It has become all too common to base our opinions based on scientific evidence. The scientific method is undoubtedly the best tool we have to understand the world. The problem is that not all scientists follow the same practices. Scientists are human beings, much like any one of us. They can be biased, make errors, have wrong assumptions and most importantly, they can be manipulated either financially or ideologically. Another major issue is that scientific evidence cannot produce facts. Ever.
Bold statement, right? Allow me to explain myself. When we do a google search and we end up with a research paper that (of course) supports our argument, we are just witnessing the tip of the iceberg. We have no idea about the methodology, funding procedures, ideological frameworks or even whether all those references at the end of the paper belong to a never-ending peer-review circle jerk.
When an experiment is performed we test only a hypothesis. At best, it can demonstrate that in a specific time frame and under those controlled factors, something happens. The "fact" that occurs can only exist in that limited realm which we have allowed it to exist. If for example we examine the rate of accumulation of fat in rats that have been bred in a particular context and have been tested under a specific drug prepared from a lazy grad student then what we will get will be a 'fact' that can be associated only with those constituents.
The reason we see so many drugs producing so many side effects is because each human possesses an entirely different physiology. A chemical compound will react different on them. A rat's DNA, although extremely close to the human genome, cannot by any means be compared. A follow-up human control trial is also dodgy. Most of the tests are produced on poor students that have turned self experimenting into a part time gig. Their physiology cannot be an objective standard.
We like to think of facts as irrefutable truths that most likely are produced from scientific endeavors. This perception though is only but a cultural meme. There are no facts about anything. Everything we know and experience exists under a narrow spectrum of factual relativism.
Scientists might collect evidence that supports or goes against their predictions. They can go on repeating similar processes over and over again in order to see whether or not the same thing occurs. Others can step in and do replication studies so that the findings can be upgraded into theories or laws. This is how we have things like gravity or evolution. At no point though anything has been proven.
Although science has helped us extend our lives with the art of medicine or the applications of engineering, none of those findings are facts. If history has taught as anything is that we are always wrong about what we assume as facts — at least to a degree. What we have have so far is that we make brush generalizations and when we add the human factor our predictions can be way off. Just 100 years ago smoking was considered healthy. Heck, doctors recommended it. Radiation was also considered healthy. 2000 years ago people still believed the earth was the center of everything and the sun went around it. All these past 'facts' used their own line of methods that rhymed in many ways with the one we use today.
source
If our understanding about the world can always be improved then how we can possibly base our opinions on scientific facts? Why do we feel the necessity to do so? Are we performing the experiment? Are we present in the replication study? Why would anyone believe a random person that issues a paper based on the approval of another group? Isn't this how historically the Church and the State controlled information? How can we know if something applies or not when all the evidence in our disposal is nothing but hearsay?
We are so ignorant about some things that our findings are ever more confusing. For example, in regards to food and cancer, everything causes...and prevents cancer. Depends which study one examines. I know, ridiculous but this is as far as our methods can go up to today.
Karl Popper introduced the idea of falsifiability — the equivalent of bullshit-control in science —in order to examine whether an idea can withhold its ground. Falsifiability is the idea that any of those claims can be refuted because there is always an inherent possibility that they could be wrong. Scientific evidence can be assumed as falsifiable if an observation can be made that negates the statement in question.
What we call today as "soft" sciences such as sociology and psychology are bullshit because there is no way to falsify them. Heck, there is no way one can even make proper replication studies. Remember the example with the rat experiment? Now imagine someone volunteering for an experiment in order to evaluate depression. First year he shows up in the morning. The day before he had a fight with his girlfriend and a month earlier his cat died. The same person shows up next year for a replication study. Heck, we can even assume that the same exact "major" events took place but before the experiment he looked at the red tapestry in his new apartment and melancholy took over because it reminded him of his grandma's house. When it comes to people's studies we can never have evidence for anything. Just extremely overgeneralized assumptions.
source
Most of what we call science today is nothing but testing our own conclusions, aka, the opposite of the scientific method. Astrobiology, cosmology, economics and even weather science work much like delusions in plato's cave. We observe something, formulate an idea, and then try to construct an experiment around it so it can confirm our hypothesis. That's similar to finding a hole in the wall and working meticulously to set up a gun with the right diameter, bullets and fire power to replicate that hole effect — an event that could have been made from a drill or someone slowly carving it with erosive chemical compounds.
Do yourself a favor. Next time you are in an argument, try to use your own rational mind in order to speak about something. Unless you were the one making the experiment, anything you say is no different than blind belief in some "lab authority". Claiming "facts" is the equivalent of a spoiled brat that demands approval for no reason whatsoever. Not only they can be refuted with equally abstract evidence, but you end sounding like a cult member reciting from a holy book. Let us not turn science, one of the best tools in our disposal, into a meme of entitlement.
God I love you for this right now Kyriacos. It's SOOO TRUE!!!! The concept of science is almost nearing cult like in-culpability! And so many of the people who are 'at the top' aren't practicing science at all, they're practicing rent seeking. The shit drives me absolute batty. I love what Richard Feynman has to say about it...
That's my kind of scientist! Nothing is certain!
Actually! I was just writing about this today
There's this theory by this scientist Gene McCarthy essentially that human beings are descended from some ancient hybrid between pigs and monkeys, and it's fucking wild. Like who the fuck really knows, but it's damned creepy how much adds up. (you can imagine the kinds of reactions he gets from some scientists, it's also pretty cool to see some really solid support him too)
Anyway, thankyou =) Fucking science as inquiry all the way!!
ps...Does anyone else see megaman in that Cancer plot, or is it just me?
Richard Feynman is the bomb.
lol what? :D
Yeah...I don't know why, but he's just there. heh, maybe I've been on Steem too long!
