No, that’s the point. Disagreeing is already part of the scientific method. To disagree with science as a whole is to argue with the method, not the findings.
Imagine two explorers searching for a lost ancient ruins. They come to a path running north/south. One says to go north and the other says south. That’s a disagreement. They are both still explorers seeking discovery.
A third observer sees them arguing and says “Ah, you don’t know the way. We should not be seeking ruins because I already know what is there. I was told in a dream that the ruins were made by Bigfoot, and he made them invisible and impossible to see. Searching is futile, but I can draw you a map from what I already know is there.”
That’s not a third opinion of equal validity. It’s not even a disagreement. It’s just being wrong.
credo@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
It needs to be “if you disagree without evidence.”
They can leave that whole “if you’re not a scientist” bit in the rubbish bin.
wewbull@feddit.uk 5 weeks ago
If you disagree without evidence, you’re not wrong. You can propose an alternative theory that is consistent with existing evidence and it’s just as valid as anybody else’s. The mission is then to find evidence which disproves one theory or the other.
Conjecture is fundamental.
maculata@aussie.zone 5 weeks ago
If you disagree without evidence you may, even by pure chance be correct, however without evidence and methodology to discuss it, you may as well be wrong.
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
The “you” here is misleading. Consider any scientific field, then now consider all the people you know. How many people do you know, if any, who can propose a theory that is equally valid compared to scientific consensus? It’s unlikely most people are friends with Aristotle or the like or are themselves in that boat.
Is it theoretically possible? Sure. Is it more likely that you or I or the stranger who fills this theoretical situation is actually an over confident moron? Overwhelmingly yes lol.
wewbull@feddit.uk 5 weeks ago
This thinking just leads to science being turned into a religion. Knowledge being passed down from blessed people who perform obscure practises, and the masses being expected to accept it without question. Science should be open and understood by all. Then it has the weight it deserves and then you can have proper public discourse about issues.
snooggums@midwest.social 5 weeks ago
Without new evidence, disagreeing with established science is being wrong. Young earth creationists are wrong because they have no new evidence to contradict established science. Even thoigh the age of the earth was scientifically calculated multiple times and could be revised again with new evidence, flat earthers are wrong because conjecture about existing knowlege without evidence is just being wrong.
wewbull@feddit.uk 5 weeks ago
A young earth creationist’s hypothesis does not agree with existing evidence and so your example does not refute my argument.
fah_Q@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
I believe they ment “If you disagree in spite of evidence.”
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
I disagree lol.
This is conflating science and expertise, but it’s probably still closer to valid than only “disagree without evidence”. A person with no background on the area of interest (or science in general) is likely not to even understand what constitutes evidence of a claim. The set of non scientist people who can produce a reliable body of evidence disproves a theory that has not been found by experts in the same field is likely so small as to be negligible compared to the set of non scientist people with “evidence” from Facebook/other who are in fact just wrong.