Big Science

Comments

• Dieterlan@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  This might be heresy, but I feel like saying that “science isn’t truth, it’s the search for truth”, and “if you disagree it’s not a disagreement, you’re just wrong” is internally inconsistent.

  source

  • credo@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

    source

    • wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • fah_Q@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I believe they ment “If you disagree in spite of evidence.”

      source
    • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

      source
  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Dieterlan@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      While I do agree with what you’re saying, and it’s a way of reading it I hadn’t considered, I don’t think the distinction is clear from the meme. Then again, it’s just a meme, so my expectations can probably stand to be lowered a bit.

      source
  • Empricorn@feddit.nl ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I feel it should say something like “science isn’t ‘unchanging truth’, written in stone, but rather the unending search for truth”.

    source
• Ephera@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I once had a colleague who was raised to live by the bible, never questioning it. He was also a massive shitposter. No matter what dumb shit he said, he’d always say that it was just a joke.

  Well, one of the few times when I genuinely caught him off guard, was when I explained that science did not actually claim to know the one and only truth. That it wanted to be proven wrong.

  I think, that idea itself conflicted with his whole world view. Like, I imagine, his parents also raised him to never question their authority.

  source

  • Speculater@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Which is why my father will die alone and without love. You do not demand authority, you earn it, and you better recognize when you’re being an asshole to your adult children. Also, don’t molest your niece and lie to the cops.

    source

    • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Also, don’t molest my niece and lie to the cops.

      WHAT. I’m so sorry…

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I feel like this is a very “shoplifting, public intoxication, nuclear warfare, and jaywalking” way to present things.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Psionicsickness@reddthat.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      We all die alone. Get over it.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Allero@lemmy.today ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  As a young scientist:

  Absolutely do challenge scientists, no matter your qualification. Sometimes (granted, that’s rare) you might be right.

  Just do it in a respectful way and make sure you check your arguments.

  Also, while scientists are generally more educated overall, they can absolutely be foolish in what falls outside their scope. “I’m a scientist” is not a valid argument.

  source

  • wizardforce@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There is a difference between informed skepticism and motivated skepticism or skepticism from ignorance. Informed skepticism is good. That’s what solid science is based on. Being skeptical because the conclusions don’t align with what you believe or because you don’t actually understand what is going on is bad.

    source

    • match@pawb.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Even motivated skepticism can be just fine with appropriate rigor and the clarity to see when evidence does or does not back up what you’re saying. (Heliocentrism is a good example.)

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      This ^

      I actually find myself skeptical of skeptics these days, I feel like we’ve gone from questioning bad science to “An incessant need to be right and fuel that ego, without letting things like conflicting evidence get in the way of a perfectly solid pre-established worldview.”

      source
    • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That’s something I wish more people would actually give some thought to. As someone from a group who gets discussed ad nauseum in the media it really is the case that a lot of the skeptical people that become our problem really don’t have a personal data point for us. So many assumptions are made with things we theorize about but do not personally know. For us it can become plain very quickly when someone has never really interacted directly with us and are just operating on assumptions. I think the world is generally a better place when one is willing to be humble about what they choose to be skeptical about. Admitting to yourself and others that something is at present and maybe forever beyond your ken isn’t a weakness. It’s a strength.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Allero@lemmy.today ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Of course - that’s what I meant by “check your arguments”. Thanks for the clarification with this point!

      source
  • TankieTanuki@hexbear.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    My favorite example is Gregor Mendel. He wasn’t a scientist. He was a monk with no degrees of any kind. But he did science—legendary science—which means he actually was a scientist.

    source

    • Allero@lemmy.today ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’d say he was a scientist - just not an academic :)

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Sazruk@lemmy.wtf ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      To my understanding, he also very conveniently fudged a few of his experiments so that they would align with his other ones and ended up embellishing his final result, but also if he hadn’t done that he wouldn’t have discovered Mendelian genes? Not sure if that’s a win or a loss for science.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s always important to remember that something can be obvious to a layman, but be considered ridiculous by an expert, as the expert’s view is likely rigid and unlikely to deviate from their experience.

    This does not mean experts are morons (They’re considered experts for a damn good reason). it simply means an outsider perspective can be valuable from time to time.

    source

    • Allero@lemmy.today ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Exactly!

      source
  • Johanno@feddit.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I am kind of a scientist myself.

    source
• audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It’s not entirely wrong. There is absolutely a bias in what gets studied simply because it requires money to be given to study most things. For example, it’s why some more natural remedies like taking fish oil to help lower cholesterol took so long to have actual scientific backing; there’s no money in widely available remedies so finding funding to do the study was difficult.