Boom... Oh my God, you just said everything I've wanted to say in a hundred arguments all rolled into one. This is the best post I've read on Steemit so far, and you are now my favourite. Much love to you!
I know, right? I just tried to talk to someone in he steemit chats yesterday who believes human beings are biologically more inclined to group together by race and that there is something unnatural about "interbreeding". He cited evidence that seemed pretty fallible to me but it had some scientists names on it andserved him well in makin his arguments. I wish I had this article, I was trying to express a very similar sentiment but this was written better!
Oh dear. thank you. glad I reached out to you on that level.
You see? Another one. I'd told you yesterday. They're coming.
hahaha . :-) glad you enjoy them man.
It's still hope.So much intellectual power is coming on steemit. When all this knowledge come together and jump out some day in the future, impact will be huge. Maybe sooner than we thought. Not to mention financial side.
I think sooner than later. Look at that market cap man. i think Steemit will dwarf all other social platforms soon
Exactly. But right now we all focused on financial side of steemit. Which of course is good and necessary. Only few of us can see intellectual potential and consequences of all those fresh brains.
Sorry I'll elaborate a little - I do get so tired of people using science as a be all and end all, it has become a form of religion and it literally is blind faith with the majority of people. They never seem to even consider that science has business interests, and people with agendas funding it. Dogma coming from the top down has never been my thing. I really appreciate your post and am going to keep the link to it for future reference. Thanks so much.
Yeap, I understand where you are coming from. They basically believe in the myth of good vs evil. the dark force vs the jedi. The "bad religion" vs the "good science". the "bad private sector" vs "the good government".
pedantic thought process.
many folks trust external media sources more than their own intuition. more of us need to learn to listen within for the sound of truth.
indeed
Soft science is being used more often to support a belief or political agenda. I believe that climate change is one of those issues. It seam a phenomenal toll for the elite ruling order to spring board a global tax and government. It does not seam to be soundly based on fact but on emotional sentiment to do the 'right' thing and save our world. While real scientists are silenced on the issue and cannot speak out. SHAMEFUL
Yeap. Political agenda seems to be the thing that binds this clusterfuck together.
"It does not seam to be soundly based on fact but on emotional sentiment to do the 'right' thing and save our world. While real scientists are silenced on the issue and cannot speak out. SHAMEFUL"
Did you even try to read any of the numerous papers they publish?
Environmental science is performed across the world, with data collected by numerous nations. What the hell kind of sentiment is this? You just decided to believe that it's rubbish?
Great article.
I just heard a talk from a Sufi scholar a few days ago talking about falsifiability, and how it can be used in spiritual practices. Funny that I have been thinking about it for a few days and now here you are explaining its fallibility. If you haven't already, you should read The Magicians Twin by C.S. Lewis, where he shares his thoughts about Scientism and the almost religious devotion many scientists, especially extremely Atheistic ones have in regard to Science. .
Read it
I am so glad I find guys like you in here. A breath of fresh air.
Thank you. Me too. I am really looking forward to seeing more of your posts.
I think you have a very good point, from a theoretical and scientific point of view. What I find dangerous though, is a tendency of people in the last years to claim the existence of the so called 'alternate facts', in basically any discussion (not you). They also refuse to acknowledge the authority of people who are experts on certain subjects, by claiming that there is not one truth, but that everything is subjective. That might be the case, but if we follow that reasoning into every part of our lives, it will be a chaos.
Just a few examples: the surgeon general says vaccinations don't cause autism, but people deny that he knows what the talks about and refuse to vaccinate their children. Or somebody has cancer, and decides to try alternative medicine, because he doesn't trust doctors and read some study somewhere on the internet that says that alternative medicine can cure cancer. Or worse, there are still people today who claim the earth is flat. We could tell those people, well, it's highly likely that the earth is flat, but we are not sure. That would be a correct statement, but I think our society will benefit from a bit more belief in facts. Perhaps we have to introduce a new concept/word, a statement which is not 100% true, but in 99,999% of the cases.
First off, there is always chaos. Always has been. Order is relative to a certain perspective. Second, I don't dismiss scientific evidence. I just say not to take them at heart. Third, I am not a post-modernist. I am just skeptical about much of the scientific method. Simply, I cannot trust the current academic culture.
Forget about vaccinations (Scroll back in my blog and you will see I support most of them). People, in order to accept something they need evidence. It is hard to take something so complicated at face value. Why would anyone trust anybody because of their position? Should we trust politicians as well or famous people? How is merit really measured these days? These are the real questions.
A society where all people believe in facts delivered to them without researching themselves is doomed.
Should we trust politicians or famous people? Not because of their position, not at all no. Should we trust people that have studied years and years on a certain subject, who can be considered experts, and that for the great majority all agree on one issue? Yes, unless we have strong reasons not to. Many people doubt the opinion of experts without any good reason to do so. If that attitude (or lifestyle even) gets out of hand (and I am exaggerating slightly), schools and universities will be useless, because anytime a teacher tries to teach students any 'facts', students will not believe him because there are no facts.
You will find a nice example of what I mean in this scene of Thank You For Smoking (awesome movie), "Your mommy says you can't smoke? So is your mommy a doctor?"
I remember this one. :)
I do have strong reasons for not believing them at heart. There is too much lobbying in all scientific research nowdays. I know because I have been in academia.
This is true. There is a lot of advertising masked as science. Big Cannabis is a good example.
Authority does exist. You can argue "he says it, and he knows better than I do, so I think that's true". What's not correct is to say "he is an authority, so he cannot be wrong"; obviously authorities are wrong sometimes.
Thank you so much for this. I believe this is the true spirit of science expressed right here. People use science as a weapon to go on crusades for what they want to believe. It's so rare that you can find studies that are not somewhere contradicted and yes, these studies are done by imperfect humans and only represent certain specific circumstances. To ad to that, a lot of studies are funded by corporations that have something to gain or lose by certain findings. Not all good science is going to get attention and not all bad science will be recognized as such.
