Page 2 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

izzeme
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,665

14 May 2017, 7:45 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Likely, most scientists end up working for some company that produces some hazardous food, material, or some destruction to the Earth, yet, their job requires them to produce research that concludes, "This product is great".

The scientists at the food companies tell us the additives are OK.
The scientists at the beverage companies tell us aspartame is OK.
The scientists at the mining companies tell that environmental damage is OK.
The scientists at the cigarette companies tell us that cigarettes are OK.
The scientists at the telecommunication companies tell us that electromagnetic radiation is OK.
The scientists at my local nuclear power plant went on tv, and said the low nuclear waste they dump in the water is OK.
The scientists at the gas/oil companies say don't worry about climate change, it's OK.

Whaaaaat? You're skeptical of scientists?


Sure, i'm sceptical of them.
If the scientist of a cigarette company makes a claim about sigarettes, i'll look for some in the employ of a health institution that has made a comment on the same claim, and compare notes.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,799
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

04 Jun 2017, 1:03 am

Ideally I'd like to think that no one would be more skeptical of science than the scientists and peer-reviewers themselves. While I think there are some very well settled areas like physics, chemistry, and at some levels biology, there are also some areas that are in very odd straight right now - like health and nutrition where what people have recommended as a healthy diet seems to change radically every decade or so.

In certain areas I share a lot of people's concerns perhaps at how much science gets pragmatized by corporate funding, how much more in the way of replication experiments should be done but aren't either funded or rewarded enough, and how the unsexiness of null results for a long time meant that someone's paper wouldn't get published. You also have the downright bizarre stuff that gets into some journals, like feminist glaciology and other wonderful postmodernist snickerbait.

I don't think science is necessarily in a bad place, just that unfortunately for a while it's proper growth and fecundity has been retarded by other factors interested in using science but not properly supporting it for its own sake. To that end I really do like seeing how crowd-sourcing is becoming a big phenomena and, if you really have important research but can't find the funding, you can always go on the right talk shows, tell them about your Patreon and Indigogo, and if you make a good enough case you'll have enough private donors support your cause. To that end I think patronage is getting democratized as is science.

Hopefully more of the fields within the broader spectrum of the sciences will find increased maturity in this century and hopefully enough advances will be made to where the number of things that we as a society *have to* agree on as real increase. IMHO there's too much still left up to political parties and politicians as subjects of opinion and debate which aren't properly subjects of debate, whether it's issues of pollution and cleaning it up or whether it's drug enforcement policy. We unfortunately seem to have a pseudo-religious set of structures around a lot of things and whether old vestiges of religion or just conformity a lot of social pegging and taboos seem to just stick for their own sake regardless of the science. That should really be overcome, not pandered to.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,954
Location: temperate zone

04 Jun 2017, 4:37 am

Being "skeptical of science" is a contradiction in terms.

Science itself is skepticism (the refusal to accept things without evidence).

This thread is miss titled.

It should be simply "antiscience".

Folks who opposed to science are not "skeptics", but the opposite: gullible dogmatists who believe dragons live at the edge of the flat earth.



B19
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,820
Location: New Zealand

08 Jun 2017, 4:42 pm

I notice the opposite issue: many people seem to readily believe sensationalist claims made on the basis of a poorly designed and/or unreplicated study as proof of some amazing breakthrough (especially the "great new autism cure" stuff).

And in recent years a lot of fraud committed by researchers has been uncovered and reported carefully by reputable journals (like Nature). They blew the whistle on widespread peer review scams which had been used to dupe the editorial boards of those journals in the past.