What refutes science?

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  10791
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
30 May 2020 12:55
 

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.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  8297
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
30 May 2020 13:29
 

Watching bias confirming videos, or reading bias confirming articles =\= research.

 
 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  359
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
30 May 2020 13:49
 

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.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  8297
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
30 May 2020 13:57
 

I follow some FB groups themed around my hobbies and interests.
Invariably, the one’s that I stick to have non-political policies.

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  10791
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
30 May 2020 17:09
 

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.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  8297
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
01 June 2020 11:43
 

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.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1960
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
20 June 2020 11:19
 
Skipshot - 30 May 2020 05:09 PM

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.

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  10791
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
27 July 2021 22:40
 

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.

 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
28 July 2021 14:21
 

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.”

[ Edited: 28 July 2021 14:23 by Rick Robson]
 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  564
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
18 October 2021 15:01
 
Skipshot - 30 May 2020 12:55 PM

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.