I believe that personal experience and intuition is equally important in deciding what's true and what's not. Of course there are dangers to just believing "what feels right" but when balanced out with a respect and openness to scientific findings and a kind of (almost agnostic) analytical focus, I think we can go much further in terms of our understanding based on this intuition.
Everyone has something to gain for sure. Many people need to learn to examine life by using their own intuition. relying too much on others is a huge problem.
This advice is downright dangerous. Our intuition does not often match reality anymore. There is a reason you have a frontal lobe - and it's not because intuition is everything.
The opposite is also problematic. Your point? Blind faith to the authority?
Very well said, i have often thought about this topic. This is one of the reasons i want to start posting content. Thank you for your words.
thank you :)
This always make me laugh my ass off
Science is a Liar...Sometimes
Allow me to upvote you fully because this is my favorite show of all time.
You're playing right into his hand. He wanted you to upvote him fully...because of the implication.
I spent all my tech budget on a device to read the mind of @kyriacos and reap full upvotes!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
pinky and the brain episode
another favorite show. the good ones don't last long..even tho Sunny is still kicking
yeap. always fresh
well he didn't actually know beforehand that I fancied the show
I probably should have included this the first time:
oh i think I remember this one
he should have went for the Latina version on this one
This is beautifully put. It reminds me of one of my favorite phrases:
"The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes. Everything else is pure theory".
Exactly. Often, the fact is not that there are many different physical laws, but there are different applications for each law, depending on the scale on which it is measured. For example, electrons can diffract between two nickel atoms, but we cannot diffract between two doors. This is because our wavelength is unimaginably smaller than that of the doors. Sound waves, on the other hand, can easily diffract through doors.
Bear in mind that I will reference your article in several instances :)
Excellent parallelism with the diffraction models.
I will certainly be using yours so feel free to use mine. :)
On a nutshell you just hit the right string , science is a way to explain neutral processes all around us and its core methodology based on assumptions , detections, analysing and come to conclusions anf each step there are a room for errors .
more or less yes.
This is so true. If you wanted to, you could find scientifc evidence to support absolutely any argument.
Yeap. this is what most people fail to understand.
Upvoted and following. Hear hear!! You gained me as a follower from this article. EXACTLY. Do you remember by any chance... back in the late 1990's one of the major magazines, ie, Time or Life, I don't remember. They posted an article that said that it had just been discovered that our physics follows HABITS, not exactly defined laws. There's a huge margin out there for new understanding and discovery.
Hmm, not familiar but I will do a google search. Sounds pretty interesting. thank you for following
This is an excellent article. You just summed up several arguments in a single article. Kudos! Thank you!
you are welcome
Very true. This has become particularly evident in the last few years where anyone can be a scientist with a publication. Each time you google something there are 'scientists' who support the exact opposite things but with the same confidence and 'factual evidence'. Sometimes they even come to opposite conclusions from the exact same collection of data. This is why so many people have become so opinionated about everything without ever using their critical thinking. You just get an idea, you make a quick google search and there is always someone out there to support your idea and claim that it's a fact.
i have witness this so many times, heck its not even funny anymore.
Yeap. pretty much this is how the meme goes.
There's idiots and they call themselves scientists. What does that tell you?
It doesn't really tell me anything.
You can't really heap "science" together, and you did, and declared it rubbish. Good job.
You've talked about the flaws of "epidemiology" - studying what happens by analysing populations. Your image regarding cancer studies, show mostly that they are consistently too ambitious, and fail to isolate factors sufficiently.
You also confuse "scientific theory" and "scientific proof". Some fields work without any proofs! Most work with "scientific evidence" - much of which later turns out to not be of sufficient quality.
But fields like Mathematics or Computer Science work with both proof and theory. For example, IF we assume cryptography works THEN this is secure, and you can show that by symbolic manipulation.
And the field of Physics, so often accused of being a new religion, is merely theories that fit experiments. So: there is a theory about black holes, and what we've measured so far supports that theory. There's a theory about gravity, and what we've measured so far supports that theory. Etcetera.
The "this is the undeniable, unchanging, everlasting truth that cannot be denied"-part is either maths, or religion!
But science will be science, no matter how badly anyone understands it.
There is no universal way of doing science. Basically every point you made can be refuted here. I answered in other comments as well
I'm protected by an Inverse True Scotsman Fallacy - if it's not infallible, it's not scientific proof.
Science is all about finding out what we can, with what we've got.
And posting Lee Smolin's opinion on it, especially in this manner, is deceptive. Not informative.
So true especially the drug trials. The early seroquel trials were a real mess. ...and now i can't sleep at night without that medicine. Fun. No there aren't any hard facts because so much gray area and agenda driven shit is rampant.
once you get hooked it is hard to escape
Well, yeah. Of course it wasn't intentional. I've got severe psychological problems....could write you a book about how these different "scientific ' doctors have treated me. One gave me a piece of paper with about a dozen questions at the time i was in a state of severe depression so i answered on the extreme scale of everything. She immediately looks at it says oh :you are a bipolar". Just like that. Then she said my parents had their "reasons" for doing what they did when i was a young child so maybe i should consider that before believing what my other doc said about me having ptsd. Very scientific indeed. One paper with like 12 multiple choice questions was enough science for her
Psychology is bullshit. I would advice you to stay away from them in the future.
Yea it is if your in the wrong hands. That was when i first began addressing my mental health. Many years ago. I now have very capable, knowledgeable experts in my corner.
I have PTSD - the startle response, hypervigilance, can't sleep with others, horrid daily reoccurring flashbacks, the whole 9.
