606

submitted 6 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

93 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Dieterlan@lemmy.world 144 points 6 months ago

This might be heresy, but I feel like saying that "science isn't truth, it's the search for truth", and "if you disagree it's not a disagreement, you're just wrong" is internally inconsistent.

[-] credo@lemmy.world 121 points 6 months ago

It needs to be “if you disagree without evidence.”

They can leave that whole “if you’re not a scientist” bit in the rubbish bin.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 43 points 6 months ago

If you disagree without evidence, you're not wrong. You can propose an alternative theory that is consistent with existing evidence and it's just as valid as anybody else's. The mission is then to find evidence which disproves one theory or the other.

Conjecture is fundamental.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 3 points 6 months ago

Without new evidence, disagreeing with established science is being wrong. Young earth creationists are wrong because they have no new evidence to contradict established science. Even thoigh the age of the earth was scientifically calculated multiple times and could be revised again with new evidence, flat earthers are wrong because conjecture about existing knowlege without evidence is just being wrong.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 4 points 6 months ago

A young earth creationist's hypothesis does not agree with existing evidence and so your example does not refute my argument.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

No, that's the point. Disagreeing is already part of the scientific method. To disagree with science as a whole is to argue with the method, not the findings.

Imagine two explorers searching for a lost ancient ruins. They come to a path running north/south. One says to go north and the other says south. That's a disagreement. They are both still explorers seeking discovery.

A third observer sees them arguing and says "Ah, you don't know the way. We should not be seeking ruins because I already know what is there. I was told in a dream that the ruins were made by Bigfoot, and he made them invisible and impossible to see. Searching is futile, but I can draw you a map from what I already know is there."

That's not a third opinion of equal validity. It's not even a disagreement. It's just being wrong.

[-] Dieterlan@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

While I do agree with what you're saying, and it's a way of reading it I hadn't considered, I don't think the distinction is clear from the meme. Then again, it's just a meme, so my expectations can probably stand to be lowered a bit.