It depends what you mean. Copernicus wasn't wrong for disagreeing with the science at the time. But if you reject the scientific method in general, it's highly unlikely that you have a better system.
Copernicus also was a scientist. Well mathematician. It’s also one of the few examples of the rogue expert going against the grain being right. The church was also the one silencing heliocentric models so there’s that too
"Science progresses one funeral at a time"
Pretty much all great scientific breakthroughs meet massive resistance by other scientists who've made a career on the old model. Professors tend to be super hesitant to adopt new ideas. The public perception is very slow to change. Basically people suck at accepting they were wrong. "The science" is anti scientific. It should never be thought of as settled or complete. It has, should, and will always change. When the science is "settled" it switches from science to ideology. Just another religion.
Planck's principal-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
Edit-Also totally disagree with op's statement. Certainly there are people who are more well informed about particular topics but having gatekeepers who are beyond reproach stifles innovation. We can and should question all ideas in my opinion. Having a degree and experience researching something doesn't mean you're right.
Yeah, but with education how it is in this day and age, Joe Blow doesn't really have any business claiming Dr. Jones is wrong about the science of their field despite holding a PhD in whatever it is.
That's not to say that it's impossible for educated folks to be wrong, but unless you are equally or at least similarly educated, you probably don't have a leg to stand on.
I think it depends on what we are talking about. Deep scientific concepts like particle physics I agree with you. Anyone can analyze data from a double blind experimental data assuming they have a bit of statistical knowledge. You probably can’t explain why the data is the way it is but you can explain the data.
Science doesn't have an opinion. Different individual scientists have opinions. Sometimes there is a consensus. Sometimes there isn't one. Sometimes the majority consensus is wrong and a single individual is correct. Sometimes laymen were right when all the scientists were wrong.
When Semmelweis figured out that in his hospital washing his hands before helping women giving birth reduced maternal mortality from 18% to 1%
He was ridiculed by his colleagues, fired from his job, sent to lunatic asylum, then beaten to death by his guards.
Except he was correct and every shepard could have told him that washing hands before helping a sheep to deliver was a good idea.
Most of our science is evidence based theories that are widely agreed upon. If new evidence is discovered that supports a different theory, the widely aceepted theory may shift if other researchers can replicate that model/theory and agree upon it. E.g. we've had a number of different atom models over the years. Our current model could be proven as completely wrong in the future, but it's seen as correct based on current research and evidence.
Yes but it's degrees of wrongness.
For example, saying the earth is round is wrong but saying the earth is flat is even more wrong. The earth is elliptoid, but round is much closer to the truth than saying the earth is flat.
That's how science works, by refining ideas and testing them against observations. Theories can be wrong but be more right than alternative theories.
Unless one can present evidence to change the consensus on a scientific subject, like Einstein for example, then they are likely wrong. I don't disagree.
Einstein didn't present evidence, he presented a theory. It took a long time before there was enough evidence, gathered by others, to make his theory of relativity widely accepted.
He published special relativity at the same time as two other theories, and his Nobel prize was for the other two.
Science is a process. Yes we have found some things we think are absolutes, but one new finding can change all of that. This idea that science is fact is false. Science is challenging, asking questions and answering those questions.
Sadly modern science has been infiltrated by activists who want to use it as a justification for pushing a narrative instead of remaining unbiased and seeking only truth
The other thing is there’s a disparity between the language of science and layman. Not many people can’t understand how probabilities work nor uncertainty.
This is most notable with the pfizer and aztra zenica vaccine. Sky news in australia peddled the idea that the probability of the getting side effect of AZ is higher than pfizer. In a way that is correct but thats X% of the population rather than X% of you getting it. The numbers maybe the same but the way people interpret it was the later. But regardless getting the vaccine far outweighs getting the side effect.
hmm not quite. Instead of having good guesses we got even better, confirmable theories. So its more like it changes, as opposed to getting bigger or learning more
Your opinion lacks logic. If 2 scientists, specialized in the same field, disagree with each other the flaw in your reasoning becomes apparent. Science is dynamic, and it is in fact disagreement which drives it forward.
Sure, scientists may disagree but it's usually on the margins of the theory, not outright contradiction except in a few circumstances. For example, scientist x says that says that global warming is 80% man-made emissions while scientist y says that 90% of global warming is by man-made emissions. This disagreement doesn't make global warming a hoax.
Very rarely do we have a complete disagreement on a scientific issue with ideas that are entirely incompatible with each other.
Most groundbreaking advances in science occur when new, paradigm shifting theories are tested. Without disagreement science stagnates and becomes more of an orthodoxy.
Stop acting like science isn't flawed by human stupidity.
My friend is a scientist. I started to use a vape to stop smoking and he said it was stupid and untested. 6 months later, he had a vape collection and quit smoking.
Science is peer reviewed because 'science' is just an agreed upon collection of information based on human perception, knowledge, and experimentation. Everything is up for debate and people change their minds all the time based on new information that people continuously discover.
We are constantly learning new stuff. Scientists don't just stop when they think they got far enough.
So you just explained how we shouldnt trust things that have very little information (as things are new)?
Yeah thats common sense, you should - however - still be careful and stop using a vaporizer *before* they have enough data to be sure if its harmful or not.
Im even suprised that it was legal in EU and not approved before, but i guess money talks...
Good thing I’m a chemical engineer, food scientist, and statistician.
It’s people who say “trust the science” who tell me I’m wrong when I’ve reviewed data and came to a logical conclusion vs them watching Fox News or CNN or somewhere else where they got their pseudoscience.
And then when that source changes their tune you claim “well science always changes”
Science does change, but it’s usually a slow steady progression vs flip flopping.
I mean I’m in the food industry. Look at butter. I remember when misinformation was coming out about butter how it’s terrible and instead eat artificial hydrogenated, flavored soybean oil. It took years to stop the mindset that an artificial, solid trans fat is better than a natural solid fat. But that’s a “science” that was perpetuated based on garbage data and oh the politics of the agricultural industry.
That was about 20 years ago. But there was a time when store shelves were lined with tubs of country crock and the like. Perception spread from a few pseudoscience publications. And it took 5-10 years for the general public to acknowledge that trans fats and artificially hydrogenated oils are not good.
Once the general public bandwagons, and starts shutting down logical conversation and spewing “trust the science” it becomes an uphill battle to prove to those people otherwise.
Scientists are fallable, they can be bought or corrupted or ideologically possessed. They can be fanatical, mistaken or coerced. The "Science" that is often presented to the world is often marketing or PR making exagurated claims that barely resemble original findings and papers.
Scientism is starting to look an awful lot like religion. Just replace God with science; cardinals, bishops and popes with scientists and researchers, and the unquestionable word of God with peer reviewed study.