That's not bull shit. This is a medical condition. My point was there are quacks out there but that doesnt mean i can't get the RIGHT kind of help for My problens
I hope you get better.
Thanks, means allot
Absolutely on point; people need to realize that what a study or scientist says has no more weight than what anybody says, the simple fact of the matter is there's huge biases due to capitalism and you must be able to articulate and lead to logical conclusions from raw data that has good methodology, if not you have no argument and are simply a parrot.
When you complain that circumstantial situations can effect the results of a study, this is why anecdotal evidence is not useful and not why actual studies aren't useful. This is the very reason scientist try to include as many subjects as possible - to average out or otherwise eliminate other possible factors. Furthermore no scientists takes one study and says "done." Instead they expect other studies to try and reproduce the results.
Unfortunately the problem is media reporting that take a single study and make a catchy click-baity headline from it. This is why you don't hear doctors stating that any of the items you listed cause cancer, because the results have not been consistently reproduced. What you're hearing are pop-sci hacks.
I am not saying they are not useful. I am saying that they can be flawed.
Actually they rather try to focus on one single thing.
no. they don't. most scientists can't replicate studies from their peers.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
That's a different kind of blue-pill all together and yes I agree.
Nobody ever said studies cannot be flawed. I feel like what you view as scientism is believe layered on top of science.
It does appear that those of us remaining who insist on thinking for ourselves tend to gravitate to Steemit (-: Thanks for a great piece -- and everyone else for a most instructive and entertaining discussion...
indeed. great crowd we have here.
Science has entered a realm of complexity that makes a lot of it, especially in the social sciences or sciences like ecology, basically storytelling. That's why I tend to only read science media pieces that involve some observable discovery such as a new species or particle. It's the only way I'm sure I'm not reading a bunch of fluff.
I call social sciences "social engineering". i can't read anything really.
even with observable discoveries I always take them with a grain of salt. cosmology for example is trying to get into physics and the bullshit is easy to get entangled from one to the other.
I agree most social science is not falsifiable enough, and not clear enough. It's a mess for the most part. Their laziness ridicules all of science.
I can't really add anything more than what's already been stated in your post and in some of the replies.
Oh, other than "Correlation does not equal causation."
So I'm just going to go ahead and upvote the good ones.
of course. i thought this was implied. i've said it so much in previous posts about science I though might be sounding repetitive.
I can barely scrape together enough gray matter to read your new posts, let alone go through your entire blog history.
I am really trying to keep them as simple worded as possible.
I for one appreciate the work you put into your posts.
Part of it may be that I'm pretty sure having teenage kids has lowered my IQ by about 47 points.
I am really laughing out loud with this one. btw. I,Q is also a meme :) not really a thing. teenagers though can definitely cloud your mindfulness.
I think they're absorbing it; some kind of osmosis.
Yesterday we took them bowling for our son's birthday, the problem appears to have spread to athletic ability now as well.
meep
Even if data is totally empirical, it can be presented in a skewed, distorted and agenda-driven way. This is what we see in the fake-stream media all the time.
"...it can be presented in a skewed, distorted and agenda-driven way."
I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks for contributing to this excellent article with an equally excellent comment.
Indeed, and this is what most people fail to realize
Excellent article and nearly, if not all of, everything that you've stated has also been position for a number of years now. I've even debated with 2 college professors regarding flawed, erroneous and unreliable "scientific evidence" and it's like each and every time it's at best EXCEPTIONALLY difficult for them to even (if ever) consider that, as you've so well stated, that "They can be biased, make errors, have wrong assumptions and most importantly, they can be manipulated either financially or ideologically. Another major issue is that scientific evidence cannot produce facts. Ever. "
you are breaking their rice bowls when you question them
..while they brake my balls
LOL
there is so much to complain about in the academic community; institutional bias, lack of a true peer review process, the replicibility problem, "scholar-activists", keeping the results of research behind the paywall of academic journals, etc etc
It's past time we break their balls and their rice bowls
blockchain tech is going to be key in doing that
my favourite: tenureship
much like being a king. Once you rise to that position, nothing can dethrone you, no matter what. you just die on that chair and some other douche inherits the position.
Was Ward Churchill tenured? Don't remember on that; they had to convene a review board for something they knew he was doing all along
It wasn't even the academic fraud that undid him, it was that genocidal statement of his about the 9/11 victims that caused public outcry...the fraud didn't bother them at all, it was just the reason they used to satisfy the public
have no idea. politics were definitely involved though (much like it is the case with this academic farce)
I have debated my fair share of these institutionalized loonies myself.
I genuinely appreciate your view and open-mindedness! It is way healthier to live questioning facts that clinging to false truths.
"We can know only that we know nothing. And that is the highest degree of human wisdom."
Leo Tolstoy
thank you. Tolstoy was a great freethinker.
Beautifully put!
The reason we see so many drugs producing so many side effects is because each human possesses an entirely different physiology. A chemical compound will react different on them.
It has been demonstrated time and again that many (possibly most) of the conclusions drawn by scientific researchers are probably incorrect. For them, it's all about funding. They make sample sizes too small to discern a reliable outcome.
HBO's John Oliver said about a study whose sample size is only 20 women:
You can not presume that 20 women can speak for all women,” Oliver noted. “This is science, not the United States Senate.
Loved your blog. Upvoted and followed.
Thank you. Glad you liked it. Indeed the sample sizes are ridiculous. ..not to mention they don't have any replication follow ups.
You can calculate the expected reliability of a sample. 20 is indeed rarely accurate enough.
The whole "each human posses an entirely different physiology" is so blatantly false, there's more similar than different about humans. There's a reason we mostly use mice for experiments - they're surprisingly similar to us.
