3 ms·

The fact that researchers can and will speak out against consensus is exactly why I do “trust science.” I don’t trust consensus theories to be accurate at every

The fact that researchers can and will speak out against consensus is exactly why I do “trust science.” I don’t trust consensus theories to be accurate at every instant in time, particularly in areas that have received more limited scrutiny (or where experiments are expensive and time consuming), but I generally do believe that it’s the very best process the human race has ever devised for arriving at truth.

icelancer 4y ago
>> The fact that researchers can and will speak out against consensus is exactly why I do “trust science.” This becomes more and more rare as the science becomes politicized, as we saw with COVID-19. Recommending against masks early, then justifying it post-hoc with the noble lie theory, over-promising what vaccines could do, lack of research into air filtration/sterilization, etc. Speaking out against these became a very difficult thing to do for someone in power with a lot to lose.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  >Recommending against masks early ... lack of research into air filtration/sterilization, etc. Speaking out against these became a very difficult thing to do for someone in power with a lot to lose. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=air+filtration+covid&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=air... https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=masks+covid+19&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=mas... The Scholar results do not support your claim.
refurb 4y ago
Precisely, but saying “trust the science” just reinforces the status quo. The very core of science is the idea that a theory is correct because it can stand up to extreme scrutiny. When I did my graduate degree that idea was drilled into us. It’s your job as a scientist to try and tear apart what other scientists say. If they can defend their conclusions under such questioning then that advanced the science. If they can't, then it's not a very good conclusion.

icelancer 4y ago

>> The fact that researchers can and will speak out against consensus is exactly why I do “trust science.” This becomes more and more rare as the science becomes politicized, as we saw with COVID-19. Recommending against masks early, then justifying it post-hoc with the noble lie theory, over-promising what vaccines could do, lack of research into air filtration/sterilization, etc. Speaking out against these became a very difficult thing to do for someone in power with a lot to lose.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
>Recommending against masks early ... lack of research into air filtration/sterilization, etc. Speaking out against these became a very difficult thing to do for someone in power with a lot to lose. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=air+filtration+covid&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=air... https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=masks+covid+19&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=mas... The Scholar results do not support your claim.

refurb 4y ago

Precisely, but saying “trust the science” just reinforces the status quo. The very core of science is the idea that a theory is correct because it can stand up to extreme scrutiny. When I did my graduate degree that idea was drilled into us. It’s your job as a scientist to try and tear apart what other scientists say. If they can defend their conclusions under such questioning then that advanced the science. If they can't, then it's not a very good conclusion.