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.
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.
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.
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.
I feel it should say something like "science isn't 'unchanging truth', written in stone, but rather the unending search for truth".
I once had a colleague who was raised to live by the bible, never questioning it. He was also a massive shitposter. No matter what dumb shit he said, he'd always say that it was just a joke.
Well, one of the few times when I genuinely caught him off guard, was when I explained that science did not actually claim to know the one and only truth. That it wanted to be proven wrong.
I think, that idea itself conflicted with his whole world view. Like, I imagine, his parents also raised him to never question their authority.
Which is why my father will die alone and without love. You do not demand authority, you earn it, and you better recognize when you're being an asshole to your adult children. Also, don't molest my niece and lie to the cops.
Also, don't molest my niece and lie to the cops.
WHAT. I'm so sorry...
We believe her and he's a piece of shit. Don't be sorry for me and she's doing great! She's got a lot of supportive and loving uncles. It's crazy how fucking common the crime is and how a grown man can just... Tell the cops, it didn't happen. Case closed.
She's got a lot of supportive and loving uncles.
Lucky girl.
It's crazy how fucking common the crime is
EXCUSE ME WHAT
And how a grown man can just... Tell the cops, it didn't happen. Case closed.
Wait, so nothing happened? The cops left him?
That's an unfortunately common occurrence when the police are brought in for crimes like this. Most sexual abuse is perpetrated by people who have a relationship with the victim, usually family. 1 in 5 women have been raped, a third of those women were raped between the ages of 11 and 17. 81% of women will experience some form of sexual harassment or assault in their lifetimes. Only 20-40% of rapes are reported to the police. Only about half of those result in arrest. 80% of the arrests are prosecuted. 58% of the prosecutions result in conviction. And 69% of the convicted offenders will serve time in jail/prison. So for every 100 rapists, about 3 of them will go to prison.
I feel like this is a very "shoplifting, public intoxication, nuclear warfare, and jaywalking" way to present things.
This didn't come out until later, because my sister and niece didn't want to "destroy the family." Once my niece was old enough she told us on her own and I guess that's why I presented in that order. But yes, I agree.
It’s not entirely wrong. There is absolutely a bias in what gets studied simply because it requires money to be given to study most things. For example, it’s why some more natural remedies like taking fish oil to help lower cholesterol took so long to have actual scientific backing; there’s no money in widely available remedies so finding funding to do the study was difficult.
You can see this really clearly if you look at more politicized areas, like economics. And for what it’s worth, it doesn’t mean that the evidence that’s generated is bad (although the conclusions drawn from it may be), but that it results in a lack of evidence for opposing viewpoints.
All those studies being funded by mars to make chocolate seem healthy. it was on last week tonight
Wine producers were behind wine being "healthy in moderation" roo.
Which I find to be such an excellent example. Since red wine has prolonged contact with grape skins, letting it keep a lot of the flavonoids. It's not incorrect exactly, but you'd still be better off eating grapes or drinking grape juice.
The part which annoys me is about intentions.
Sure, lobby groups do pay off some people with a PhD to lie for them (Patrick Moore), that's not up for debate.
But to imply that this is the norm is just ignorant of how research is conducted.
Most scientists are either employed by a company, working towards a very specific, non contentious goal (like developing cold fusion), or are involved in research at a university, paid for in grants by their government to research whatever has been approved as worthy of investigation.
Nobody is pressuring these researchers to find evidence to support any particular agenda, the chips land where they fall. There's no fat cat smoking a cigar telling the climate science team at their local university that they need to find more evidence to crash the petrol stocks so they can sell more solar panels.
Nobody? There are quite a few counter examples. Cigarette and fossil fuel companies have done this quite a lot.
Isn't the sugar industry responsible for everyone thinking fat is the main cause of heart attacks instead of sugar?
There is no need to actually bribe researchers. IT is much more effective to find some that happen to already be in your favor and boost their signal.
Say that out of 100 scientists of the relevant field, 90 think your product is toxic, two think your product is perfectly safe, and the remaining eight think that the evidence is not strong and/or significant enough to determine the product's danger. Because as much as we've wished science to be clear-cut and deterministic, and as much as the scientific method tries to root it out, human's opinions and prejudices will always have some effect. Maybe after many decades science will reach a (near) 100% consensus - but your product is still new, so disagreement can still be found.
You can try to bribe these 98 scientists to say that your product is safe, but that's a risky move because even if a handful of them has some conscious they can go public with it and you'll have to deal with bad PR. So instead, you reach out to the two scientists that already think that it is safe. You fund their research, so that they can publish more papers. You send them to conferences all around the world, so that they can talk to other scientists and to journalists and spread their opinion on your product. You get your marketing/PR/social media teams to increase the reach of their publications.
These two scientists are not being "pressured" - they can still honestly claim that their belief in your product is not a result of the money you spend on them, and that will be true. The thing that is a result of the money you spend on them is their impact. These 90 scientists that warn against your product can't conduct as many researches, because they need to find funding for these researches themselves. They can't go to as many conferences, because they don't have anyone working their connections to get them invited (and to pay for their flight tickets). They don't have professional promoters advertising their findings.
So even though only two scientists support you while 90 oppose you, these two scientists have - thanks to your money - more impact on the public opinion than these 90.
All without any scientist having to utter a single lie.
