6 ms·

You don't have to "believe" in science. Believing in something means trusting something is true, in absence of evidence. That's at the base of all religions and

You don't have to "believe" in science. Believing in something means trusting something is true, in absence of evidence. That's at the base of all religions and the opposite of science. I just trust the scientific process. Yes, the conclusions currently drawn from the evidence can be wrong. I'm not disappointed if it is. If scientists gain new insights, it just means the proces is working.

tsimionescu 6y ago
In this context, I think they mean, believe that the published data is true. You don't have to believe in science itself, but you do have to trust scientists when they report data (you can check the conclusions yourself, but you can't check if the data was accurately reported, if the published protocol was followed etc). That said, I believe the legal repercussions of lying about these studies will be too high to stomach, so I do trust the companies to be truthful here. That doesn't mean that it is irrational to choose not to trust them.
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  You don't have to trust a specific company to trust the scientific process. If they lie, we will find out. They don't have a lasting monopoly on that data.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Yes, we will find out eventually, but if you want the vaccine today, you need to trust them today. Again though, the fact that it is inevitable that we will eventually find out is why I personally believe the data today - I trust the company to not sacrifice long-term credibility for short-term gains.
disown 6y ago
There is a difference between science and "corporate science". "Corporate science" once said tobacco was healthy for you - doctor recommended cigarettes. Also science can be corruptible as well. It was once scientific fact that non-whites were inferior to whites. The "father of gynecology" experimented on black women because it was scientific knowledge that black women don't feel pain. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/james-marion-sims-surgeon-experimented-slave-women-without-anesthesia-statues-under-attack-charlottesville-confederate-a7919141.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/james-mari... It was once "science" to cure sick people with leeches. It was once science to give "misbehaving" women hysterectomies or lobotomies. One of the most famous ones being rosemary kennedy. > If scientists gain new insights, it just means the proces is working. I guess the victims of mengele and U-731 appreciate your confidence in the "process". For someone so critical of religion, you have an almost blind and zealous and unquestioning faith in the "scientific process". When money, corporations and politics are involved, you should be skeptical. Even if it is "science". And pfizer and these companies aren't in the business of science, they are in the business of making money.
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  Yes. Companies can lie. But your point is buried in the false assumptions about me. "Trusting something" !== "An almost blind and zealous and unquestioning faith" Trusting the scientific process doesn't mean you shouldn't be skeptical. It means the opposite. If a company lies, we will find out eventually. You can look at the evidence. There will be independent data eventually. You don't need "faith". Why you needed to involve Mengele to make an argument is beyond me. Invoking Godwin's law will never help you win a discussion.

tsimionescu 6y ago

In this context, I think they mean, believe that the published data is true. You don't have to believe in science itself, but you do have to trust scientists when they report data (you can check the conclusions yourself, but you can't check if the data was accurately reported, if the published protocol was followed etc). That said, I believe the legal repercussions of lying about these studies will be too high to stomach, so I do trust the companies to be truthful here. That doesn't mean that it is irrational to choose not to trust them.

spiderfarmer 6y ago
You don't have to trust a specific company to trust the scientific process. If they lie, we will find out. They don't have a lasting monopoly on that data.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Yes, we will find out eventually, but if you want the vaccine today, you need to trust them today. Again though, the fact that it is inevitable that we will eventually find out is why I personally believe the data today - I trust the company to not sacrifice long-term credibility for short-term gains.

disown 6y ago

There is a difference between science and "corporate science". "Corporate science" once said tobacco was healthy for you - doctor recommended cigarettes. Also science can be corruptible as well. It was once scientific fact that non-whites were inferior to whites. The "father of gynecology" experimented on black women because it was scientific knowledge that black women don't feel pain. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/james-marion-sims-surgeon-experimented-slave-women-without-anesthesia-statues-under-attack-charlottesville-confederate-a7919141.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/james-mari... It was once "science" to cure sick people with leeches. It was once science to give "misbehaving" women hysterectomies or lobotomies. One of the most famous ones being rosemary kennedy. > If scientists gain new insights, it just means the proces is working. I guess the victims of mengele and U-731 appreciate your confidence in the "process". For someone so critical of religion, you have an almost blind and zealous and unquestioning faith in the "scientific process". When money, corporations and politics are involved, you should be skeptical. Even if it is "science". And pfizer and these companies aren't in the business of science, they are in the business of making money.

spiderfarmer 6y ago
Yes. Companies can lie. But your point is buried in the false assumptions about me. "Trusting something" !== "An almost blind and zealous and unquestioning faith" Trusting the scientific process doesn't mean you shouldn't be skeptical. It means the opposite. If a company lies, we will find out eventually. You can look at the evidence. There will be independent data eventually. You don't need "faith". Why you needed to involve Mengele to make an argument is beyond me. Invoking Godwin's law will never help you win a discussion.