3 ms·
This is exactly what I mean. Science is not a religion. It is not a faith. Calling it that betrays a lack of understanding of the scientific method. The scienti
by dubfan 13y ago
This is exactly what I mean. Science is not a religion. It is not a faith. Calling it that betrays a lack of understanding of the scientific method. The scientific method is not perfect and there are worrisome trends in modern practices of science (see the recent story about p-values being misused) but this is the sort of thinking that leads people to believe in nonsense like psychics, dowsing, homeopathy, anti-vaccine propaganda, etc.
- kungpooey 13y agoThen in regards to time and effort invested, I would say many of the very critical parties I've met are doing it right. Scientist by-and-large are doing it wrong, in my opinion. There are parties still upheld by the climate debate which still refuse to share the data and methods they used to declare their findings. I don't care which side of the fence you're on, that's bullshit and can only be evidence of manipulation.
- actsasbuffoon 13y ago> can only be evidence of manipulation. That statement is a non-sequitur. It _could_ be interpreted as evidence of manipulation, but that's hardly the only possible explanation. As much as we all wish science was given all the funding it needs and scientists wouldn't have to resort to hoarding information to protect their turf, that's not the world we live in.