3 ms·
> Bad science has a way of being negated over the longer term. Humans started to experiment with Lobotomy around 1930s and it wasn't until after 1950s that we
by capableweb 5y ago
> Bad science has a way of being negated over the longer term.
Humans started to experiment with Lobotomy around 1930s and it wasn't until after 1950s that we started to realize that it probably did more harm than good. António Egas Moniz even won a Nobel Prize for "discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses".
Yes, bad science will probably be negated over long term, but what about the harm it does during those years? Can't we find a way to reduce the harm of experimental science? Maybe things aren't that long as my example today, but I still feel we can do more to prevent bad science in the first place.
- jacquesm 5y agoIf you can improve on the scientific method I'm sure lots of people would be very happy but for now it is the best we've got, the results speak for themselves. Science makes mistakes, all the time. But it does learn from those mistakes. The harm done during the intervening years is terrible, but likely a price we can not avoid. A bigger problem in my opinion is the degree to which science allows itself to be 'bought' by commerce, for instance in the case of smoking, climate change denial and other major issues that end up harming lots of people in very concrete ways. The man or woman in the white coat has a lot of authority and squandering that by throwing the scientific method out of the window to be replaced by a stack of green bills is a real problem.
- vmception 5y agoThey're saying, instead of waiting 18 months to figure out the best decision for you and your family instead of jumping to a conclusion based on political affiliation correlated to the part of the country you happen to live in, wait 20 years because science iz kewl.