4 ms·

Science is not a perfect, pure, infallible process. It's messy, political, and often wrong. In our modern world where science impacts every aspect of our lives

Science is not a perfect, pure, infallible process. It's messy, political, and often wrong. In our modern world where science impacts every aspect of our lives and informs policy, laymen are the ones who need to be concerned with science and its results. A PhD cannot be a prerequisite to discuss these issues in a democracy, by definition.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Organised attacks on science are also not a pure, infallible process. They're messy, political, corrupt, and even more likely to be wrong.
willis936 4y ago
A PhD isn't a prerequisite to legitimately weighing in on things. Working knowledge is. A PhD in a given field is a good predictor of working knowledge. There is a pandemic of people thinking they should talk about shit they know nothing about.
TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
> Science is not a perfect, pure, infallible process. But every single day, studies are reported as infallible, final words on whatever subject is at hand. Then, a few years later, more "science" happens, and that study gets modified heavily, and the NEW results are ALSO reported as the last word on the subject. Hence, a big part of the overarching confusion and befuddlement being discussed up and down this thread. A lot of people say "good 'science'" is a continual process, and that's certainly true, but the layman's view of the situation is presented as discrete, objective, unchangeable and unchallengeable fact.
- fastaguy88 4y ago
  It seems unfair to blame science and scientists for how their work is reported. Scientists are skeptics, and are fully aware that the latest press release is not the “last” word. Reporters are not teachers - their job is to tell stories that sell ads, not wallow in subtlety. If you want to learn about new science, stay away from the popular press.

4 ms·

Science is not a perfect, pure, infallible process. It's messy, political, and often wrong. In our modern world where science impacts every aspect of our lives

by ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Organised attacks on science are also not a pure, infallible process. They're messy, political, corrupt, and even more likely to be wrong.
willis936 4y ago
A PhD isn't a prerequisite to legitimately weighing in on things. Working knowledge is. A PhD in a given field is a good predictor of working knowledge. There is a pandemic of people thinking they should talk about shit they know nothing about.
TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
> Science is not a perfect, pure, infallible process. But every single day, studies are reported as infallible, final words on whatever subject is at hand. Then, a few years later, more "science" happens, and that study gets modified heavily, and the NEW results are ALSO reported as the last word on the subject. Hence, a big part of the overarching confusion and befuddlement being discussed up and down this thread. A lot of people say "good 'science'" is a continual process, and that's certainly true, but the layman's view of the situation is presented as discrete, objective, unchangeable and unchallengeable fact.
- fastaguy88 4y ago
  It seems unfair to blame science and scientists for how their work is reported. Scientists are skeptics, and are fully aware that the latest press release is not the “last” word. Reporters are not teachers - their job is to tell stories that sell ads, not wallow in subtlety. If you want to learn about new science, stay away from the popular press.