  You can see this really clearly if you look at more politicized areas, like economics. And for what it’s worth, it doesn’t mean that the evidence that’s generated is bad (although the conclusions drawn from it may be), but that it results in a lack of evidence for opposing viewpoints.

  source

  • Skullgrid@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    All those studies being funded by mars to make chocolate seem healthy. it was on last week tonight

    source

    • snooggums@midwest.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Wine producers were behind wine being “healthy in moderation” roo.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There absolutely is more money to be made in natural remedies, these days. People are selling chakra activating light emitting bracelets online citing studies that find no physical evidence of chakras. We live in a mad world.

    source
• Zozano@aussie.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The part which annoys me is about intentions.

  Sure, lobby groups do pay off some people with a PhD to lie for them (Patrick Moore), that’s not up for debate.

  But to imply that this is the norm is just ignorant of how research is conducted.

  Most scientists are either employed by a company, working towards a very specific, non contentious goal (like developing cold fusion), or are involved in research at a university, paid for in grants by their government to research whatever has been approved as worthy of investigation.

  Nobody is pressuring these researchers to find evidence to support any particular agenda, the chips land where they fall. There’s no fat cat smoking a cigar telling the climate science team at their local university that they need to find more evidence to crash the petrol stocks so they can sell more solar panels.

  source

  • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Nobody? There are quite a few counter examples, cigarette and fossil fuel companies have done this quite a lot.

    source

    • CaptnNMorgan@reddthat.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Isn’t the sugar industry responsible for everyone thinking fat is the main cause of heart attacks instead of sugar?

      source
  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There is no need to actually bribe researchers. IT is much more effective to find some that happen to already be in your favor and boost their signal.

    Say that out of 100 scientists of the relevant field, 90 think your product is toxic, two think your product is perfectly safe, and the remaining eight think that the evidence is not strong and/or significant enough to determine the product’s danger. Because as much as we’ve wished science to be clear-cut and deterministic, and as much as the scientific method tries to root it out, human’s opinions and prejudices will always have some effect. Maybe after many decades science will reach a (near) 100% consensus - but your product is still new, so disagreement can still be found.

    You can try to bribe these 98 scientists to say that your product is safe, but that’s a risky move because even if a handful of them has some conscious they can go public with it and you’ll have to deal with bad PR. So instead, you reach out to the two scientists that already think that it is safe. You fund their research, so that they can publish more papers. You send them to conferences all around the world, so that they can talk to other scientists and to journalists and spread their opinion on your product. You get your marketing/PR/social media teams to increase the reach of their publications.

    These two scientists are not being “pressured” - they can still honestly claim that their belief in your product is not a result of the money you spend on them, and that will be true. The thing that is a result of the money you spend on them is their impact. These 90 scientists that warn against your product can’t conduct as many researches, because they need to find funding for these researches themselves. They can’t go to as many conferences, because they don’t have anyone working their connections to get them invited (and to pay for their flight tickets). They don’t have professional promoters advertising their findings.

    So even though only two scientists support you while 90 oppose you, these two scientists have - thanks to your money - more impact on the public opinion than these 90.

    All without any scientist having to utter a single lie.

    source
• Kolanaki@yiffit.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I mean… Science does sometimes lie. Plenty of research papers out there with fudged results or questionable methodology. Also the fact that scientists don’t always agree with each other on things.

  Always question authority.

  source

  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Science does sometimes lie.

    Hm, imo, science doesn’t lie — scientists lie.

    source
  • match@pawb.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Question the proven truth all the time,cas long as you’re not fighting against observations and evidence

    source

    • ursakhiin@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      as long as you’re not fighting against observations and evidence without additional observations and evidence.

      Observations and evidence could be non-maliciously incorrect. New observations could be made that invalidate the old after another change in our perception occurs.

      Observations and evidence just show to the best of our abilities at the moment.

      source
  • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I completely agree, heck there’s also times when all the science is done perfectly but the result is incorrect because the people interpreting the data got Cause and Effect backwards… Or worse, when the data checks out, but violates the current paradigm so much that the academia of the time rejects it out of principle alone and refuses to acknowledge you. (This literally happened when we discovered germs, and the first person to pitch the idea of the Big Bang was mocked over how “religious” the idea sounded, so yes, there’s precedent for this shit.)

    source
  • thejoker954@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    But at what level of “proven” is it actually “proven”? That’s where a disconnect lays.

    source
• Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I agree with

  Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth.