That's not the same as saying "if it works for 99% it will work for 100%" - because that is, also, obviously, blatantly false. There's always someone with an original mutation, or with such a physiological difference that something specific does not work for them.
You're abusing language, and having a fantastic circlejerk about it. It's sad.
not really. if anything pharmacology has taught us that we are vastly different..much like our unique DNA. this is why in the future drugs will be build for each's DNA rather than generic ones. This is also why medicine doesn't work or works differently on different people (allergies, reactions. etc)
I felt I needed to reply to this post because, although some very interesting points are made regarding the nature and shortcomings of scientific knowledge, the text sums up to a rather negatively distorted vision of science while overlooking a major concept in the discussion: scientific literacy.
I may agree with your statements about scientists being fallible and research protocols having design flaws, but anyone who truly understands the scientific method and who is seriously committed to it knows that science does not deal with facts but with models and their ability to describe observational data, and that any model's strength and credibility is contingent upon a thorough replication of its predictions by independent parties and in compatible (with the model's applicability) but different sets of conditions. It usually takes a long time and a series of advances and setbacks for a model to gain a more or less consensual status among the scientific community. Even then, any model must be understood to possess a very well defined applicability domain (which may be broader or narrower), and it usually keeps being challenged at its fringe in order to either extend its domain and predictive power or to find some broader, more fundamental and more powerful framework which might succeed where its predecessor has failed. This happens continuously in a never ending process of hypothesizing, predicting, comparing to data and reinforcing (never proving) or falsifying (as you very well put) it. As you have stated yourself, the scientific method has been proving itself for hundreds of years to be the key methodology for humanity to understand the world and how to take advantage of it. This is not a random thing, but an intrinsic merit of the method itself.
Now, when it comes to the general public's perception of the scientific method and its results, many people don't have the necessary literacy for their careful interpretation, and some might even not care at all. Scientific journalism is also at fault for often oversimplifying and distorting the underlying research work and results, providing the wrong message to its public and further distancing the public from the rigorous boundaries of scientific inquiry. The science effectively gets lost in translation and what people usually end up with are highly unscientific soundbites which they read over some paper or listen to in the news, and which almost invariably misrepresent the scientific content which they pretend to convey.
I believe that all the parts have some responsibility in this. The general public should, first of all, strive for a reasonable understanding of the scientific method and of core concepts which allow them to interpret basic results in a rational and critical way. This might be especially important in disciplines which may have a more profound impact on people's lives, like health related sciences. The scientific community should strive for making scientific knowledge progressively more accessible to the public in a way which most people may understand the key points without gross oversimplification. Governments should maintain high standards regarding science education and should pay attention to conflicts of interest regarding research funding, punishing blatant fraud which might be hazardous to the public. After all, I don't think that anyone can rationally say that science is superfluous or unimportant or useless; it has been completely reshaping our world and our societies for centuries now, and most of the time in a very positive way. No one can deny the incredible successes of medicine, for example, even if there are bad or corrupt scientists working in it.
My point is that, overall, no single bit of information should ever dictate your opinion. However, I believe that, through scientific literacy, science should definitely have a major role in informing your opinions. I thought the post missed a bit on this, keeping an overly negative tone, so I decided share my thoughts on this. I'll be happy to further elaborate on any point which I might have left unclear.
A final word to the original poster: the topic of your post is a very interesting one and leads to a very healthy and important discussion. Congrats!
I adhere to scientific principles more than you think. The only reason I wrote this article is because people rely way too much on things that are beyond their control. Let's get real now. You are asked to put your blind faith on many aspects that you have no idea what is going on. Whether we talk about food or weather there are massive vested interests at play. These are the main issues, not evolution or some abstract theories that do not impact people's lives directly.
The fact that most people do not understand what is going on , should indeed make them wary — not blind followers to the scientific method. You described above the IDEAL way things are done. Go through a few papers and you see that most experiments are not even replicable, scientists don't even bother doing them for the "same of science and knowledge" but prefer to do their own thing, publish under their own name. These things demonstrate ego in some aspects and of course when larger interests are in play, financial incentives.
I will quote Richard Feynman here, living without knowing. This is what the main message of the post was. I did point out that science is the best tool we have. What I criticized is the sociology of science as it unfolds in various institutions and how that affects epistemology.
I guess I could summarize my point as this: what allows you to have a valid critical mindset towards science is the very understanding of how science works, both at its core and in its sociology, as you've put it. Both blind faith in it and blind disregard of it are equally radical and unreasonable. The key to navigating scientific knowledge in a way which benefits both the individual and the societies lies in a truly informed criticism of its best and worse practices.
When I wrote about the several responsible parts, I guess I was slightly touching the sociological aspect of science. With respect to that, the best way people have to defend themselves from fraud and bad science or bad scientific journalism is through a solid scientific literacy, not through a rigid denial of all science. People might intelligently rely on what they find to be sound science, and criticize what they consider to be flawed science, but for that they need to know and understand the process.
And I never thought you did not adhere to scientific principles, quite the contrary. A moderate skeptical attitude is paramount in any serious scientific endeavor.
"put your blind faith on many aspects that you have no idea what is going on."
That's because much of science is too complicated for all laypeople. If you can understand it, the source materials and methods are always public and available, and explainatory courses are held at universities across the world.
I don't even know how you can be blind and scientific.
There's risks in that, absolutely! But if you're a layperson, you should defer to an authority. That's not -ism in any way.
nop. that's blind belief
The example you gave with food isn't really based on science. It's based on food lobbies for certain results. For example the meat industry will pay "scientists" to say meat cures cancer, when the reality is more than likely the opposite. These are multi-billion dollar industries. Of course science is not infallible, there are plenty of theories today that will be disproven in the future just as many theories in the past have been disproven by knowledge accumulated today.