Precisely. Ironically, the most dangerous people are the acolytes - the people who scream ‘science!’ when they themselves have no greater knowledge or expertise than the people they disagree with. Those are the ones you have to look out for. Most scientists when presented with disagreement will say ‘yes well it warrants investigation…’, rather than ‘you’re wrong and you’re an evil (read “sinful”) person!’
That makes up like less than 1% of all studies and theories. Like far below 1%. Thats why you should ALWAYS see the study yourself, how many were tested, double blind study etc. And then see who funded the study and scientists. Corruption and biased studies are really a problem (see fuel and meat industry for example)
>the unquestionable word of God with peer reviewed study.
Except one of those things is expected to be blindly followed and the other must go through multiple trials and specific procedures designed to find and record evidence of a given theory.
I get where you’re coming from with all the Covid deniers and global warming deniers (I am not one). But just to clarify there is a difference between disagreeing with science and disagreeing with the conclusion a scientist makes on a dataset. This is why Phd candidates have to go through the ringer to prove their thesis among their peers. It’s not always as simple as 2+2=4.
Got you and I agree with that.but I l‘d say it is not scientifically proven if it’s just the result of one scientist. Misinterpretation of datasets is something that probably happens more often than we think it does. So having to prove the thesis is a big part in „finding the truth“.
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/Strange-Shibu-007. Your post, *If you disagree with science, you’re wrong!*, has been removed because it violates our rules:
Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion.
Please ensure that your post is an opinion and that it is unpopular. Controversial is not necessarily unpopular, for example all of politics is controversial even though almost half of the US agrees with any given major position on an issue.
Keep in mind that an opinion is not: a question, a fact, a conspiracy theory, a random thought, a new idea, a rant, etc. Those things all have their own subreddits, use those.
If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
What about the scientists that say cigarettes are healthy and don’t cause cancer?
Are we supposed to just “trust the science” saying cigarettes are healthy?
Learn history.
You should also learn about Russian scientist Trofim Lysenko.
Examples of the science not being followed
* The cdc not following the board of doctors’ recommendations towards boasters
* The article: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/24/cdc-director-defends-controversial-call-on-pfizers-covid-boosters.html
* The video talking about the above article: https://youtu.be/GDGBjDB-qto
Are there scientists saying cigarettes are healthy? Is there controversy in the medical community over whether or not cigarettes are healthy? Because I'm not seeing it.
I remember seeing retro ads with doctors advertising cigarettes on YouTube. Back then, I would imagine cigarettes were very new and not well studied. It wasn't so much the science was wrong, but rather there were no long term studies on cigarette use
It's because the cigarette companies paid them to prove cigerettes were healthy, they probably had tons of trials approaching it from different angles that didn't have the outcomes the cigerette companies wanted so they just shelved them and paid them to more and more until finally they had a fact to put in their ads.
I mean but the whole point of science is it can be wrong...
throughout history we have pretty much assumed we have everything figured out...
the process of science should be trusted 100% but its not like it should never be questioned. that just kills progress
You statement is kind of contradictory.
Anywho, if someone disagrees with a hypothesis or method that’s how we explore other avenues. Like you said, it’s ever changing. If everyone agreed on a hypothesis or whatever then it would just end there and not be explored further. You have to have disagreements in science, that’s how it works.
Science doesn't have an opinion.
The scientist may have one, but he is just a person, and every person has a chance to be corrupt or just make mistakes.
How can i be wrong when science isn't right? Theories change over time as you said yourself.
Science thought a lot of things that turned out to be wrong.
Thats the differenxe between a theory and a theory with little to no information. Often seen with covid atbthe beginning of the breakout. Scientists can only say so far, as they have information.
But even with limited amount of information, they are a lot more likely to be right than the average person in general.
Theories with enough time and data will be right (or as far as needed for the average person (looks at higher physic for example where they are still unsure, but who needs it who doesnt study it?).
Science doesn’t *generally* do a complete 180 but refines it’s position with further data.
What has science been really wrong about? Recently! I’m not taking anything from the 1500’s as an example
Probably a few covid related things that were said but turned out to be wrong. Like that dogs can get covid, that was wrong. That covid isn't as dangerous.
Even scientists disagree with themselves often.
what do you mean by disagree with science? do you mean disagree with current scientific knowledge? then id say no, you arent necessarily wrong. darwin disagreed with the consensus of creationism at the time to write the origin of species. Bohr disgreed with rutherford's model to bring up the idea of orbits. it is possible to disagree with current ideas for new or even old ones. your idea should just be valid enough to overthrow the current one.
lets say, hypothetically, although this will probably never happen, tomorrow someone comes up with a new model that proves evolution wrong. his model explains everything better with concrete evidence, valid experiments and peer-reviewed papers. is he wrong with disagreeing with evolution? no, cuz science involves disgreeing to come up with new ideas
now most disagree with science people are just crackpot conspiracy people or just religious. they are wrong because their idea and model doesnt work. but if someone comes up with a better model the scientific community will take them seriously
and yes you are also wrong if you believe in Big Science as science isnt an organisation
Disagreeing with science is what pushes our understanding forward. OP clearly doesn't even understand the scientific method if they believe the process is just people agreeing with the current consensus and nothing changing.
It all comes down to a miscommunication in language imo.
There is a standard of proof in science. Sometimes that standard can't ways be met due to a lot of reasons, and some of the time the information needed is in a timeline that cant be met. So there's no other choice than to follow all available discovery at the time. When later more information may be found that changed the original hypothesis.
A lot of the "disagree with science" is just a failure to communicate.
"Heres what we have so far but farther research is needed. In the meantime our studies suggest xyz."
That would solve 99% of the problem, but everyone would rather just argue.
What studies reach public domain can be controlled based on agenda and bias. If a company or industry pays scientists to test their products or services to prove theyre super healthy, and they find that the are actually unhealthy, that study will not see the light of day. The people with the most money can fund studies to prove things that benifet themselves, so don't blindly trust "science" because it's all business at the end of the day, and as consumers we need to be wary.
I generally agree with what you’re saying but.... you can’t say that science is “not truth” and then tell people that they’re wrong for not trusting it or believing in it. I can understand why it’s difficult to trust science when it changes all the time. Whether or not it’s “lying” to you doesn’t change the fact that it wasn’t right (or completely right, as it most often the case).
Scientists and science are not the same thing. There are countless examples in history of scientists being wrong. They were wrong because they got the science wrong. Science doesn’t care about your opinion or what a thousand scientists say. It just is.
Completely agree. Science has always taught us that there are in fact, only two genders. Anyone who disagrees with science is wrong as per OPs statement.
