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.
Some fields of science are most likely unbiased. Astrophysics, for example. Discover weird x-ray lines in a distant galaxyâs spectrum that make you rethink a particular theory, and it might be quite an upheaval to the AP world, but you wonât 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 wouldnât trust Big Tobacco to come up with a study that âprovesâ <coff!> how harmless smoking is, why would you trust Big Pharma to come up with a study that âprovesâ 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 âcontrolling bad cholesterolâ, yet they have effects that no one likes to talk about, not even your doctor whoâs 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.), itâs still all about cutting/poisoning/burning (ie, surgery/chemo/radiation). It ainât about curing cancer, but managing it.
Definitely follow the money, but also be aware of Orthodoxy. If youâre branded a Heretic, you will be defunded, shouted-down, blackballed, and so on. Thatâs where politics comes in (what money influences).
Science is supposed to be about keeping an open mind, but when politics and funding determine whatâs Good Science and Bad Science, itâs tainted.
Science is almost always rightâŚeventually.
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.