Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HoneydewInMyAss t1_j6s9dtv wrote

This is silly.

Science has a peer review process.

The scientific method has built in processes (like repeatability and falsifiability) to help eliminate bias.

Telling laymen to be "sceptical" about science is irresponsible, especially at a time when Measles and TB are making comebacks

21

Jingle-man t1_j6scxpn wrote

>The scientific method has built in processes (like repeatability and falsifiability) to help eliminate bias.

Has this stopped scientists in the past from falsifying or censoring data to suit their own agenda?

3

HoneydewInMyAss t1_j6smxsq wrote

Falsifying and censoring data is NOT science, it's lies!

The lies about "vaccines causing autism" is NOT SCIENCE!

It was debunked by science!

It was debunked BY the peer review process!

14

290077 t1_j6tbdb3 wrote

>The lies about "vaccines causing autism" is NOT SCIENCE!

>It was debunked by science!

>It was debunked BY the peer review process!

The paper claiming that took 12 years to be retracted from the journal it was published in. The peer review process sure took its sweet time.

5

Jingle-man t1_j6xhdue wrote

>Falsifying and censoring data is NOT science, it's lies!

Well if the only science I have access to is that which is published, and the publishing process is worthy of scepticism (which it is), then what difference does it make? The science that I see, I must be sceptical of.

2

TheNinjaPro t1_j6ssk2o wrote

Youd be hard pressed to find peer reviewed, repeatable data that was intentionally fabricated.

4

Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6sxmrq wrote

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant «studies» as data itself is not «Peer reviewed»

Here is one example of how Peer review works in the real world:

https://www.nature.com/articles/515480a

You can also look into ghost writing, the replication crisis and regulatory capture as some keywords for how «science» works in this day and age. People are too naive and think the real world works like they read in some textbook instead of the complicated and profit-driven mess it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ghostwriter

11

TheNinjaPro t1_j6sy4tc wrote

Both repeatability and peer review were my clauses for acceptability.

You have simply states that articles are unrepeatable, and peer reviews can be scams.

We put the two together and we get…..

−4

Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6sylj9 wrote

You didn’t take the time to Even look at the links. I think that says it all really. The real world does not work like your textbook sats it works. «Peer review» is not some silver bullet if the whole process is largely corrupt.

10

TheNinjaPro t1_j6t0sv0 wrote

You really REALLY arent reading what im saying. I checked your links dont worry about that. Ive heard these lame excuses all the god damn time.

−5

Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6t26cv wrote

real crises in what we call « science» are for you «lame excuses»? Excuses for what? Here’s another one that will Get your juices flowing, publication bias: also a real problem and a huge threat to «science» as we know it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias

The naive belief most People have in «science» borders on the absurd and betrays a profound lack of understanding of how the world actually works - i call this «scientism», it’s also akin to figuratively living in platos cave and actively denying that reality is more complex than the world of ideas. Reality is messy, and does not work like it says on the tin ;)

9

TheNinjaPro t1_j6t2c2l wrote

Really easy to put you in the looney bin because you cant keep putting whatever the hell around science.

−7

Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6tagpu wrote

Got it! Don’t mess with mah science or imma call you a big meanie! ;)

9

TheNinjaPro t1_j6tb1de wrote

Go be a scientist, go dedicate your life to actually understanding things because apparently nobody else can do it.

Or you can just bitch and complain and be somehow more uselss.

−1

290077 t1_j6tc1d6 wrote

https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/

You're telling me none of these passed peer review? Look at the timelines, several of these took over a decade between publication and retraction.

5

TheNinjaPro t1_j6tcgxm wrote

How the fuck is nobody reading my original comment.

Peer Reviewed + REPEATABLE Data meaning MULTIPLE studies from different groups came to the same result using the same parameters.

I am well aware of the abuse under the peer review system, but it does have an once of integrity and with the key word repeatable which everyone is overlooking, you can have some faith that it is correct.

−1

XiphosAletheria t1_j6udfh7 wrote

I think the point people are making is that the process as it currently exists often lacks repeatability, in the sense that many published studies don't actually have anyone trying to repeat the results. Like, sure, you have grasped how the scientific process is supposed to work in theory, but no one is naive enough to think science is like that in the real world.

7

TheNinjaPro t1_j6uh7e1 wrote

Its just a rule that a study is only as trustable as it is repeatable. Most meaningful science is repeatable, with potentially hundreds of scientists conducting the same experiments.

1

Major-Vermicelli-266 t1_j6svmjx wrote

If you falsify data, your results can't be repeated. So yeah, it deters scientists who want to have a career in science, but unfortunately not those who want to lick billionaires boots dipped in oil for a living.

1

Chode36 t1_j6unisg wrote

And when the peers are biased due to Ideologies, how can the truth come out? Speaking about gatekeeping etc.

3

bread93096 t1_j6syh9b wrote

Scientific models are revised and updated often. We know, for example, that our knowledge of physics is very incomplete. It’s quite likely that new discoveries will be made in our lifetime that fundamentally challenge what we ‘know’ about the nature of reality - and then eventually those models may be revised and updated as well.

If you understand science as what it is, a system of mathematical models which make increasingly accurate predictions and are updated on a generational basis, then it makes perfect sense to treat it with skepticism insofar as it is not a complete or final description of reality. It doesn’t mean you have to become a flat earther. If anything it helps with understanding new discoveries - one of the barriers to laymen grasping quantum mechanics is that it contradicts ‘the truth’ which they thought they already learned it school.

2

oppairate t1_j6u8tal wrote

they should be skeptical about whether or not what they’re being told is science actually is.

1

shewel_item t1_j6wcarm wrote

  1. the peer-review process is fallible, if not ad-hoc

  2. there is no universal scientific method

1

sahuxley2 t1_j6tv2j0 wrote

Using science is about iteratively getting closer and closer to the truth, it is not about absolutes - since conclusions can become outdated by actually being wrong, or get supplanted by better conclusions. It's about delivering conclusions with high confidence, not absolute facts. In a vacuum, science itself is a perfect, unfailing tool. But since human beings use it, it's used imperfectly. And, when used correctly, the process is driven by data, not ideas. Science itself (meaning the tool) shouldn't be questioned, but the conclusions people reach and the way it is used should be/are questioned. What conclusions we trust should be dependent on factors like how often that conclusion is reproduced, how thorough the methodology is, and how many limitations were taken into account. The average person should have some understanding of this, so that they don't blindly believe in things and so that they aren't fooled into thinking there's a scientific consensus on a matter that does not have a consensus.

0