  That being said, you certainly can disagree with a scientific outcome. Good science relies on such types of discussions. If someone has a disagreement, then, by all means, please conduct an experiment to show that it’s wrong, or express your opinion and be open to discussion.

  source

  • KredeSeraf@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think it’s more about the spirit and legitimacy of the disagreement. “I checked the numbers and stuff seems fishy” is very different than “Facebook told me essential oils cure cancer and doctors are lizards harvesting our brains”. Discussion with people who are also seeking the truth helps. Denial of a point you don’t like because Infowars says otherwise doesn’t.

    source

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Keep in mind that dismissing an argument as unworthy, is not an argument for why it is unsound. Furthermore, refusing to engage someone’s argument also doesn’t help in pointing them on a better path.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• WolfLink@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  While conflicts of interest can and do exist, a lot of, if not most, science is done by grad students who are just trying to get their degree and are really there because they are passionate about discovering new things more than anything else.

  source

  • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That just makes it sound like grad students are excellent targets for corporate influence.

    source

    • DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      it is what it is

      source
• LEONHART@slrpnk.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Image

  source

  • fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Haha I love this

    source
• HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  “The Science is settled” and “I believe in Science” are both equally frightening sentence

  source

  • King3d@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I completely agree. A lot of the time “I believe in science” is usually used in reference to comparing it to feelings or faith, and in those cases it makes sense to say you trust science over someone’s gut feeling or their “own research”. If you are someone who just blindly goes around proclaiming “I believe in science” then you need to go back to school and take a critical thinking course.

    source

    • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’ve had people tell me things were impossible because they “Aren’t in our list of known unknowns” or they violate some principle for vague reasons they don’t understand… then a month later an article shows up saying “We proved that thing Sera said was totally possible”

      Scientism is such cringe

      source
    • InternetPerson@lemmings.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Critical thinking courses would indeed be very great to have.

      Mere factual knowledge transfer is not effective in forming mature and responsible minds if critical thinking is not a focus of education as well.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Sadly I find people who most proudly preach the wonders of Critical Thinking, are the ones least capable of it.

      source
  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Depends on your audience.

    If your audience is stupid, tell them to stfu and listen to the science. They’re too dumb to think about why they believe anything, they just need to be told what to believe. So as a bulwark against religious superstition, you tell them to stfu and listen to science.

    If your audience is intelligent, then there’s no risk of them being suckered in by religious superstition, then you can have a discussion about the merits and processes of current scientific methods and theories, differing viewpoints, and degrees of confidence in the scientific community.

    This applies to a lot of topics.

    Talking to a stupid independent voter? “Vote for Biden or Trump will destroy democracy.” Talking to a smart independent voter? “Biden is definitely wrong on several issues, we should try to push him in a better direction.”

    Talking to a stupid computer user? “Don’t try to change any of these files.” Talking to a smart computer user? “Here’s what happens when you change these files.”

    To a stupid person, about the economy: “listen to the data!”

    To a smart person, about the economy: “The metrics which the CPI uses are flawed.”

    Etc etc. There’s always a complex, nuanced, correct answer, and a simple, straightforward, wrong answer. Because reality is complicated. So for stupid people you give them a simple, straightforward, mostly true answer to combat the simple, straightforward false one vying for their pair of brain cells.

    source

    • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      True, but I feel like this should be saved for the dumbest of the dumb. Too much cringe has been created by things like Rational Wiki inadvertently getting otherwise intelligent people to believe that doing science is just the ability to shout the name of a fallacy you feel your opponent has committed, whilst oversimplifying anything you don’t understand until it sounds stupid… Ya know like Evangelical Fundementalists do to defend their biblical literalism?

      It has culminated into a behavior I like to call the Fallacy Fallacy

      It leads to shit like this

      Normal Person: The doctor says I have cancer, but it’s still treatable, so I should take this medicine, it’s expensive, but it’ll be worth it. Scientism Worshipper: I dunno, you think you have cancer because the doctor told you? Sounds like an appeal to authority. Normal Person: Look, my aunt ignored her diagnosis and she was terminal within weeks and dead within days after that. I’m not taking any chance Scientism Worshipper: Hrmm… So the only thing that has you trusting this doctor is anecdotal evidence? Normal Person: You’re right! These meds are too expensive anyway -Weeks Later- Scientism Later: Well my friend is dead Third Party: Because you killed him, he died because he didn’t take his medicine… Scientism Worshipper: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION YOU BIBLE-THUMPER! GO BACK TO WORSHIPPING YOUR SKY-DADDY SHEEPLE!

