Do We Ever Really Care Who Lived In Our...
Home & Garden3 mins ago
Can We Trust Expert Scientists?
Most notably on climate change, but on many other subjects as well such as vaccinations, diet, and a myriad of other things, can we trust scientists?
How do we mame decisions?
My personal interests are origin of the universe, origin of life, and evolution.
What do you think?
How do we mame decisions?
My personal interests are origin of the universe, origin of life, and evolution.
What do you think?
Answers
//So Editor, do you discriminate between Intelligent Design and Evolution?// You read my thoughts, Theland. “
15:23 Mon 27th Jan 2020
//So Editor, do you discriminate between Intelligent Design and Evolution?//
You read my thoughts, Theland. “Supporting the scientific method over conspiracy theories” has further reaching implications than initially imagined - especially when science has a rethink - as has been known to happen - so if it's not broken don't fix it. In my estimation, the introduction of censorship of opinion in any shape or form will open an unwanted can of worms. Far wiser to leave all comers well alone to argue it out as they have always done. Everyone really is entitled to his/her opinion - aren’t they?
You read my thoughts, Theland. “Supporting the scientific method over conspiracy theories” has further reaching implications than initially imagined - especially when science has a rethink - as has been known to happen - so if it's not broken don't fix it. In my estimation, the introduction of censorship of opinion in any shape or form will open an unwanted can of worms. Far wiser to leave all comers well alone to argue it out as they have always done. Everyone really is entitled to his/her opinion - aren’t they?
Science is not exactly a hot category. This all seems like a storm in a teacup.
My main concern would be when science touches medicine or some other area that may impact personal, life-affecting decisions.
E.g. on climate change, the conspiracy theorists can post what they like, it's not going to affect much. But anti-vax conspiracy theories may actually cause people to choose not to vaccinate, at an individual level, and that's a bigger deal. If somebody posts in Health & Fitness asking about drugs, and gets a response that a knowledgeable moderator feels is dangerous to the health of the poster, I would expect that moderator to remove the response. I don't see that Science is much different if you're talking about vaccination, for example.
Science is evidence-based. If you want to argue against science, you need the evidence to do it. An opinion not based on evidence is, frankly, useless in this category; if you want a scientific answer to a scientific question, that is ...
My main concern would be when science touches medicine or some other area that may impact personal, life-affecting decisions.
E.g. on climate change, the conspiracy theorists can post what they like, it's not going to affect much. But anti-vax conspiracy theories may actually cause people to choose not to vaccinate, at an individual level, and that's a bigger deal. If somebody posts in Health & Fitness asking about drugs, and gets a response that a knowledgeable moderator feels is dangerous to the health of the poster, I would expect that moderator to remove the response. I don't see that Science is much different if you're talking about vaccination, for example.
Science is evidence-based. If you want to argue against science, you need the evidence to do it. An opinion not based on evidence is, frankly, useless in this category; if you want a scientific answer to a scientific question, that is ...
jim; //Science is constantly undergoing revision, albeit usually at small rather than huge scales, so it would be futile to keep track of and insist on the latest position.//
You're damn right, here's the latest from a new book, 'Six Impossible Things' * by John Gribbin;
1. The world does not exist unless looked at.
2. Particles are pushed around by an invisible wave, but the particles
have no influence on the wave.
3. Everything that could possibly happen does, in an array of parallel
realities.
4. Everything that could possibly happen has already happened and
we only notice part of it.
5. Everything influences everything else instantly, as if space does
not exist.
6. The future influences the past.
* sub-headed, 'The 'quanta of solace' and the mysteries of the subatomic world.'
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You're damn right, here's the latest from a new book, 'Six Impossible Things' * by John Gribbin;
1. The world does not exist unless looked at.
2. Particles are pushed around by an invisible wave, but the particles
have no influence on the wave.
3. Everything that could possibly happen does, in an array of parallel
realities.
4. Everything that could possibly happen has already happened and
we only notice part of it.
5. Everything influences everything else instantly, as if space does
not exist.
6. The future influences the past.
* sub-headed, 'The 'quanta of solace' and the mysteries of the subatomic world.'
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Ellipsis, I don't believe anyone here has suggested children shouldn't be vaccinated.