I mean... Science does sometimes lie. Plenty of research papers out there with fudged results or questionable methodology. Also the fact that scientists don't always agree with each other on things.
You should always question authority. Just don't question the truth once it's actually been proven.
Science does sometimes lie.
Hm, imo, science doesn't lie — scientists lie. It need not even be a lie — it could simply be a misinterpretation of data. As long as proper science was done, and documented, reproduction of the experiment will get to the bottom of its accuracy.
Question the proven truth all the time,cas long as you're not fighting against observations and evidence
I completely agree, heck there's also times when all the science is done perfectly but the result is incorrect because the people interpreting the data got Cause and Effect backwards... Or worse, when the data checks out, but violates the current paradigm so much that the academia of the time rejects it out of principle alone and refuses to acknowledge you. (This literally happened when we discovered germs, and the first person to pitch the idea of the Big Bang was mocked over how "religious" the idea sounded, so yes, there's precedent for this shit.)
Haha I love this
I agree with
Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth.
That being said, you certainly can disagree with a scientific outcome. Good science relies on such types of discussions. If someone has a disagreement, then, by all means, please conduct an experiment to show that it's wrong, or express your opinion and be open to discussion.
I think it's more about the spirit and legitimacy of the disagreement. "I checked the numbers and stuff seems fishy" is very different than "Facebook told me essential oils cure cancer and doctors are lizards harvesting our brains". Discussion with people who are also seeking the truth helps. Denial of a point you don't like because Infowars says otherwise doesn't.
While conflicts of interest can and do exist, a lot of, if not most, science is done by grad students who are just trying to get their degree and are really there because they are passionate about discovering new things more than anything else.
That just makes it sound like grad students are excellent targets for corporate influence.
"The Science is settled" and "I believe in Science" are both equally frightening sentences.
I completely agree. A lot of the time “I believe in science” is usually used in reference to comparing it to feelings or faith, and in those cases it makes sense to say you trust science over someone’s gut feeling or their “own research”. If you are someone who just blindly goes around proclaiming “I believe in science” then you need to go back to school and take a critical thinking course.
That's literally the opposite of what "theory" means in a scientific context. You know nothing of science and your opinion is wrong.
Ok but there’s a given value of this. I have a friend with a PhD in hpv. On matters of hpv I’m definitely wrong if I’m arguing with her, and same for any matter of microbiology or virology. I’m probably wrong in any argument with her about any biology. But when we start talking physics? Nah I’m an engineer and she studies a cancer virus. I’m more likely to be right about how electricity works. Astrophysics though? We might as well be art majors.
Yea but I'd like to think most people who are educated in 1 field to know to "stay in their lane" so to speak, and trust the experts in other fields.
I’d like to think that too, but I keep being proven wrong. There’s plenty of people who think that their expertise in one realm means they have expertise in many other realms.
It's ironic that what most people think of as a highly intelligent person is a polymath aka somebody who is an expert in multiple topics.
Academia today is designed for extreme specialization of knowledge. So it actively selects against anyone that would be classified as a polymath.
It's a pretty big disconnect between expectations and reality.
Sure, science is great and has lead to several great advancements. Science is done by people.
People will lie, cheat, and steal.
Big little lies: a compendium and simulation of p-hacking strategies
In an academic system that promotes a ‘publish or perish’ culture, researchers are incentivized to exploit degrees of freedom in their design, analysis and reporting practices to obtain publishable outcomes [1]. In many empirical research fields, the widespread use of such questionable research practices has damaged the credibility of research results [2–5].
A recent Retraction Watch investigation allegedly identified more than 30 such editors, and kickbacks of as much as US$20,000. Academic publisher Elsevier has confirmed its editors are offered cash to accept manuscripts every single week. The British regulator said in January that one unnamed publisher "had to sack 300 editors for manipulative behaviour".
AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing
At least 60,000 papers—slightly more than 1 percent of all scientific articles published globally last year—may have used an LLM, according to Gray’s analysis, which was released on the preprint server arXiv.org and has yet to be peer-reviewed
It's important not deify science instead realize that it has issues. We should address those issues to help science become the ideals that we want believe science to have.
Edit: Missed a word
The comment has some merit, some. Look at low fat foods and sugar for instance.
But I'll be honest, there's no "big science" I went to grad school for physics, taught physics, fuck publish or perish.
I now make a fuckton of money writing code and designing algorithms. Haven't published in over a decade.
Yes, science is about finding the truth, but we should relish the chance to challenge it. If it holds up, that only strengthens the argument for it. If it doesn’t, everyone learned something new.
Except whenever I see a non scientist challenge science, it's never with any rigor or substance. They'll literally be measuring angles off of an example figure posted in a news article as their argument. If you want to help push science forward, you can't just play gotcha on social media; you actually need to be able to do the math, and show your work.
Companies**. Also, the word they're looking for is hypothesis, not theory.
Big Gravity clearly paying folks to say stuff falls down so they can sell more floors.
In my ethics course during the phd program, I was told this was actually a good thing. Their example was pharma companies know how to use their drugs better so they get better results, more true results. If that was true, it's unfortunate it's not the pharma company that also handles treatments then. That course also said that software patents does not exist as a concept.
Yeah, if I test my software all is good as well. As soon as the customer does something, he finds bugs, because I didn't thought about that situation.
As the drug user in the end isn't qualified enough, they should exactly test like that and not just what they think is right
But maybe my analogy isn't completely working in that case...
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
