3 ms·

> Square these two sentences, because you can't accidentally "only pay lip service to the scientific method". Are you or aren't you claiming that scientists fei

> Square these two sentences, because you can't accidentally "only pay lip service to the scientific method". Are you or aren't you claiming that scientists feign their rigor? You can do everything right, follow the scientific method, but be answering the wrong question. Eg, asking which of these 3 drugs is best for such and such a disease. Ie you are excluding fasting or other alternatives. You will build up a load of data on those 3 drugs perhaps, but fasting might be best of all. You just don't know. But a scientist will say that there is no evidence to support fasting. So the scientific method has studiously ignored inconvenient (unmarketable) options. So is the scientist giving the best information here? Are his/her answers biased? > > And, be honest, you don't even need them to provide evidence for you to accept whatever they state. > I suggest that you stop such insinuation. If you skim articles, watch TV, and don't do research to satisfy yourself, you don't have evidence. You don't know. You may think you know. And thinking you know, when you don't, is dangerous. This is a point worth considering - in my opinion it covers 99.99% of what passes for knowledge. You may find that you have lots of belief and very little actual knowledge just a compound and rigid set of mutually reinforcing beliefs. (This is akin to religion in fact). Which is at least an honest assessment of what most 'scientists' are practising! They believe that there is a body of evidence that supports what they think, and can take that for granted. No one is checking that the foundations are as solid as they believe! And that is the point of education.

creata 6y ago
> So is the scientist giving the best information here? Whatever the case, the scientist is not "only paying lip service to the scientific method" in such a scenario. The scientist set out to answer a question, and they answered it. If you draw other conclusions from their work, it might be their fault, but only if they claimed that they were answering more than they actually did answer. And in practice, scientists do evaluate fasting and such, because they're not just in it for the money. I mean, the very article corresponding to this comment section says: > There has been over 100 years of research looking at the role of calorie restriction in relation to the possibility of prolonging life. But of course, you can come up with other examples of scientists thinking up false dichotomies, so that's neither here nor there. All I want to say is that it's really obvious that scientists don't evaluate all the options, that they're often biased, and that they often commit errors of logic. But concluding from this that "the only information that has a possibility of being true, IMO, is anecdotal evidence" is downright insane. > No one is checking that the foundations are as solid as they believe! You act like you're an expert on the scientific process and how scientists spend their time, but I very much doubt you do. Anyway, I'm done here, talking to you isn't exactly fun or eye-opening.
- feralimal 6y ago
  If I know something about the scientific process its because I try to use it in my personal life. This is to say, I try to be aware of my assumptions, to be clear about the distinction over what I know and what I believe. For myself, I am trying to uncover the truth of our experience in this life. I think we will probably agree that there are all sorts of problems with science and the scientific process. And that's fine. If should be about putting the best hypothesis forward, trying to edge closer to the truth. But, the system we have cannot do that. It is funded by corporate interests, that cannot in good faith to their shareholders, present information that may be to the benefit of mankind, if its not in their financial interests. I think that's pretty clear. Given all that, it does rile me that there are so man science fan boys, that scoff at religion, while acting as if science has the answers. As if they aren't in a state of religious belief! And that they feel they dismiss a piece of anecdotal experience from a real individual, as it wasn't proper science! Anyway, I'm sorry this wasn't fun, nor eye-opening for you. But at least it was real!

creata 6y ago

> So is the scientist giving the best information here? Whatever the case, the scientist is not "only paying lip service to the scientific method" in such a scenario. The scientist set out to answer a question, and they answered it. If you draw other conclusions from their work, it might be their fault, but only if they claimed that they were answering more than they actually did answer. And in practice, scientists do evaluate fasting and such, because they're not just in it for the money. I mean, the very article corresponding to this comment section says: > There has been over 100 years of research looking at the role of calorie restriction in relation to the possibility of prolonging life. But of course, you can come up with other examples of scientists thinking up false dichotomies, so that's neither here nor there. All I want to say is that it's really obvious that scientists don't evaluate all the options, that they're often biased, and that they often commit errors of logic. But concluding from this that "the only information that has a possibility of being true, IMO, is anecdotal evidence" is downright insane. > No one is checking that the foundations are as solid as they believe! You act like you're an expert on the scientific process and how scientists spend their time, but I very much doubt you do. Anyway, I'm done here, talking to you isn't exactly fun or eye-opening.

feralimal 6y ago
If I know something about the scientific process its because I try to use it in my personal life. This is to say, I try to be aware of my assumptions, to be clear about the distinction over what I know and what I believe. For myself, I am trying to uncover the truth of our experience in this life. I think we will probably agree that there are all sorts of problems with science and the scientific process. And that's fine. If should be about putting the best hypothesis forward, trying to edge closer to the truth. But, the system we have cannot do that. It is funded by corporate interests, that cannot in good faith to their shareholders, present information that may be to the benefit of mankind, if its not in their financial interests. I think that's pretty clear. Given all that, it does rile me that there are so man science fan boys, that scoff at religion, while acting as if science has the answers. As if they aren't in a state of religious belief! And that they feel they dismiss a piece of anecdotal experience from a real individual, as it wasn't proper science! Anyway, I'm sorry this wasn't fun, nor eye-opening for you. But at least it was real!