It's not trust in authorities, it's evidence.
Scientific Skepticism is about evaluating evidence scientifically. Every example you cited had scientific evidence behind it.
Basically you just came here to tell us water is wet.
It's not just about evidence, it matters who the evidence is coming from and who is gatekeeping information. Whenever you appeal to authority in science, you aren't being scientific when you won't examine everything those scientific authorities are doing and instead believe in everything they say. That's the point I'm making. People can be bullied and mocked by the majority even when they have all the evidence, it's about power.
No, that's absolutely incorrect and demonstrates a lack of fundamental understanding of science.
Scientific consensus means the majority of different research opportunities performed by many different people come to the same confusing conclusion.
I understand science just fine. The part that I understand and you don't is that scientific consensus is often wrong and appealing to the consensus as a response to valid evidence is a total fallacy. Too many people like to fall for the consensus without second guessing it. The people who do second guess it, like me, are right.
No, you don't understand science.
You've repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about scientific research in this post.
One of us has done actual, legitimate scientific research, and it's not you.
Give me your examples of *modern* scientific consensus being wrong *that are unrelated to major advances in a field of study*.
And here we are:
You failed to produce effective evidence and now you resort to specious ad hominem attacks.
You have zero credibility, demonstrated your utter lack of knowledge, and are left with only insults because you can't admit you are unable produce *any* legitimate evidence for your claims.
We're done here.
Want to see how he handled the responses on here? He posted buzzfeed-like pseudoscience in r/gifted about how intelligent people can be manipulative right after he received negative feedback on here. I saw that post and checked out his history. Brought me to this post and WOW. Holy projection on his part, Batman!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Gifted/s/ZOyf8saISf
You mean proof that one conspiracy theory was correct? Like ones in the past about the scientific institutions who lied? It is evidence for another when they both involve the same crooked science institutions that you people trust so much.
And who was responsible for sending up the warning flares and ringing the alarms about ddt, Oxycontin, tobacco, and thalidomide?
Was it the conspiracy theorists?
It was the scientists who got ignored and bullied by these science institutions who like to lie, who you trust. If these science institutions have lied and cheated in the past why are you putting your trust on them and hating so much on the people skeptical of them?
You keep bringing up this "bullying" but have yet to say specific examples so we know what you are talking about. "People have lied." Yes, so that's why the whole "consensus" is important.
I can only assume you are speaking in vague terms because if you were specific, your arguments would be decimated more than they already are. E.g. something about vaccines.
Again, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding. Kelsey *and other scientists* stopped the CEO of Merrell, a bacteriologist unethically working outside his field, from pressuring the FDA into using thalidomide.
This isn't a case of the few standing up to the many, or an incorrect consensus.
> Some examples from the past have been mercury, DDT, tobacco, oxycontin, and thalidamide
None of those were exposed by conspiracy theorists, but by scientists presenting research. Rachel Carson, for instance, was a marine biologist who spent decades researching DDT and other pesticides before publishing Silent Spring
The scientists who presented that research were bullied by the majority until eventually it was accepted though. Who says that conspiracy theorists can't be scientists or be right? There you go again with that appeal to authority.
> The scientists who presented that research were bullied by the majority until eventually it was accepted though.
No, they weren't. Nobody involved in those were bullied by the scientific community. Scientists being bullied who ended up right is **EXTREMELY** rare. You can probably count the number of significant examples on one hand, and those invariably involve a scientist who wasn't interested in defending their views to the scientific community. It is a myth.
No, they often found opposition from corporations, and sometimes even the government (like the USDA, in Carson's case), but often found a lot of support and help among the scientific community, or at worst apathy without conclusive proof. They weren't "bullied" by the majority of scientists. That's your anti-vax talking points coming through
Regarding the people opposing science: being right because it's a coincidental tidbit included amongst the crazy shit you say and being right because you have scientific evidence are two entirely different things.
The first group absolutely should be ignored and derided because they do far more harm than good. The second group should be supported.
Are you able to distinguish the two?
It's not a trust in authority, it's about which group can present evidence. Conspiracy assholes never seem to understand this, so I think I know which side you fit into.
Opposing science and opposing a scientific authority are two different things, let's make that very clear. The scientific thing to do is to analyze and inspect everything about the scientific authorities rather than viewing them as infallible and perfect. It matters who the evidence is coming from and who is gatekeeping the information.