The problem with this proposed initiative is, as Jim says. //Science is constantly undergoing revision// - so whoever is going to police it had better be on their toes because unless they are, moderation cannot possibly be consistent.
Furthermore, the rules appertaining to any one category shouldn't be determined by one member. We've all been jogging along quite nicely for years without this pedantic nonsense. People will be reluctant to post in Science because they won't know whether they're coming or going (literally) so as likely as not they won't bother coming at all. Another category bites the dust.
The problem with this proposed initiative is, as Jim says. //Science is constantly undergoing revision// - so whoever is going to police it had better be on their toes because unless they are, moderation cannot possibly be consistent.
Furthermore, the rules appertaining to any one category shouldn't be determined by one member. We've all been jogging along quite nicely for years without this pedantic nonsense. People will be reluctant to post in Science because they won't know whether they're coming or going (literally) so as likely as not they won't bother coming at all. Another category bites the dust.
> The problem with this proposed initiative is, as Jim says. //Science is constantly undergoing revision// - so whoever is going to police it had better be on their toes because unless they are, moderation cannot possibly be consistent.
Every post has a timestamp on it. Therefore it should represent scientific thinking at that time.
> Furthermore, the rules appertaining to any one category shouldn't be determined by one member.
Correct, they should be determined by the Editors.
> We've all been jogging along quite nicely for years without this pedantic nonsense. People will be reluctant to post in Science because they won't know whether they're coming or going (literally)
I don't see what's wrong, in the Science category, with "Ask a scientific question, get a scientific answer". That seems very clear.
Every post has a timestamp on it. Therefore it should represent scientific thinking at that time.
> Furthermore, the rules appertaining to any one category shouldn't be determined by one member.
Correct, they should be determined by the Editors.
> We've all been jogging along quite nicely for years without this pedantic nonsense. People will be reluctant to post in Science because they won't know whether they're coming or going (literally)
I don't see what's wrong, in the Science category, with "Ask a scientific question, get a scientific answer". That seems very clear.
//"Ask a scientific question, get a scientific answer". //
And that's guaranteed? I think not. Apart from that, people must be at liberty to disagree. Just, for example, think of the nutritional advice science has come up with over the years - and how often it has changed its mind. Eggs are bad for you .... ohhh no they're not! The proposal is nonsense. It's impractical.
And that's guaranteed? I think not. Apart from that, people must be at liberty to disagree. Just, for example, think of the nutritional advice science has come up with over the years - and how often it has changed its mind. Eggs are bad for you .... ohhh no they're not! The proposal is nonsense. It's impractical.
-- answer removed --
I think that the difference also is that, in law, people are permitted to post what they BELIEVE to be right ie correct. They aren't allowed to be purely morally judgemental but according to the rules, it seems that they aren't prohibited from posting what is factually inaccurate, nor of defending it with personal experience. it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
> people must be at liberty to disagree
Yep, but in the Science category, they should be disagreeing on a scientific basis. E.g. if AB existed back in 1998 ...
A: Have you seen that new paper by Andrew Wakefield in The Lancet?! Wow!
B: Yeah, I can't believe they published it. Look at the small sample size, the uncontrolled design and the speculative nature of the conclusions.
A: But it's in The Lancet! There's got to be more to this ...
... and you can see a good discussion kicking off. A scientific one.
There's a very big difference between a scientific approach and conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories happened to be the subject of The Infinite Monkey Cage (BBC Radio 4 science programme with Brian Cox and Robin Ince) this week (hmmm, coincidence???) and anti-vax featured heavily:
https:/
The two threads I was involved on recently ...
* Climate change
* Anti-vax
Take the second example .... the anti-vax posts were being given as much credibility as the pro-vax posts, as in "All opinions are equal". But they're not. If you have more members who are anti-vax on a thread, and all opinions supposedly count as equal, then AB is not doing what it's set up to do.
Yep, but in the Science category, they should be disagreeing on a scientific basis. E.g. if AB existed back in 1998 ...
A: Have you seen that new paper by Andrew Wakefield in The Lancet?! Wow!
B: Yeah, I can't believe they published it. Look at the small sample size, the uncontrolled design and the speculative nature of the conclusions.
A: But it's in The Lancet! There's got to be more to this ...
... and you can see a good discussion kicking off. A scientific one.
