NO scientist "believes in science". That’s the opposite of how science works. We accept current knowledge, but are skeptical that we know all that we need to know and look for ways to detect problems with our knowledge.
NO scientist "believes in science". That’s the opposite of how science works. We accept current knowledge, but are skeptical that we know all that we need to know and look for ways to detect problems with our knowledge.
One of the things I always tell people is this: Pull the scientific journal article that is cited by the press. Read the process/procedure the article references, as well as the inference the authors draw. Ask yourself "should I believe this?" Believe it or not, most procedures are accessible, and not that hard to understand. Equally, the distance between the usual (grandiose) conclusions and the procedures is also obvious -- especially in the social sciences. Now adjust your thinking. Research is real, and should be respected. Not all research is bad. But everyone has a brain, and you can use that to decide for yourself. And yes -- I've been a scientist my entire career. That's what I do. it is FAR more accessible than folks realize.
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true."
Too many people (like Gkam) claim the mantle of scientist who are not scientists.
Rigorous scientists are not political or believers - pseudoscientists are.
However, many people wear more than one hat. They can be rigorous scientists in the lab, but political ideologists outside the lab. Sadly, scientists are not immune from the human tendency to let their beliefs trump their science.
Be honest, you were talking about yourself. You are the laughingstock of every forum you post your nonsense on. I'm one of the few who will still even respond to you - only because (and I admit it is a weakness) I get a sense of Schadenfreude kicking you around.
Scientists have faith in the idea that the universe has "laws", that is, they rely on the universe responding in a consistent way. They have faith in reproducibility.
Good point, though I would replace "faith" with "understand".
Indeed, science is in a reproducibility crisis (a real crisis), where information in substantial numbers of papers in some fields is not reproducible. See, for example:
I agree with your premise, a "what it should be"...But that is not "what is" happening when skeptics are called deniers, and consensus is the public measure heaped upon the world while personal destruction is heaped upon the skeptic. That is then "scientists" refusing to look beyond their own personal interests of funding, the true warping affect of science today. Ultimately everything requires a degree of faith. Faith in numbers, which have been altered or ignored, like the hockey stick ignoring the late 30's. Faith in theory which as a child, everyone accepted lightening as a result of static discharge until someone did the calculus. Look at dinosaur theory. Today, climate change. In the 70s is was to be dead oceans and an ice age by now. The zealots are the scientists today heaping condemnation on those sinners and infidels who do not agree with consensus while refusing to look, listen, or consider they are wrong. They virtually burn at the stake any who disagree with their pontiff being the politician.
Bona fide scientists recognize on the basis of overwhelming evidence that rigorous science is epistemically superior (has a far better predictability quotient) to any and all other epistemologies (philosophy, literature, art, politics).
NO scientist "believes in science". That’s the opposite of how science works. We accept current knowledge, but are skeptical that we know all that we need to know and look for ways to detect problems with our knowledge.
One of the things I always tell people is this: Pull the scientific journal article that is cited by the press. Read the process/procedure the article references, as well as the inference the authors draw. Ask yourself "should I believe this?" Believe it or not, most procedures are accessible, and not that hard to understand. Equally, the distance between the usual (grandiose) conclusions and the procedures is also obvious -- especially in the social sciences. Now adjust your thinking. Research is real, and should be respected. Not all research is bad. But everyone has a brain, and you can use that to decide for yourself. And yes -- I've been a scientist my entire career. That's what I do. it is FAR more accessible than folks realize.
Yep. "Use the Force! Read the source..."
"Most people don't think for themselves. They find it too hard." (condensed version of a quote from one of Michael Crichton's books)
Nah - most people do not have the cognitive acumen to process science.
True, but most of those don't pretend to be scientists.
But, they are still taken in by the many charlatans.
Most people think that believing is as valid as knowing.
Most people think that emotions are as valid as reason.
Most people are totally unaware of scientifically described reality and are guided by primitive superstitions, myths, and emotions.
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true."
- Wizard's First Rule
Richard was a wet blanket but the naked wizard guy is cool
Correction: no good scientist "believes in science". There are plenty of terrible ones out there.
See? People do not understand what you're saying because of the ambiguity of language.
I know plenty of scientists. Several of them are the exact opposite of skeptical and are political creatures first and foremost.
Too many people (like Gkam) claim the mantle of scientist who are not scientists.
Rigorous scientists are not political or believers - pseudoscientists are.
However, many people wear more than one hat. They can be rigorous scientists in the lab, but political ideologists outside the lab. Sadly, scientists are not immune from the human tendency to let their beliefs trump their science.
Then they are cult members, not scientists.
Says someone who took no science.
did you read the article lol
I know, right?
Yeah, I was referring to Mister Glat.
Be honest, you were talking about yourself. You are the laughingstock of every forum you post your nonsense on. I'm one of the few who will still even respond to you - only because (and I admit it is a weakness) I get a sense of Schadenfreude kicking you around.
Says the cult member.
Scientists have faith in the idea that the universe has "laws", that is, they rely on the universe responding in a consistent way. They have faith in reproducibility.
Good point, though I would replace "faith" with "understand".
Indeed, science is in a reproducibility crisis (a real crisis), where information in substantial numbers of papers in some fields is not reproducible. See, for example:
https://phys.org/news/2013-09-science-crisis.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/psychologys-replication-crisis-real/576223/
https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/reproducibility-and-replicability-in-science
Exactly right. And peer-review isn't actually helping. Indeed, the evidence that peer-review actually works is not very strong.
I agree with your premise, a "what it should be"...But that is not "what is" happening when skeptics are called deniers, and consensus is the public measure heaped upon the world while personal destruction is heaped upon the skeptic. That is then "scientists" refusing to look beyond their own personal interests of funding, the true warping affect of science today. Ultimately everything requires a degree of faith. Faith in numbers, which have been altered or ignored, like the hockey stick ignoring the late 30's. Faith in theory which as a child, everyone accepted lightening as a result of static discharge until someone did the calculus. Look at dinosaur theory. Today, climate change. In the 70s is was to be dead oceans and an ice age by now. The zealots are the scientists today heaping condemnation on those sinners and infidels who do not agree with consensus while refusing to look, listen, or consider they are wrong. They virtually burn at the stake any who disagree with their pontiff being the politician.
Thank you for this thoughtful analysis of what is really going on.
Bona fide scientists recognize on the basis of overwhelming evidence that rigorous science is epistemically superior (has a far better predictability quotient) to any and all other epistemologies (philosophy, literature, art, politics).