4 ms·

> Scientists don’t make claims without evidence. History has shown that to not be true. > Scientists are generally very curious, open to exploration In my ex

by bmitc 2y ago

> Scientists don’t make claims without evidence. History has shown that to not be true. > Scientists are generally very curious, open to exploration In my experience, it is the opposite. I often find scientists are in fact very uncurious when it comes to anything outside their domain of choice.

toenail 2y ago
> History has shown that to not be true. [citation needed]
- bmitc 2y ago
  To not always be true. It's a little hard to cite hundreds of years of science history. But one of the big examples is general relativity, from many aspects. Many scientists simply didn't believe it (yes, the word "believe"). One could follow the theoretical arguments, which were sound, but many didn't want to. Even once evidence started coming in, many still didn't believe it. It took many decades for general relativity to be broadly accepted, and now today, it's one of the most tested and verified theories. The book Black Hole: How an Idea Abandoned by Newtonians, Hated by Einstein, and Gambled on by Hawking Became Loved is a pretty good one that covers various components of this story, in particular focusing on black holes. There's far more belief and bias in science than the science community will admit to.
- umvi 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - toenail 2y ago
    Covid is not a scientist who lied.
    - umvi 2y ago
      There were tons of claims about the efficacy of masks at different points in the pandemic. Masks went from being ineffective, to super effective, to marginally effective (depending on material used) in a matter of months. Various scientists and talking heads (such as Dr. Fauci) appeared on television and promoted the claims with little to no evidence.
- callalex 2y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
netcan 2y ago
There are definitely examples of individuals, institutions and such not living up to expectations. That said, a "black pill" conclusion that the precise opposite is universally true is even sillier. Going back to the context... I think scientists, linguists, musicologists and others have in fact been very curious about cetacean "language" over the decades. There is a hesitation to make "big claims," but that's appropriate... imo.
- bmitc 2y ago
  I thought it would be implied, but I meant "not always true". Regarding intelligence, it's an interesting thing. I'm not sure I understand that assuming animals, in particular cetaceans, to be intelligent requires a "big claim". In fact, it's basically a big claim to assume they are not intelligent. Intelligence is a spectrum, and it does indeed seem to be the case that humans, in general, start from one extreme of that spectrum in assuming that all intelligence needs to be proven. For cetaceans, it's a bit mindboggling at this point that people are still surprised by their intelligence. Cetacean brains are huge and deeply folded. If you simply look at a whale brain versus a human brain, once would guess that the whale brain is from the more intelligent species. Yes, whales are bigger and thus dictate a larger brain to operate, but it isn't clear what that scaling relationship actually is. And whales are well known to be some of the emotionally evolved creatures on Earth, so it continues to surprise me that there is this hidden assumption that they need to be proven to be intelligent. At this point, it would seem the burden of proof should be on those who think they are not intelligent. In my opinion, part of the bias is in our own unintelligence. For us to consider something intelligent, it seems we require burden of proof such that the "other" intelligence is related back to our own. However, this completely precludes the perspective and perhaps even discovery of there being different intelligences. For example, the part of the brain related to emotional intelligence in whales dwarfs our own, all relative to the rest of the brain. Thus, it might be hard or even impossible for us to understand such emotional intelligence. This is actually where I think the science might be tunnel visioned. There needs to be more thought put into what intelligence actually is such that we might recognize intelligence that isn't like our own.
jll29 2y ago
You could say it like this: "GOOD scientists are very curious." In fact, the best try to remain child-like in attitude, i.e. being able to be in awe about nature, which adults tend to "unlearn".

by bmitc 2y ago

toenail 2y ago

> History has shown that to not be true. [citation needed]

bmitc 2y ago
To not always be true. It's a little hard to cite hundreds of years of science history. But one of the big examples is general relativity, from many aspects. Many scientists simply didn't believe it (yes, the word "believe"). One could follow the theoretical arguments, which were sound, but many didn't want to. Even once evidence started coming in, many still didn't believe it. It took many decades for general relativity to be broadly accepted, and now today, it's one of the most tested and verified theories. The book Black Hole: How an Idea Abandoned by Newtonians, Hated by Einstein, and Gambled on by Hawking Became Loved is a pretty good one that covers various components of this story, in particular focusing on black holes. There's far more belief and bias in science than the science community will admit to.
umvi 2y ago
[flagged]
- toenail 2y ago
  Covid is not a scientist who lied.
  - umvi 2y ago
    There were tons of claims about the efficacy of masks at different points in the pandemic. Masks went from being ineffective, to super effective, to marginally effective (depending on material used) in a matter of months. Various scientists and talking heads (such as Dr. Fauci) appeared on television and promoted the claims with little to no evidence.
callalex 2y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

netcan 2y ago

There are definitely examples of individuals, institutions and such not living up to expectations. That said, a "black pill" conclusion that the precise opposite is universally true is even sillier. Going back to the context... I think scientists, linguists, musicologists and others have in fact been very curious about cetacean "language" over the decades. There is a hesitation to make "big claims," but that's appropriate... imo.

bmitc 2y ago
I thought it would be implied, but I meant "not always true". Regarding intelligence, it's an interesting thing. I'm not sure I understand that assuming animals, in particular cetaceans, to be intelligent requires a "big claim". In fact, it's basically a big claim to assume they are not intelligent. Intelligence is a spectrum, and it does indeed seem to be the case that humans, in general, start from one extreme of that spectrum in assuming that all intelligence needs to be proven. For cetaceans, it's a bit mindboggling at this point that people are still surprised by their intelligence. Cetacean brains are huge and deeply folded. If you simply look at a whale brain versus a human brain, once would guess that the whale brain is from the more intelligent species. Yes, whales are bigger and thus dictate a larger brain to operate, but it isn't clear what that scaling relationship actually is. And whales are well known to be some of the emotionally evolved creatures on Earth, so it continues to surprise me that there is this hidden assumption that they need to be proven to be intelligent. At this point, it would seem the burden of proof should be on those who think they are not intelligent. In my opinion, part of the bias is in our own unintelligence. For us to consider something intelligent, it seems we require burden of proof such that the "other" intelligence is related back to our own. However, this completely precludes the perspective and perhaps even discovery of there being different intelligences. For example, the part of the brain related to emotional intelligence in whales dwarfs our own, all relative to the rest of the brain. Thus, it might be hard or even impossible for us to understand such emotional intelligence. This is actually where I think the science might be tunnel visioned. There needs to be more thought put into what intelligence actually is such that we might recognize intelligence that isn't like our own.

jll29 2y ago

You could say it like this: "GOOD scientists are very curious." In fact, the best try to remain child-like in attitude, i.e. being able to be in awe about nature, which adults tend to "unlearn".