7 ms·

I couldn't agree more. Widespread belief in 'the science' is no different to any other cargo cult. One should either know whatever-it-is because one has verif

I couldn't agree more. Widespread belief in 'the science' is no different to any other cargo cult. One should either know whatever-it-is because one has verified it, or one should be able to express one's assumptions re one's hypothesis. Social beliefs ought to have no part of it. Objective truth is not uncovered by consensus.

themitigating 3y ago
Science is different from religion in that it could be wrong and the basis is empirical tests. Religion is never wrong, faith is believing without evidence, and religion doesn't test it claims
- AnonCoward42 3y ago
  That is a game of motte and bailey really. The hard definition of science is another than the one we've seen over the years in mass media.
  - themitigating 3y ago
    The "mass media" is not one organization. I haven't seen any news reports redefining what science is, feel free to provide evidence of that. Finally it's not a game of definitions because science has a specific meaning. You can't just change that meaning (even if you add a captial S) then be critical about it. You're critical because some organization in the government lied? Nothing to do with science You're mad because some scientist committed fraud? Nothing to do with science. Peer reviewers aren't properly checking papers, that's their fault and or their university/company. Nothing to do with science. The majority of scientists believed something through experiments that were faulty or limited data then later turned out to be wrong? That's how it works, science isn't perfect but what's the alternative? If you aren't an expert in a field or willing to put massive amounts of time in researching something but you have to make a decision doing whatever the majority of people in a field say is the most logical course of action
    - eastbound 3y ago
      > You're critical because some organization in the government lied? I’m critical because it’s systemic. And made in the name of science. For all intents and purposes, this is the science we’re subjugated to. > You're mad because some scientist committed fraud? Again, critical because it’s systemic and people have lost their jobs, entire families had to move regions because the father expressed doubts about a scientist, to be later revealed that doubts were correct. The amount of harm done over this science is unbearable to see.
      - themitigating 3y ago
        "critical because it’s systemic" Good, I would hope the government basis it decisions on science. "people have lost their jobs," I assume you mean people who didn't get vaccinated. That's their decision, a decision based on misinformation, emotions, or politics. "because the father expressed doubts about a scientist, to be later revealed that doubts were correct" What what were his doubts based on? Just because he later turned out to be right means nothing unless his claims were based on something substantial. "The amount of harm done over this science is unbearable to see." Covid killed 1.2 million people in the US. Your right wing self inflicted suffering over vaccines means nothing compared to this.
        eastbound 3y ago
        You see, you’re doing it again. Science can be perfectly faked. Mostly happens when people get over the top about it. Trying putting uppercase “You guys killed 1.2m people, you murderers”. If I find a single bike accident among the number you shamed me with, then all your accusation falls in shambles. Stop screaming numbers at people as if they were true. What you’re doing is not science, it’s screaming.
        themitigating 3y ago
        "Stop screaming numbers at people as if they were true. What you’re doing is not science, it’s screaming." Even if 50% of those deaths are incorrect the number is massive. I'm relaying stasticis by saying I'm screaming you're trying to counter my argument with an unrelated attack. "Science can be perfectly faked" Yes it can, is that happened here? Did doctors around the county all decide to lie for the purpose of? What evidence do you have it's fake?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- b800h 3y ago
  > Religion is never wrong That is complete rubbish. There are plenty of examples from East and West. In certain parts of China, rival monasteries would have a throwdown over theology, hold a debate, and the losing monastery would convert. The difference is that Theology can take personal experience as a logical prior, and work from there. Often that is the grappling hook thrown over a chasm which allows a bridge to be built to a new level of understanding. A bit like the way that infinitesimals are used as a device in the derivation of calculus.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    One of the great (if unfortunate) advances in human society was the discovery that “personal experience” is a very unreliable way to learn about the world.
    - b800h 3y ago
      And yet it mediates your entire existence. Without both objective (or analytical) science and subjective (or holistic) theology we're trying to understand the world with one hand tied behind our backs. Personally I think understanding the story should carry equal (or greater) weight when compared to examining the letters and paint used to write it.
      - themitigating 3y ago
        By saying you have one hand behind your back you're implying holistic subjective theology has value. Why does it have value? "Personally I think understanding the story should carry equal (or greater) weight when compared to examining the letters and paint used to write it." Why?
        b800h 3y ago
        Because it has meaning to me.
        3y ago
themitigating 3y ago
Define "Social beliefs"
fasterik 3y ago
The problem is that nobody can verify the truth of every statement for themselves. Reality is too complex and no individual person has the time or the resources. For the vast majority of our beliefs, we have to rely on the consensus of experts, and that actually works really well. That doesn't mean science is perfect. But look at the theories that allow us to build a CPU with 50 billion transistors or a rocket that can go to the moon and tell me there isn't objective truth there.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  When I worked on the design of the 757, we knew it was going to fly.
- oneshtein 3y ago
  It works until it doesn't. «Hey, science community, look: I did an experiment and it disproves X, so everything you build on top of X is flawed too. Start from scratch, please!». Science community: «fck off». For example: Michelson-Morley experiment — disproved by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav.
  - i_no_can_eat 3y ago
    > For example: Michelson-Morley experiment — disproved by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav. Care to elaborate?
    - oneshtein 3y ago
      Michelson-Morley experiment found no changes in speed of light at all. Nothing. Zero fluctuations. These fluctuations of speed of light were found much later, by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav. The flaw of Michelson-Morley experiment is that it was performed in isolated environment, but tried to measure an external effect. Imagine that we want to measure atmospheric circulation in the same way: by measuring speed of wind in an closely isolated and insulated room: it's impossible. However, Michelson-Morley experiment is one of corner stones for theory of Relativity. > This incongruous result puzzled the physicists of the world until 1905 when Einstein published his theory of relativity. Viewed in the light of Einstein's revolutionary work, the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were not only predictable, but provided experimental confirmation of Einstein's theory.

