Current Events > When did science become something you choose to believe, not try to understand?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean, wtf was the point of science class in school if as adults we can just choose if we want to believe in it or not?
---

When it doesn't agree with an agenda.
---

When science doesn't state facts but is actually speculation
---

Kazuma_Yagami posted...

When science doesn't state facts but is actually speculation

But when the speculation has been proven true over and over, when are people going to start believing it? :u
---

Kazuma_Yagami posted...

When science doesn't state facts but is actually speculation

One questions why you think you're qualified to discern such things.
---

It's always been a thing. Hell, it's what allows most religions to grow and succeed.

But somewhere around when "alternative facts" became a thing it went into overdrive.
---

Science isn't here so you can shove down facts to belittle people. You guys don't truly believe in science. You believe in it to be spiteful towards religious people. God I can't stand nerds.
---

When people, including almost all teachers and many actual scientists, stopped understanding what science is.

Somewhere along the line, we forgot that we're all essentially winging it in every department of research, making what amount to best guesses about things, and unstead decided that some super-smart dude in a lab coat said it so it must be true.

Observation and extrapolation. A ball is at position 30m. One second ago it was at position 0m. Where was it another second ago? Perhaps at -30m. Or perhaps this is a baseball game, and 1.5 seconds ago was the moment when the batter hit the ball. With the information given, all we can present is our best guess.

So when we lose sight of that fundamental truth, and we say "this IS the way the world is," and declare that this is what science is, people are naturally going to doubt it, and rightly so.
---

DevsBro posted...

When people, including almost all teachers and many actual scientists, stopped understanding what science is.

Somewhere along the line, we forgot that we're all essentially winging it in every department of research, making what amount to best guesses about things, and unstead decided that some super-smart dude in a lab coat said it so it must be true.

Observation and extrapolation. A ball is at position 3pm. One second ago it was at position 0m. Where was it another second ago? Perhaps at -30m. Or perhaps this is a baseball game, and 1.5 seconds ago was the moment when the batter hit the ball. With the information given, all we can present is our best guess.

So when we lose sight of that fundamental truth, and we say "this IS the way the world is," and declare that this is what science is, people are naturally going to doubt it, and rightly so.

So you only believe things you can perceive first hand? :u Do you believe in oxygen? The periodic table?
---

Is TC referring to anything specific here?
---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

Science isn't here so you can shove down facts to belittle people. You guys don't truly believe in science. You believe in it to be spiteful towards religious people. God I can't stand nerds.

I believe your opinion is stupid.
---

i think part of the problem is that media nowadays reports science in a very disingenuous way

study released with relatively unimpressive p-values or questionable methodology (or just straight up the result being reported on is not consistent with what's in the study) gets news media report released that doesn't even link back to it, but because it makes for an easily marketed soundbyte, it spreads like wildfire

then later when the authors have to go out and be like "no that is not what we said" or worse when other researchers have to go out and explain why the study is not the be-all, end-all, a large portion of the population winds up feeling burned and wondering if they can trust published research results

what sucks is you can have 90% of the body of work in a field be great, reliable stuff, 10% junk, but if media with an agenda focuses on that junk it undermines confidence in all the rest of it

imo it's less a matter of "i know better!" and more a matter of "fool me once..."
---

emblem boy posted...

Is TC referring to anything specific here?

Climate change and evolution are the big ones.
---

So you only believe things you can perceive first hand? :u Do you believe in oxygen? The periodic table?

I don't know where you got that idea, or what the periodic table has to do with it. Models aren't to be disregarded by any means, but they're to be understood to be models. Nature dictates the model, and not the other way around. Einstein improved centuries-old models last century and it will probably happen again. Its nonsense to state anything observed and extrapolatrd as certain.

For the record, I don't even believe things I perceive firsthand.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

emblem boy posted...

Is TC referring to anything specific here?

Climate change and evolution are the big ones.

imo nutrition science is probably the worst offender

at least in climatology and evolution there is a clear consensus within the community as to what the evidence suggests. there is a divide with the population but nutrition science seems to lack consensus entirely, despite media reporting that suggests otherwise

it's kind of an inverse of the other two.

most people "know" fats are bad. scientists are pretty split.

almost all scientists "know" climate change is happening as a result of carbon emissions. people are pretty split, but there does seem to be a majority who understand at least that it is happening.
---

most of us don't actually understand the science behind climate change btw, its funny how so many people think Republicans are stupid, when their knowledge of evolution or climate change is limited to a theguardian article.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Kazuma_Yagami posted...

When science doesn't state facts but is actually speculation

But when the speculation has been proven true over and over, when are people going to start believing it? :u

The irony of this post is you want the end result to be that people "believe" it LOL
---

DevsBro posted...

When people, including almost all teachers and many actual scientists, stopped understanding what science is.

Somewhere along the line, we forgot that we're all essentially winging it in every department of research, making what amount to best guesses about things, and unstead decided that some super-smart dude in a lab coat said it so it must be true.

