When you are told to "trust the science" remember that the science told us that bread and pasta should be the #1 component of our diets. This was taught at schools for decades.

submitted by Chipit from derwi.tk

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Again - here's the implication that science and scientists are generally fraudsters. OK, from now on, I'll only believe what you tell me.

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The science says that 67% of medical researchers have failed to reproduce an experiment. Would you trust people like that? Do they deserve your trust?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

That happens with cutting edge science. The initial findings are interesting because they stand out. Often in the first paper they're misinterpreted, or not completely understood.

That's why science only becomes settled after replication and preferably development of the underlying theory.

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But the "science" can't be replicated. We're not talking a few papers, we're talking 67-87%. And these are legitimate "scientists" doing this. We are in a Dark Age.

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

The scientific community is aware of the replication issue. Established science is established by replication and reproduction. Cutting edge science is speculative and most often refuted in part or entirely over the next few years.

Fraud is a different problem. But fraudulent work can't be replicated or reproduced either.

[–]Chipit[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If a study cannot be replicated, then it is not science.

Why are you defending these malicious actors?　

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

If a study cannot be replicated, then it is not science.

Science advances by many misunderstandings. The thing that makes it science is that those are investigated and corrected.

Why are you defending these malicious actors?　

Malicious?

Newtonian mechanics isn't accurate. It doesn't correctly predict the advance in the orbit of mercury, and fails to predict relativistic effects such as time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction.

Is your position that Newton was malicious?

Because that's simply not the case. We know more about mechanics now, but that doesn't make previous investigations malicious.

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

This has nothing to do with science lying to us because they were bribed to do so by big business.

Scientists lie. Worshipping them is folly.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The United States Department of Agriculture isn't scientists. It's the government.

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

Really? 1500 scientists - on a topic that they normally don't work with - eg. replicating the exact complicated experiments of others, which is impossible in most cases - though in any event they're working on their own highly specialized research. Good thing there are 9 million scientists in the world who can help corroborate - though their own versions of experiments - the value of any specific scientific discovery. If we're going to be skeptical of the information we read about, science can help. [Edit - removed the last sentence.]