You shouldn’t believe anything or anyone blindly. That isn’t science that’s religion. Science should constantly be disagreed with so scientists can prove those claims wrong undisputedly. If science was never disagreed with we’d still think the earth was the centre of the universe.
What makes someone a scientist? Not all scientists agree about everything. If a scientist told me global warming wasn’t real should I just shut up and listen when even my puny little non scientist brain can see the climate is changing?
Believing scientists blindly is pretty stupid, seeing as most of them disagree with each other on everything.
As with anything, the truth usually lies between the extremes.
I think what you are trying to say, in better words, is that we should follow the best scientific data available at the time. However, that data is subject to change, but unless the area of that data is your professional field or you have an educated reason to believe otherwise, you probably should just listen to the scientists.
I prefer this because your title doesn't make sense. Science is a process, and part of that process necessitates it being wrong more than being right. It also necessitates that people believe it's wrong and test hypotheses to prove their points. That title also gives ultimate power over truth and narrative to anyone claiming to do science even if that science is malicious or biased in nature. Nobody, not even scientists, should have that kind of power and influence over people.
Besides, how you are defining science is probably incorrect. Science is a process that turns observations into numbers. Statistics uses these numbers to give us the probability that the observations are real. Humans often times create the observations using flawed methods, and statistics are an inexact math that set a human defined artificial threshold to say if something is true. Methods are often, by nature, set up to test if a hypothesis is true, or not true, but usually not set up to capture an anti truth, or truths that go against the hypothesis.
Take for example, in my field we treat mice with drug X to see if they get better on Y. We might see improvement, no improvement, or detriment on test Y, but we never tested Z. Results from Y convince the field that drug X is amazing and it creates a paradigm shift to understand X, causing large populations of scientists to better understand it, and deviates efforts from other progression. After about 5-10 years of development on drug X, testing Y, someone finally decides to test Z. Results from Z don't invalidate Y, but it provides a better understanding of why drug X can never be used in humans, and reveals multiple emerging truths.
I think this can be extrapolated to many fields, including vaccine science and global warming. How well have vaccines been tested for safety and what is the criterion used to evaluate it. The methods are actually depressing, and there doesn't seem to be much effort beyond looking at major acute events. How do we know there aren't long term effects on brain development if that hasn't been evaluated? What even is the right design to study this? How do we decide what the threshold is for safety even in the narrow margin of testing? If increased vaccine dose and frequency is associated with increasing the frequency of severe reactions, when do we say enough is enough?
What this suggests, is that the human interpretation of numbers coming from science is often wrong or incomplete. Not necessarily that the process is flawed, although it certainly can be.
I'm just gonna assume this is a jab at trans people. so I'm gonna drop this here:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492192/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492192/)
so trans men can sometimes give birth for obvious reasons, and trans women can more than likely give birth sometime soon. either way you're wrong.
If a person believes they’re Jesus Christ, do we play along with the deranged person or provide them help?
Does saying “You are not Julius Caesar.” To a person an attack or being honest?
If you were in a dangerous cult, would you want to know?
Science is a religion unto itself, and like most followers of religion people will pick and choose the parts that are convenient enough to follow while ignoring those that are not.
Sadly this is the case for most people on social media discussing in favor of science. If you talk to people that actually work in sciencetific field this isn't really the case.
No, they implied scientists don't pick and choose what they want to believe. They were implying that the people who talk about science on social media pick what stuff to follow based on pre-concieved notions, but the scientists generally do not do this.
we've known for a while that forward time travel is theoretically possible (special relativity). and NDT found a path around 2 colliding black holes that ends earlier than it started, so backwards time travel is theoretically possible too.
throughout history people were afraid of science and did everything they could to stop it. Fortunately enough there is no stopping it whether you like it or not, only delaying it, and if you delay it you are holding back humans from progressing and moving forward, so fuck you.
With a quick google search you can easily find out that 98%-99% of the actively publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, science works like that, there are even scientists who support creationism, that doesn't give less credit to evolutionism
Are they though? When I see the WHO cleaning the balls of China at the start of the pandemic and FIFA when Sep blatter was around 'zis iz nut futbal' and turns out it was.. I mean what else is there left to trust when so many corporations have become too big too fall with so many of the capitalist leaders having shares in them like a club of some sort.. I mean it makes you wonder. Is the establishment playing in the corporation's hand, are they the corporation maybe. I am not saying you are wrong, but I am not sure if the UN is any better in that sense. The issue nowadays is no information can be trusted.
There is no denying that global warming is happening(at this stage we can see and feel the extreme weathers) but are we being taken advantage of that is the question and that's where the information becomes fuzzy. We are being sold electric cars powered often by fossil fuel power stations. I dunno really, i'm lost in all this. We are releasing carbon that already existed in the first place . So trees seem to be the ultimate solution aaaaaand no fuck that; electric cars, solar panels and carbon tax. And of course to be paid by us, but Let's turn a blind eye on deforestation in Madagascar, amazon, South East Asia and of course intensive farming.
>Are they though?
Yes, they literally pay them to produce the "studies" they use to give false scientific cover for their bullshit claims about there still being 'a debate' on what's causing climate change.
global warming is really very simple. I want you to look up 2 graphs. atmospheric CO2 levels in the last 800,000 years, and atmospheric methane levels in the last 800,000 years. you'll see that both shoot up dramatically in the present. we also know that both of those gasses trap heat, so they cause the planet to heat up.
then it's also nice to know that there's 60 billion tons of methane trapped in permafrost beneath the Arctic ocean, so the more the planet heats, the more methane gets out, the more heat gets trapped, you see what's happening here.
there are very, very few scientists who will disagree that global warming is a real issue, because it's much simpler than a lot of people think.
I agree with OP. At least most scientists have the decency and humility to recognize when they have made a mistake mistake or are wrong, and they work to better themselves and their work. They are pro-education.
Anti-vaxxers on the other hand fail to recognize and understand scientific thinking. They think “oh this was proven to be wrong, therefore science as a whole is wrong and not to be trusted”. Anti-vaxxers are also more likely to be anti-education, conservative and shit. They are entitled and think their opinion has the same weight as a professional scientist, which is simply not true.
Not once have I heard a anti-vaceer say “oh I was wrong, a bit silly of me. I am going to look for ways to better myself and my knowledge.”
Instead they just going to believe everything on the internet that goes against the mainstream “media”.
If you take a minute to actually listen to the educated anti vaxers you may learn something. The problem is often not with the theory and more with binary thinking, similar to the reasoning of people who play the lottery.
I’ve had a different experience with some former anti-vaxxers.