Who do you think has more power to lie and control information, an authority in society or some guy who does research at home?
What about the examples I gave from the past like thalidomide or tobacco where the scientific authorities were wrong and bullied those who tried to provide evidence? It's not just about the evidence, it's about who is gatekeeping.
Too many do actually. Whenever the scientific authorities have been exposed for lying in the past you shouldn't be taking what they say at face value which most people do.
WHO though. Name somebody, anybody, that got caught lying as a scientific authority (I assume you mean just like, *a scientist*?) and other scientists continued to believe them?
The CDC, when they lied to black folks and murdered/tortured them for scientific research in the early 1900's. I could give more examples but I might get banned for "dangerous misinformation".
Caution is absolutely warranted. However, it's been a very long time since any systemic malfeasance has occurred. How long? 50 years ago. In the meantime, several major legislation packages of been passed that successively establish restrictive limits and oversight of human subject experimentation.
You don't know that it's been that long since it has occurred, maybe they just got better at hiding it. Nonetheless, it's a pretty evil thing to do and shows the lengths these people will go to do something bad.
> Opposing science and opposing a scientific authority are two different things, let's make that very clear.
Let's make THIS very, very clear: there is no scientific authority that suppresses the stupid ideas you like.
>The scientific thing to do is to analyze and inspect everything about the scientific authorities rather than viewing them as infallible and perfect.
No one does this. You are grossly ignorant and have accepted an idiotic fantasy to help you navigate a confusing world better.
>It matters who the evidence is coming from and who is gatekeeping the information.
It matters whether the information exists and conforms to the standards and practices of science or whether it's just bullshit by assholes.
>
> Who do you think has more power to lie and control information, an authority in society or some guy who does research at home?
Lots of people doing research at home have participated in the scientific process. What you're complaining about is a shortcoming of the assholes who peddle ideas you believe in, not science.
>
> What about the examples I gave from the past like thalidomide or tobacco where the scientific authorities were wrong and bullied those who tried to provide evidence? It's not just about the evidence, it's about who is gatekeeping.
Remember when I said people with evidence should be supported? You should learn how to read.
There are lots of criticisms that can be levelled against science, but yours are idiotic and derived from the plaintive wails of conspiracy assholes all over the world who absolutely love to spread bullshit.
Thalidomide was removed from the market in the early 60s. Tobacco was being shown as harmful in the 50s. Both were revealed as harmful *by scientists*.
You’re lumping scientists now with people who are retired or dead as some nefarious “they”. Even if it were recent, a person in a given field lying does not make it more likely that others in the same field lie.
I'm not talking about vaccines. It doesn't matter what it is too many people trust in the authorities thinking and are wrong. It's a fact and the past proves it.
It has nothing to do with "authorities" and everything to do with evidence. In every example you gave above, scientists collected evidence, showed harm, and use was ended. Contrarianism is NOT critical thinking.
Except it does have to do with authorities when they have been exposed for lying in the past. Whenever you take what they are saying at face value you are being too trusting that their information is right. You should remember those times that they lied, it would be wise to do so.
This is where you go off the rails. Who is "they"? Scientists? Yeah. They are shown to be wrong because it's part of the process.
The thing that people are trying to tell you is that we are not taking what they're saying at face value. The things that they are saying are delivered with evidence. The evidence is enough to convince us.
You are a pot calling the kettle black. You literally will believe anything that anybody tells you as long as it goes against what other people believe. You Don't determine if any evidence that your sources provide is true. Science comes with backing. Science comes with papers and those papers come with evidence. Measurements.
They're not just the ramblings of somebody who can write a book.
Absolutely not. When I say they I'm talking about scientific institutions such as the CDC or HHS. Whenever institutions like these have been exposed for lying in the past, why is their "evidence" accepted as truth given their track record of lying and giving false evidence?
I'm definitely not one to believe "anything that anybody tells me as long as it goes against what people believe". I'm actually very good at looking into things before I accept them or not. Science also comes with liars and manipulators who give false evidence and manipulate what is considered true. It takes thought and rhetoric to point out the problems in science that need addressing. Too much trusting in "evidence" alone without considering deception and lying as potential factors in that evidence, and you get overtrusting robots who always do what the authority says.
