4 ms·
Plus something being proven by a study, even if well done, still doesn't necessarily prove anything. It generally requires replication to confirm. People have t
by tsol 4y ago
Plus something being proven by a study, even if well done, still doesn't necessarily prove anything. It generally requires replication to confirm. People have this idea that if they find a study that says something and it looks very legit, it must be true. But studies come out and are later found to be flawed or straight up wrong all the time. Primary sources are not a great source of information for most people.
- themitigating 4y ago"But studies come out and are later found to be flawed or straight up wrong all the time." I didn't even think of this. You could be looking at a study that turned out to be disproven or even fraudulent (though maybe those are removed from journals). This is why there are experts in particular fields who keep up to date and should be the source. The problem is the current wave of anti-intellectualism which turns everything into black and white easy to digest situation. A person lies once, don't trust them. A newspaper printed one or more articles that turned out to false, don't trust them. Doesn't matter how long ago or how many other truthful articles, they are done. However, like the GP tried, they don't offer any reasonable solutions to how are you suppose to get reliable information. I wonder if the true goal of some people who push equal mistrust of historically standard sources of information is to make it easier for people to lie.
- thrown_22 4y agoThe current problem is scientism not anti-intellectualism. The number of times I was told that I should shut up about covid because I'm not a epidemiologist was astonishing. What's more I was criticizing their _computer models_ something I do have a degree in.
- themitigating 4y agoWhat is scientism?
- thrown_22 4y agoBlind support of what people think science is without the understanding of what science actually is. If anyone asks you if you "believe in climate change" then you're talking to someone who does not understand science and instead has fallen for scientism. The actual question is "do you understand climate change" since belief is not required.
- themitigating 4y agoThe defintion of belief is "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists." I blindly believe in almost everything in science. For example gravity, I don't understand gravity beyond some of its effects. You think that's strange? Should I say I don't believe in gravity? Belief and understanding are two different things. Let me pivot here and say "in most situations should just believe whatever the majority of experts in a particular field say is true but that has the highest probability of being true"
- themitigating 4y agoFixing the last line Because it has the highest probability if being true
- Eleison23 4y agoIn his book The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, philosopher Alex Rosenberg defends his conviction that “the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything.” His philosophy is called scientism and is held by many of the world’s skeptics. In the spirit of his anti-supernaturalist leanings, Rosenberg asserts that “science provides all the significant truths about reality, and knowing such truths is what real understanding is all about.” In other words: if science can’t prove it, it’s not worth believing. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/science-is-great-but-its-not-always-enough https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/science-is-...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]