      That’s a Strawman in and of itself, but you get my point

      Now it may sound like “Well, I guess we shouldn’t question the science then.”

      No, always question the science, that’s how you do science. The problem comes when you think you’ve mastered the science so well (despite evidence to the contrary) that you refuse to let what you know to be questioned.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • InternetPerson@lemmings.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      What is “dumb”? What is “intelligence”?

      I think, as long as people have normally functioning brains, it is possible for them to understand. And I think nurturing critical thinking is an important aspect of how to approach this.

      You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn’t educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.

      You don’t need to give definitive answers, you may give recommendations, but you can always explain a bit and note that there is also a lot more to it than what you explained and that one must take care before making some further conclusions.
      Interested people in your audience then have some first basis and grasp of a topic and can take it up on themselves to dive deeper; for example, by asking questions or finding further sources (you might refer them to these).

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Though the first is abused to death, yes, I vehemently disagree with the second. I do believe in science. Just because here and there there are cheaters doesn’t mean that science is valid. Cheaters eventually get caught and science continues. Because of science you have that phone in your hand on which you write your post and read my comment, because of science you are alive. Science is trying to find out what is and why.

    I believe in science and there is nothing scary about that.

    source

    • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I think you missed the point, I believe in the Scientific Method as one of the best ways to measure that which is objectively true. It can make no statements on the subjective however, nor the metaphysical.

      However the problem is, too many people act as though we’ve reached the limits of what is possible to know with the sciences and treat it to be “Science’s Infalliable Word”, when the very nature of Science means we’ll gladly throw out anything we already “know” to be true if we find conflicting evidence, and the world has been better off for it.

      Heck the definition of “Dead” has changed several times because we keep learning that it’s more like a spectrum than an on and off switch, which has so many implications that it makes my head hurt.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• tate@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  That’s literally the opposite of what “theory” means in a scientific context. You know nothing of science and your opinion is wrong.

  source
• intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Science is not the truth. Science is a mechanism for finding the truth.

  source

  • casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    And studies are scientific, but are not science itself. A study can be intentionally misleading in bad faith, but that doesn’t mean every researcher in that field is acting in bad faith, just the author, publisher, and perhaps reviewing peers.

    Anyone can right a paper. And if they right it on something obscure and bespoke enough, it can be difficult for someone to question their work. Doing so is the duty of peer reviewers, and sometimes these peers for whatever reason will fail to smell the bullshit or raise issue about smelling it. Then the honus is on the publisher to retract falsified papers.

    This is why citations are like gold to postdocs. It’s what builds their credibility, and that credibility is one of the most important aspects of the academic and scientific world.

    source
  • mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    What is truth?

    If you take a materialist philosophical view, maybe you can arrive at some kind of understanding of the universe through the scientific method.

    If you have other views things get far more complicated.

    I’m a materialist atheist btw but delving into philosophy makes me less certain we can ever arrive at ‘truth’.

    source
• captainlezbian@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Ok but there’s a given value of this. I have a friend with a PhD in hpv. On matters of hpv I’m definitely wrong if I’m arguing with her, and same for any matter of microbiology or virology. I’m probably wrong in any argument with her about any biology. But when we start talking physics? Nah I’m an engineer and she studies a cancer virus. I’m more likely to be right about how electricity works. Astrophysics though? We might as well be art majors.

  source

  • FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Yea but I’d like to think most people who are educated in 1 field to know to “stay in their lane” so to speak, and trust the experts in other fields.

    source

    • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’d like to think that too, but I keep being proven wrong. There’s plenty of people who think that their expertise in one realm means they have expertise in many other realms.

      source
    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Ha!

      source
  • The_v@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s ironic that what most people think of as a highly intelligent person is a polymath aka somebody who is an expert in multiple topics.

    Academia today is designed for extreme specialization of knowledge. So it actively selects against anyone that would be classified as a polymath.