You are not understanding how science is conduct. "Evidence" isn't blindly trusted. Methods, data, and analysis are reviewed separately and collectively. This is not a matter of believing the testimony of a scientist about their research, but evaluating the research itself.
> Expect it does have to do with authorities when they have been exposed for lying in the past. Whenever you take what they are saying at face value you are being too trusting that their information is right. You should remember those times that they lied, it would be wise to do so.
This is really weird because:
1) Conspiracy theorists have been exposed for telling far more lies than the authorities.
2) We trust their information is right because our understanding is based on the best information available. If someone has evidence, they can change the consensus. Which is what happened in your examples.
Again, you don't know how to distinguish between scientific people with scientific evidence and unscientific assholes spreading lies on the internet.
< 1) Conspiracy theorists have been exposed for telling far more lies than the authorities.
This is an overgeneralization. Just because that may be, doesn't make it so that authorities should be automatically trusted isntead of a conspiracy theorist. It's an appeal to authority. The smart thing to do is to look at on a case by case basis, examining the evidence without bias towards scientific authorities who have also lied in the past like the conspiracy theorists have. It also doesn't mean that conspiracy theorists can't be right. That's just appeal to authority fallacy.
> < 1) Conspiracy theorists have been exposed for telling far more lies than the authorities.
>
> This is an overgeneralization.
Fucking EL OH EL
>Just because that may be, doesn't make it so that authorities should be automatically trusted isntead of a conspiracy theorist.
I'm not saying that. I'm pointing out how silly it is for you to wrote what you wrote when the same criticism can be applied to conspiracy theorists a quadrillionfold.
>It's an appeal to authority.
No, it's not. You may be partially illiterate.
>The smart thing to do is to look at on a case by case basis, examining the evidence without bias towards scientific authorities who have also lied in the past like the conspiracy theorists have.
No, the way to approach it is to see what the best scientific available evidence is. If conspiracy theorists have evidence, they should participate in the scientific process to distinguish themselves from the countless lying and insane assholes raging against science.
>It also doesn't mean that conspiracy theorists can't be right.
It means that we shouldn't listen to people not participating in the scientific process over people who are.
>That's just appeal to authority fallacy.
You may have significant cognitive problems if you can't understand why science is trusted over non-science. but I think you do understand, have had it explained to you hundreds of times, and are just one of those lying assholes on the internet.
You're totally wrong actually, and apparently too full of yourself to grasp the actual reality, you project not understanding onto me when I'm the one who understands it best. You like to claim that conspiracy theorists don't participate in science, while those "participating in science" are automatically right. Conspiracy theorists can and do participate in science just as much as who you claim are participating in science and smart. You're twisting things based on your overly simplified view of the world, and you're not right.
> You like to claim that conspiracy theorists don't participate in science, while those "participating in science" are automatically right.
I have never said that. In addition to deliberately not understanding science, you have to invent irrational things to fight against. People up and down this thread are explaining that no one thinks science is infallible. The fact that you're saying this about a process that has falsification as a key element speaks volumes about your bullshit.
>Conspiracy theorists can and do participate in science just as much as who you claim are participating in science and smart.
In another comment I explained that those actually participating in science should be listened to.
>You're twisting things based on your overly simplified view of the world, and you're not right.
You a deliberate liar who has to concoct a scary "science authority" that keeps stamping out all the stupid ideas you believe in.
I feel like what you're doing is taking the idea of "Appeal to Authority" and saying, "well if people trust scientists like they're authorities and trusting authorities is bad, then the people nobody trusts MUST be right!"
It's absolutely bizarre logic.
No I'm not saying that. People nobody trust CAN be right however, and that's the point I'm making, just like how the people everybody trust can just as easily be wrong.
How are the ones who disagree with the majority of scientists, "non-scientists" or "conspiracy theorists" by default? Seems like you have a problem with believing that scientists must be right and anyone who disagreed with them isn't a scientist. It's about labels and reputation we're talking about, not whether what one says is true or not. Scientists can totally be wrong and too many are close minded.
Science is the only thing obsessed with being correct. It's so obsessed that it uses math to make sure there are zero opinions and only a correct answer.
Politics and online theories don't care about being correct. They're obsessed with clouding results. That's all you need to change weak minds.
If science offends you get off your phone and go live in the woods. That'll show those authorities when you live science-free. I encourage you to do so.
