Quizzes & Puzzles0 min 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
I'm not responsible for drafting the new policy. Who knows how it would deal with those fringe cases. But another aspect is the usual rule of thumb that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". An unsourced claim that runs counter to established scientific theories, which in turn are based on evidence gathered and assessed according to the scientific method, is different from an unsourced claim that implicitly relies on such evidence.
//Can We Trust Expert Scientists?//
I used to. When they were diligent in their research, open in their intentions, free from the hive behaviour of the politically entrenched and more in love with the science than the celebrity and monetary possibilities to be gained by following the herd, and above petulant tell tale tantrums and wanabee condescension.
I used to. When they were diligent in their research, open in their intentions, free from the hive behaviour of the politically entrenched and more in love with the science than the celebrity and monetary possibilities to be gained by following the herd, and above petulant tell tale tantrums and wanabee condescension.
I do think some scientists are swayed too much by their, "worldview," which leads to a bias that prevents them following the truth wherever it leads.
That worldview, which will hamper the research result, may also prove to be very lucrative financially, if the, "results," of their work are commercially popular with book sales.
(I have Richard Dawkins in mind.)
That worldview, which will hamper the research result, may also prove to be very lucrative financially, if the, "results," of their work are commercially popular with book sales.
(I have Richard Dawkins in mind.)
All of that can be true, Theland, but as a rule scientists are more likely to be aware of these considerations than others. And flaws in the approach of a single scientist are likely to be exposed by another one.
If you are attacking the mentality of the crowd, though, there should be some better justification of it than merely an oblique reference to worldview. After all, the motivation is and remains the same as your own, namely the pursuit of truth and the attempt to further understand our Universe and how it works. Scientists individually and perhaps collectively are subject to the same subjective flaws as any other human or community, but the key difference is that the methods they have established are designed explicitly to tackle these flaws. The reproducibility criterion makes it clear, for example, that every experiment and the data it produces is only worth something if somebody else can do it and obtain the same data (to within expected experimental errors); or that the results of a given calculation were obtained because that is where the maths led the scientists, and not where the scientists led the maths.
The reason you can trust expert scientists, in the end, is not because they are *right*, but because they are open about how and why they are wrong.
If you are attacking the mentality of the crowd, though, there should be some better justification of it than merely an oblique reference to worldview. After all, the motivation is and remains the same as your own, namely the pursuit of truth and the attempt to further understand our Universe and how it works. Scientists individually and perhaps collectively are subject to the same subjective flaws as any other human or community, but the key difference is that the methods they have established are designed explicitly to tackle these flaws. The reproducibility criterion makes it clear, for example, that every experiment and the data it produces is only worth something if somebody else can do it and obtain the same data (to within expected experimental errors); or that the results of a given calculation were obtained because that is where the maths led the scientists, and not where the scientists led the maths.
The reason you can trust expert scientists, in the end, is not because they are *right*, but because they are open about how and why they are wrong.
It's also worth stressing that no matter where this ends up, it's never been part of AB's rules to belittle and insult other people. It's disappointing that Spicerack undermined his own otherwise excellent point by using it to attack "AB's scientist", whoever that may be. And somewhat unfairly, I might add. Compare anybody's scientific prowess to Einstein's and they'll fall well short; compare their basic character and decency? That's just low.
Who decides whether or not it's "needless"? AB's "Science" Category has always played fast and loose with that concept, and in the process has played host to all sorts of pseudoscientific and conspiratorial theories, with little to no credibility given to their refutations. If the Category wants to be called Science then it's well past time that it took the meaning of that word more seriously.
I'm responsible for nothing other than pointing this out. The Editorial Team is the one who've decided to do something about it, having clearly felt that it is detrimental to the site to have such content here. I can advise them of my point of view, but I cannot influence them beyond that advice.
I'm responsible for nothing other than pointing this out. The Editorial Team is the one who've decided to do something about it, having clearly felt that it is detrimental to the site to have such content here. I can advise them of my point of view, but I cannot influence them beyond that advice.
The biggest problem we have regarding science today is the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Stupid people grossly overestimate their own intelligence and scientific comprehension.
There are some truly outstanding examples on this site.
https:/
There are some truly outstanding examples on this site.
https:/
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.