There's a very big difference between a scientific approach and conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories happened to be the subject of The Infinite Monkey Cage (BBC Radio 4 science programme with Brian Cox and Robin Ince) this week (hmmm, coincidence???) and anti-vax featured heavily:
https:/
The two threads I was involved on recently ...
* Climate change
* Anti-vax
Take the second example .... the anti-vax posts were being given as much credibility as the pro-vax posts, as in "All opinions are equal". But they're not. If you have more members who are anti-vax on a thread, and all opinions supposedly count as equal, then AB is not doing what it's set up to do.
It was more or less inevitable that something like this would get some pushback. But the error made in the criticism is in failing to distinguish an opinion from the evidence presented to support it. If there is evidence provided, that evidence can be subjected to scrutiny. If there is no such evidence, then the opinion is unscientific not because of what it says but because of how it is being presented.
Take the Climate Change topic as an example. Togo made a claim that humans aren't responsible for climate change, and he provided a source for it. The question then shifts to whether or not the source is credible, and this can be evaluated scientifically according to criteria described in the Scientific Method. That's how things should work.
Take as a second example the discussion, earlier in this thread, about vaccination. There, the opinions that vaccines cause (or may cause, or may be linked to) autism is espoused but unsupported. The evidence against the proposition has been implicitly rejected (because it hasn't even been discussed), and the evidence in favour of it appears to be based on anecdote, which is to say that it is, by definition, impossible to scrutinise.
If people want to claim that their opinions are scientific, and so belong in the Science category, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that they should at least try to meet some basic objective criteria. Provide evidence for the opinion, and explain how evidence to the contrary can be explained within that opinion. And, if you aren't prepared to do that, then it is and always has been an implicit acknowledgement that the opinion is unscientific.
It's true that Science is undergoing constant revision in its opinions and its conclusions. But the basic method has remained unchanged for centuries, because it is objective, because it seeks to eliminate, as far as is possible, the individual human factor in favour of a collective approach, and because it is fair. All opinions are equal, until they are given scrutiny, where those that fail to meet these objective standards are set aside (until, as sometimes happens, they finally meet that standard).
See also ellipsis' post, which perfectly illustrates the point.
Take the Climate Change topic as an example. Togo made a claim that humans aren't responsible for climate change, and he provided a source for it. The question then shifts to whether or not the source is credible, and this can be evaluated scientifically according to criteria described in the Scientific Method. That's how things should work.
Take as a second example the discussion, earlier in this thread, about vaccination. There, the opinions that vaccines cause (or may cause, or may be linked to) autism is espoused but unsupported. The evidence against the proposition has been implicitly rejected (because it hasn't even been discussed), and the evidence in favour of it appears to be based on anecdote, which is to say that it is, by definition, impossible to scrutinise.
If people want to claim that their opinions are scientific, and so belong in the Science category, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that they should at least try to meet some basic objective criteria. Provide evidence for the opinion, and explain how evidence to the contrary can be explained within that opinion. And, if you aren't prepared to do that, then it is and always has been an implicit acknowledgement that the opinion is unscientific.
It's true that Science is undergoing constant revision in its opinions and its conclusions. But the basic method has remained unchanged for centuries, because it is objective, because it seeks to eliminate, as far as is possible, the individual human factor in favour of a collective approach, and because it is fair. All opinions are equal, until they are given scrutiny, where those that fail to meet these objective standards are set aside (until, as sometimes happens, they finally meet that standard).
See also ellipsis' post, which perfectly illustrates the point.
The answers on this site are made up of random opinions from random people on the internet who may know nothing about the subject. It's not supposed to be a guaranteed source of factual information.
It's getting into weird territory if it starts removing answers on the basis that they might not be correct.
It's getting into weird territory if it starts removing answers on the basis that they might not be correct.
For example, Theland asks, and the "BA" discusses further, whether the Editor is proposing to discriminate between Intelligent Design and Evolution. The answer ought to be no, except in as much as one answer or the other relies on and presents evidence in favour of it. If someone can provide evidence or sources in favour of ID, there is no issue, assuming the evidence/source can be scrutinised according to the scientific method, and there is therefore plenty of room for debate even if some new standard along these lines were to apply.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Body & Soul12 mins ago
Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.