But then there are scientific theories that are more than likely "facts" that can't be disputed. Is the world round? or flat? You will have flat-earthers swear they know more than 100s of years of scientific inquiry on the subject. I believe the earth is a sphere, thanks to scientific knowledge, which includes astronauts taking pictures and discussing the shape of the earth from the moon or in orbit, to the observations of similar planets and their rotations on their axis within our own solar system.
Then there is climate change. I think common sense should help anyone on that. If you were to inject a drop of a harmful chemical in your body, the drop may be small enough that your body can handle it, if you were to repeatedly inject yourself with a larger dose every day, your body will more than likely shut down. The earth is an eco system much like the human body. Inject the earth with chemicals that skew the natural composition of that system and you are bound to get the same kind of reaction your body received. An overwhelming majority of scientists, people who have dedicated their lives in the pursuit of knowledge in this specific area agree global climate change is affected in part by man made pollution. But of course all of us have the right to disagree it doesn't mean anything, people have the right to not believe, but that can be very dangerous. As polluting the earth for idealogical beliefs can only damage everyone. In my mind, on certain topics I would rather trust the consensus of individuals who dedicate their lives in the pursuit of knowledge to the best of humanity's abilities as opposed to someone sitting on a couch and formulating their opinion. Saying that I do agree with the spirit of what you are saying in this post, it's import to always have a critical and skeptical mind.
not really. Depends on the way the meat is processed (at least this is what the evidence shows)
watch this. you will love it
watch this
Yes, but to what degree and whether this is reversible is another story. watch the video.
everyone is in it for the profit. consensus doesn't really cut it.
"not really. Depends on the way the meat is processed (at least this is what the evidence shows)"
Most evidence shows that man was meant to be a herbivore. The body has a hard time digesting meat. Most evidence also shows that red meat is the major cause of certain cancers in the colon. I guess we'll have to definitely agree to disagree on the other 2 points. ;)
Not really man. Human intestines, stomach and processing proteins reveal otherwise.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-humans-eat-meat-excerpt/
As you can see, plenty of evidence all over the place :)
Sure, eating meat is a choice, but what I am saying is most evidence points towards red meat causing colon cancer whether processed or not, and there are many scientific articles on whether the human body was designed more for being a herbivore as opposed to a carnivore. But then again that particular part of science is the one with the most questions, ironically, whether it's about the brain or body, most sciences on the human condition is speculative. We can't even cure the common cold... but the attainment of knowledge is getting there.
Truth is not democratic. Meat doesn't cause problems. Nothing does. The problem is always the quantity not the nature of food.
there are zero studies for this. please do try to find one.
viruses such as cold have evolved along us. They are part of us. We just get flares of them much like some people get with herpes. We can't "cure" it because of the "stealth" nature of the virus to remain almost undetectable from our immune system.
I'm going to say again when it comes to food, a lot of the science is skewed by lobbyists.... as stated in the original post so it's a waste of time for us to "argue" on that. Does that make sense?
"viruses such as cold have evolved along us. They are part of us. We just get flares of them much like some people get with herpes. We can't "cure" it because of the "stealth" nature of the virus to remain almost undetectable from our immune system."
Curing the body of viruses is not impossible. One day we may indeed come up with the cure for the common cold, I am just saying we obviously aren't there yet. ;) When I say "cure" I mean if you catch a virus that causes a cold there may be a medicine in the future that gets rid of it within say an hour... it's very possible and likely in the future.
besides as I said in my original post, a lot of the "science" regarding food and meat is skewed by lobbyists... please see original post. I really don't believe in most "evidence" out there on that topic because it can and has been skewed for the profit motive. But when it comes to "Flat Earth" or "Climate Change" there is no profit motive... the motive is knowledge and in the case of "Climate Change" the motive is the survival of life on this planet.
There is massive profit actually in Climate change politics. pushing "renewables" instead of fossils is a multibillion dollar industry.
So you would like to stay with forms of energy that are 100s of years old as opposed to progressing towards newer and cleaner forms of energy that don't pollute the earth? If we have that ideology for the rest of the things in life we would still be riding horses and not have invented anything else for transportation. Technology advances and usually leads to better and more efficient forms of energy etc. It's a positive thing if newer forms of energy are profitable, and in fact as of recently they are showing to be more profitable than older forms like coal for example... but coal dug it's trenches first... and it is fighting to survive. *had to make some typo edits
What's important is that people understand what science actually is. Often times people will point to an article that supports a conclusion, and then use that article as proof that that position is fact. This isn't how science works.
Science works through consensus, which we should all be familiar with here in the crypto world. Someone conducts a study and they submit their findings. Other scientists, independent of the original, replicate the study and see if they come to a similar conclusion. When this happens over and over again, we can get a strong idea of what the science is telling us. This is how we create scientific theories and laws and have reached the point in knowledge that we're currently at. When there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on a topic, it is foolish to brush that off.
When you're researching a topic on your own, look for this consensus. Don't just look for an article or two that support what you were looking for. This is confirmation bias, and you will be able to find it if you really want to. Look for the consensus, read the articles, try to understand the actual research within them. Don't just trust the conclusions you're reading, look at the actual data. If you find articles that are counter to the consensus, look at its data and methods, and look for studies that try to replicate their findings. See if there are studies that have specifically tested the counter study.
Be wary of media reports, from all sources (mainstream, independent, fringe, whatever), that points to one study as the basis for their report. People on all sides from all walks of life do this. For instance, whenever the topic of GMO safety comes up someone inevitably invokes the Serallini study that suggested GMO corn (I think it was) was leading to increased cancer. This single study is not science, its a piece of the puzzle. Looking at that single piece may not be indicative of the bigger picture.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: science is important. There are definitely people out there who look to corrupt it and use it for agendas, but its very very rare for this to be the consensus. Ignoring solid science because you didn't conduct the experiments yourself is going to lead you to the wrong conclusion far more often than not.