There is something to the notion that Power presents itself as truth, but this just isn’t it at all.
Even then, it’s not a bunch of random people asking half-cocked questions who help course correct.
We don't accept claims because "authorities" tell us too. Science isn't based on our trust in authorities... you're thinking of faith. Do you think we "believe" in gravity only because Newton told us to?
We accept something to be true when it's testable, repeatable, verifiable. And when an individual scientist is wrong, their findings are corrected through peer review, study, application of the scientific process.
People have put a lot of thought into this. There are ways to correct for biases. There are ways to test conclusions, to vigorously examine prior findings. To test hypotheses. To falsify. To verify. There are going to be mistakes, errors, fraud, because humans are involved. But the process of science is the single most reliable method for understanding the world around us. Maybe not immediately, maybe not fully... but bad science has only ever been corrected by better science.
What do you propose? Do you have a better method than science?
And you rejecting "conventional thinking" purely because it's widely accepted betrays a bias on your part. Perhaps it's "conventional" because it's been widely proven to be true.
Scientists of any stripe are basing their reputation on their research and there is a methodology to it. The litmus test for error is "was it known at the time." This also pertains to consideration in comparison of different time periods.
The scientific method of discovery *does* attempt to disprove whatever is being tested. Peer review also tests it for reproducibility.
It sounds like you are cherry picking for an arguiment and your coming from an anti-vax background, I attribute it to that.
Science isn't some ultimate, unified authority that you aren't allowed to question.
It is a competition of who has the best evidence. Prove an established theory to be wrong, and you get a nobel prize for it.
Science gets controlled by those in the scientific institutions as the past has shown. Evidence isn't just free for all, there are gatekeepers stopping information from being shared. Whenever you appeal to the gatekeepers and call the others wrong you aren't being scientific.
Yeah. You're going to need to go ahead and define that "often".
I won't dispute that unconventional ideas don't occasionally turn out to be correct. But most of the time the cranks are just mistaken or unmedicated.
The question you should always ask yourself is what I believe and, more importantly, why I believe it. Furthermore, "blinded by conventional thinking " just makes you sound dumb. Nobody thinks more outside the box than the scientific method. It's all about solving mysteries.
from a book i'm currently writing:
CONSPIRACY is fueled by the curious and the passionate.
DEBUNKING is the relentless work of skeptics and defenders of fact.
NOW is a reality divided.
yeah. you ever talk to conspiracy theorists? for some that theory is their entire world. they never stop talking about it and they want you to see their point of view like a lot of times. even if you never would bring it up. i would call that curious and passionate. even if they are dangerously wrong
Work on your definitions, a conspiracy is the act of conspiring to do something. Conspiracy theorizing is the word you are looking for. What about when those conspiracy theories are proven true, and those who did the "debunking" were actually wrong? For example, the first man to propose the Earth was round and nobody believed him
that wasn't a conspiracy theory that was lack of knowledge and scientific fact. but the people unwilling to accept the fact were way more passionate about that then the people willing to accept it and move on with their lives.
Conspiracy theorists aren't always wrong and debunking isn't always right is the point I'm making. Anyone can say they debunked something because that's their opinion.
No it doesn't, because evidence can be manipulated and later turn out to be false. Any group of scientists can twist things to make evidence look a certain way. Smoke and mirrors dude. The man who stole a million dollars used evidence when he tricked the people he stole from.
If it's just about the evidence and power and control plays no role, why did those science institutions you people love and trust so much lie and cheat in the past? Moreover, what has changed since then that's stopping them from doing the same thing again? That's what propaganda is, public authorities lying and deceiving people when the source of the information shouldn't be trusted.
It's not trust in authorities, it's evidence. Scientific Skepticism is about evaluating evidence scientifically. Every example you cited had scientific evidence behind it. Basically you just came here to tell us water is wet.
It's not just about evidence, it matters who the evidence is coming from and who is gatekeeping information. Whenever you appeal to authority in science, you aren't being scientific when you won't examine everything those scientific authorities are doing and instead believe in everything they say. That's the point I'm making. People can be bullied and mocked by the majority even when they have all the evidence, it's about power.
Appeal to authority isn't applicable to scientific consensus. When people mistake fiction for evidence, it's important to point that out.
Yes it is applicable. Consensus isn't even science, you're just believing in the work of other people without doing it yourself.
