Do you believe the scientific community in 2020?

Off-topic Chatter
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.

39

Science isn’t a democracy, ask Galileo. Somebody is going to be the first to know something, meanwhile the consensus says the opposite.

Do I trust them…that depends on who’s paying the bills.

Usually I take a wait and see approach because I’ve seen so many flip flops on so many studies that I’m getting a bit cynical.

40

Science is almost always right…eventually.
News and popular science reporting usually is not. I have read an article that tells me my favorite beverage or snack is really healthy and I am skeptical unless I take the time to read the original research which is usually equivocal or a small sample size.

41

History repeats itself and the tobacco industry is a good example. They could afford to pay off a few corrupt scientist to conclude what they wanted but eventually the vast majority of scientific evidence prevailed.

42

Soylent Green is real! Real I tell you!

Oh…and Greta is a shill.

Chris

43

I have followed this subject my whole life, strange to see it here. First, I Love Science. :blush:
Here is my view after many years of observing. So many times we were told something to be a fact only to be disproved 30yrs later with other facts. Science in the definition everyone thinks only exists on subjects that can be proven factual. Let me give an example that can seemingly be argued until the end of time. ” If you go as fast as light, time stops moving forward. ” Can this be proven with facts, not some formula or hypotheses. So no, I personally think Science has to be viewed with the eye of common sense included. The Science I enjoy most is right here on earth, and the 2020 community has the best tools for discovery. When they go beyond earth, things get fuzzy fast.
.
Oh no, I hope this is not a controversial thing here on BLF that is not allowed. :question:
.

44

This.

45

Hi everyone, please be very careful to avoid inflammatory or divisive topics.

46

One thing to keep in mind is that people referring to what the scientific community says usually are not part of the scientific community.

Those who actually conduct or analyze the research instead typically refer to the research itself. When names are used, it’s in a manner intended to help people locate the research by author, not as argument by authority.

I’m reminded of this frequently when politicians in my state discuss issues. Often we concur at the most basic level on the conclusions, but in the quest to sound compelling, they then exaggerate to a level that not only exceeds what can be supported by the research, but sometimes is even contrary to what is supported by the research.