Sometimes it does. Most people reference papers that they haven't even read themselves or check for replication studies that back them up.
Not really. Many theories are based on giant jerk circles and gain momentum when people start peer-reviewing their own guys. Good example will be the selfish gene selection theory of Dawkins vs the group selection theory of Wilson. The latter is far more accurate but it is not as popular and this it remained on the shelf.
Sometimes 2-3 studies can take down entire volumes. Check for example how we came to understand that if we stop anthropogenic pollution to the point we are now, we might be even doing more harm than good due to the nature or carbon dioxide and the way it interacts with the ecosystems when it reaches high volumes. Matt Riddley presents overwhelming data for this yet he is brushed off because of "Earlier" consensus. Same applies for psychology and sociology. bullshit studies but due to the fact that so many people invested so much of their time and carreers —entire sectors are in stake, they keep pushing on and on. remember. science is first about business and making money, then everything else. This "Altruistic " stance of science needs to stop. they are humans like us. I went through grant proposal reviews myself and what I've seen was no different than corporate fiddling to get shit your way.
Yeap. But also the opposite is true. Whenever a new study comes that opposes the consensus, someone throws it in their face. Einstein went through the same crap before making through and beating the consensus.
Science is important but the opposite is true. Very few scientists are "honest". The reason is simple. The competition is massive and the money not so much. When there parameters are involved corruption easily sets in.
Let's be real. The people who do take the decisions don't bother to make the experiments. They just believe the "consensus" and move on. Heck often times they ignore it because of vested interests. It's all about the money.
Certainly, like every profession, science is plagued with many biased and/or incompetent players. However, there's such a thing as a theory, a hypothesis with thorough peer review and statistically significant evidence supporting it. The greater the repeatability, the more solid a theory becomes.
Of course, no theory is infallible and must be rigorously questioned at all times. But when you see experiments conducted over decades from scientists over hundreds of countries from vastly different ideologies and walks of life, and end up with six sigma of convergence, it's a solid theory. Scientists should of course continue working on falsifiability, but certain theories stand the test.
Keep an open mind, to be sure, but don't go so far that you let your imagination run wild against well established theories. No one is calling them an "eternal fact" - there's no such thing, but at the current state of science this is the best explanation we have, and it would be wise to accept it.
So, in the end, we have to find a balance here. It's a hard one, and I'm concerned while you're not far from this balance, your post may encourage some to interpret it as "Yeah, scientists are owned by government, the Earth is flat, climate change is a hoax, gravity is an illusion - Einstein was a tool". That line of thought is just as dangerous as someone reading some pop-sci article and believing it.
I hope I've been able to express my concerns, if not I'll be happy to clarify.
I do think strong AI will be a great solution, and machine learning is already being used to interpret evidence from all corners of the globe. This will help clear human biases and get to the heart of the evidence. At the end of the day, is it doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is - there are unwavering "truths" out there waiting to be discovered. The universe doesn't care. Human scientists have made tremendous progress, but I believe AI can finish the job.
This post received a 24% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @kyriacos! For more information, click here!
I follow a bunch of philosophers, just remember thinkers shape the world but the folks in the box make you the money. Knowledge is empowerment
I will definitely referencing you for this one at some point
No problem
John Oliver had a really nice piece on this about a year ago. The problem is three-fold:
Thanks for this!
The hilarious thing is John Oliver does the exact same thing by carefully controlling the narrative on his show. =)
He started out very fair and objective, and turned into a regressive left mouthpiece. It was one of my favorite shows season 1 until he created his own echo chamber, just like he talks about here!
You can push almost any narrative without lying, simply by intellectually dishonest omission.
This is absolutely true. He did a piece on Daily Fantasy Sports and most of what he said was accurate, but he missed the forest for the trees, and afterwards it calls into question basically every piece he does.
I like to use steelmaning - something I first heard of from @neilstrauss and Charles Darwin-- to strengthen arguments instead of omission. Unlike a strawman where you take the flimsy version of a criticism, you take the strongest possible version of a counterargument and defeat that. The main issue for John Oliver doing that is time -- he only has ~10 minutes for his feature story. That's not really an excuse for blatant omissions and lots of strawmans, but it's hard to fully cover complex issues in a short time.
I still think overall he does a great job of pointing out injustice, but it's always worth digging deeper and looking into it from the other side.
I've never heard this term before, but it's my normal debate tactic. It saves a lot of time and effectively lets you argue both sides of the argument in "good faith", rending the debate process hopefully shorter. If my position isn't clearly superior to the "steelman'ed" one, then I know I may need to switch sides.
John Oliver is cringe worthy even on this one but the general gist is more or less on track. If only he was consistent.
He refutes himself in shows after this one citing social and psychological studies in order to refute Trump and his politics. Even in this video I can find 4-5 instances where he is intellectually dishonest with other parts of the clip.
I enjoyed reading this article and the many comments to follow, especially the discussion with @liberosist . I know it's probably uncouth to solicit readers, but I would absolutely love to hear your perspectives and discussion on my "Action Potential" posts, which I will be trying to put out a few times a week. Basically, I try to review some "hot" news in neuroscience, and try to give a more informal perspective than either the news release or the scientific article...like how your neuroscientist friend (that's me!) approaches and thinks about these articles and news stories.
I think many scientists think a lot like you. I'm not sure if that would surprise you or not. Your article kind of carries an anti-scientist tone in some parts (e.g. that sociology and psychology are bullshit or that peer-review is a circle jerk). Some fields definitely have replication problems, but the reason that we know that is because other scientists from within these fields have spent their careers debunking bad evidence. There have certainly been cases of fraudulent or unethical review, but these are usually caught and the perpetrators are shunned from the scientific community.
