3 ms·
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 igno
by 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 agoI 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 agoReading 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 agoI 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 agoScience relies on this, yes. Academia, not so much