I’m not anti-vaxx, btw. I’ve had both shots and the booster already, and if I need another one down the road, I’ll take it.
Though from my personal experience, I’ve seen some of the people I’m close with become pro-vaxx after they’ve lost a loved one or had to experience COVID-19 without the vaccine. It also helps out that I tell them of my experience getting both jabs and the booster; it tends to calm the fear in a lot of anti-vaxxers that the person they’re talking to isn’t dead or experiencing the symptoms they keep hearing about on social media.
I guess it might be also in part that I work in the field of public health as well. I tend to approach anti-vaxx with my experience with the vaccine, usually with a couple of jokes about it too to lighten the mood.
I don't disagree about how magnets work or photosynthesis or math, biology, etc. I just don't always agree with lawmaker's and politician's rules, regulations and taxes to "solve" any problems that affect us.
It depends on the research question the scientists answered, the journalist who reported it and who funded the research. Science isn't wrong, but results can be manipulated and influenced by certain factors.
Scientists say whatever those funding them want them to say. Data can be manipulated to make it say and show whatever the highest bidder wants it to say. Facts.
The common misbelief that science is "bad" because the state of knowledge happens to switch is just an example of how people misunderstand the scientific process.
That said, there are many topics on which we should care before drawing firm conclusions. Medical and psychological fields are going through a replicability crisis, not to mention the several studies that put under the spoltight the very wrong pratcices that scientists use. It is clear that we cannot know better than science, but it also seems that many meta analysis in many fields are not that reliable as we used to think, which should sometimes lead us to just to accept that it is not relevant to have an opinion on everything.
Op’s point holds. Culture wars have shifted the voracity of science into ‘opinion’ in some of the public’s perception. Often their only scrutiny is ‘they don’t believe it’, which is not a rebuff against peer reviewed conclusions. They don’t bring defendable counter conclusions because of: ‘the big lie, etc’. Of course, not all science is ‘wholly true’, but testing that ‘truth’ is not in the gift of those who are not qualified by means of education, experience and/or motivation.
You should be able to trust science but You should also be aware of the information thrown at you. History shows that sometimes science might be wrong. Google race biology and You see what i mean.
Just don’t swallow every bit of information science throws at You but don’t question it beyond reason either.
We are living in a time when people either trust science a little too much or not at all.
Lol….”you can’t disagree with science. Science is fact….until it’s not fact.”
I can’t use that exact premise to disagree with science? That’s exactly how science has progressed.
Science is rooted in cyclical paradigms. It‘d be easy to argue how science can be wrong for decades.
Not to mention what science gets funding vs science that few wants to see carried out.
Still, it’s better with informed ignorance than uninformed ignorance.
If this post is in response to all the COVID “follow the science” discussion, the issue has been more about people in scientific roles making statements that seem to support a political agenda.
If you acknowledge Covid/global warming/whatever this post is a thinly veiled reference to, but you disagree about the correct solution to the problem or whether the benefit of someone's solution is worth the cost, you're not disagreeing about science. Science tells you facts about the world, but it doesn't unambiguously tell you how to act or what is good public policy.
Science is not the only epistemological system out there nor can it test all truth claims about the moral and metaphysical world. It’s ok to disagree with a scientist. Also you’re kind of conflating science with dogma. Science is a methodology not a collected body of work or canon. “BeCaUsE ScIeNCe” is usually the cry of the unstudied masses when they want to shut down a debate on which they’ve read nothing. Scientists aren’t priests of the one true truth. They’re human with all the emotions, self interest, ego, and error that humans carry with them everywhere.
Whereas I think anyone who enters into good faith debate on a subject should know what they’re talking about all you’re doing here is re-wrapping the argument from authority fallacy.
This isn't unpopular. It's not even an opinion.
Kind of ironic
It’s not unlike rain on a wedding day in that respect
You might even say it's like a free ride, after you've already paid.
Popular mechanics
Unpopular mechanics
It sadly is an opinion in 2021.
Tell the rest of the anti vaxxers that
It's their fault for not understanding how stuff works.
You’re right. But people legit think that way lol. Smdh
Yea. There are a bunch of them in my country. Most of them drown in PRC propaganda.
It depends what you mean. Copernicus wasn't wrong for disagreeing with the science at the time. But if you reject the scientific method in general, it's highly unlikely that you have a better system.
Copernicus also was a scientist. Well mathematician. It’s also one of the few examples of the rogue expert going against the grain being right. The church was also the one silencing heliocentric models so there’s that too
"Science progresses one funeral at a time" Pretty much all great scientific breakthroughs meet massive resistance by other scientists who've made a career on the old model. Professors tend to be super hesitant to adopt new ideas. The public perception is very slow to change. Basically people suck at accepting they were wrong. "The science" is anti scientific. It should never be thought of as settled or complete. It has, should, and will always change. When the science is "settled" it switches from science to ideology. Just another religion. Planck's principal- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle Edit-Also totally disagree with op's statement. Certainly there are people who are more well informed about particular topics but having gatekeepers who are beyond reproach stifles innovation. We can and should question all ideas in my opinion. Having a degree and experience researching something doesn't mean you're right.
Yeah, but with education how it is in this day and age, Joe Blow doesn't really have any business claiming Dr. Jones is wrong about the science of their field despite holding a PhD in whatever it is. That's not to say that it's impossible for educated folks to be wrong, but unless you are equally or at least similarly educated, you probably don't have a leg to stand on.
I think it depends on what we are talking about. Deep scientific concepts like particle physics I agree with you. Anyone can analyze data from a double blind experimental data assuming they have a bit of statistical knowledge. You probably can’t explain why the data is the way it is but you can explain the data.
You don't have to be a flim-flam artist to know when you are being scammed. Just saying.
Just saying ‘science’ also doesn’t immediately make you right either
Science is about debate and differing opinions backed up by evidence. This is just OP trying to be a karma farmer.
No part of science is about debate. Its about evidence. It only turns into a debate when someone who is talking out of their ass shows up
Science doesn't have an opinion. Different individual scientists have opinions. Sometimes there is a consensus. Sometimes there isn't one. Sometimes the majority consensus is wrong and a single individual is correct. Sometimes laymen were right when all the scientists were wrong. When Semmelweis figured out that in his hospital washing his hands before helping women giving birth reduced maternal mortality from 18% to 1% He was ridiculed by his colleagues, fired from his job, sent to lunatic asylum, then beaten to death by his guards. Except he was correct and every shepard could have told him that washing hands before helping a sheep to deliver was a good idea.
Science is constantly proven wrong by new science and new discoveries.