Recently in my teaching philosophy statement, I wrote that the mindset that arises naturally from viewing knowledge as transient is the secret sauce of good critical thinking and the path to wisdom. It sounds like you're on that path, and that you're sharing that perspective with the world. Just be careful that you separate your distaste for blind faith in knowledge from trusting in the usefulness of the scientific method if applied correctly. If the institutions of science were reformed, we would be able to understand more, think in better models, and build more useful things faster. If the institutions of science were abandoned or destroyed, that progress would slow or stop.
I still adhere to scientific principles — more than anything else. I believe science is the best enquiry humans have come up with to discover the world. my problem is the culture of academia and how science degenerates through it.
Engineering are perhaps the only solid fields due to direct application.
It can never stop. Garage scientists all over the world have created more things than the entire academia combined.
The only thing I truly know is that I dont know anything at all, if that makes sense at all to anybody. I've been studying metaphysics for about a year now and the revelations have been astonishing. I now long to overstand and innerstand what is going on outisde as well as within, because at the end of the day all that is without comes from within. "Facts" as some may call them are nothing more than the moajority vote on a certain subject to have a collective idea of understanding on it. For example, we only know that the grass is green because thats what we've been told. We call a bird a bird because we collectivileyagrred to use that word to describe that which we dont know. I could go on an on but the rabbit hole goes very deep my friend. great post!
exactly
We also need to take into account that "scientific" posts aren't always real, and generally believing anything we see online is extremely stupid.
of course, anyone can fake anything really.
Yeah...
Thing is most people make a emotional decision, then try to use their rational brain to justify it.
exactly
Excellent post @kyriacos. Where we are today as a society in general could have been a lot different if we had begun with different foundations and this is also true of the future. Science has indeed become the new religion and its most loyal followers and proponents are those who stand to gain most from the implimentation of scientific dogma.
Thanks for sharing buddy!
Indeed, most people just blindly believe something. Whether it is religion or science makes little difference.
The moral of the story then is to believe nothing! At least take everything with a grain of salt.
Seriously though, having an open mind and being willing to alter one's beliefs is likely the ticket to enlightenment. If you close your mind and stubbornly stick to your current beliefs, you automatically tune out any new evidence that could affect how you view things. How can anyone possibly grow when they deflect nutrition (for the mind)?
Yeap, the moral of the story is to accept ignorance. Much like Feynman said.
The more doubt one has the more they are able to change their views.
Congratulations @kyriacos!
Your post was mentioned in my hit parade in the following category:
nice one
True, science should not be followed as a religion, but an asset to aid in learning about things around us. But still, we can not fully neglect the role of science in verifying most things, as it is still the best way to check the facts.
absolutely agree
Right. Prove it. Actually no one can prove anything at all. Take a straight line for instance. It's made up of points. But a point has no measurable existence. And if you look more closely at the straight line... it isn't straight at all. There are nano curves and dents all along it. And yet we build buildings and bridges etc using straight lines? I think the proof of a thing is its usage. What does it do? What affect does a thing have on another thing. the whole field of science is archaic and becoming obsolete. New currency. New science. higher consciousness. happier planet.
TMI: that unicorn uniform is going to be my halloween costume this year.
take selfies
Of course!
Because 'pictures, or it didn't happen'.
Ah, some very enjoyable Sunday reading, thank you. I'm sorta devastated at the moment though, aren't we supposed to base every opinion that we have on the observations and best guesses of others? Whatever shall I do now?😜
be humble and accept ignorance. In this way you might have a chance standing closer to "truth" than anybody else.
Every thing we "know" has been run through an undetermined number of filters before arriving at this point in time. What is the motivating force behind the filters? Not sure that can always be answered.
money, power.
I would say they are the main two but not the only two.
honestly, I think I forgot more science than I ever heard. Here in Cornelius, Indiana, science is limited to what new fertilizer concoction or GMO we're facing this year. But even here, we live with the results of these scientific studies that messes up our lives. Eggs. Can you eat them or can't you eat them, that is my question? There must be 52 studies (at least one for each state of the union) that say you can eat them and many more that say you should eat eggs because they have good protein. I like eggs. I like eggs a lot.. So am I against science? Which science? I can't figure it out…
But I'll be following you because you sound like somebody can help me figure it out. Keep up the good work!
When it comes to food nobody knows shit. Everyone is selling something. If you are home-growing it then have as much as you want.
very interesting post.. thanks for sharing @kyriacos
thank you. my pleasure.
That is why I dont like science or the science community to be more specific. All they do is make speculations on a high level and feed it to the people, as if it is gods word.
I stick to math, thanks.
even math needs some axioms to work though :)
yeah, but the only basic axiom you need is counting. Everything else are constructs based on definitions that are nice to have. I never really understood the concept of scientific proof, but in math, if you proof something then it is true, no way around it.
It is interesting to talk about scientific topics, but I hate how it is always dumbed down and therefore wrong in media and education. You can even look at nasa and read some really unscientific texts.
oh you bet. "astrobiology"
LOL
Do you know Peter Thiels argumentation on why we live in an age of very slow technological progress? It's pretty interesting but I cant quite remember where I watched it, thought it was ted.
Even if I do, clearly the statement is post-hoc. Totally unscientific thinking. You have a result and try to work an explanation around it by using correlations :)
The technological progress is fine. (slow and fast are very subjective)
The 2 minute clip on this page sums it up pretty good:
http://www.wsj.com/video/uncommon-knowledge-peter-thiel-on-technology-innovation/
It is tough to disagree with him I believe
Great post, so true... and the first one I've resteemed :o)
thank you
Well said. Great article. Resteemed. I happened to see your message on steemit.chat though I very rarely sign in there. Call it luck, chance, fate. :)
ha! nice one man. glad you liked it.