3 ms·

It is very frustrating that I cannot safely critique this, there are many flaws/untruths.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
You want to critique the scientific method? Because it is flawed? And not sure how to? Where to start? Sure, scientific research has its issues. Models aren't always as exact as 'reality'. Testing methodologies could be flawed. Various assumptions could be incorrect. And even proved wrong in future testing. The point is, it is a process, and all results can be re-evaluated, re-tested. But nobody is believing something that was proved false. Something was proved false, but "I'm going to ignore the science and just believe what I want". Which is what a lot of Covid and Climate conspiracy theorist do.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > You want to critique the scientific method? Because it is flawed? Yes, which is consistent with the scientific method, by definition at least. > And not sure how to? Where to start? I have a very long list of ideas, the vast majority of which I've borrowed from various domains, science being one of them (the very idea of the scientific method, abstractly, is very powerful, and can be applied in a variety of ways over and above what science currently does). > Sure, scientific research has its issues. > Models aren't always as exact as 'reality'. Agree, but there is a true/false binary representation, and then there is the degree to which these things are true, and more! This tends to not be of interest though. > But nobody is believing something that was proved false. I am opposed to practicing logic using technically misinformative figures of speech like this. > Something was proved false, but "I'm going to ignore the science and just believe what I want". Which is what a lot of Covid and Climate conspiracy theorist do. Agreed[1], but here is something everyone does: believes that what seems true, is true. Our culture teaches us to think in binary, which is a dangerous form of logic when applied to non-binary domains, like reality. [1] Though, how much worse are they, in fact, compared to those who suffer from normative cognition? And perhaps even more important: how many individuals are in each set? Which set causes more harm? Where should our critical attention be?
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    I think that these comments are getting us closer. I'm not disagreeing with these more nuanced takes on science. The key is 'nuanced'. In the general public, the 'right' is generally 'against science' and 'truth'. They will blatantly state as such. I agree, not everything is always binary True/False, and culture can influence these. But in todays world, it is hard to discuss something with a lot of gray area. Also. Seems like you might be playing at language games some. Really, if we pick everything apart enough, nothing means anything.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > Also. Seems like you might be playing at language games some. See the distinction between murder and manslaughter (is it me who is playing language games?). > Really, if we pick everything apart enough, nothing means anything. Which seems counterintuitive to me, since science's ability and willingness to dig ever deeper (even years after any success has been achieved) is what sets it apart from most other disciplines. What's funny is that the very same methodology applied to the metaphysical realm can cause opinions on whether that is a good idea to flip, as is happening here and is getting me into trouble.

You want to critique the scientific method? Because it is flawed? And not sure how to? Where to start? Sure, scientific research has its issues. Models aren't always as exact as 'reality'. Testing methodologies could be flawed. Various assumptions could be incorrect. And even proved wrong in future testing. The point is, it is a process, and all results can be re-evaluated, re-tested. But nobody is believing something that was proved false. Something was proved false, but "I'm going to ignore the science and just believe what I want". Which is what a lot of Covid and Climate conspiracy theorist do.

mistermann 3y ago
> You want to critique the scientific method? Because it is flawed? Yes, which is consistent with the scientific method, by definition at least. > And not sure how to? Where to start? I have a very long list of ideas, the vast majority of which I've borrowed from various domains, science being one of them (the very idea of the scientific method, abstractly, is very powerful, and can be applied in a variety of ways over and above what science currently does). > Sure, scientific research has its issues. > Models aren't always as exact as 'reality'. Agree, but there is a true/false binary representation, and then there is the degree to which these things are true, and more! This tends to not be of interest though. > But nobody is believing something that was proved false. I am opposed to practicing logic using technically misinformative figures of speech like this. > Something was proved false, but "I'm going to ignore the science and just believe what I want". Which is what a lot of Covid and Climate conspiracy theorist do. Agreed[1], but here is something everyone does: believes that what seems true, is true. Our culture teaches us to think in binary, which is a dangerous form of logic when applied to non-binary domains, like reality. [1] Though, how much worse are they, in fact, compared to those who suffer from normative cognition? And perhaps even more important: how many individuals are in each set? Which set causes more harm? Where should our critical attention be?
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  I think that these comments are getting us closer. I'm not disagreeing with these more nuanced takes on science. The key is 'nuanced'. In the general public, the 'right' is generally 'against science' and 'truth'. They will blatantly state as such. I agree, not everything is always binary True/False, and culture can influence these. But in todays world, it is hard to discuss something with a lot of gray area. Also. Seems like you might be playing at language games some. Really, if we pick everything apart enough, nothing means anything.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > Also. Seems like you might be playing at language games some. See the distinction between murder and manslaughter (is it me who is playing language games?). > Really, if we pick everything apart enough, nothing means anything. Which seems counterintuitive to me, since science's ability and willingness to dig ever deeper (even years after any success has been achieved) is what sets it apart from most other disciplines. What's funny is that the very same methodology applied to the metaphysical realm can cause opinions on whether that is a good idea to flip, as is happening here and is getting me into trouble.