/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11643760

291KiB, 1023x1024, 1023px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

STEM graduates without BLIND faith in science

Anonymous Wed 06 May 19:05:56 2020 No.11643760 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11643778 >>11643782 >>11643844

In an ideal world I would trust science as the arbiter of truth. But it's obvious "science" is often conducted by those with an agenda or with financial interests. STEM majors are so afraid of getting lumped in with [gasp] science deniers, that they hop on board any trendy pop-sci idea. If you believe you are a critical thinker then fucking act like it

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 19:07:32 No.11643762 Report

Quoted By:

>>>/x/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 19:10:40 No.11643778 Report

Quoted By:

>>11643760
Can we all agree diet studies are bullshit because fatasses will always lie about what they eat.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 19:11:52 No.11643782 Report

Quoted By: >>11643788 >>11644349

>>11643760
>In an ideal world I would trust science as the arbiter of truth.
Why? Science as an epistemology cannot deal with truth values.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 19:14:27 No.11643788 Report

Quoted By: >>11643820

>>11643782
The world is not ideal and never will be. That's my point dummy

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 19:25:57 No.11643820 Report

Quoted By: >>11643828 >>11644349

>>11643788
Even if the world were ideal, science fundamentally does not deal with truth values.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 19:29:08 No.11643828 Report

Quoted By: >>11643905

>>11643820
Ideal: satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable

My conception of perfection is a world where Science is the arbiter of truth. Therefore I win brainlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 19:33:47 No.11643844 Report

Quoted By: >>11643883

>>11643760
alright, which conspiracy theory are you trying to sell?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 19:40:48 No.11643871 Report

Quoted By: >>11643903

Agreed. As a critical thinker you should at least go into the arguments of the "non-mainstream science" without blindly following the mainstream consensus.

But you should always know that you will enconter apparently good evidence and arguments, as it is very easy to manipulate data.

I would argue you should always start with a higher prior credence for the scientific consensus, but keeping in mind potential agendas/interests. Maybe follow a few highly regarded scientists that you have good reason to believe as ethic and moral people, who would probably prioritize truth over personal interests (but always remember they are human and can also be mistaken).

The best solution though is to get educated in the subject, and learn how to read data and interpret studies, so you can also draw the conclusions for yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 19:44:53 No.11643883 Report

Quoted By:

>>11643844
My biggest gripe is dietary studies actually, not a /pol/tard. I’m so tired of them flip flopping on saturated fat every year because butter is delicious and people are suggestible sheep.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 19:52:19 No.11643903 Report

Quoted By: >>11643950

>>11643871
My other gripe is medical research and doctors. For example I think going barefoot would solve a lot of our posture, feet and back problems. But Podiatry is an extremely lucrative field for selling insoles, paying doctor visit fees, so a treatment such as “just quit wearing shoes” doesn’t bode well. Also a doctor in any field will lose business suggesting treatment that actually works without needing repeated doctor visits (like prescription meds), and even if we’ll intentioned will likely be prices out of the market if a doctor does affectively implement low cost techniques. I’m not anti capitalist or anti science by any means, but these unintended market forces need to be addressed more

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 19:52:53 No.11643905 Report

Quoted By: >>11644359

>>11643828
Your ideal world is inherently contradictory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 20:14:54 No.11643950 Report

Quoted By: >>11643959

>>11643903
It is true that this is an extremely lucrative field and there a important people with interests that could manipulate how research is being done.

That being said, I have pratically no knowledge in podiatry and the study of feet, so I would have to see some studies with scientific evidence to say something like "I think going barefoot would solve a lot of our posture, feet and back problems". The problem is that a study like this is not likely to be funded...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 20:18:49 No.11643959 Report

Quoted By: >>11643987

>>11643950
It was a random example of the top of my head. Maybe insoles are helpful. Maybe barefoot is better. But wouldn’t you have a gut instinct barefoot is better just because it’s how our ancestors did it. But I’m glad you understand my point

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 20:25:28 No.11643987 Report

Quoted By: >>11644024

>>11643959
Yeah, definitely... I can totally see it being true.

But there are MANY variables involved on those things. Sometimes the answer is not as obvious as we would expect, that is why I usually go with the scientific consensus, unless I've seen scientific evidence showing otherwise.

However, as we agree, there is a real problem that those kind of studies that would go against lucrative fields are unlikely to be funded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 20:41:15 No.11644024 Report

Quoted By: >>11644155

>>11643987
>I would argue you should always start with a higher prior credence for the scientific consensus, but keeping in mind potential agendas/interests.
You make a valid point. For the sake of not wasting time it’s better to start from the assumption the science is correct. But I’ve found you can often assume the opposite when livelihoods are involved, which is very often

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 21:31:35 No.11644155 Report

Quoted By: >>11644293

>>11644024
What kind of things would you classify as "livelihoods"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 22:32:06 No.11644293 Report

Quoted By: >>11644371

>>11644155
If someone primarily makes money in one area I think more often than not they will heavily exaggerate the science behind their business, if not outright misconstrue it. At least to the extent they believe they can get away with it without being called out by the general public

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 22:54:17 No.11644349 Report

Quoted By:

>>11643782
>>11643820
people think it does tho... atheism is counting on it (although this disccusion is not necessarily what op means)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 23:03:05 No.11644359 Report

Quoted By:

>>11643905
philosophy is for pseuds
eat dicks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 23:07:06 No.11644371 Report

Quoted By: >>11644391

>>11644293
Not just businesses though. Professors who are seen as truth-seekers will often exaggerate the importance of their research to justify their position and funding even if deep down they know it’s all a dead end

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 May 2020 23:13:29 No.11644391 Report

Quoted By:

>>11644371
On top of that they usually only do experiments that their moneybags want. And if they are a good scientist they develop hypotheses that are almost certainly false or dead ringer to be true to keep getting that money.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches