4 ms·

I feel like sometimes scientists don't have enough respect or humilty. The human brain is a very complex thing, that we don't understand fully. But somehow, if

by Zababa 5y ago

I feel like sometimes scientists don't have enough respect or humilty. The human brain is a very complex thing, that we don't understand fully. But somehow, if something hasn't been proved through science, it has no value. I met a few people that have a very strong belief from anything that comes with "academic credentials" but reject/ask for proof for anything else. While I understand that academic credentials may have more value that just someone saying something, the experience of people actually living things can matter a lot.

newsbinator 5y ago
Scientists as a group have so much humility that if they're not literally excited to be proven wrong, on their most deeply held understanding of the fundamentals of their field, then they're not considered to be scientists.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Ha ha, if only.
tux3 5y ago
Some concrete exemples might help your case. Science wants to be humble. The people we hold as examples of very careful, meticulous scientists (like Cochrane) have very weak beliefs and a lot of quantified doubt about everything. Science shouldn't be trusted blindly, because it's an incremental process not an Oracle of Truth. But random people with opinions, in my experience, are even more likely to have strong beliefs and overconfidence in them.
nefitty 5y ago
It's bad when leaders make choices based on unproven ideas because of the impact that can have on people. If I told all my friends that drinking hot sauce made me smarter, then yeah, drinking hot sauce has some value for me individually. If I told some scientists the same thing, they might think about it and analyze what the possible mechanism was, whether I actually became snarter, etc, but the idea of drinking hot sauce has absolutely no value to society until someone can prove it works. The value to science is in a possible research path, if it somewhat fits with what we know about reality. That's why I ask and search for proof. I don't want to be tricked into drinking hot sauce for no reason.

by Zababa 5y ago

newsbinator 5y ago

Scientists as a group have so much humility that if they're not literally excited to be proven wrong, on their most deeply held understanding of the fundamentals of their field, then they're not considered to be scientists.

whatshisface 5y ago
Ha ha, if only.

tux3 5y ago

Some concrete exemples might help your case. Science wants to be humble. The people we hold as examples of very careful, meticulous scientists (like Cochrane) have very weak beliefs and a lot of quantified doubt about everything. Science shouldn't be trusted blindly, because it's an incremental process not an Oracle of Truth. But random people with opinions, in my experience, are even more likely to have strong beliefs and overconfidence in them.

nefitty 5y ago

It's bad when leaders make choices based on unproven ideas because of the impact that can have on people. If I told all my friends that drinking hot sauce made me smarter, then yeah, drinking hot sauce has some value for me individually. If I told some scientists the same thing, they might think about it and analyze what the possible mechanism was, whether I actually became snarter, etc, but the idea of drinking hot sauce has absolutely no value to society until someone can prove it works. The value to science is in a possible research path, if it somewhat fits with what we know about reality. That's why I ask and search for proof. I don't want to be tricked into drinking hot sauce for no reason.