don't worry, science as conclusions derived from research will soon be replaced by bullshit psuedo-research-AI-word-vomit derived from equally bullshit pre-determined conclusions
“Can you tell me how other countries have managed effective healthcare based on science?”
“I’m sorry, as a large language model I don’t have the capability to make healthcare system analysis. Would you like to talk about the beautiful Gulf of Amerika instead?”
This has already been done by politicians and continues to this day
And some scientists!
“If I repeat it in enough papers it’ll become true” seems to be the mantra of scientists with hard to defend theories they claim are fact.
what if i watched THREE youtube videos?
Then baby we got an algorithm going.
You're clearly an expert then, don't hold back
Should probably create another youtube video.
But I said the phrase "scientists don't know everything" so now you have to listen to my bullshit.
Ahhhhh... Love that line. My brother and his fiance just had a baby and are debating on vaccines or not. They asked me, I said, it's always better to get them and protect your child from as much as you possibly can. Like all of us here are vaccinated. I recommended that they follow what their doctor recommends. My dad chimes in with, "Doctors don't know everything, they're just trying to sell drugs for the pharmaceutical companies, that's all they care about." I looked at him and said, "As someone who studied biology in college, there's a lot that a lot of us don't know. But seeing as that doctor has had significantly more training than I've had, let alone you, I'm going to trust them more than some random article I've read online." He stopped talking to me for a large portion of the day after that.
If they did, their job would no longer exist! This is proof they don't know everything!
ok, but what about three Youtube videos?
As long as they're shorts, only showing one vague, unverifiable, third or fourth hand anecdote each.
That makes sense. I heard that my college roommate's pen pal said something like that.
Are they at least 3rd-hand, (or more) spurious sources with an inscrutable chain of custody, because if not, you can miss with that.
Are they at least 3rd-hand, (or more) spurious sources with an inscrutable chain of custody
Is there any other kind?
It isn’t even better science, it is just more science.
That why its such a shame that big corporations can and do regularly buy scientists opinions in exchange for funding setting up a ill give $xxx.xxx for your environmental impact study to not blame my coal mine. Thus by negating the peer review process. science can sadly no longer be taken at face value with out knowing who funded it and why. i miss trusting scientists who are clearly smarter than me because they fell in to the capitalist greed trap RIP real science we should have treated you better and i am sorry.
This is why you never trust a single source. For anything. Reputable news organizations have never trusted single sources, they always use multiple sources to verify information they are told. Science is not immune from this, and never has been. And even for those that you've followed in the past, times change, especially in a capitalist society with a massive oligarchy that owns the news companies, like modern western civilizations. Trust, but verify.
How often does this actually happen? The cases where this does occur stand out because they are rare. I really hate the implication that scientists are not trustworthy because some individuals acted in bad faith. Scientific fraud is real but it doesn't mean you can't trust science.
I once saw a cow on a roof. Can science explain that? I didn't think so.
True, a sphere would roll off
Cow goes up, cow comes down, can't explain that.
Damn, you're an older millennial.
Who has time for YouTube? I get my conspiracies and lies from millisecond-long TikToks.
Counterpoint: nuh-uh (They et. al., good ol' days).
Citations
They et. al. (Good ol' days). Trump proves that YouTube videos about The Creator that validate your feelings are equivalent to science. Many People Are Saying, 1(2), 10–20. Things I done heard. https://doi.org/I forget
Thanks, I was wondering what a tiny bit of partially digested dinner would taste like.
That's what I was going for! Sorry about dinner.
Counter-counterpoint: uh... damnit, I forgot the tooth (already!?).
A statement which somehow makes so much more sense than the rest of 2025 so far.
You might want to banana.
Hey, but measles in Texas, and tuberculosis in Missouri, are making comebacks!
Ivermectin! RFKjr! Bleach!
Learn to ReSeArcH!!
Aren't those just from the gay space lasers and Jewish hurricanes? I feel like their resistance means we're on the right path.
How about 47 TikTok videos?
Ideally, yes.
What ends up happening if your research shows new conclusions on the basis of “better science” is that those in power will probably ridicule your new conclusions and findings since it doesn’t align with ‘accepted’ scientific consensus and doctrine. And by ridicule I don’t mean challenging the new theory on the basis of counter data/evidence and reasoning. I mean ad hominem attacks on the researchers themselves. “Well, they graduated from a top 30 university and not MIT, so anything they produce is not worth looking into”. You won’t be funded and the status quo will be allowed to continue without significant challenge.
I used to want to be a researcher when I was younger. My experiences have been wrought with closed-mindedness, arrogance, and lack of critical judgment and objectivity. Maybe my experiences aren’t representative, but hearing from others (at least in my field), I see that this is a systemic and widespread problem within the scientific community as a whole.
How long did it take to convince people the Earth was not at the center of our universe?
"I did my own research"
Oh, you did? You had a lab, and test subjects and ran double blind studies? Is it peer reviewed?
"Oh, no I listened to Joe Rogan"
Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.
Counterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study.
In other words, well, science.
Isn't a counterexample just da tomb? Even though its only won case-a-dilla, it's still le sahyênçe.
Sorry, I don't understand.
Yeah, I'm being silly.
Isn't a counterexample just one datum? Even though its only one case, it's still science.
FTFM
Isn’t a counter example just data, even though it’s just one case it’s still science
Dude, have you looked out your window? Its so obvious the qorld is flat... /s
While they don't refute it, enough of those do prevent better science from happening though, especially when it's needed.
All I gotta say is technology has finally made us dumber
Indeed, and in addition if your religion is not supported by the facts it's time to revise its assumptions. Religion can deal with new evidence, it's just rather slow compared to say human lifetimes. I suspect thats because the basis of many faiths reasoning is built on philosophy, Christianity in particular. Which is a kind of precursor to experimental science where progress is slow or even circular.
Religion can deal with new evidence
Of course it can, all fiction can be easily retconned.
Science is important, it helps us solve many of the problems we do not have without science
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.
