What do sceners think about scientific consensus?
category: offtopic [glöplog]
See topic. Gargaj ❤️
This will end well.
About corona?
It's a situation to avoid as long as possible.
Is as approximate as journalist integrity.
I don't like that the grammar was fixed in this one :D
It's meaningless without evidence. Also the whole idea of a "scientific consensus" is anti scientific in my opinion.
Here is an example from NASA:
The problems I have with this example:
- Who cares whether or not scientists and "organisations around the world" agree? What about the evidence?
- Who exactly are these 97% of scientists? What methods are they using? Who do they work for? Who is paying the bills?
- What about the remaining 3%? Same questions as above.
- What if they are all wrong?
Science is not a popularity contest. The truth is the truth, no matter how many people agree or disagree with it.
Here is an example from NASA:
Quote:
Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.
The problems I have with this example:
- Who cares whether or not scientists and "organisations around the world" agree? What about the evidence?
- Who exactly are these 97% of scientists? What methods are they using? Who do they work for? Who is paying the bills?
- What about the remaining 3%? Same questions as above.
- What if they are all wrong?
Science is not a popularity contest. The truth is the truth, no matter how many people agree or disagree with it.
Quote:
Science is not a popularity contest. The truth is the truth, no matter how many people agree or disagree with it.
You could stop confusing science with philosophy ;)
There is such things as "measurement uncertainty"
I love it. Gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, and fits right into that modernity-shaped hole in your core ego/identity, so you get that extra rush when you tar and feather scapegoats on the internet over the distraction of the day. ;)
Here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank
But you have to crank-up your game, Gabbie, what you say is not even close to masters level listed on this page in hall-of-fame ("The worst of the cranks").
But you have to crank-up your game, Gabbie, what you say is not even close to masters level listed on this page in hall-of-fame ("The worst of the cranks").
Quote:
You could stop confusing science with philosophy ;)
There is such things as "measurement uncertainty"
There are things we can know to be true, using the scientific method or other methods. This doesn't mean that we will ever know The Truth with a capital T. Sounds to me like you are making the philosophical argument, not me.
Realizing that the truth might never be revealed is an argument that kills everything and even though it might be true it does not help in any way.
Quote:
Sounds to me like you are making the philosophical argument, not me.
absolutely true. I also invite you to RTFM a bit on philosophy. Might suit you well to make accusations _after_ knowing what they mean.
Quote:
absolutely true. I also invite you to RTFM a bit on philosophy. Might suit you well to make accusations _after_ knowing what they mean.
What are you saying, specifically? What would you like me to read? Just "the manual on philosophy"? What does that even mean?
first year in uni they make you read a book with a nice summary of all the classic authors like Hume, Locke, etc to teach you that 'truth IS consensus' and that absolute truth does not exist and that induction/deduction, empiricism, statistics, etc (i.e. 'the scientific method') is just there to make that consensus more found and thus a hypothesis can be stated as being true.
even when you see two ducks in a pond and you tell me 'i see two ducks in a pond', that is your observation, your way of expressing that observation and perhaps... if i also see two ducks in a pond myself and understand what you said to me (like grasp the meaning of two and what a duck is and what a pond is), i might even agree with you! :P postmodernists take this 'everything is consensus' even two steps further, up to a point where you just want to toss them out the window instead of wasting 4 hours discussing why we deliberately chose to see ducks and not birds or animals.
even when you see two ducks in a pond and you tell me 'i see two ducks in a pond', that is your observation, your way of expressing that observation and perhaps... if i also see two ducks in a pond myself and understand what you said to me (like grasp the meaning of two and what a duck is and what a pond is), i might even agree with you! :P postmodernists take this 'everything is consensus' even two steps further, up to a point where you just want to toss them out the window instead of wasting 4 hours discussing why we deliberately chose to see ducks and not birds or animals.
I see a trumpet in the background. Don't we all?
What maali said.
Also, since we're re-hashing this topic anyways I can also put this one again:
PSA: you're not special and most likely not right when you put yourself against what 99% of all scientists agree on. Because they will have done a lot of research and will have a lot of evidence to back their claims. But you're of course free to believe what you like, but please don't claim this as facts and tell that everyone else is wrong.
You can do so once you disproved the other standpoint. Until then please STFU.
Also, since we're re-hashing this topic anyways I can also put this one again:
Quote:
I wonder where some people's general opposition towards science comes from. Maybe it makes life easier because then there's no absolute truth anyways and they can just pick what's most convenient for them as they go. Or it makes them feel special because they think they're above all the normal who are no 'critical' thinkers.
PSA: you're not special and most likely not right when you put yourself against what 99% of all scientists agree on. Because they will have done a lot of research and will have a lot of evidence to back their claims. But you're of course free to believe what you like, but please don't claim this as facts and tell that everyone else is wrong.
You can do so once you disproved the other standpoint. Until then please STFU.
I think Gabbie is not even wrong, there are many examples esp. in math where widely believed "intuitive" conjectures turned out to be false.. just saying.
Scientists are typically fine to change their standpoint once *proven* wrong. What I don't like is the general opposition without bringing any proofs, just to be against it.
Idk.. in my terminology a valid proof is resolving the issue once and for all. What you wanted to say is probably an empirical evidence, which is not a proof, not even close.
Eg: Gabbie said that the moon landing was fake: Proof?
Or that AIDS doesn't exist: Proof?
Or that viruses in general don't exist: Proof?
I'm sure I forgot some of his claims.
At the same time he conveniently dismissed all the proven evidence that support the consensus on these topics.
But I don't think I can change anything anyways because these kind of people won't change their mind anyways. I will ignore it now, it's better for my own sanity.
Or that AIDS doesn't exist: Proof?
Or that viruses in general don't exist: Proof?
I'm sure I forgot some of his claims.
At the same time he conveniently dismissed all the proven evidence that support the consensus on these topics.
But I don't think I can change anything anyways because these kind of people won't change their mind anyways. I will ignore it now, it's better for my own sanity.
And no, I won't start to argue about definitions and terminology now.
There is nothing to argue about it indeed, because your terminology is wrong :)
What works well about science is indeed that scientists can be wrong, but when they notice, they admit it and set up a new theory. And they have methods that allows to converge to a more accurate understanding of things.
Really, "thruth" doesn't really matter. All you need is a sufficiently accurate model/understanding for whatever you're doing. Sometimes things will behave unexpectedly. It just means you need a more accurate model that takes a new variable into account.
You want to think the earth is flat? Yeah sure, fine. Just don't become an airplane pilot, or get involved into bridge construction, or into flight control software for satellites, and you'll be fine, you will probably not reach the limits of your model.
Really, "thruth" doesn't really matter. All you need is a sufficiently accurate model/understanding for whatever you're doing. Sometimes things will behave unexpectedly. It just means you need a more accurate model that takes a new variable into account.
You want to think the earth is flat? Yeah sure, fine. Just don't become an airplane pilot, or get involved into bridge construction, or into flight control software for satellites, and you'll be fine, you will probably not reach the limits of your model.
..and don't tell everyone everyday that the earth is flat and claim that you're the one being oppressed.