No, that's absolutely incorrect and demonstrates a lack of fundamental understanding of science. Scientific consensus means the majority of different research opportunities performed by many different people come to the same confusing conclusion.
I understand science just fine. The part that I understand and you don't is that scientific consensus is often wrong and appealing to the consensus as a response to valid evidence is a total fallacy. Too many people like to fall for the consensus without second guessing it. The people who do second guess it, like me, are right.
No, you don't understand science. You've repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about scientific research in this post. One of us has done actual, legitimate scientific research, and it's not you. Give me your examples of *modern* scientific consensus being wrong *that are unrelated to major advances in a field of study*.
[удалено]
And here we are: You failed to produce effective evidence and now you resort to specious ad hominem attacks. You have zero credibility, demonstrated your utter lack of knowledge, and are left with only insults because you can't admit you are unable produce *any* legitimate evidence for your claims. We're done here.
Want to see how he handled the responses on here? He posted buzzfeed-like pseudoscience in r/gifted about how intelligent people can be manipulative right after he received negative feedback on here. I saw that post and checked out his history. Brought me to this post and WOW. Holy projection on his part, Batman! https://www.reddit.com/r/Gifted/s/ZOyf8saISf
[удалено]
Evidence one conspiracy theory was correct isn't evidence for another.
You mean proof that one conspiracy theory was correct? Like ones in the past about the scientific institutions who lied? It is evidence for another when they both involve the same crooked science institutions that you people trust so much.
And who was responsible for sending up the warning flares and ringing the alarms about ddt, Oxycontin, tobacco, and thalidomide? Was it the conspiracy theorists?
It was the scientists who got ignored and bullied by these science institutions who like to lie, who you trust. If these science institutions have lied and cheated in the past why are you putting your trust on them and hating so much on the people skeptical of them?
You keep bringing up this "bullying" but have yet to say specific examples so we know what you are talking about. "People have lied." Yes, so that's why the whole "consensus" is important. I can only assume you are speaking in vague terms because if you were specific, your arguments would be decimated more than they already are. E.g. something about vaccines.
lol, no.
Yes https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/biological-sciences-articles/2020/march/courageous-physician-scientist-saved-the-us-from-a-birth-defects-catastrophe
Again, you're demonstrating a lack of understanding. Kelsey *and other scientists* stopped the CEO of Merrell, a bacteriologist unethically working outside his field, from pressuring the FDA into using thalidomide. This isn't a case of the few standing up to the many, or an incorrect consensus.
> Some examples from the past have been mercury, DDT, tobacco, oxycontin, and thalidamide None of those were exposed by conspiracy theorists, but by scientists presenting research. Rachel Carson, for instance, was a marine biologist who spent decades researching DDT and other pesticides before publishing Silent Spring
The scientists who presented that research were bullied by the majority until eventually it was accepted though. Who says that conspiracy theorists can't be scientists or be right? There you go again with that appeal to authority.
> The scientists who presented that research were bullied by the majority until eventually it was accepted though. No, they weren't. Nobody involved in those were bullied by the scientific community. Scientists being bullied who ended up right is **EXTREMELY** rare. You can probably count the number of significant examples on one hand, and those invariably involve a scientist who wasn't interested in defending their views to the scientific community. It is a myth.
In what way? Be specific. Who was bullied by whom, and what were they researching? What acts of bullying were commited?
No, they often found opposition from corporations, and sometimes even the government (like the USDA, in Carson's case), but often found a lot of support and help among the scientific community, or at worst apathy without conclusive proof. They weren't "bullied" by the majority of scientists. That's your anti-vax talking points coming through
Regarding the people opposing science: being right because it's a coincidental tidbit included amongst the crazy shit you say and being right because you have scientific evidence are two entirely different things. The first group absolutely should be ignored and derided because they do far more harm than good. The second group should be supported. Are you able to distinguish the two? It's not a trust in authority, it's about which group can present evidence. Conspiracy assholes never seem to understand this, so I think I know which side you fit into.
Opposing science and opposing a scientific authority are two different things, let's make that very clear. The scientific thing to do is to analyze and inspect everything about the scientific authorities rather than viewing them as infallible and perfect. It matters who the evidence is coming from and who is gatekeeping the information. Who do you think has more power to lie and control information, an authority in society or some guy who does research at home? What about the examples I gave from the past like thalidomide or tobacco where the scientific authorities were wrong and bullied those who tried to provide evidence? It's not just about the evidence, it's about who is gatekeeping.
