This might be heresy, but I feel like saying that “science isn’t truth, it’s the search for truth”, and “if you disagree it’s not a disagreement, you’re just wrong” is internally inconsistent.
It needs to be “if you disagree without evidence.”
They can leave that whole “if you’re not a scientist” bit in the rubbish bin.
If you disagree without evidence, you’re not wrong. You can propose an alternative theory that is consistent with existing evidence and it’s just as valid as anybody else’s. The mission is then to find evidence which disproves one theory or the other.
Conjecture is fundamental.
The “you” here is misleading. Consider any scientific field, then now consider all the people you know. How many people do you know, if any, who can propose a theory that is equally valid compared to scientific consensus on some topic in that field? It’s unlikely most people are friends with Aristotle or the like or are themselves in that boat.
Is it theoretically possible? Sure. Is it more likely that you or I or the stranger who fills this theoretical situation is actually an over confident moron? Overwhelmingly yes lol.
Without new evidence, disagreeing with established science is being wrong. Young earth creationists are wrong because they have no new evidence to contradict established science. Even thoigh the age of the earth was scientifically calculated multiple times and could be revised again with new evidence, flat earthers are wrong because conjecture about existing knowlege without evidence is just being wrong.
I disagree lol.
This is conflating science and expertise, but it’s probably still closer to valid than only “disagree without evidence”. A person with no background on the area of interest (or science in general) is likely not to even understand what constitutes evidence of a claim. The set of non scientist people who can produce a reliable body of evidence disproving a theory that has not been found by experts in the same field is likely so small as to be negligible compared to the set of non scientist people with “evidence” from Facebook/other who are in fact just wrong.
No, that’s the point. Disagreeing is already part of the scientific method. To disagree with science as a whole is to argue with the method, not the findings.
Imagine two explorers searching for a lost ancient ruins. They come to a path running north/south. One says to go north and the other says south. That’s a disagreement. They are both still explorers seeking discovery.
A third observer sees them arguing and says “Ah, you don’t know the way. We should not be seeking ruins because I already know what is there. I was told in a dream that the ruins were made by Bigfoot, and he made them invisible and impossible to see. Searching is futile, but I can draw you a map from what I already know is there.”
That’s not a third opinion of equal validity. It’s not even a disagreement. It’s just being wrong.
I once had a colleague who was raised to live by the bible, never questioning it. He was also a massive shitposter. No matter what dumb shit he said, he’d always say that it was just a joke.
Well, one of the few times when I genuinely caught him off guard, was when I explained that science did not actually claim to know the one and only truth. That it wanted to be proven wrong.
I think, that idea itself conflicted with his whole world view. Like, I imagine, his parents also raised him to never question their authority.
Which is why my father will die alone and without love. You do not demand authority, you earn it, and you better recognize when you’re being an asshole to your adult children. Also, don’t molest my niece and lie to the cops.
We believe her and he’s a piece of shit. Don’t be sorry for me and she’s doing great! She’s got a lot of supportive and loving uncles. It’s crazy how fucking common the crime is and how a grown man can just… Tell the cops, it didn’t happen. Case closed.
I feel like this is a very “shoplifting, public intoxication, nuclear warfare, and jaywalking” way to present things.
As a young scientist who’s yet to gain PhD:
Absolutely do challenge scientists, no matter your qualification. Sometimes (granted, that’s rare) you might be right.
Just do it in a respectful way and make sure you check your arguments.
Also, while scientists are generally more educated overall, they can absolutely be foolish in what falls outside their scope. “I’m a scientist” is not a valid argument.
And yes, always check for a conflict of interest.
There is a difference between informed skepticism and motivated skepticism or skepticism from ignorance. Informed skepticism is good. That’s what solid science is based on. Being skeptical because the conclusions don’t align with what you believe or because you don’t actually understand what is going on is bad.
Even motivated skepticism can be just fine with appropriate rigor and the clarity to see when evidence does or does not back up what you’re saying. (Heliocentrism is a good example.)
Skeptics are a big reason why I don’t argue with people on the internet anymore, some people will literally only accept evidence if it supports their world view, anything that doesn’t “Must be fake”, and the only explanation they give is throwing around insults…
I’d probably still have a working Reddit account if I learned that sooner, ah well…
That’s something I wish more people would actually give some thought to. As someone from a group who gets discussed ad nauseum in the media it really is the case that a lot of the skeptical people that become our problem really don’t have a personal data point for us. So many assumptions are made with things we theorize about but do not personally know. For us it can become plain very quickly when someone has never really interacted directly with us and are just operating on assumptions. I think the world is generally a better place when one is willing to be humble about what they choose to be skeptical about. Admitting to yourself and others that something is at present and maybe forever beyond your ken isn’t a weakness. It’s a strength.
