What refutes science?
Q: What refutes science?
A: Better science.
Q: What does not refute science?
A: Your feelings.
Your religion.
Your favorite politician.
Your half-baked opinion after watching a YouTube video.
Watching bias confirming videos, or reading bias confirming articles =\= research.
If only the average FB user understood this we might see a dramatic uptick in the collective IQ of the US.
I recently established a FB account for the purpose of reconnecting with some old HS and College friends. I knew that I would find wacked extremists and conspiracy theorists on FB. I just didn’t think some of them would be former friends of mine.
It could be that they’ve joined a cult, were abducted by aliens that experimented on their brains, or perhaps they always had these tendencies, which for some reason didn’t fully manifest until they became older. Whatever the case may be, I can’t abide the irrationality. It’s frustrating and anger provoking.
So I’ll probably end up deleting my account, while saving the contact info of those who have demonstrated they still have a decent grasp on reality. I would miss the FB pages that have useful information on them, but some maintain web sites with expanded content, just have to bite the bullet with the monthly access fee.
I follow some FB groups themed around my hobbies and interests.
Invariably, the one’s that I stick to have non-political policies.
One of science’s public relations problems is that in seeking answers many people expect the answers to be black/white, yes/no, but fail to accept another acceptable scientific answer: we don’t know. When science gives the “we don’t know” answer then these skeptics respond that science is no better than Joe Public’s untrained opinion and use science’s ignorance to discredit science, which is completely false. “We don’t know” is what guides science to find answers, using the scientific method, and not just pulling answers out of its butt.
Science requires patience, persistence, and acceptance of dead ends and refutation of findings from other scientists. And no one is harder on the validity of scientific research and findings than scientists. I don’t know a darn thing about most science, but because of the scientific method, I trust those who diligently apply it.
Yessir, Skipper. Science is really just ‘our current best answer, subject to revision and refinement based on new evidence, statistics or modelling.’
But it beats shamanistic guesswork and ideological-dick-waving between mythologies.
One of science’s public relations problems is that in seeking answers many people expect the answers to be black/white, yes/no, but fail to accept another acceptable scientific answer: we don’t know. When science gives the “we don’t know” answer then these skeptics respond that science is no better than Joe Public’s untrained opinion and use science’s ignorance to discredit science, which is completely false. “We don’t know” is what guides science to find answers, using the scientific method, and not just pulling answers out of its butt.
Science requires patience, persistence, and acceptance of dead ends and refutation of findings from other scientists. And no one is harder on the validity of scientific research and findings than scientists. I don’t know a darn thing about most science, but because of the scientific method, I trust those who diligently apply it.
The human brain is also poorly evolved for rational thinking. Depending on who you ask there are anywhere from 17 to 104 cognitive biases. It probably shouldn’t be surprising that likely all people hold more than one belief that has been impacted by the extremely natural and typical ways that our brains function.
Bumping this because science is still under attack by nincompoops who attempt to hide their embarrassment of their ignorance, or fear, or contrarianism behind skepticism, as though untrained challenges to science is a valid refutation.
Ignorance is not intrinsically harmful, what’s actually a bit more concerning is willful ignorance spoon-fed by malign and deluding misinformation which has always been like incredibly hand-tailored for those target people in order to make them feel smarter, or more powerful, or whatever particularly strokes their ego. All done in such a way that, ultimately, ignorance is bliss!
I think what the world is going through today has much to do with what the great American writer Isaac Asimov once stated that I already quoted on this forum but am quoting again:
“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.”
Q: What refutes science?
A: Better science.Q: What does not refute science?
A: Your feelings.
Your religion.
Your favorite politician.
Your half-baked opinion after watching a YouTube video.
There are facts and opinions.
Some studies are shit and other studies are better. Better is determined by scale, by degree of variable isolation, and by the wisdom applied to choosing which variable to isolate.
So whether a study is shit or not is subjective. It’s an opinion. And if that discussion is never had, citing a study will only muddy the waters.
Even if a study isn’t shit, it can still be misused and poorly interpreted.
So on every count the scientific method is only as useful as the people involved in the studies (scientists) the people who interpret the studies, and the people who make us aware of the studies.
Scientism or “science worship” is really authority worship or worshipping the human mind, which is a very low standard of worship.
Certain fields of science are more objective than others.
If the average person understood everything I just said, this science worship wouldnt exist, and there would be more vigorous and fruitful debate on the most contentious issues.
But the average person will never understand what “science” is and what it is not, so there is no limit to how much we can be manipulated by “Science”
Isolate irrelevant variables, do a poor job of isolating a relevant variable, or make a headline STUDY SHOWS THAT X CAUSES Y, leaving out the insignificant sample size.
It is FAR easier to manipulate people with science than it is to legitimately help improve their lives. Same can be said for religion.