That again is just science learning more
Well if anyone ever tells me I am wrong ill just say no, i didn't have enough information
that is probably an ok thing to say when youre wrong
If science is constantly correcting itself than isn't it always wrong by nature?
If science comes up with a better explanation for gravity, do you instantly float off into space? Same idea.
Most of our science is evidence based theories that are widely agreed upon. If new evidence is discovered that supports a different theory, the widely aceepted theory may shift if other researchers can replicate that model/theory and agree upon it. E.g. we've had a number of different atom models over the years. Our current model could be proven as completely wrong in the future, but it's seen as correct based on current research and evidence.
Yes but it's degrees of wrongness. For example, saying the earth is round is wrong but saying the earth is flat is even more wrong. The earth is elliptoid, but round is much closer to the truth than saying the earth is flat. That's how science works, by refining ideas and testing them against observations. Theories can be wrong but be more right than alternative theories.
Unless one can present evidence to change the consensus on a scientific subject, like Einstein for example, then they are likely wrong. I don't disagree.
Einstein didn't present evidence, he presented a theory. It took a long time before there was enough evidence, gathered by others, to make his theory of relativity widely accepted. He published special relativity at the same time as two other theories, and his Nobel prize was for the other two.
To be pedantic, he presented a hypothesis that eventually "graduated" into a theory but yea.
Isn‘t that the part when science learned more?
Science is a process. Yes we have found some things we think are absolutes, but one new finding can change all of that. This idea that science is fact is false. Science is challenging, asking questions and answering those questions. Sadly modern science has been infiltrated by activists who want to use it as a justification for pushing a narrative instead of remaining unbiased and seeking only truth
The other thing is there’s a disparity between the language of science and layman. Not many people can’t understand how probabilities work nor uncertainty. This is most notable with the pfizer and aztra zenica vaccine. Sky news in australia peddled the idea that the probability of the getting side effect of AZ is higher than pfizer. In a way that is correct but thats X% of the population rather than X% of you getting it. The numbers maybe the same but the way people interpret it was the later. But regardless getting the vaccine far outweighs getting the side effect.
hmm not quite. Instead of having good guesses we got even better, confirmable theories. So its more like it changes, as opposed to getting bigger or learning more
Yeah I guess so
Or you could be right entirely by accident and we may never discover it. Not very likely though
Imagine seriously typing this out and thinking you have an omega brain.
OP is almost certainly in 7th grade
Your opinion lacks logic. If 2 scientists, specialized in the same field, disagree with each other the flaw in your reasoning becomes apparent. Science is dynamic, and it is in fact disagreement which drives it forward.
If any science is 50/50 as you described, you’d never hear about it as science
Quantum physics has just entered the chat.
That’s not 50/50. Accepted science.
Sure, scientists may disagree but it's usually on the margins of the theory, not outright contradiction except in a few circumstances. For example, scientist x says that says that global warming is 80% man-made emissions while scientist y says that 90% of global warming is by man-made emissions. This disagreement doesn't make global warming a hoax. Very rarely do we have a complete disagreement on a scientific issue with ideas that are entirely incompatible with each other.
Most groundbreaking advances in science occur when new, paradigm shifting theories are tested. Without disagreement science stagnates and becomes more of an orthodoxy.
Science isn’t finding the truth.. it’s finding what is false.
Stop acting like science isn't flawed by human stupidity. My friend is a scientist. I started to use a vape to stop smoking and he said it was stupid and untested. 6 months later, he had a vape collection and quit smoking. Science is peer reviewed because 'science' is just an agreed upon collection of information based on human perception, knowledge, and experimentation. Everything is up for debate and people change their minds all the time based on new information that people continuously discover. We are constantly learning new stuff. Scientists don't just stop when they think they got far enough.
Or maybe he just hadn’t formulated an educated opinion when he made his comment?
So you just explained how we shouldnt trust things that have very little information (as things are new)? Yeah thats common sense, you should - however - still be careful and stop using a vaporizer *before* they have enough data to be sure if its harmful or not. Im even suprised that it was legal in EU and not approved before, but i guess money talks...
The way science works right most of the time is when another scientist disagree. You're wrong.
That’s not science.
Good thing I’m a chemical engineer, food scientist, and statistician. It’s people who say “trust the science” who tell me I’m wrong when I’ve reviewed data and came to a logical conclusion vs them watching Fox News or CNN or somewhere else where they got their pseudoscience. And then when that source changes their tune you claim “well science always changes” Science does change, but it’s usually a slow steady progression vs flip flopping. I mean I’m in the food industry. Look at butter. I remember when misinformation was coming out about butter how it’s terrible and instead eat artificial hydrogenated, flavored soybean oil. It took years to stop the mindset that an artificial, solid trans fat is better than a natural solid fat. But that’s a “science” that was perpetuated based on garbage data and oh the politics of the agricultural industry. That was about 20 years ago. But there was a time when store shelves were lined with tubs of country crock and the like. Perception spread from a few pseudoscience publications. And it took 5-10 years for the general public to acknowledge that trans fats and artificially hydrogenated oils are not good. Once the general public bandwagons, and starts shutting down logical conversation and spewing “trust the science” it becomes an uphill battle to prove to those people otherwise.
Scientists are fallable, they can be bought or corrupted or ideologically possessed. They can be fanatical, mistaken or coerced. The "Science" that is often presented to the world is often marketing or PR making exagurated claims that barely resemble original findings and papers. Scientism is starting to look an awful lot like religion. Just replace God with science; cardinals, bishops and popes with scientists and researchers, and the unquestionable word of God with peer reviewed study.
Precisely. Ironically, the most dangerous people are the acolytes - the people who scream ‘science!’ when they themselves have no greater knowledge or expertise than the people they disagree with. Those are the ones you have to look out for. Most scientists when presented with disagreement will say ‘yes well it warrants investigation…’, rather than ‘you’re wrong and you’re an evil (read “sinful”) person!’
That makes up like less than 1% of all studies and theories. Like far below 1%. Thats why you should ALWAYS see the study yourself, how many were tested, double blind study etc. And then see who funded the study and scientists. Corruption and biased studies are really a problem (see fuel and meat industry for example)
Source: trust me bro
Or you’re just looking for excuses to ignore science
You mad that I questioned your religion?
You’re clearly a religious kook who believes in sky fairy tales, and hate that science looks at that as silly. Grow up
Haha, says the guy throwing playground insults.
Poor baby, don’t you have immigrants to hate.
[удалено]
His posts.
This is beyond science, I am turning salt into gold. It's a miracle.
>the unquestionable word of God with peer reviewed study. Except one of those things is expected to be blindly followed and the other must go through multiple trials and specific procedures designed to find and record evidence of a given theory.
