4 ms·

Science is certainly not about consensus.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> Science is certainly not about consensus. You are very confused. Certainty pertains to religions and turns into a cult when it becomes dogmatic. Science is all about consensus around different possibilities. They are called theories, not commandments.
- scantis 5y ago
  Usually science is the process of finding truth. First by observation then by modelling and then by testing. What you talk about is politics.
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    not *the* truth, but a scientific truth Which is one that the scientific community agrees on . Politics is about having the majority of the votes. Politics is not evaluated on the basis of falsifiability.
    - nailer 5y ago
      Science is about finding the truth. The concept of ‘a truth’ based on ‘consensus science’ has the same relationship to the scientific method as homeopathy.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." - Richard Feynman
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. — Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97 It means that it took several generations of doctors to reach a consensus around the fact that viruses are actually very dangerous and we can be reasonably sure that the Rogan's objections have already been presented and discarded as bullshit. More than one time. It also means that if Rogan, a man in his middle 50s, spreads disinformation on a platform where a large part of the audience is young, we risk that the future generation will be familiar with his bullshit theories. That's why he shouldn't be allowed to be a popular voice. Believing that science is always correct it's wrong, science gives us ranges, plausible certainties, risk evaluation strategies, but believing that people outside of science can disprove what people of science have studied and discussed for decades, it's idiotic.
    - nailer 5y ago
      You were asked about the doctors and scientists on the Joe Rogan podcast. How are those doctors and scientists ‘outside science’?
      - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
        simply put: one doctor's opinion is bullshit same as my opinions are bullshit. If a large number of doctors say X is true and Y is bullshit, if I think Y is true and X bullshit, I need the same number of doctors to agree with me to counter the argument.
        nailer 5y ago
        You're acting like 'doctors' are a commodity. Researchers with their names on patents that are frequently published are worth more than a thousand GPs.
    - scantis 5y ago
      That is beautiful horrific observation by one of my favorite scientists. You are right. Just have some lemma near some old proof. Still being knowledgable about science and understanding its method for finding truth is currently the best weapon against the snake oil salesmen and their buttery voices. I talk about science the method, not the group of old men grading papers. Maybe that is our misunderstanding. For you science is the scientific community, for me it is the method. One has a consensus, one clearly does not.
      - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
        I totally agree with you. Science is the method. The method is to put the burden of the proof on the humans that disagree with what the method has reached an agreement on. Because it's really hard to trick the method given a large enough community that disagree on the results. We are fallible, the method, at least, doesn't care about our feelings.
    - edmcnulty101 5y ago

> Science is certainly not about consensus. You are very confused. Certainty pertains to religions and turns into a cult when it becomes dogmatic. Science is all about consensus around different possibilities. They are called theories, not commandments.

scantis 5y ago
Usually science is the process of finding truth. First by observation then by modelling and then by testing. What you talk about is politics.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  not *the* truth, but a scientific truth Which is one that the scientific community agrees on . Politics is about having the majority of the votes. Politics is not evaluated on the basis of falsifiability.
  - nailer 5y ago
    Science is about finding the truth. The concept of ‘a truth’ based on ‘consensus science’ has the same relationship to the scientific method as homeopathy.
edmcnulty101 5y ago
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." - Richard Feynman
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. — Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97 It means that it took several generations of doctors to reach a consensus around the fact that viruses are actually very dangerous and we can be reasonably sure that the Rogan's objections have already been presented and discarded as bullshit. More than one time. It also means that if Rogan, a man in his middle 50s, spreads disinformation on a platform where a large part of the audience is young, we risk that the future generation will be familiar with his bullshit theories. That's why he shouldn't be allowed to be a popular voice. Believing that science is always correct it's wrong, science gives us ranges, plausible certainties, risk evaluation strategies, but believing that people outside of science can disprove what people of science have studied and discussed for decades, it's idiotic.
  - nailer 5y ago
    You were asked about the doctors and scientists on the Joe Rogan podcast. How are those doctors and scientists ‘outside science’?
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      simply put: one doctor's opinion is bullshit same as my opinions are bullshit. If a large number of doctors say X is true and Y is bullshit, if I think Y is true and X bullshit, I need the same number of doctors to agree with me to counter the argument.
      - nailer 5y ago
        You're acting like 'doctors' are a commodity. Researchers with their names on patents that are frequently published are worth more than a thousand GPs.
  - scantis 5y ago
    That is beautiful horrific observation by one of my favorite scientists. You are right. Just have some lemma near some old proof. Still being knowledgable about science and understanding its method for finding truth is currently the best weapon against the snake oil salesmen and their buttery voices. I talk about science the method, not the group of old men grading papers. Maybe that is our misunderstanding. For you science is the scientific community, for me it is the method. One has a consensus, one clearly does not.
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      I totally agree with you. Science is the method. The method is to put the burden of the proof on the humans that disagree with what the method has reached an agreement on. Because it's really hard to trick the method given a large enough community that disagree on the results. We are fallible, the method, at least, doesn't care about our feelings.
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago