6 ms·

Science is important. Science is great. I love science. Let's just be extremely careful when trying to apply the latest scientific achievements in our day to da

Science is important. Science is great. I love science. Let's just be extremely careful when trying to apply the latest scientific achievements in our day to day lives. Phlogiston theory of 17th century was wrong. Race theory of 18th century was wrong. Semmelweis was laughed at in 19th century. And lobotomies were perfectly scientific for treating depressed patients for most of 20th century. I doubt 21st century's science is any special here...

readingnews 6y ago
Four examples of bad science? I see a trend in these comments that people here are pretty anti-science. I would like to remind us all to just take a peek around us, and look at what was not even possible, not even imaginable, a mere fifty to one hundred years ago. We are speaking to one another using faradays laws and discoveries, teslas fascination with wireless and countless physicists and engineers that build practically everything you see. Computers, the internet, wireless... does anyone here remember polio, or how the flu used to kill far more than today (with the exception of the COVID)? I find it fascinating how easily we beat down on science and academic scientists in general. Are there bad scientists? Sure. Are there bad people? Sure, but the narrative I find myself reading more and more is all scientists are bad, and all research should be stopped, as it is somehow costing everyone else money or the money is being used wrongly. I think the percentage of that is incredibly small. I only hope we are still educating our children enough in the future to realize the tiny bad percentage of people we hear about (be it in science or the general population) is not representative of all.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  How many examples would be enough? Five? Fifty five? Quite a lot of people here (including yours truly) have scientific background. All I'm saying is: let's be careful and let's be skeptical - as real scientists are.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  Were all of them bad science? (The first two were clearly so, but I'm not sure about the last ones.) Because if so, it's easy to look a bit more and find completely wrong conclusions taken from good science too. But anyway, all of those were mainstream at some time. The point is that yielding to experts is anti-science. The fact that your experts work in a research lab instead of a church makes little difference here. Scientific decision making requires that at a minimum you verify your experts results, and be ready to notice when they are wrong. This article is as anti-science as the policies it is trying to fight, and this is a bad thing that can only create mistrust from the public.
  - patagurbon 6y ago
    Is it possible for non-experts to verify science in most fields? It's possible and important for other experts to verify, but research is very hard to contextualize and verify without being or becoming an expert.
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      > Is it possible for non-experts to verify science in most fields? If they don't know a thing about statistics and science methodology, no it's not. If they do know those, settled research with real impact is not that hard to verify (that's why it's settled), verifying science without impact is not important, and unsettled science shouldn't get a lot of trust anyway. That would be a good subject for an article with that same title. But for the current article, the question is not really relevant.
Consultant32452 6y ago
One interesting thing to try to find is... during approximately what decade did "modern medicine" become a net benefit to health and longevity? The most common answers I've seen vary from the 1950s to we're not even 100% sure it's a net benefit now.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  I think life expectancy started climbing up from 1850s, but it's hard to say which part of that is "medicine" and which is better nutrition and hygiene.
  - azinman2 6y ago
    Antibiotics were a major factor, along with vaccines and clean water.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    Anything like that has to be balanced against things like: 250k deaths caused by medical errors in the US each year 7-9k people die from medication errors https://mymedicalscore.com/medical-error-statistics/ https://mymedicalscore.com/medical-error-statistics/
    - patagurbon 6y ago
      What number of those would've died without care?
      - Consultant32452 6y ago
        What number of people who got medical care would've lived/recovered without it? My point is not that I know the answer to when medical care became a net benefit, my point is that it's an extremely complicated thing that there doesn't seem to be a clear answer to.
        patagurbon 6y ago
tensor 6y ago
Those were found to be wrong because of the scientific process. It self corrects. In contrast, how many non-scientific "theories" have been right? How do you correct something that is wrong without a method like science? I could list any number of things like witchcraft, homeopathy, various snake oils, superstition causing animal abuse, as examples of what happens without science. Some of these things endure centuries too, because there is no mechanism to correct them.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  Quite a few of non-scientific theories turned out to be right. Starting from the biblical "don't breed with your sister" to multiple herbs, which only recently were found to contain pretty scientific active ingredients.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    The statement wasn't that they were never right - it was that they didn't self correct and say still list rhino horn as good for impotence.