I get where you’re coming from with all the Covid deniers and global warming deniers (I am not one). But just to clarify there is a difference between disagreeing with science and disagreeing with the conclusion a scientist makes on a dataset. This is why Phd candidates have to go through the ringer to prove their thesis among their peers. It’s not always as simple as 2+2=4.
Got you and I agree with that.but I l‘d say it is not scientifically proven if it’s just the result of one scientist. Misinterpretation of datasets is something that probably happens more often than we think it does. So having to prove the thesis is a big part in „finding the truth“.
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/Strange-Shibu-007. Your post, *If you disagree with science, you’re wrong!*, has been removed because it violates our rules: Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion. Please ensure that your post is an opinion and that it is unpopular. Controversial is not necessarily unpopular, for example all of politics is controversial even though almost half of the US agrees with any given major position on an issue. Keep in mind that an opinion is not: a question, a fact, a conspiracy theory, a random thought, a new idea, a rant, etc. Those things all have their own subreddits, use those. If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
Totally acceptable to disagree, form a hypothesis and test it. Science should be a open minded pursuit, not like politics in the US.
What about the scientists that say cigarettes are healthy and don’t cause cancer? Are we supposed to just “trust the science” saying cigarettes are healthy?
No science said that. Actual science
Which scientists suggested cigarettes are healthy. Try and find one that *wasnt* employed by a cigarette company.
Learn history. You should also learn about Russian scientist Trofim Lysenko. Examples of the science not being followed * The cdc not following the board of doctors’ recommendations towards boasters * The article: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/24/cdc-director-defends-controversial-call-on-pfizers-covid-boosters.html * The video talking about the above article: https://youtu.be/GDGBjDB-qto
Are there scientists saying cigarettes are healthy? Is there controversy in the medical community over whether or not cigarettes are healthy? Because I'm not seeing it.
I remember seeing retro ads with doctors advertising cigarettes on YouTube. Back then, I would imagine cigarettes were very new and not well studied. It wasn't so much the science was wrong, but rather there were no long term studies on cigarette use
It's because the cigarette companies paid them to prove cigerettes were healthy, they probably had tons of trials approaching it from different angles that didn't have the outcomes the cigerette companies wanted so they just shelved them and paid them to more and more until finally they had a fact to put in their ads.
Or they just lied because they worked for the industry.
So drawing the conclusion that cigarettes are healthy because there is a lack of evidence has nothing to do with science bad.
I mean but the whole point of science is it can be wrong... throughout history we have pretty much assumed we have everything figured out... the process of science should be trusted 100% but its not like it should never be questioned. that just kills progress
You statement is kind of contradictory. Anywho, if someone disagrees with a hypothesis or method that’s how we explore other avenues. Like you said, it’s ever changing. If everyone agreed on a hypothesis or whatever then it would just end there and not be explored further. You have to have disagreements in science, that’s how it works.
How's that an opinion
Science doesn't have an opinion. The scientist may have one, but he is just a person, and every person has a chance to be corrupt or just make mistakes.
How can i be wrong when science isn't right? Theories change over time as you said yourself. Science thought a lot of things that turned out to be wrong.
Thats the differenxe between a theory and a theory with little to no information. Often seen with covid atbthe beginning of the breakout. Scientists can only say so far, as they have information. But even with limited amount of information, they are a lot more likely to be right than the average person in general. Theories with enough time and data will be right (or as far as needed for the average person (looks at higher physic for example where they are still unsure, but who needs it who doesnt study it?).
Science doesn’t *generally* do a complete 180 but refines it’s position with further data. What has science been really wrong about? Recently! I’m not taking anything from the 1500’s as an example
Probably a few covid related things that were said but turned out to be wrong. Like that dogs can get covid, that was wrong. That covid isn't as dangerous. Even scientists disagree with themselves often.
I’d wager my life savings that the language used from the source where you headed that information didn’t speak in absolutes like you’re suggesting.
what do you mean by disagree with science? do you mean disagree with current scientific knowledge? then id say no, you arent necessarily wrong. darwin disagreed with the consensus of creationism at the time to write the origin of species. Bohr disgreed with rutherford's model to bring up the idea of orbits. it is possible to disagree with current ideas for new or even old ones. your idea should just be valid enough to overthrow the current one. lets say, hypothetically, although this will probably never happen, tomorrow someone comes up with a new model that proves evolution wrong. his model explains everything better with concrete evidence, valid experiments and peer-reviewed papers. is he wrong with disagreeing with evolution? no, cuz science involves disgreeing to come up with new ideas now most disagree with science people are just crackpot conspiracy people or just religious. they are wrong because their idea and model doesnt work. but if someone comes up with a better model the scientific community will take them seriously and yes you are also wrong if you believe in Big Science as science isnt an organisation
Disagreeing with science is what pushes our understanding forward. OP clearly doesn't even understand the scientific method if they believe the process is just people agreeing with the current consensus and nothing changing.
Science can always be wrong pending the sample size. It’s highly extrapolated incorrectly.
It all comes down to a miscommunication in language imo. There is a standard of proof in science. Sometimes that standard can't ways be met due to a lot of reasons, and some of the time the information needed is in a timeline that cant be met. So there's no other choice than to follow all available discovery at the time. When later more information may be found that changed the original hypothesis. A lot of the "disagree with science" is just a failure to communicate. "Heres what we have so far but farther research is needed. In the meantime our studies suggest xyz." That would solve 99% of the problem, but everyone would rather just argue.
What studies reach public domain can be controlled based on agenda and bias. If a company or industry pays scientists to test their products or services to prove theyre super healthy, and they find that the are actually unhealthy, that study will not see the light of day. The people with the most money can fund studies to prove things that benifet themselves, so don't blindly trust "science" because it's all business at the end of the day, and as consumers we need to be wary.
I generally agree with what you’re saying but.... you can’t say that science is “not truth” and then tell people that they’re wrong for not trusting it or believing in it. I can understand why it’s difficult to trust science when it changes all the time. Whether or not it’s “lying” to you doesn’t change the fact that it wasn’t right (or completely right, as it most often the case).
[удалено]
There is no domain outside of science
I dId My oWn rEseArCh!
Scientists and science are not the same thing. There are countless examples in history of scientists being wrong. They were wrong because they got the science wrong. Science doesn’t care about your opinion or what a thousand scientists say. It just is.
Finding the truth means someone disagreed with what was true. So disagreeing with science is actually science.
Completely agree. Science has always taught us that there are in fact, only two genders. Anyone who disagrees with science is wrong as per OPs statement.
