This is a clean example of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.
Statement B attempts to use Statement A to make an unrelated point that isn’t necessarily untrue, but it is still unrelated.
This could be done with any combination of…
“Under capitalism, <random thing> is…”
“Under <random ism>, science is…”
They would all result in a statement that supports Speaker B, but is irrelevant to what Speaker A, as the topic has changed. In this case, from science to capitalism.
I.e. It’s an anti-capitalism meme attempting to use science to appeal to a broader audience through relevance fallacy. Both statements may be true, but do not belong in the same picture.
Unless, of course, “that’s the joke” and I’m just that dumb.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 6 months ago
True but people also use this as an excuse to dismiss any research they disagree with which is idiotic.
Most research is legit. It just might not be interpreted correctly, or it might not be the whole picture. But it shouldn’t be ignored because you don’t like it.
People are especially prone to this with Econ research in my experience.
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
For sure, but it’s improtant to keep in mind in fields with large financial interests.
Medicine especially. Most studies claiming Cealic disease (gluten allergy) was not real before it was conclusively proven where funded by bread companies. You won’t believe the number of studies funded by insurance companies trying to show that certain diseases aren’t really disabling, (even though they really are).
OpenStars@discuss.online 6 months ago
And sugar probably kills as many people as smoking, but… yup.
Then again, we all are okay with killing children too, so long as it is with a gun and unwillingly rather than safely in a doctor’s office and medically necessary or at least expedient.
Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 6 months ago
Isn’t there a replication crisis. I am not sure you can really claim “most” research is legit.
niucllos@lemm.ee 6 months ago
I wouldn’t call it a broad crisis, and it isn’t universal. More theoretical sciences or social sciences are more prone to it because the experiments are more expensive and you can’t really control the environment the way you can with e.g. mice or specific chemicals. But most biology, chemistry, etc that isn’t bleeding edge or incredibly niche will be validated dozens to hundreds of times as people build on the work and true retractions are rare
djsoren19@yiffit.net 6 months ago
There’s a replication crisis in a handful of more recent fields that use human subjects and didn’t have hard rules and restrictions on how to treat human subjects in the early 20th century. Psychology is the field that has had the biggest issue with is, with many old studies having what we now see as serious methodology issues. It doesn’t inherently mean all of those studies are wrong, just that they need to be revised with updated methodology to confirm if their results are accurate.
There’s also about 1500 years of scientific study aside from that which doesn’t relate to human subjects at all, and by this point has been replicated numerous times, so I would not doubt the claim that most research is replicable and valid. I would expect about 80-90% of our collective scientific knowledge to be accurate.
socsa@piefed.social 6 months ago
The entire thing is an edgy strawman. Honest practitioners obviously take seriously the need to understand and articulate the limits of empiricism, and are hostile towards those who abuse the public trust of scientific authority. It would honestlt be great if we could do the same with our critiques of capitalism.