Opinion What's the deal with layman(s) questioning the credentials and scientific ability of actual experts?

[Bob Gray]

Correct! The scientific process is why we no longer believe the earth is the center of the universe and leeching bad blood out will heal you. Both things that were wrong in the first place but treated as fact until scientifically didproven.

Yeah, but my point is that it was wrong. Science is very often wrong, and thats fine. Failure is one of the best ways to lead to success. For a long time Ive said House M.D. was actually one of the best pop culture representations of the scientific method in action. Because the whole episode he's wrong until at the 49 minute mark he drifts off in the middle of a sentence as it all clicks together. But every failure teaches something. All the failures led it there, but he was still wrong more often than he was right, because its a process, not an answer.

Basically what Im saying is, theres nothing wrong with skepticism in general. Skepticism doesnt mean belief in something else, though. But science and scientific proponents should openly welcome skepticism, and I think thats not the case far more often than it should be.

But even on top of that, sometimes its wrong simply because smart people talk out of their ass. its easy to make assumptions when you dont have details. Literally barely more than 100 years ago it was accepted that life couldnt exist at the bottom of the ocean for "scientific" reasons. Theres too little oxygen, its too cold, no sunlight, too much pressure. It was all very "obvious". Until closer observations were possible, and stuff like thermal vents supplied both heat and oxygen, etc. not only were the scientific predictions inaccurate but they were as inaccurate as they could possibly be. Sometimes I hear brilliant cosmologists talk about stuff like whats inside black holes and I just think of that same example. Especially when so many have such starkly different ideas. Anyway, that was a longer post than I anticipated.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Yeah, but my point is that it was wrong. Science is very often wrong, and thats fine. Failure is one of the best ways to lead to success. For a long time Ive said House M.D. was actually one of the best pop culture representations of the scientific method in action. Because the whole episode he's wrong until at the 49 minute mark he drifts off in the middle of a sentence as it all clicks together. But every failure teaches something. All the failures led it there, but he was still wrong more often than he was right, because its a process, not an answer.

Basically what Im saying is, theres nothing wrong with skepticism in general. Skepticism doesnt mean belief in something else, though. But science and scientific proponents should openly welcome skepticism, and I think thats not the case far more often than it should be.

modern Skepticism is often based on preconceived notions and confirmation bias.

 

[Soggust]

Yeah, but my point is that it was wrong. Science is very often wrong, and thats fine. Failure is one of the best ways to lead to success. For a long time Ive said House M.D. was actually one of the best pop culture representations of the scientific method in action. Because the whole episode he's wrong until at the 49 minute mark he drifts off in the middle of a sentence as it all clicks together. But every failure teaches something. All the failures led it there, but he was still wrong more often than he was right, because its a process, not an answer.

Basically what Im saying is, theres nothing wrong with skepticism in general. Skepticism doesnt mean belief in something else, though. But science and scientific proponents should openly welcome skepticism, and I think thats not the case far more often than it should be.

But even on top of that, sometimes its wrong simply because smart people talk out of their ass. its easy to make assumptions when you dont have details. Literally barely more than 100 years ago it was accepted that life couldnt exist at the bottom of the ocean for "scientific" reasons. Theres too little oxygen, its too cold, no sunlight, too much pressure. It was all very "obvious". Until closer observations were possible, and stuff like thermal vents supplied both heat and oxygen, etc. not only were the scientific predictions inaccurate but they were as inaccurate as they could possibly be. Sometimes I hear brilliant cosmologists talk about stuff like whats inside black holes and I just think of that same example. Especially when so many have such starkly different ideas. Anyway, that was a longer post than I anticipated.

100% agree but I think the main point for this topic is that despite mainstream science being wrong at times, it’s still certainly much more reliable than these retards citing unchecked arguments from youtube and twitter.

 

[jefferz]

Probably because there are a lot of arrogant idiots among the public, but also because many scientists are indeed paid shills, especially of those who work with environmental problems.
Remember how many times they said we'd run out of oil in 10 years, how holes in the ozone layer are gonna kill us all, etc, etc?

It certainly warrants some amount of scepticism, which idiots take to the extreme and piss you off during your talks.

Remember when we banned the chemicals that were causing ozone depletion and reversed the degradation of our ozone layer?

 

[Bob Gray]

modern Skepticism is often based on preconceived notions and confirmation bias.

So is everyone's opinions on anything to do with political or social topics.

 

[High Test With da Best]

Hardboiled up the butt is the healthiest

Shell intact for that good calcium the butt needs

 

[Osculater]

Shell intact for that good calcium the butt needs

The only way to do it

 

[italiamusica]

Because people want to feel important and like they have this hidden knowledge that everyone and everything is lying to you, but only they know the real truth. They get their facts from some site like joes-real-facts.com and just believe the most insane nonsense.

Yes, it's good to be skeptical, and even scientists are wrong from time to time, but to act with such certainty that people go to school for a decade to lie to the masses, is absolutely fucking insane.

 

[ermac88]

@Cajun don't bother with that study. it's not even a study, it's an editorial about muh conservatives are bad. Andy here is excited about it because his IQ is around 85 and that's before he shits his pants, so most of the time it's lower than 85. You should never, ever, take science recommendations from this dipshit, and i'm being very serious. there's not one "muh conservatives bad" post that he doesn't wag his tail at, like the pet of that Pavlov fella. he doesn't have synapses to spare for introspection or evaluation.