    It’s a pretty big disconnect between expectations and reality.

    source
  • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think you’re right. As a fellow engineer, I’ll suggest there’s a third option that’s more realistic when it comes to knowledgeable and lay people having a discussion:

    • as mentioned in the meme, scientists can and do learn stuff that improves overall understanding.
    • the quest for improved understanding is usually sparked by a strange or unique observation, sometimes by scientists, sometimes by the much larger population of regular folks
    • Provided there is good intent and respect from both sides, I believe it’s critically important that people who have observed something unique be able to discuss it somehow with people who have particular skill related to that phenomena

    What seems to be missing out of a lot of these misinformation tikTube fights is that fundamental lack of respect. I’ve observed it’s very easy to destabilize a calm discussion with small amounts of inconsiderate speech by people within or outside the discussion. Sometimes it seems purposeful, but the result is a much slowed ability to communicate. That’s bad for us all.

    source
  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Just because one doesn’t have equal post secondary education in one topic as another doesn’t mean that their arguments are unsound. This effectively an appeal to authority.

    source
  • Anticorp@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Having qualifications doesn’t automatically make you right. Having data and logic makes you right. It is more likely that she is correct in any discussion about her subject of expertise, but having a degree doesn’t make her automatically correct and you automatically wrong. That attitude is the exact opposite of the principles of science.

    source
  • Psionicsickness@reddthat.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    He has a degree in Human Papillomavirus? Did he get it from Florida State?

    source

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Bravo

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • MadBob@feddit.nl ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You’re going in the chokey for using an obscure abbreviation without saying what it means.

    source

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Oh sorry, it’s a doctorate in philosophy, it means she’s advanced scientific knowledge and has been recognized by the scientific community for it and now has the right to be addressed with the title Doctor.

      source
• ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Sure, science is great and has lead to several great advancements. Science is done people.

  People will lie, cheat, and steal.

  Big little lies: a compendium and simulation of p-hacking strategies

  In an academic system that promotes a ‘publish or perish’ culture, researchers are incentivized to exploit degrees of freedom in their design, analysis and reporting practices to obtain publishable outcomes [1]. In many empirical research fields, the widespread use of such questionable research practices has damaged the credibility of research results [2–5].

  Wiley’s ‘fake science’ scandal is just the latest chapter in a broader crisis of trust universities must address

  A recent Retraction Watch investigation allegedly identified more than 30 such editors, and kickbacks of as much as US$20,000. Academic publisher Elsevier has confirmed its editors are offered cash to accept manuscripts every single week. The British regulator said in January that one unnamed publisher “had to sack 300 editors for manipulative behaviour”.

  AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing

  At least 60,000 papers—slightly more than 1 percent of all scientific articles published globally last year—may have used an LLM, according to Gray’s analysis, which was released on the preprint server arXiv.org and has yet to be peer-reviewed

  It’s important not deify science instead realize that it has issues. We should address those issues to help science become the ideals that we want believe science to have.

  source
• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I don’t think a study like “Aspartame is actually super good for you and makes you run faster” funded by the “American Beverage Association” would ever make it to Theory status, and even concieving of such a silly notion reveals widespread misunderstanding of what a theory is.

  source
• SuiXi3D@fedia.io ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yes, science is about finding the truth, but we should relish the chance to challenge it. If it holds up, that only strengthens the argument for it. If it doesn’t, everyone learned something new.

  source
• Speculater@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The comment has some merit, some. Look at low fat foods and sugar for instance.

  But I’ll be honest, there’s no “big science” I went to grad school for physics, taught physics, fuck publish or perish.

  I now make a fuckton of money writing code and designing algorithms. Haven’t published in over a decade.

  source
• Bobmighty@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Companies**. Also, the word they’re looking for is hypothesis, not theory.

  source
• TankieTanuki@hexbear.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The kernel of truth here is that the disclosure of funding sources is an important factor when weighing scientific evidence.

  source
• hperrin@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  No one’s a winner in this exchange.

  source
• Stern@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Big Gravity clearly paying folks to say stuff falls down so they can sell more floors.

  source
• mumblerfish@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  In my ethics course during the phd program, I was told this was actually a good thing. Their example was pharma companies know how to use their drugs better so they get better results, more true results. If that was true, it’s unfortunate it’s not the pharma company that also handles treatments then. That course also said that software patents does not exist as a concept.

  source
• corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I love how the Internet knows more than doctors.

  source
• Juice@midwest.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels

  source
• 7bicycles@hexbear.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  They’re like both not wrong

  source
• mayo_cider@hexbear.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m science and I actually lied to you specifically (everyone else knows the truth)

  source
• Dippy@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  That’s not even fully accurate because the scientists are doing the studies and achieving results that the companies don’t like, so the companies bury it.

  source
• RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  They kind of backed up over their own message there.

  source
• Naich@lemmings.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It’s all wrong.

  source