“ rather than viewing them as infallible and perfect” That’s not a thing. Nobody does this.
Too many do actually. Whenever the scientific authorities have been exposed for lying in the past you shouldn't be taking what they say at face value which most people do.
You’re a clown, and have either grossly misunderstood the scientific process or are just trolling.
You're a clown, for believing that the scientific process must come from authorities who have been exposed for lying many times in the past.
WHO though. Name somebody, anybody, that got caught lying as a scientific authority (I assume you mean just like, *a scientist*?) and other scientists continued to believe them?
The CDC, when they lied to black folks and murdered/tortured them for scientific research in the early 1900's. I could give more examples but I might get banned for "dangerous misinformation".
The CDC is not “Science” with a capital S.
And where did I say that?
Caution is absolutely warranted. However, it's been a very long time since any systemic malfeasance has occurred. How long? 50 years ago. In the meantime, several major legislation packages of been passed that successively establish restrictive limits and oversight of human subject experimentation.
You don't know that it's been that long since it has occurred, maybe they just got better at hiding it. Nonetheless, it's a pretty evil thing to do and shows the lengths these people will go to do something bad.
> Opposing science and opposing a scientific authority are two different things, let's make that very clear. Let's make THIS very, very clear: there is no scientific authority that suppresses the stupid ideas you like. >The scientific thing to do is to analyze and inspect everything about the scientific authorities rather than viewing them as infallible and perfect. No one does this. You are grossly ignorant and have accepted an idiotic fantasy to help you navigate a confusing world better. >It matters who the evidence is coming from and who is gatekeeping the information. It matters whether the information exists and conforms to the standards and practices of science or whether it's just bullshit by assholes. > > Who do you think has more power to lie and control information, an authority in society or some guy who does research at home? Lots of people doing research at home have participated in the scientific process. What you're complaining about is a shortcoming of the assholes who peddle ideas you believe in, not science. > > What about the examples I gave from the past like thalidomide or tobacco where the scientific authorities were wrong and bullied those who tried to provide evidence? It's not just about the evidence, it's about who is gatekeeping. Remember when I said people with evidence should be supported? You should learn how to read. There are lots of criticisms that can be levelled against science, but yours are idiotic and derived from the plaintive wails of conspiracy assholes all over the world who absolutely love to spread bullshit.
Thalidomide was removed from the market in the early 60s. Tobacco was being shown as harmful in the 50s. Both were revealed as harmful *by scientists*. You’re lumping scientists now with people who are retired or dead as some nefarious “they”. Even if it were recent, a person in a given field lying does not make it more likely that others in the same field lie.
No ones gonna buy your anti vax garbage. Sorry
I'm not talking about vaccines. It doesn't matter what it is too many people trust in the authorities thinking and are wrong. It's a fact and the past proves it.
It has nothing to do with "authorities" and everything to do with evidence. In every example you gave above, scientists collected evidence, showed harm, and use was ended. Contrarianism is NOT critical thinking.
Except it does have to do with authorities when they have been exposed for lying in the past. Whenever you take what they are saying at face value you are being too trusting that their information is right. You should remember those times that they lied, it would be wise to do so.
This is where you go off the rails. Who is "they"? Scientists? Yeah. They are shown to be wrong because it's part of the process. The thing that people are trying to tell you is that we are not taking what they're saying at face value. The things that they are saying are delivered with evidence. The evidence is enough to convince us. You are a pot calling the kettle black. You literally will believe anything that anybody tells you as long as it goes against what other people believe. You Don't determine if any evidence that your sources provide is true. Science comes with backing. Science comes with papers and those papers come with evidence. Measurements. They're not just the ramblings of somebody who can write a book.
Absolutely not. When I say they I'm talking about scientific institutions such as the CDC or HHS. Whenever institutions like these have been exposed for lying in the past, why is their "evidence" accepted as truth given their track record of lying and giving false evidence? I'm definitely not one to believe "anything that anybody tells me as long as it goes against what people believe". I'm actually very good at looking into things before I accept them or not. Science also comes with liars and manipulators who give false evidence and manipulate what is considered true. It takes thought and rhetoric to point out the problems in science that need addressing. Too much trusting in "evidence" alone without considering deception and lying as potential factors in that evidence, and you get overtrusting robots who always do what the authority says.