This sounds like what a lot of neurodivergent people like myself deal with. eg. ADHD, Autism etc. Lots of people talking on our behalf that aren’t actually neurodivergent themselves.
This ^
I actually find myself skeptical of skeptics these days, I feel like we’ve gone from questioning bad science to “An incessant need to be right and fuel that ego, without letting things like conflicting evidence get in the way of a perfectly solid pre-established worldview.”
My favorite example is Gregor Mendel. He wasn’t a scientist. He was a monk with no degrees of any kind. But he did science—legendary science—which means he actually was a scientist.
I’d say he was a scientist - just not part of academia :)
We have to separate science and academia, especially when we talk about the past.
To my understanding, he also very conveniently fudged a few of his experiments so that they would align with his other ones and ended up embellishing his final result, but also if he hadn’t done that he wouldn’t have discovered Mendelian genes? Not sure if that’s a win or a loss for science.
It’s always important to remember that something can be obvious to a layman, but be considered ridiculous by an expert, as the expert’s view is likely rigid and unlikely to deviate from their experience.
This does not mean experts are morons (They’re considered experts for a damn good reason). it simply means an outsider perspective can be valuable from time to time.
It’s not entirely wrong. There is absolutely a bias in what gets studied simply because it requires money to be given to study most things. For example, it’s why some more natural remedies like taking fish oil to help lower cholesterol took so long to have actual scientific backing; there’s no money in widely available remedies so finding funding to do the study was difficult.
You can see this really clearly if you look at more politicized areas, like economics. And for what it’s worth, it doesn’t mean that the evidence that’s generated is bad (although the conclusions drawn from it may be), but that it results in a lack of evidence for opposing viewpoints.
All those studies being funded by mars to make chocolate seem healthy. it was on last week tonight
The part which annoys me is about intentions.
Sure, lobby groups do pay off some people with a PhD to lie for them (Patrick Moore), that’s not up for debate.
But to imply that this is the norm is just ignorant of how research is conducted.
Most scientists are either employed by a company, working towards a very specific, non contentious goal (like developing cold fusion), or are involved in research at a university, paid for in grants by their government to research whatever has been approved as worthy of investigation.
Nobody is pressuring these researchers to find evidence to support any particular agenda, the chips land where they fall. There’s no fat cat smoking a cigar telling the climate science team at their local university that they need to find more evidence to crash the petrol stocks so they can sell more solar panels.
Nobody? There are quite a few counter examples. Cigarette and fossil fuel companies have done this quite a lot.
There is no need to actually bribe researchers. IT is much more effective to find some that happen to already be in your favor and boost their signal.
Say that out of 100 scientists of the relevant field, 90 think your product is toxic, two think your product is perfectly safe, and the remaining eight think that the evidence is not strong and/or significant enough to determine the product’s danger. Because as much as we’ve wished science to be clear-cut and deterministic, and as much as the scientific method tries to root it out, human’s opinions and prejudices will always have some effect. Maybe after many decades science will reach a (near) 100% consensus - but your product is still new, so disagreement can still be found.
You can try to bribe these 98 scientists to say that your product is safe, but that’s a risky move because even if a handful of them has some conscious they can go public with it and you’ll have to deal with bad PR. So instead, you reach out to the two scientists that already think that it is safe. You fund their research, so that they can publish more papers. You send them to conferences all around the world, so that they can talk to other scientists and to journalists and spread their opinion on your product. You get your marketing/PR/social media teams to increase the reach of their publications.
These two scientists are not being “pressured” - they can still honestly claim that their belief in your product is not a result of the money you spend on them, and that will be true. The thing that is a result of the money you spend on them is their impact. These 90 scientists that warn against your product can’t conduct as many researches, because they need to find funding for these researches themselves. They can’t go to as many conferences, because they don’t have anyone working their connections to get them invited (and to pay for their flight tickets). They don’t have professional promoters advertising their findings.
So even though only two scientists support you while 90 oppose you, these two scientists have - thanks to your money - more impact on the public opinion than these 90.
All without any scientist having to utter a single lie.
