityâ.
These âmodern plaguesâ - Coronavirus, Zika, SARs, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Ebola, etc. - are sold to us every year and Iâve never been affected. Iâm not saying it canât happen but my wife and I havenât 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, Iâm 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 âfood pyramidâ
Iâm not here to argue but the question was asked so I answered.
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 scientistsâ work/research only circulates within the academy, when it should be widespread for the common knowledge.
Despite this, as a âscientistâ 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.
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.
I think public trust in information is stronger for medical scientist, climate scientist, food scientists etcâŚ
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, MRIâs etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.