No. Hell, no. I was a scientist. We are human too. There’s a lot of dogmatic scientists with their pet theories who will never admit they’re wrong. Many also falsify results in the chase of publish or perish. Don’t make the same mistake by deifying science.
That has nothing to do with science and everything to do with human traits.
Except when other humans try to recreate the results (the key part of the scientific process is peer review) and fail they can claim your full of shit.
Just look at all the people claiming to achieve cold fusion. They get ripped apart by the scientific community for posting dog water.
And that is why we have peer review, so dogshit doesn’t make it as cold hard fact into science.
Science is something that is done exclusively by humans. It is designed to try to work around our cognitive biases and faulty perceptions. Everything about science is everything to do with human traits.
Science is meant to be objective, not subjective. If you falsify results, then human traits corrupt it, which means that that is no longer science.
That’s not what I’m talking about. As you note, the scientific method does not even attempt to deal with bad faith. It attempts to deal, imperfectly, with the myriad of stupid things a perfectly normal human being in good faith inevitably does. It is not required for people to consciously falsify data for science to come up with false conclusions. Science aspires to be objective, but it is not. It’s just somewhat more objective than we can be without it.
The scientific method looks the way it does because it reflects the needs of human intellect and psychology. It is just one formulation and another species, or even another culture would no doubt come up with another.
It is not required for people to consciously falsify data for science to come up with false conclusions.
This is true, but even if it unintentionally falsifies data, other discoveries with correct data will reveal that this other data is wrong, so this theory will be put under question, to see if it holds water. If it doesn’t, than that theory is rejected.
That is what science does, it corrects itself if new more correct data is presented, thus striving for perfection.
The idea is to know everything about everything. This is of corse the goal, which is practically unachievable.
What is up with theses? It feels like the religious trolls are here again… Worse even than reddit. The false equivalence here is insane.
deleted by creator
except… peer revue…
Yeah… sure… peer review… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Tm3Yx4HWI
Science doesn’t necessarily win within your lifetime, though.
How is that relevant?
???
I just don’t see how that’s relevant to the post. It’s true but I don’t understand the connection?
Idk maybe I’m just stupid
It took me a minute to figure out what the hell it was relevant to, also, when I went back to check.
It replies to the title of the post, not the content.
I’m not sure that science is winning when it comes to climate change. Religion is trying to prove it is right while science cries in a corner.
Could you explain further?
The scene I currently imagine is one person (religion) standing upright, talking to a crowd of people being like “You see, …”, while another person is huddled in a corner bawling their eyes out for some reason :))Science kinda gave up cuz there is no way to change or reverse it in the current socio-economic system. It doesn’t take into account the economic concepts of nature.
to a large degree our understanding of scientific truth is shaped by corporate interest. i find science-minded people to not actually be very intelligent people: they do things like treat MLA Standard like truth and foolishly lock themselves from evolving further. also their rigorous and analytical behaviors remove them from inquiry into emotionality and the sensory experience so much as to render them philistine
i prefer philosophers and artists (writers) personally, or, shit, nurses and gardeners: they seem to be caring wild amounts of Truth in them
edit: “caring” was a typo but i like it so im leaving it lol
deleted by creator
hmm, well Descartes invented science (in a dream, lol @ philosophical materialists) and would likely agree with me just like pretty much anyone in the world of intellectualism
i’m cherishing my downvotes here, please bestow them onto me, because i know that they are a reflection of my — as you put it — “unique take” dissenting from the masses. but i know what the masses are like: watch Jerry Springer and see for yourself. and i also know what the Sciences are like: i work in Science. and i think that this 110-iq habit of deifying Science is parasitic and the same institutional worship as the church. on top of that, half of the people doing it are working off outdated frameworks like Classical Physics and have created their own religion that rivals contemporary evangelism in its dogmatic-and-unproductive nature.
sorry, philistinism just pisses me off. read Deleuze or study metaphysics or something.
This is such a fabulously stupid position.
deleted by creator
ad hominem means that you can’t negate my argument
deleted by creator
still just ad hominems
deleted by creator
scientific truth is shaped by corporate interest
Like how nutrition science is in such a pathetic state because of the literally billions of dollars Coke has spent perverting global scientific research. They release the results that benefit them and eat the ones that don’t. In isolation, everything they release is genuine if bad faith science, but taken as a body, it leads us in exactly the wrong direction.
facts. and let’s not forget that the way corporate-funded science played both Sugar and Cigarettes resulted in a massive body count.
