5 ms·

Governments, scientists, and experts have also been proven to be wrong and to have lied in the past.

Nihilartikel 6y ago
A scientist being wrong is GOOD! The scientific process relies on assimilation of negative results. If a scientist is emotionally attached to a result and ignores a result that they don't like, they are no longer engaged in science. Peer review and replication is the correcting factor for the unfortunate reality that science must be, for the moment carried out by humans. At the very least, when operating properly science becomes less wrong. That cannot be said for politicians who are interested in nothing but confirmation of their preconceptions. There is a special place in hell for those who cynically use the fact that scientists are sometimes wrong as an attack against the very existence of knowledge and consensus reality itself.
- Falling3 6y ago
  I don't disagree with you. The only thing I'm arguing against is the GP's comment that we should blindly put our trust in the groups mentioned. Some of the best parts about science, as you've pointed out, are peer review and replication. There should never be a need to put your faith in an individual scientist and take them at their word. >There is a special place in hell for those who cynically use the fact that scientists are sometimes wrong as an attack against the very existence of knowledge and consensus reality itself. I hope it's clear that I was in no way doing that.
  - Nihilartikel 6y ago
    Reading charitably, I don't believe that it's what you meant. But with disturbing frequency, I do see similar words uttered and written with fairly clear cynical intent.
    - Falling3 6y ago
      I completely agree; it's an alarming trend that's used to sew ignorance. Blindly following experts clearly isn't an antidote to that, which is all I was trying to express originally.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Science relies on this, yes. Academia, not so much
shadowgovt 6y ago
On occasion. What's the average case?
askxnakjsn 6y ago
Getting things wrong on occasion is better than having some sort of idiot free for all.
- dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
  Maybe, but a well told lie told by The One Authority on Truth has more destructive power than a billion chaos monkeys typing on their typewriters for the next hundred generations.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Falling3 6y ago
  We have more options than blindly trust those who are more likely to be right and "idiot free for all".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bena 6y ago
And how have we discovered the incorrect and dishonest claims? Through the process. You never have to trust the data if you have a good process. Process will verify data. Process will verify sources. Process is impartial. Trust the process, not the results. Also, I take issue with the attempt to conflate people who are incorrect with people who are dishonest. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. Being wrong is the first step to being right. You can't be corrected if you're never willing to be wrong. And we can't learn if everyone has to wait to be completely correct before making a claim. Often, we don't even know we should be looking into something until someone makes a claim that turns out to be incorrect on further study. Knowledge isn't furthered in "eureka" moments where we have all the answers at once, it's in observing something and thinking, "Huh, that's weird", then seeking the answers.
- Falling3 6y ago
  >Through the process. You never have to trust the data if you have a good process. Process will verify data. Process will verify sources. Process is impartial. Trust the process, not the results. The GP's post didn't say trust science or trust data. It said trust scientists. I'm taking issue with the desire to put faith in individuals.
  - brendoelfrendo 6y ago
    Who is a scientist in this case but someone publicizing the process? Their job, in the media anyway, is to explain data and results and why that data makes sense. You don't have to blindly trust the scientist if what they're saying is backed by scientific process, and you can hopefully trust-but-verify by looking at whatever scientific literature exists on the topic. I guess I don't understand the alternative: is everyone expected to go look up the write-up and replicate the experiment for themselves because we can't trust the scientists who performed the experiment? I agree we need more replication studies, but I think we're reaching the absurd ends of the "do your own research!" movement here.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      The problem here is not Science. It's the perverse incentives in Academia and Journalism. In Science as it should be practised, yes, a scientist talking to a journalist should "explain the the data and results and why that data makes sense". The journalist should then paraphrase that clearly for their audience, without altering the essential conclusions of the study/paper/experiment. But this is so naive it's laughable now. Nobody, ever, does this. The scientist wants maximum impact, so will maximise the sensational aspects of their results. In turn the journalist wants maximum clicks, so will sensationalise more. What ends up being read by the public can be a very long way away from any conclusion that the data actually supports.