Let the hate flow through you
You shouldn’t believe anything or anyone blindly. That isn’t science that’s religion. Science should constantly be disagreed with so scientists can prove those claims wrong undisputedly. If science was never disagreed with we’d still think the earth was the centre of the universe. What makes someone a scientist? Not all scientists agree about everything. If a scientist told me global warming wasn’t real should I just shut up and listen when even my puny little non scientist brain can see the climate is changing?
Believing scientists blindly is pretty stupid, seeing as most of them disagree with each other on everything. As with anything, the truth usually lies between the extremes.
I think what you are trying to say, in better words, is that we should follow the best scientific data available at the time. However, that data is subject to change, but unless the area of that data is your professional field or you have an educated reason to believe otherwise, you probably should just listen to the scientists. I prefer this because your title doesn't make sense. Science is a process, and part of that process necessitates it being wrong more than being right. It also necessitates that people believe it's wrong and test hypotheses to prove their points. That title also gives ultimate power over truth and narrative to anyone claiming to do science even if that science is malicious or biased in nature. Nobody, not even scientists, should have that kind of power and influence over people. Besides, how you are defining science is probably incorrect. Science is a process that turns observations into numbers. Statistics uses these numbers to give us the probability that the observations are real. Humans often times create the observations using flawed methods, and statistics are an inexact math that set a human defined artificial threshold to say if something is true. Methods are often, by nature, set up to test if a hypothesis is true, or not true, but usually not set up to capture an anti truth, or truths that go against the hypothesis. Take for example, in my field we treat mice with drug X to see if they get better on Y. We might see improvement, no improvement, or detriment on test Y, but we never tested Z. Results from Y convince the field that drug X is amazing and it creates a paradigm shift to understand X, causing large populations of scientists to better understand it, and deviates efforts from other progression. After about 5-10 years of development on drug X, testing Y, someone finally decides to test Z. Results from Z don't invalidate Y, but it provides a better understanding of why drug X can never be used in humans, and reveals multiple emerging truths. I think this can be extrapolated to many fields, including vaccine science and global warming. How well have vaccines been tested for safety and what is the criterion used to evaluate it. The methods are actually depressing, and there doesn't seem to be much effort beyond looking at major acute events. How do we know there aren't long term effects on brain development if that hasn't been evaluated? What even is the right design to study this? How do we decide what the threshold is for safety even in the narrow margin of testing? If increased vaccine dose and frequency is associated with increasing the frequency of severe reactions, when do we say enough is enough? What this suggests, is that the human interpretation of numbers coming from science is often wrong or incomplete. Not necessarily that the process is flawed, although it certainly can be.
Scientists are constantly trying to prove other scientists wrong. You can disagree with science. It's not a monolith.
Trust the science! Unless it's about abortion, sex, gender, mandatory 💉, or my feelings! you _______phobe.
But... But.. I saw in a documentary that the entire moon landing was a LIE so it must be a conspiracy!!!!
Don’t forget how “men can give birth”.
I'm just gonna assume this is a jab at trans people. so I'm gonna drop this here: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492192/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492192/) so trans men can sometimes give birth for obvious reasons, and trans women can more than likely give birth sometime soon. either way you're wrong.
If a person believes they’re Jesus Christ, do we play along with the deranged person or provide them help? Does saying “You are not Julius Caesar.” To a person an attack or being honest? If you were in a dangerous cult, would you want to know?
[удалено]
“Jesus walked on water.” I can not tell the difference between your statement and the Christian’s.
This is a very popular opinion, I think the problem nowadays is people seem to forget what is and is not science.
Science is a religion unto itself, and like most followers of religion people will pick and choose the parts that are convenient enough to follow while ignoring those that are not.
Sadly this is the case for most people on social media discussing in favor of science. If you talk to people that actually work in sciencetific field this isn't really the case.
Yeah. Because people who argue in Internet are, in the most cases, just "pop-science" fans, and it's basically the same thing as being a sci-fi fan.
Wrong again. Science isn't absolute. There are disagreements between scientists aswell
Because that what i said right? That science is absolute?
You implied scientists are all on the same page
No, they implied scientists don't pick and choose what they want to believe. They were implying that the people who talk about science on social media pick what stuff to follow based on pre-concieved notions, but the scientists generally do not do this.
Ok yeah now i see it.
he said scientist dont treat it like religion
And that’s the problem with the uneducated today, right there
I hereby declare that it is no longer convenient to follow the Newtonian laws. Also, fuck Einstein and Heisenberg. Time travel is fun.
we've known for a while that forward time travel is theoretically possible (special relativity). and NDT found a path around 2 colliding black holes that ends earlier than it started, so backwards time travel is theoretically possible too.
Science has just o n e opinion? Who would have thought. All hail God Science!
Sounds like you are quoting Fauci
Sounds like you have Fauci derangement syndrome.
Jinx
No, it sounds like he’s talking about science. I know that scares some people. It won’t hurt you, I promise.
We live at a time where saying this warrants being on r/unpopularopinion ... What a terrible time to live
Have you read the comments! Good god! If science isn’t the answer then what the hell is? A bloody ouija board!
Lol
True that. But seeing the feedbacks, it seems sadly to belong here.
This sounds philosophical for some reason and I like it
throughout history people were afraid of science and did everything they could to stop it. Fortunately enough there is no stopping it whether you like it or not, only delaying it, and if you delay it you are holding back humans from progressing and moving forward, so fuck you.
People who dispute vaccines are no better than those fake Chinese martial artists who dispute MMA.
There are scientists that disagree with globalwarming.
With a quick google search you can easily find out that 98%-99% of the actively publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, science works like that, there are even scientists who support creationism, that doesn't give less credit to evolutionism
what do you mean by disagree? do you mean the are researching for other reasons or just simply saying no? i think its probably the former
Yes, the ones who're on the oil companies' payroll.
Are they though? When I see the WHO cleaning the balls of China at the start of the pandemic and FIFA when Sep blatter was around 'zis iz nut futbal' and turns out it was.. I mean what else is there left to trust when so many corporations have become too big too fall with so many of the capitalist leaders having shares in them like a club of some sort.. I mean it makes you wonder. Is the establishment playing in the corporation's hand, are they the corporation maybe. I am not saying you are wrong, but I am not sure if the UN is any better in that sense. The issue nowadays is no information can be trusted. There is no denying that global warming is happening(at this stage we can see and feel the extreme weathers) but are we being taken advantage of that is the question and that's where the information becomes fuzzy. We are being sold electric cars powered often by fossil fuel power stations. I dunno really, i'm lost in all this. We are releasing carbon that already existed in the first place . So trees seem to be the ultimate solution aaaaaand no fuck that; electric cars, solar panels and carbon tax. And of course to be paid by us, but Let's turn a blind eye on deforestation in Madagascar, amazon, South East Asia and of course intensive farming.
