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.