readingnews 6y ago

Four examples of bad science? I see a trend in these comments that people here are pretty anti-science. I would like to remind us all to just take a peek around us, and look at what was not even possible, not even imaginable, a mere fifty to one hundred years ago. We are speaking to one another using faradays laws and discoveries, teslas fascination with wireless and countless physicists and engineers that build practically everything you see. Computers, the internet, wireless... does anyone here remember polio, or how the flu used to kill far more than today (with the exception of the COVID)? I find it fascinating how easily we beat down on science and academic scientists in general. Are there bad scientists? Sure. Are there bad people? Sure, but the narrative I find myself reading more and more is all scientists are bad, and all research should be stopped, as it is somehow costing everyone else money or the money is being used wrongly. I think the percentage of that is incredibly small. I only hope we are still educating our children enough in the future to realize the tiny bad percentage of people we hear about (be it in science or the general population) is not representative of all.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
How many examples would be enough? Five? Fifty five? Quite a lot of people here (including yours truly) have scientific background. All I'm saying is: let's be careful and let's be skeptical - as real scientists are.
marcosdumay 6y ago
Were all of them bad science? (The first two were clearly so, but I'm not sure about the last ones.) Because if so, it's easy to look a bit more and find completely wrong conclusions taken from good science too. But anyway, all of those were mainstream at some time. The point is that yielding to experts is anti-science. The fact that your experts work in a research lab instead of a church makes little difference here. Scientific decision making requires that at a minimum you verify your experts results, and be ready to notice when they are wrong. This article is as anti-science as the policies it is trying to fight, and this is a bad thing that can only create mistrust from the public.
- patagurbon 6y ago
  Is it possible for non-experts to verify science in most fields? It's possible and important for other experts to verify, but research is very hard to contextualize and verify without being or becoming an expert.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > Is it possible for non-experts to verify science in most fields? If they don't know a thing about statistics and science methodology, no it's not. If they do know those, settled research with real impact is not that hard to verify (that's why it's settled), verifying science without impact is not important, and unsettled science shouldn't get a lot of trust anyway. That would be a good subject for an article with that same title. But for the current article, the question is not really relevant.

Consultant32452 6y ago

One interesting thing to try to find is... during approximately what decade did "modern medicine" become a net benefit to health and longevity? The most common answers I've seen vary from the 1950s to we're not even 100% sure it's a net benefit now.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
I think life expectancy started climbing up from 1850s, but it's hard to say which part of that is "medicine" and which is better nutrition and hygiene.
- azinman2 6y ago
  Antibiotics were a major factor, along with vaccines and clean water.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  Anything like that has to be balanced against things like: 250k deaths caused by medical errors in the US each year 7-9k people die from medication errors https://mymedicalscore.com/medical-error-statistics/ https://mymedicalscore.com/medical-error-statistics/
  - patagurbon 6y ago
    What number of those would've died without care?
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      What number of people who got medical care would've lived/recovered without it? My point is not that I know the answer to when medical care became a net benefit, my point is that it's an extremely complicated thing that there doesn't seem to be a clear answer to.
      - patagurbon 6y ago

tensor 6y ago

Those were found to be wrong because of the scientific process. It self corrects. In contrast, how many non-scientific "theories" have been right? How do you correct something that is wrong without a method like science? I could list any number of things like witchcraft, homeopathy, various snake oils, superstition causing animal abuse, as examples of what happens without science. Some of these things endure centuries too, because there is no mechanism to correct them.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
Quite a few of non-scientific theories turned out to be right. Starting from the biblical "don't breed with your sister" to multiple herbs, which only recently were found to contain pretty scientific active ingredients.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The statement wasn't that they were never right - it was that they didn't self correct and say still list rhino horn as good for impotence.