themitigating 3y ago

Science is different from religion in that it could be wrong and the basis is empirical tests. Religion is never wrong, faith is believing without evidence, and religion doesn't test it claims

AnonCoward42 3y ago
That is a game of motte and bailey really. The hard definition of science is another than the one we've seen over the years in mass media.
- themitigating 3y ago
  The "mass media" is not one organization. I haven't seen any news reports redefining what science is, feel free to provide evidence of that. Finally it's not a game of definitions because science has a specific meaning. You can't just change that meaning (even if you add a captial S) then be critical about it. You're critical because some organization in the government lied? Nothing to do with science You're mad because some scientist committed fraud? Nothing to do with science. Peer reviewers aren't properly checking papers, that's their fault and or their university/company. Nothing to do with science. The majority of scientists believed something through experiments that were faulty or limited data then later turned out to be wrong? That's how it works, science isn't perfect but what's the alternative? If you aren't an expert in a field or willing to put massive amounts of time in researching something but you have to make a decision doing whatever the majority of people in a field say is the most logical course of action
  - eastbound 3y ago
    > You're critical because some organization in the government lied? I’m critical because it’s systemic. And made in the name of science. For all intents and purposes, this is the science we’re subjugated to. > You're mad because some scientist committed fraud? Again, critical because it’s systemic and people have lost their jobs, entire families had to move regions because the father expressed doubts about a scientist, to be later revealed that doubts were correct. The amount of harm done over this science is unbearable to see.
    - themitigating 3y ago
      "critical because it’s systemic" Good, I would hope the government basis it decisions on science. "people have lost their jobs," I assume you mean people who didn't get vaccinated. That's their decision, a decision based on misinformation, emotions, or politics. "because the father expressed doubts about a scientist, to be later revealed that doubts were correct" What what were his doubts based on? Just because he later turned out to be right means nothing unless his claims were based on something substantial. "The amount of harm done over this science is unbearable to see." Covid killed 1.2 million people in the US. Your right wing self inflicted suffering over vaccines means nothing compared to this.
      - eastbound 3y ago
        You see, you’re doing it again. Science can be perfectly faked. Mostly happens when people get over the top about it. Trying putting uppercase “You guys killed 1.2m people, you murderers”. If I find a single bike accident among the number you shamed me with, then all your accusation falls in shambles. Stop screaming numbers at people as if they were true. What you’re doing is not science, it’s screaming.
        themitigating 3y ago
        "Stop screaming numbers at people as if they were true. What you’re doing is not science, it’s screaming." Even if 50% of those deaths are incorrect the number is massive. I'm relaying stasticis by saying I'm screaming you're trying to counter my argument with an unrelated attack. "Science can be perfectly faked" Yes it can, is that happened here? Did doctors around the county all decide to lie for the purpose of? What evidence do you have it's fake?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
b800h 3y ago
> Religion is never wrong That is complete rubbish. There are plenty of examples from East and West. In certain parts of China, rival monasteries would have a throwdown over theology, hold a debate, and the losing monastery would convert. The difference is that Theology can take personal experience as a logical prior, and work from there. Often that is the grappling hook thrown over a chasm which allows a bridge to be built to a new level of understanding. A bit like the way that infinitesimals are used as a device in the derivation of calculus.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  One of the great (if unfortunate) advances in human society was the discovery that “personal experience” is a very unreliable way to learn about the world.
  - b800h 3y ago
    And yet it mediates your entire existence. Without both objective (or analytical) science and subjective (or holistic) theology we're trying to understand the world with one hand tied behind our backs. Personally I think understanding the story should carry equal (or greater) weight when compared to examining the letters and paint used to write it.
    - themitigating 3y ago
      By saying you have one hand behind your back you're implying holistic subjective theology has value. Why does it have value? "Personally I think understanding the story should carry equal (or greater) weight when compared to examining the letters and paint used to write it." Why?
      - b800h 3y ago
        Because it has meaning to me.
        3y ago

themitigating 3y ago

Define "Social beliefs"

fasterik 3y ago

The problem is that nobody can verify the truth of every statement for themselves. Reality is too complex and no individual person has the time or the resources. For the vast majority of our beliefs, we have to rely on the consensus of experts, and that actually works really well. That doesn't mean science is perfect. But look at the theories that allow us to build a CPU with 50 billion transistors or a rocket that can go to the moon and tell me there isn't objective truth there.

WalterBright 3y ago
When I worked on the design of the 757, we knew it was going to fly.
oneshtein 3y ago
It works until it doesn't. «Hey, science community, look: I did an experiment and it disproves X, so everything you build on top of X is flawed too. Start from scratch, please!». Science community: «fck off». For example: Michelson-Morley experiment — disproved by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav.
- i_no_can_eat 3y ago
  > For example: Michelson-Morley experiment — disproved by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav. Care to elaborate?
  - oneshtein 3y ago
    Michelson-Morley experiment found no changes in speed of light at all. Nothing. Zero fluctuations. These fluctuations of speed of light were found much later, by LIGO/VIRGO and NANOGrav. The flaw of Michelson-Morley experiment is that it was performed in isolated environment, but tried to measure an external effect. Imagine that we want to measure atmospheric circulation in the same way: by measuring speed of wind in an closely isolated and insulated room: it's impossible. However, Michelson-Morley experiment is one of corner stones for theory of Relativity. > This incongruous result puzzled the physicists of the world until 1905 when Einstein published his theory of relativity. Viewed in the light of Einstein's revolutionary work, the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were not only predictable, but provided experimental confirmation of Einstein's theory.