A scientist being wrong is GOOD! The scientific process relies on assimilation of negative results. If a scientist is emotionally attached to a result and ignores a result that they don't like, they are no longer engaged in science. Peer review and replication is the correcting factor for the unfortunate reality that science must be, for the moment carried out by humans. At the very least, when operating properly science becomes less wrong. That cannot be said for politicians who are interested in nothing but confirmation of their preconceptions. There is a special place in hell for those who cynically use the fact that scientists are sometimes wrong as an attack against the very existence of knowledge and consensus reality itself.

Falling3 6y ago
I don't disagree with you. The only thing I'm arguing against is the GP's comment that we should blindly put our trust in the groups mentioned. Some of the best parts about science, as you've pointed out, are peer review and replication. There should never be a need to put your faith in an individual scientist and take them at their word. >There is a special place in hell for those who cynically use the fact that scientists are sometimes wrong as an attack against the very existence of knowledge and consensus reality itself. I hope it's clear that I was in no way doing that.
- Nihilartikel 6y ago
  Reading charitably, I don't believe that it's what you meant. But with disturbing frequency, I do see similar words uttered and written with fairly clear cynical intent.
  - Falling3 6y ago
    I completely agree; it's an alarming trend that's used to sew ignorance. Blindly following experts clearly isn't an antidote to that, which is all I was trying to express originally.
marcus_holmes 6y ago
Science relies on this, yes. Academia, not so much

shadowgovt 6y ago

On occasion. What's the average case?

askxnakjsn 6y ago

Getting things wrong on occasion is better than having some sort of idiot free for all.

dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
Maybe, but a well told lie told by The One Authority on Truth has more destructive power than a billion chaos monkeys typing on their typewriters for the next hundred generations.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Falling3 6y ago
We have more options than blindly trust those who are more likely to be right and "idiot free for all".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bena 6y ago

And how have we discovered the incorrect and dishonest claims? Through the process. You never have to trust the data if you have a good process. Process will verify data. Process will verify sources. Process is impartial. Trust the process, not the results. Also, I take issue with the attempt to conflate people who are incorrect with people who are dishonest. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. Being wrong is the first step to being right. You can't be corrected if you're never willing to be wrong. And we can't learn if everyone has to wait to be completely correct before making a claim. Often, we don't even know we should be looking into something until someone makes a claim that turns out to be incorrect on further study. Knowledge isn't furthered in "eureka" moments where we have all the answers at once, it's in observing something and thinking, "Huh, that's weird", then seeking the answers.

Falling3 6y ago
>Through the process. You never have to trust the data if you have a good process. Process will verify data. Process will verify sources. Process is impartial. Trust the process, not the results. The GP's post didn't say trust science or trust data. It said trust scientists. I'm taking issue with the desire to put faith in individuals.
- brendoelfrendo 6y ago
  Who is a scientist in this case but someone publicizing the process? Their job, in the media anyway, is to explain data and results and why that data makes sense. You don't have to blindly trust the scientist if what they're saying is backed by scientific process, and you can hopefully trust-but-verify by looking at whatever scientific literature exists on the topic. I guess I don't understand the alternative: is everyone expected to go look up the write-up and replicate the experiment for themselves because we can't trust the scientists who performed the experiment? I agree we need more replication studies, but I think we're reaching the absurd ends of the "do your own research!" movement here.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    The problem here is not Science. It's the perverse incentives in Academia and Journalism. In Science as it should be practised, yes, a scientist talking to a journalist should "explain the the data and results and why that data makes sense". The journalist should then paraphrase that clearly for their audience, without altering the essential conclusions of the study/paper/experiment. But this is so naive it's laughable now. Nobody, ever, does this. The scientist wants maximum impact, so will maximise the sensational aspects of their results. In turn the journalist wants maximum clicks, so will sensationalise more. What ends up being read by the public can be a very long way away from any conclusion that the data actually supports.