The Strange New Politics of Science
https://issues.org/new-politics-science-mills-st-clair/

Conservative Americans consistently distrust science​

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1080362

Study tracks how conservatives lost their faith in science​

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/cos...ervatives-lost-their-faith-science-flna588108

Conservatives less trusting of science compared to liberals in the United States​

Conservatives less trusting of science compared to liberals in the United States

A large-scale study has found that conservatives in the United States trust scientists less than liberals across nearly all scientific fields. Attempts to boost trust through brief, targeted messages failed, suggesting these attitudes may be deeply rooted.

www.psypost.org

 

[ssBaldy]

Remember when we banned the chemicals that were causing ozone depletion and reversed the degradation of our ozone layer?

Yeah, and by "we" you mean first world. Third world didnt ban anything.

Also, I am not denying environmental problems, I am merely pointing out such problems become political on the regular, hence the loss of credibility of environmental science.

 

[Seano]

There'd be no science if someone didn't question science.

 

[Wrath of Foamy]

I haven't read the thread as I'm back to work in a minute, but I'd guess that there are people out there who believe that these experts intentions are less than genuine.

Look at COVID for example.

 

[Hog-train]

100% agree but I think the main point for this topic is that despite mainstream science being wrong at times, it’s still certainly much more reliable than these retards citing unchecked arguments from youtube and twitter.

But sometimes the skeptics are right. And not even in very rare circumstances, but quite often enough where you NEED skeptics. And often those skeptics do jot come from the established authorities but from the laymen populace.

Because "science" is often corrupted by greed and/or politics.

The scientific method has existed since at least the 17th century. Yet the scientific method was used to justify eugenics. The Nazis used "science" to prove white people are genetically superior.

The FDA was corrupted to justify prescribing Oxycontin like candy. So just saying it is "scientifically proven" means jack shit by itself. You have to constantly be a skeptic.

 

[Soggust]

But sometimes the skeptics are right. And not even in very rare circumstances, but quite often enough where you NEED skeptics. And often those skeptics do jot come from the established authorities but from the laymen populace.

Because "science" is often corrupted by greed and/or politics.

The scientific method has existed since at least the 17th century. Yet the scientific method was used to justify eugenics. The Nazis used "science" to prove white people are genetically superior.

The FDA was corrupted to justify prescribing Oxycontin like candy. So just saying it is "scientifically proven" means jack shit by itself. You have to constantly be a skeptic.

Idk I think there are 2 things at play here.

#1 - People simply don't seem to understand that any study is not the be-all-end-all, but simply weighted evidence. That goes from everything from COVID vax studies to the Cass Report. Some evidence is obviously weighted heavier and more credible than others, but nothing should be considered gospel.

#2 - There is a difference between being skeptical and blatantly refusing evidence because it comes from a distrusted source. This is the issue I think OP is referencing.

Like, a true skeptic would say "How was the study conducted? How many people were involved? What are other critics saying about this study?" etc. They would attack the study itself, not necessarily the source. And even if it does come from an obviously biased source, that still doesn't necessarily mean it's not a valid take, it just means we need to scrutinize it much more.

----

The problem is we have people saying "X and Y has been PROVEN by these studies (that often really just say x + y might be more likely)" or we get folks saying "I don't trust that study BECAUSE it's from the CDC" (or insert source) while simultaneously accepting evidence from fuckin YouTube lol.

 

[DoctorTaco]

So is everyone's opinions on anything to do with political or social topics.

Ok?

 

[Bob Gray]

Ok?

So you're pointing out the obvious.

 

[DoctorTaco]

So you're pointing out the obvious.

Ok.

 

[Bob Gray]

Ok.

 

[Bballfan123]

I think it’s because unless yu can ACTUALLY observe something happening not with your eyes necessarily or test it you are taking someone ELSES observations.

For example, electricity is real. It was invented. I can make a circuit out of stuff I buy and test it and see that it is in fact REAL and TESTABLE and REPEATABLE. There are a small number of variables. I can actually go buy potatoes make a battery and test if this shit is real or not.

In your example someone said “microplastics cause heart attacks.” Now here’s the problem. There is NO WAY to test that info. Maybe they do. Mayer hey don’t. I don’t KNOW, for an indisputable 100% fact, one way or another.

The only way to test it would be to do a population wide survey where half or X amount has microplastics the other half doesn’t, you control all other variables, make the two groups live in the same houses, and then after 80 or so years you count up each groups number of heart attacks. Problem is THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. There are literally hundreds or thousands of variables: a few location air quality food quality maybe people who avoid plastic engage in healthier lifestyles maybe they engage in less healthy lifestyles. It is simply impossible.

Maybe heart attacks and plastic use are both on the rise. You can say correlation != causation which is true, but it also does NOT disprove if there is a causation.

You could have one group consume a large amount of plastic and the other consume a regular amount but even that is completely wrong. Some things are ok in normal amount and extremely bad in even double the amount. Vitamin A, for instance. If you consume too mu ch vitamin A routinely even say 250% daily dose so an extra pill or two for years and years you WILL DIE from vitamin A toxicity.

The fact is it is almost impossible for these populations studies to do anything with a control group of a control group does not exist, I.e. plastic exposure. Almost every normal human being has been exposed to plastic in the past 80 years. Unless there’s some super smart way of doing these sorts f studies they are at best observations and at worst observations with some agenda either positive or negative.

TLDR you can’t test a human being for anything without a population size study. We honestly don’t know. And n this has NOTHING t do with the covid vaccine which is honestly kind of ok? As it is a limited number f controlled variables and ‘events’ ie a shot, an illness. Testing for ‘plastics equal bad’ is very VERY hard.

 

[Bballfan123]

The layman who can’t comprehend algebra cannot reason this out and at best looks at you as an omniscient all knowing completely benevolent tester who can control all the variables in the real world. At worst they just say this is made up and move on.