2 ms·
That 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 s
by FakeComments 8y ago
That 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.