3 ms·

So then, one could propose any ridiculous hypothesis (e.g. vaccines do not work), and when nobody can reproduce the results, applying your line of argument, it

by ksk 11y ago

So then, one could propose any ridiculous hypothesis (e.g. vaccines do not work), and when nobody can reproduce the results, applying your line of argument, it would lead us down a rabbit hole of second guessing and proposing even more complex reasons as to why others are unable to reproduce the results. I think that in the - day-to-day usage of the word / most commonly understood meaning of the word - 'true', it is fair to say that Science is in the business of determining truth from fantasy. Sure, you are permitted under science to investigate anything and everything that pleases you/(your donors :) ). I think that scientific consensus is very closely associated with 'truth'. I totally get the larger point you're making, but even the nature of science itself is a bit of a grey area. I think that some ideas should, and have been laughed out of the room. The so called man-on-the-street does not have time for subtlety or scientific hypotheses which are carefully couched in nuanced terminology. I think that its OK for people to think that science has all the answers, every once in a while :)

nostrademons 11y ago
The "vaccines cause autism" scare is actually a good example of science working. It was investigated - as it should have been, because if vaccines did cause autism that would be a massive public health crisis - and then they found that the original author falsified the data. The unfortunate part is that that finding hasn't made it into public consciousness the way the original scare did. I think that the belief that science = received truth is behind the rejection of science by a large portion of the population, because it puts it in conflict with other sources of "received truth". People discount evolution as "just a theory" because they're looking for absolute truth; if they were habitually trained to look for evidence and then knew the body of evidence behind evolution, and could compare it with the body of evidence behind gospel, they might understand that "theory" is a lot more rigorously proven than "truth".

by ksk 11y ago

nostrademons 11y ago

The "vaccines cause autism" scare is actually a good example of science working. It was investigated - as it should have been, because if vaccines did cause autism that would be a massive public health crisis - and then they found that the original author falsified the data. The unfortunate part is that that finding hasn't made it into public consciousness the way the original scare did. I think that the belief that science = received truth is behind the rejection of science by a large portion of the population, because it puts it in conflict with other sources of "received truth". People discount evolution as "just a theory" because they're looking for absolute truth; if they were habitually trained to look for evidence and then knew the body of evidence behind evolution, and could compare it with the body of evidence behind gospel, they might understand that "theory" is a lot more rigorously proven than "truth".