3 ms·
> Science is a matter of trust Well that's simply not true, by definition. That's like the whole point of science. You can do something and write a report on
by andbberger 6y ago
> Science is a matter of trust
Well that's simply not true, by definition.
That's like the whole point of science. You can do something and write a report on it, and if I don't believe you I am free to try and reproduce it and publish my own account.
Track record is an excellent reason to be skeptical. Skepticism alone is not enough to invalidate a study.
- joe_the_user 6y agoI should clarify science does require data, does descriptions and so-forth. But if scientists are free to fake data until caught and to essentially be untrustworthy, it becomes impossible to make progress. That someone has engaged in bad faith and bad methology previously doesn't invalidate their findings. It doesn't prove they're wrong. But it makes people justified in ignoring them. The world is full of, uh, bullshit, full of unjustified claims on this and that. These have to be ignored because otherwise you waste all your time. Being a credible scientists engaging credible research is a reason to take someone out of the this category and pay attention to them. But once someone has discredited themselves as a scientist, they're back in the bullshit category and no one has an obligation to look at their stuff. Sure, maybe their stuff is true, who knows.
- andbberger 6y agoOkay that's fair, I agree with that. No one has time to disprove quacks. I do think that some mistakes should be recoverable from though. Outright data forgery should be career ending event full stop - but the burden of proof should be high.