I'm not a Jeep guy :(

[grimmjeeper]

But that, unfortunately, is not how it's treated in the public zeitgeist.

Just because people can't (or won't) follow along, doesn't change how science actually works.

Sponsored

 

[ASSFROW]

Just because people can't (or won't) follow along, doesn't change how science actually works.

or doesn't...................

 

[grimmjeeper]

There's a great many examples of bad science leading to bad decisions despite correct objections, and that is an example of bad science

There are always people with agendas trying to manipulate things to their advantage. That will never change.

And willful ignorance is always in the way.

 

[2nd 392]

My wife works with doctors at a big university's research hospital doing statistics for their research. Touches study design and all that since the stats are a big part of getting published.

Trust me when I say, results are shopped for when doing "science". Grant money rides on it. Publish or die culture demands results. I used to think science was pure, too. But reality is often shittier than the concept. Studies often come in with foregone conclusions and the people driving the studies cherry pick so fuckin hard so they can stand a chance of getting published. It's depressing honestly.

 

[Ratbert]

We only understand what we understand and settled science has been disproven over and over. Believing settled science as gospel is as much religious faith as any other. Does quantum relativity exist? Science can so far not prove or disprove it anymore than it can Heaven.

Science advances by testing ideas and trying to prove them wrong. Taking something we thought we understood and finding out we were wrong is huge!

But we understand the world through evidence and the scientific method, not by treating any person, book, or belief as unquestionable truth. Thinking there is some unquestionable truth gets us nowhere slowly.

 

[Ratbert]

You just sad what I said, just not as it relates to religion, which was part of my homie Ratbert's comment.

Wait, you're equating science denial and religion?

Discussing religion is verboten here. Mocking science deniers, fortunately, isn't. Those science deniers, of course, respond by using the fruits of the science they so vehemently deny. That's hilarious and sad at the same time.

 

[THAW]

I know this is going to make our science deniers upset, but it's hilarious that they respond on computerized devices that are the direct result of science.

I know this is going to upset science trusters, but treating all research science as though it's as credible as formal and applied sciences is a good way to get duped.

 

[Ratbert]

I know this is going to upset science trusters, but believing research science is as credible as formal and applied sciences is a good way to get duped.

Hopefully that's merely stating the obvious, right?

I assume you agree that it's easier to dupe those that believe things without evidence.

 

[ASSFROW]

Wait, you're equating science denial and religion?

Discussing religion is verboten here. Mocking science deniers, fortunately, isn't. Those science deniers, of course, respond by using the fruits of the science they so vehemently deny. That's hilarious and sad at the same time.

No, treating science as gospel equals religion.

 

[grimmjeeper]

I know this is going to upset science trusters, but treating all research science as though it's as credible as formal and applied sciences is a good way to get duped.

That's why evidence has to be peer reviewed before it's accepted.

 

[Ratbert]

No, treating science as gospel equals religion.

Treating science as gospel is the opposite of understanding science.

 

[Ratbert]

That's why evidence has to be peer reviewed before it's accepted.

The difficult part is figuring out what standard of peer review is enough before evidence gets tentatively accepted. Peer review matters, but the rigor can vary a lot, and people can sometimes find reviewers or journals that are more favorable to their conclusions. It sucks, but that's our reality.

 

[grimmjeeper]

The difficult part is figuring out what standard of peer review is enough before evidence gets tentatively accepted. Peer review matters, but the rigor can vary a lot, and people can sometimes find reviewers or journals that are more favorable to their conclusions. It sucks, but that's our reality.

Some times it takes a while for the real facts to get through human bias.

But science is the only process that even tries.

 

[THAW]

You 2 sound upset. Just kidding, interesting discussion.

Hopefully that's merely stating the obvious, right?

I assume you agree that it's easier to dupe those that believe things without evidence.

Hopefully.

I'm not sure I have the same confidence you do everyone who "trusts the science" bothers learning about and or attempting to understand even the most basic scientific evidence.

But ya, anyone who skips the evidence is easily duped.

That's why evidence has to be peer reviewed before it's accepted.

Peer review is not in the same league as formal/applied science.

And, a handful of scientific study citations - the details of which almost entirely ignored or misunderstood by the majority - too often doesn't remotely justify trust in a broader societal choice.

 

[ASSFROW]

Treating science as gospel is the opposite of understanding science.

And yet we have people persecuting others as science deniers.

Sponsored