Current Events > Always trust "science"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Science is constantly evolving with a lot of trial and error. What we believed to be true or safe years ago can be disproven. Likewise, things we believe to be true or safe now may be disproven in years to come. In 60 years, we will look back and be shocked at just how dumb we were back in 2021. A thing like the coronavirus may be quickly wiped out in 2080. Such is the progression of science.

As opposed to religion which enforces outdated beliefs and practices despite evidence that they dont work, are untrue or unsafe.

---

The entire basis of science is distrust of the accepted thought

Thats not science. Thats malicious advertising. Those companies knew damn well their shit was poison.

---

Flauros posted...

Thats not science. Thats malicious advertising. Those companies knew damn well their shit was poison.

This

---

Flauros posted...

Thats not science. Thats malicious advertising. Those companies knew damn well their shit was poison.

They were too stupid to have figured that kinda shit in those days though >_>


---

---

There were also scientists who claimed that Black people had fewer pain receptors and more endurant skulls than White people. This "science" was used to justify racist carnival games where Black men were paid to dodge baseballs.

fuming posted...

The entire basis of science is distrust of the accepted thought

That's not true lol.

---

That's not science. That's marketing. Science is a process
---

Science at least evolves.

I always hate when people use the phrase settled science

coh posted...

I always hate when people use the phrase settled science

No theres no such thing as settled science. Whatever it is, we know more than we did before and will know more later than we do now.

---

And if we didnt believe in science, we would still be thinking stars were gods and people loved on the moon

---

coh posted...

I always hate when people use the phrase settled science

i've never seen that phrase

*complains about science being untrustworthy*

*posts screenshots of advertising*

I don't think TC understands what science is.

---

Incredibly shitty topic. Varied quality responses. 7/10

---

Flauros posted...

Thats not science. Thats malicious advertising. Those companies knew damn well their shit was poison.

---

Bass_X0 posted...

In 60 years, we will look back and be shocked at just how dumb we were back in 2021. A thing like the coronavirus may be quickly wiped out in 2080. Such is the progression of science.

I mean there's science and there's "science".

Working out how to create a 90% effective mRNA vaccine in only six months to quickly wipe out the coronavirus is science.

Having mass gatherings / refusing masks & vaccines, ignoring statistics because "studies have shown" masks dont work / gatherings dont spike transmission / the virus is just a Chinese hoax caused by 5G signals etc is "science".

Problem is there are more "scientists" than scientists.

Lol. Literally.

---

Any science actually worth the name has a repeatable methodology. Putting some words supporting your product is an advertisement. Advertisement choose what they put on there and, most importantly, what they ignore.

Even if they had actually did some "scientific testing" to prove that yes, pregnant mothers actually crave those cigarettes, the scientific data would only be about craving, not whether it's a good idea. Any credible research on whether cigarettes had a positive long term impact on mothers or children would obviously have said no, that impact is negative. If that research existed (and I assume it did), they obviously wouldn't have picked that for their advertising, rather focusing on the craving.

*trusts politicians and pundits that agree with me instead*

---

KyerWiz posted...

Even if they had actually did some "scientific testing" to prove that yes, pregnant mothers actually crave those cigarettes, the scientific data would only be about craving, not whether it's a good idea. Any credible research on whether cigarettes had a positive long term impact on mothers or children would obviously have said no, that impact is negative. If that research existed (and I assume it did), they obviously wouldn't have picked that for their advertising, rather focusing on the craving.

The thing with tobacco (and oil, and sugar, and a lot of other things) is that corporations did their own research and were always very aware of the detrimental health effects. But since they owned the research they were able to cover it up for a very long time, all while funding denial efforts and bad research

---

Science is a liar sometimes.

---

Science isn't the same as having a dude who is an 'expert' claim things are fine

Southernfatman posted...

Science is a liar sometimes.

Uhhh

---

scar the 1 posted...

Uhhh

It's just an Always Sunny In Philadelphia reference.

---

Southernfatman posted...

It's just an Always Sunny In Philadelphia reference.

Oh my bad, haven't seen that show. I want to like it but they're so loud that watching a single episode just exhausts me

---

scar the 1 posted...

Oh my bad, haven't seen that show. I want to like it but they're so loud that watching a single episode just exhausts me

keep Watching its an acquired taste. But once you acquire it its fucking hilarious.


---

scar the 1 posted...

Oh my bad, haven't seen that show. I want to like it but they're so loud that watching a single episode just exhausts me

It really is one of the most consistently hilarious shows ever made.

https://i.imgur.com/Xekcfvi.gif

COVxy posted...

That's not true lol.

It is. The scientific method is based on trying to disprove your hypothesis by proving the null hypothesis. It's only if you can't prove the null hypothesis that confidence in your original hypothesis is then strengthened.

---

EmbraceOfDeath posted...

It is. The scientific method is based on trying to disprove your hypothesis by proving the null hypothesis. It's only if you can't prove the null hypothesis that confidence in your original hypothesis is then strengthened.

No serious epistemologist has thought that falsificationism is what uniquely defines science for about a century

EDIT: And furthermore, falsification of the null hypothesis has very little to do with rejecting accepted thought

---

EmbraceOfDeath posted...

It is. The scientific method is based on trying to disprove your hypothesis by proving the null hypothesis. It's only if you can't prove the null hypothesis that confidence in your original hypothesis is then strengthened.

Several things.

1. This is a bit unrelated to what that poster said. Usually people start from what is well known and accepted because they have very strong priors. That is the opposite of "distrust in accepted thought"
2. That's not really the way falsification works. While it's generally a good way to do science, the reason why it's clearly not the only way to gather evidence is highlighted by your error. You never "prove" the null. In a hypothesis testing framework, you find evidence that is either consistent with the stated null, or inconsistent. Just as you can show that evidence is consistent with the null, you can show that it is consistent with a stated hypothesis, and both conditions carry evidentiary weight. I have a really good reference that discusses this pretty exhaustively if you are interested to read more about it.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q1Zver84Q4

---