4 ms·
I think people have trouble telling the difference between tobacco, sugar, pesticides, plastics, and other “research” and the climate change research. Part of
by FakeComments 8y ago
I think people have trouble telling the difference between tobacco, sugar, pesticides, plastics, and other “research” and the climate change research.
Part of science certainly is covering for big business, and is itself in business doing so.
But it would be stupid for people to keep trusting “science” blindly when it’s been used repeatedly over the span of decades to cover up deadly or otherwise dangerous things.
- coldtea 8y agoJust call something "science" and have people with PhDs do it in universities, and people will trust it. Who cares about the process or the quality or the funding? Humans with PhDs would never print BS en masse to promote their individual careers, and placate their colleagues, would they?
- FakeComments 8y agoThat was precisely my point, yes. But also that scientists are more concerned with fussing at the public how they need to “trust science”, despite that doing so historically has been questionable at times. Perhaps people would be more willing to listen on climate change if there were more institutional credibility. Edit: You can downvote all you want, but in the middle of a replication crisis and sinking faith in science as an institution, maybe you should think about it.
- Retra 8y agoIt is still better to trust in misleading science than it is to do any of the alternatives. And just because some science is misleading doesn't mean the institution itself doesn't work.
- FakeComments 8y agoBut the institution itself doesn’t work outside of a few narrow fields: the results aren’t replicable and they’re dangerous to trust.