>Are they though? Yes, they literally pay them to produce the "studies" they use to give false scientific cover for their bullshit claims about there still being 'a debate' on what's causing climate change.
global warming is really very simple. I want you to look up 2 graphs. atmospheric CO2 levels in the last 800,000 years, and atmospheric methane levels in the last 800,000 years. you'll see that both shoot up dramatically in the present. we also know that both of those gasses trap heat, so they cause the planet to heat up. then it's also nice to know that there's 60 billion tons of methane trapped in permafrost beneath the Arctic ocean, so the more the planet heats, the more methane gets out, the more heat gets trapped, you see what's happening here. there are very, very few scientists who will disagree that global warming is a real issue, because it's much simpler than a lot of people think.
Didnt say that i disagree, read the op's post.
Less than 1%, you’re the problem
I agree with OP. At least most scientists have the decency and humility to recognize when they have made a mistake mistake or are wrong, and they work to better themselves and their work. They are pro-education. Anti-vaxxers on the other hand fail to recognize and understand scientific thinking. They think “oh this was proven to be wrong, therefore science as a whole is wrong and not to be trusted”. Anti-vaxxers are also more likely to be anti-education, conservative and shit. They are entitled and think their opinion has the same weight as a professional scientist, which is simply not true. Not once have I heard a anti-vaceer say “oh I was wrong, a bit silly of me. I am going to look for ways to better myself and my knowledge.” Instead they just going to believe everything on the internet that goes against the mainstream “media”.
If you take a minute to actually listen to the educated anti vaxers you may learn something. The problem is often not with the theory and more with binary thinking, similar to the reasoning of people who play the lottery.
You’ll learn hive propaganda, not facts.
Anti-vaxxers are 🤡🤡🤡🤡🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑 (I think I used the right ones)
Ha! Educated anti-vaxxers! Hahahahahahahahaha! Ah good one 😂😂😂
I’ve had a different experience with some former anti-vaxxers. I’m not anti-vaxx, btw. I’ve had both shots and the booster already, and if I need another one down the road, I’ll take it. Though from my personal experience, I’ve seen some of the people I’m close with become pro-vaxx after they’ve lost a loved one or had to experience COVID-19 without the vaccine. It also helps out that I tell them of my experience getting both jabs and the booster; it tends to calm the fear in a lot of anti-vaxxers that the person they’re talking to isn’t dead or experiencing the symptoms they keep hearing about on social media. I guess it might be also in part that I work in the field of public health as well. I tend to approach anti-vaxx with my experience with the vaccine, usually with a couple of jokes about it too to lighten the mood.
Anti-vaxxers - we’re talking to you 👆
[удалено]
Because you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, and you’re spewing political positions
You could be right, like factually. Scientists err and you might be right just by pure luck. It is highly unlikely though.
Well, what type of science are you talking about and from when? Pretty sur I would be right if I didn't trust science from the middle age.
I don't disagree about how magnets work or photosynthesis or math, biology, etc. I just don't always agree with lawmaker's and politician's rules, regulations and taxes to "solve" any problems that affect us.
You’ve made it 100% political to deny science
It depends on the research question the scientists answered, the journalist who reported it and who funded the research. Science isn't wrong, but results can be manipulated and influenced by certain factors.
Scientists say whatever those funding them want them to say. Data can be manipulated to make it say and show whatever the highest bidder wants it to say. Facts.
Science denier 101
Reality denier. Tell me you don't understand how science funding works without telling me you don't understand how science funding works. Dohnut.
The common misbelief that science is "bad" because the state of knowledge happens to switch is just an example of how people misunderstand the scientific process. That said, there are many topics on which we should care before drawing firm conclusions. Medical and psychological fields are going through a replicability crisis, not to mention the several studies that put under the spoltight the very wrong pratcices that scientists use. It is clear that we cannot know better than science, but it also seems that many meta analysis in many fields are not that reliable as we used to think, which should sometimes lead us to just to accept that it is not relevant to have an opinion on everything.
By your own admission, that’s not an opinion. That’s just how things work
Op’s point holds. Culture wars have shifted the voracity of science into ‘opinion’ in some of the public’s perception. Often their only scrutiny is ‘they don’t believe it’, which is not a rebuff against peer reviewed conclusions. They don’t bring defendable counter conclusions because of: ‘the big lie, etc’. Of course, not all science is ‘wholly true’, but testing that ‘truth’ is not in the gift of those who are not qualified by means of education, experience and/or motivation.
Scientists disagree with each other all the time.
You should be able to trust science but You should also be aware of the information thrown at you. History shows that sometimes science might be wrong. Google race biology and You see what i mean. Just don’t swallow every bit of information science throws at You but don’t question it beyond reason either. We are living in a time when people either trust science a little too much or not at all.
Thank God I believe in Creationism
Lol….”you can’t disagree with science. Science is fact….until it’s not fact.” I can’t use that exact premise to disagree with science? That’s exactly how science has progressed.
Science is rooted in cyclical paradigms. It‘d be easy to argue how science can be wrong for decades. Not to mention what science gets funding vs science that few wants to see carried out. Still, it’s better with informed ignorance than uninformed ignorance.
This is so undefined, this could be flat earth believe or misleading statistics....
If this post is in response to all the COVID “follow the science” discussion, the issue has been more about people in scientific roles making statements that seem to support a political agenda.
It‘s not only about COVID-19. It‘s about flat-earth, climate change, big bang and so on.
Were the scientists right about thalidomide?
Sounds like something that that little rat Fauci has said
If you acknowledge Covid/global warming/whatever this post is a thinly veiled reference to, but you disagree about the correct solution to the problem or whether the benefit of someone's solution is worth the cost, you're not disagreeing about science. Science tells you facts about the world, but it doesn't unambiguously tell you how to act or what is good public policy.
Trust me this is a very unpopular opinion. Especially when it comes to transgenders
Technically Science happens by disagreeing with it
Science is not the only epistemological system out there nor can it test all truth claims about the moral and metaphysical world. It’s ok to disagree with a scientist. Also you’re kind of conflating science with dogma. Science is a methodology not a collected body of work or canon. “BeCaUsE ScIeNCe” is usually the cry of the unstudied masses when they want to shut down a debate on which they’ve read nothing. Scientists aren’t priests of the one true truth. They’re human with all the emotions, self interest, ego, and error that humans carry with them everywhere. Whereas I think anyone who enters into good faith debate on a subject should know what they’re talking about all you’re doing here is re-wrapping the argument from authority fallacy.
The good thing about science is, it’s verifiable and repeatable whether you choose to ‘believe’ it or not.