Observation and extrapolation. A ball is at position 30m. One second ago it was at position 0m. Where was it another second ago? Perhaps at -30m. Or perhaps this is a baseball game, and 1.5 seconds ago was the moment when the batter hit the ball. With the information given, all we can present is our best guess.

So when we lose sight of that fundamental truth, and we say "this IS the way the world is," and declare that this is what science is, people are naturally going to doubt it, and rightly so.

I mean, you're kinda painting a cartoon picture of scientists and science. Not only does no real scientist extrapolate outside their data with any confidence (outside the exception of especially shitty ones), the type of lay confidence you describe is almost exclusively lay.
---

Mandasnake posted...

most of us don't actually understand the science behind climate change btw, its funny how so many people think Republicans are stupid, when their knowledge of evolution or climate change is limited to a theguardian article.

doesn't help that almost all articles on studies on the subject fail to link back to source material, and that source material itself is behind a paywall
---

I usually assume someone else fact checked these things, but that's mostly just laziness and the fact that it doesn't really directly impact me to know if they are lying or not.
---

I mean, you're kinda painting a cartoon picture of scientists and science. Not only does no real scientist extrapolate outside their data with any confidence (outside the exception of especially s***ty ones), the type of lay confidence you describe is almost exclusively lay.

Maybe so. But I don't really care whose fault it is tbh.
---

_OujiDoza_ posted...

Veggeta_MAX posted...

Science isn't here so you can shove down facts to belittle people. You guys don't truly believe in science. You believe in it to be spiteful towards religious people. God I can't stand nerds.

I believe your opinion is stupid.

Hit too close to home.
---

Burn the witch
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

emblem boy posted...

Is TC referring to anything specific here?

Climate change and evolution are the big ones.

the only real argument against evolution is "i'm religious, god made me, I ain't no MUNKUH!" As far as climate change, the climate is always changing...it's to what extent human activity has contributed to it that's up in the air. It's become a political football instead of an actual scientific debate.
---

when you become a republican

Hilarious how I'm 100% right about you nerds.
---

Veggeta_MAX posted...

Hilarious how I'm 100% right about you nerds.

No such thing as in absolute certainty.
---

MattSFfrd posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

emblem boy posted...

Is TC referring to anything specific here?

Climate change and evolution are the big ones.

the only real argument against evolution is "i'm religious, god made me, I ain't no MUNKUH!" As far as climate change, the climate is always changing...it's to what extent human activity has contributed to it that's up in the air. It's become a political football instead of an actual scientific debate.

A changing climate is not what climate change refers too. You're being facetious. Climate Change refers to anthropogenic climate change in short. And the extent that human activity contributed is how much, not yes or no. The yes is very well supported by the scientific community. Search climate change on nature.com you will see tons and tons of articles on climate change and how it is affecting us. Not whether it exists or not.

Because science, when it's used in any sort of political context, is essentially just cherrypicking the results that suit you.
---

This topic got shut down fairly quickly. I believe in science mostly too but we live in America and we're free to believe whatever we want to. Why try to oppress someone with Science?
---

The fact that anyone says "they believe in science" is what is fucked up about this whole thing.

Science just is, it's research and theories and things to prove said theories...

On the other hand, ignoring proven data because it goes against your completely UNPROVEN "faith" is the epitome of stupid.

At least "science" has data backing it up rather then faith which is just someone saying I believe something regardless of the fact that it might have been proven incorrect elsewhere.
---

theres always been a trend, see stokes trial.
how ever in more recent times. Probably about the time of various nutrition studies really started getting reported(i'm sure you could find some comedian bits about eggs and health value). conflicting information, incomplete information, studies funded by companies or industries looking for increase profits, poor reporting. there is no shortage of faults

why i specify nutrition rather then evolution is that evolution is really just background noise. Most people don't think about it, its not something that is tangible to everyday life. Food on the other had is.

when it comes to belief in science, specifically things like climate change, its because people don't understand it. the whole thing is something that spans across multiple fields of science, and its very basics from why some chemicals behave the way they do is something that starts in applied quantum mechanics. How often do some someone make a post about infrared spectroscopy on facebook?
---

When science doesn't state facts but is actually speculation

Is that a shot at creation? It's a proven fact that man was made from dirt, not this ridiculous bs about "evolving" from something else.

HorrorJudasGoat posted...

When science doesn't state facts but is actually speculation

Is that a shot at creation? It's a proven fact that man was made from dirt, not this ridiculous bs about "evolving" from something else.

<_<
---

Dustin1280 posted...

The fact that anyone says "they believe in science" is what is fucked up about this whole thing.

Belief is a very big part of science. Bayesian belief one hopes, but belief none-the-less.
---

Xtians
---

HorrorJudasGoat posted...

not this ridiculous bs about "evolving" from something else.

lol
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRNO1LFQBWI
---