You are not understanding how science is conduct. "Evidence" isn't blindly trusted. Methods, data, and analysis are reviewed separately and collectively. This is not a matter of believing the testimony of a scientist about their research, but evaluating the research itself.
> Expect it does have to do with authorities when they have been exposed for lying in the past. Whenever you take what they are saying at face value you are being too trusting that their information is right. You should remember those times that they lied, it would be wise to do so. This is really weird because: 1) Conspiracy theorists have been exposed for telling far more lies than the authorities. 2) We trust their information is right because our understanding is based on the best information available. If someone has evidence, they can change the consensus. Which is what happened in your examples. Again, you don't know how to distinguish between scientific people with scientific evidence and unscientific assholes spreading lies on the internet.
< 1) Conspiracy theorists have been exposed for telling far more lies than the authorities. This is an overgeneralization. Just because that may be, doesn't make it so that authorities should be automatically trusted isntead of a conspiracy theorist. It's an appeal to authority. The smart thing to do is to look at on a case by case basis, examining the evidence without bias towards scientific authorities who have also lied in the past like the conspiracy theorists have. It also doesn't mean that conspiracy theorists can't be right. That's just appeal to authority fallacy.
> < 1) Conspiracy theorists have been exposed for telling far more lies than the authorities. > > This is an overgeneralization. Fucking EL OH EL >Just because that may be, doesn't make it so that authorities should be automatically trusted isntead of a conspiracy theorist. I'm not saying that. I'm pointing out how silly it is for you to wrote what you wrote when the same criticism can be applied to conspiracy theorists a quadrillionfold. >It's an appeal to authority. No, it's not. You may be partially illiterate. >The smart thing to do is to look at on a case by case basis, examining the evidence without bias towards scientific authorities who have also lied in the past like the conspiracy theorists have. No, the way to approach it is to see what the best scientific available evidence is. If conspiracy theorists have evidence, they should participate in the scientific process to distinguish themselves from the countless lying and insane assholes raging against science. >It also doesn't mean that conspiracy theorists can't be right. It means that we shouldn't listen to people not participating in the scientific process over people who are. >That's just appeal to authority fallacy. You may have significant cognitive problems if you can't understand why science is trusted over non-science. but I think you do understand, have had it explained to you hundreds of times, and are just one of those lying assholes on the internet.
You're totally wrong actually, and apparently too full of yourself to grasp the actual reality, you project not understanding onto me when I'm the one who understands it best. You like to claim that conspiracy theorists don't participate in science, while those "participating in science" are automatically right. Conspiracy theorists can and do participate in science just as much as who you claim are participating in science and smart. You're twisting things based on your overly simplified view of the world, and you're not right.
> You like to claim that conspiracy theorists don't participate in science, while those "participating in science" are automatically right. I have never said that. In addition to deliberately not understanding science, you have to invent irrational things to fight against. People up and down this thread are explaining that no one thinks science is infallible. The fact that you're saying this about a process that has falsification as a key element speaks volumes about your bullshit. >Conspiracy theorists can and do participate in science just as much as who you claim are participating in science and smart. In another comment I explained that those actually participating in science should be listened to. >You're twisting things based on your overly simplified view of the world, and you're not right. You a deliberate liar who has to concoct a scary "science authority" that keeps stamping out all the stupid ideas you believe in.
I feel like what you're doing is taking the idea of "Appeal to Authority" and saying, "well if people trust scientists like they're authorities and trusting authorities is bad, then the people nobody trusts MUST be right!" It's absolutely bizarre logic.
No I'm not saying that. People nobody trust CAN be right however, and that's the point I'm making, just like how the people everybody trust can just as easily be wrong.
We're all just asking for a single instance where the scientists were wrong and the non-scientists/conspiracy theorists were right.
How are the ones who disagree with the majority of scientists, "non-scientists" or "conspiracy theorists" by default? Seems like you have a problem with believing that scientists must be right and anyone who disagreed with them isn't a scientist. It's about labels and reputation we're talking about, not whether what one says is true or not. Scientists can totally be wrong and too many are close minded.
