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.

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

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

All else is conjecture, wishful thinking or deception.

Tumbleweed48 wrote:

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

All else is conjecture, wishful thinking or deception.

Tumbleweed48 wrote:

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

All else is conjecture, wishful thinking or deception.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

And now you know …

…the rest of the story.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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
Get your popcorn and beer!

Keeping it flashlight related;

She Blinded me with Science, Science!

Yup ^

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
Get your popcorn and beer!

Keeping it flashlight related;

She Blinded me with Science, Science!

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

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

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.

I understand!

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.

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

djozz wrote:

I understand!

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.

Thanks for clarifying it too

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.

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.