"Trust the Science"

submitted by zyxzevn from (i.imgur.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Who are you supposed to trust? The cult leader who says the earth is 6 thousand years old? The tobacco company that says smoking doesn't cause cancer? The selfish politician who pretends he loves you?

Well, I did do some lab work. I measured the force of gravity. Not a big deal. You could do it too. So called 'hard science' is replicable. You might not have the laboratory to test all science, but any university in the world can challenge inaccurate science. And one can get a Nobel Peace Prize if they succeed. So if you can disprove climate change, gravity or that the earth is an oblique sphere; do so.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Let's do a non-political topic: The big bang.

There is refutation of cosmological background radiation. After inventing the MRI scanner, radio-specialist Robitaille dived into the many problems with the cosmic radio background observations. Link

Did you know there is the refutation of cosmic redshift? Halton Arp picked out examples of high-redshift Quasars that were close or in-front-of nearby galaxies. He quickly lost his job. Redshift can be observed in electrified plasma and depends on the amount of free electrons. link

There are very old structures very far away. You probably already know, but can also check Hubble for that. For these structures astronomers create new theories with invisible stuff, but are not willing to step away from the estimated age of the universe based on redshift.

Feel free to appoint them for the Nobel Prize, but I don't think the establishment likes it when you break with the established beliefs.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I don't care about the big bang.

Let's go with small pox. It killed people. They came up with germ theory. They made a vaccine based on germ theory. Now nobody dies of small pox.

I am not saying that someone called a scientist is always truthful about everything. I know about the "scientists" big tobacco paid off to tell us cigarettes don't cause cancer. I know that phrenology was considered a science. But good science sticks around. The the scientific method is second only to mathematical proofs when it comes to epistemology.

[–]Penelope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

How much influence would you consider that funding has in promoting or dismissing scientific data?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Depends. When fossil fuel companies pay geologists to find oil, they get a return on their investment. But some scientists can create a climate change lie when the fossil fuel industries pay them to do so. But even the most devious 'gun for higher' climate denier can't change the data of an honest climatologist. And if the media lies about surface temperatures to cover up climate change, consumers will catch on with their own thermometers.

Climate change denial, leaded gas denial and tobacco cancer denial come from the same play book. And the media gives 50/50 time to issues where the scientific community is 97/3. And the 3 who disagree with the 97 could be correct, but if those 3 are saying something the billionaires want us to believe, I get suspicious.

[–]Penelope 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

can't change the data of an honest climatologist.

If this honest climatologist was denied funding until he came back with the 'correct data", this would drastically reduce honesty across the board.

consumers will catch on with their own thermometers.

The general populace noticing discrepancies, correlations and coincidences rarely has any effect on policy or the science establishment. Some exceptions apply, but only "authority" is the arbiter of what is supposed to be true.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sometimes it is hard for a regular person to collect data, but it can be done with some things.

Even if a climatologist is compromised by funding, science experiments are replicable. The truth will eventually prevail. You can't change the co2 evidence in antarctic ices sheets, even with Koch brothers' or George Soros money.

[–]Penelope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You can't change the co2 evidence in antarctic ices sheets, even with Koch brothers' or George Soros money.

That's an unprovable statement, therefore simply an assumption and the Achilles heel of your premise. We only know what we're told.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No. We know relevant first hand information about many important things when we think about them.

Take that "stolen election". I have worked as a poll worker before. I went through the county training and I watched my fellow poll workers. It was mostly pleasant. I didn't see any shenanigans. I did have to turn away a registered young black voter because the only id he had was a student id. Years later, mail in voting didn't have id. And when I registered to vote, I didn't have to show id either. After an adult family member died, they were removed from the voter registry. I know it is a bit anecdotal, but it is consistent with what my local news says it is.

[–]Penelope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No

You submitted anecdotal information and personal opinion as fact...again. Your premise is still awaiting supporting proof.