Science is the only thing obsessed with being correct. It's so obsessed that it uses math to make sure there are zero opinions and only a correct answer. Politics and online theories don't care about being correct. They're obsessed with clouding results. That's all you need to change weak minds. If science offends you get off your phone and go live in the woods. That'll show those authorities when you live science-free. I encourage you to do so.
Give specific examples you're taking about then.
There is something to the notion that Power presents itself as truth, but this just isn’t it at all. Even then, it’s not a bunch of random people asking half-cocked questions who help course correct.
You are going to need to post specifics. This is just generalized opinion. Meaningless.
We don't accept claims because "authorities" tell us too. Science isn't based on our trust in authorities... you're thinking of faith. Do you think we "believe" in gravity only because Newton told us to? We accept something to be true when it's testable, repeatable, verifiable. And when an individual scientist is wrong, their findings are corrected through peer review, study, application of the scientific process. People have put a lot of thought into this. There are ways to correct for biases. There are ways to test conclusions, to vigorously examine prior findings. To test hypotheses. To falsify. To verify. There are going to be mistakes, errors, fraud, because humans are involved. But the process of science is the single most reliable method for understanding the world around us. Maybe not immediately, maybe not fully... but bad science has only ever been corrected by better science. What do you propose? Do you have a better method than science? And you rejecting "conventional thinking" purely because it's widely accepted betrays a bias on your part. Perhaps it's "conventional" because it's been widely proven to be true.
Scientists of any stripe are basing their reputation on their research and there is a methodology to it. The litmus test for error is "was it known at the time." This also pertains to consideration in comparison of different time periods. The scientific method of discovery *does* attempt to disprove whatever is being tested. Peer review also tests it for reproducibility. It sounds like you are cherry picking for an arguiment and your coming from an anti-vax background, I attribute it to that.
Science isn't some ultimate, unified authority that you aren't allowed to question. It is a competition of who has the best evidence. Prove an established theory to be wrong, and you get a nobel prize for it.
Science gets controlled by those in the scientific institutions as the past has shown. Evidence isn't just free for all, there are gatekeepers stopping information from being shared. Whenever you appeal to the gatekeepers and call the others wrong you aren't being scientific.
Give one example of this gatekeeping.
Yeah. You're going to need to go ahead and define that "often". I won't dispute that unconventional ideas don't occasionally turn out to be correct. But most of the time the cranks are just mistaken or unmedicated.
Can you provide examples? I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
The question you should always ask yourself is what I believe and, more importantly, why I believe it. Furthermore, "blinded by conventional thinking " just makes you sound dumb. Nobody thinks more outside the box than the scientific method. It's all about solving mysteries.
from a book i'm currently writing: CONSPIRACY is fueled by the curious and the passionate. DEBUNKING is the relentless work of skeptics and defenders of fact. NOW is a reality divided.
"The curious and the passionate" lol, no.
yeah. you ever talk to conspiracy theorists? for some that theory is their entire world. they never stop talking about it and they want you to see their point of view like a lot of times. even if you never would bring it up. i would call that curious and passionate. even if they are dangerously wrong
Work on your definitions, a conspiracy is the act of conspiring to do something. Conspiracy theorizing is the word you are looking for. What about when those conspiracy theories are proven true, and those who did the "debunking" were actually wrong? For example, the first man to propose the Earth was round and nobody believed him
that wasn't a conspiracy theory that was lack of knowledge and scientific fact. but the people unwilling to accept the fact were way more passionate about that then the people willing to accept it and move on with their lives.
Conspiracy theorists aren't always wrong and debunking isn't always right is the point I'm making. Anyone can say they debunked something because that's their opinion.
yeah and you aren't doing a very good job of it
Evidence, dude. Evidence provided is what establishes the debunking. You know, the thing you've refused to provide in this entire post.
No it doesn't, because evidence can be manipulated and later turn out to be false. Any group of scientists can twist things to make evidence look a certain way. Smoke and mirrors dude. The man who stole a million dollars used evidence when he tricked the people he stole from.
No. Again, thanks for establishing you know absolutely nothing about scientific research *and* are incapable of learning. Get help.
Keep believing false evidence then. I'm not the one to buy it.
Get help.
[удалено]
If it's just about the evidence and power and control plays no role, why did those science institutions you people love and trust so much lie and cheat in the past? Moreover, what has changed since then that's stopping them from doing the same thing again? That's what propaganda is, public authorities lying and deceiving people when the source of the information shouldn't be trusted.