"Believing in science" - what does that mean?

TheLightWithin said:
If the question or statement is reworded as "trusting science" Does that change the question? I was wondering that anyway when I posted it on which way to word it. I couldn't recall if anyone in here had ever used the phrase but I run across "believe in science" and "trust science" often enough to wonder about what everyone here thought of it.

I feel like the underlying question about what "science" refers to
People
Institutions
Method
Results
Topics of study/subjects of investigation
Body of knowledge
Is almost always muddied when people claim to believe, trust, love, or be interested in/fascinated by, science.
Click to expand...
It doesn't change my answer just by the wording. But with you being more specific and listing what science refers to, I can be more thorough.

Let me first say that I do have close friends who are scientists. They actually influence my opinion on "science". Science is a cutthroat business. When you start out as a scientist, it is not uncommon to have your superiors steal credit for your research. It's also not uncommon to be told to manipulate data, to bury your findings, or to straight up lie. I have one friend who works for a company (that I won't name) whose job it is to prove the company's claims about their products. I believe she is known as a "regulator scientist". The nice thing is that they don't make her lie. They don't make her manipulate anything. But I don't see that as true science. They are only interested in science if it backs them. If it doesn't then the research needs to be discarded.

All of the rest of my friends have not had good experiences. They have worked for pharmaceutical companies, health organizations, etc. They work more with the technical sciences. One is a forensics expert. Even she has to deal with bosses and legal counsel who want her to reword her results or try to make her results look a certain way. Working for pharmaceutical companies is a nice way to get rich. It's also good if you don't have any ethics. I don't think any of my friends have had a chance to work for a university, but even universities will squash funding if it goes against a narrative. If you publish something a university doesn't like or agree with, you may be looking for a new job soon.

If the scientific method were followed and approached with an open mind, I would have more trust in "science". But it often isn't honest. It is also often misdirected. For example, approximately $25 billion is available for funding for cancer research every year. 11% of that research is focused on trying to prevent cancer. The rest is on coming up with drugs to cure it. Why? There's far more money to be made in a treatment than there is in a cure. Especially if the cure will permanently stop cancer from ever happening.

This doesn't mean that I absolutely don't believe in "science". It's just that I don't trust the people who pull the strings and give the funding.

I wish I could share the "Adams Ruins Everything" episode on science research. But you have to have a subscription. The show did a very good job explaining the deficiencies in scientific research today.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Aesthetics is personal opinion and supernatural is a fraud.
Click to expand...
Aesthetics is personal and cultural, yes, supernatural is only a fraud if someone declares that they for sure have access to the supernatural or that they for sure have supernatural information. Honest Speculation about the possibility of the supernatural is not inherently fraudulent.
 
moralorel said:
but even universities will squash funding if it goes against a narrative. If you publish something a university doesn't like or agree with, you may be looking for a new job soon.
Click to expand...
moralorel said:
I don't trust the people who pull the strings and give the funding.
Click to expand...
moralorel said:
I wish I could share the "Adams Ruins Everything" episode on science research. But you have to have a subscription. The show did a very good job explaining the deficiencies in scientific research today.
Click to expand...
If nothing else, when we think about the people and institutions that run science, and the people and institutions that run organized religion, or the people and institutions that run anything else - politics, news, arts and entertainment, etc... the obvious question emerges (was always there, really) is how much one can even dream of trusting any group of people who are extremely vested in some idea - any idea - how much can we trust them to tell us reality and truth, rather than the vested narrative?
 

Here is an example of someone trying to push "science". Often documentaries push a scientific discovery yet the results aren't peer reviewed.

Many of you remember "Super Size Me". It was shown in schools and proved that fast food would make you fat and very healthy rather quickly. It was a fraud. Not only was it not science, but nobody has been able to replicate the results. I would assume that most of us would agree that this isn't science. But many people are fooled and believe it is.
 
moralorel said:
Many of you remember "Super Size Me".
Click to expand...
I remember it being out, I cannot recall if I saw it or not. I don't remember much about the content. I probably saw it...?
moralorel said:
and proved that fast food would make you fat and very healthy rather quickly.
Click to expand...
Fat AND very healthy?
Wasn't it more like gobbling large amounts of fast food nonstop would help you gain weight and harm your health without having to invest more than a few weeks?
moralorel said:
Not only was it not science,
Click to expand...
I can't remember if it claimed to be science. I was under the impression it was something more like gonzo journalism.
 
TheLightWithin said:
I remember it being out, I cannot recall if I saw it or not. I don't remember much about the content. I probably saw it...?

Fat AND very healthy?
Wasn't it more like gobbling large amounts of fast food nonstop would help you gain weight and harm your health without having to invest more than a few weeks?

I can't remember if it claimed to be science. I was under the impression it was something more like gonzo journalism.
Click to expand...
Oops! Fat and NOT healthy.

It was presented as science by some media outlets and even in schools. I remember it being shown as scientific fact in a health class at a school where I worked. I had my doubts because my uncle actually was part of a study where he had to eat McDonald's every day for research. He couldn't finish the study because the food made him sick, but he didn't gain weight. He actually lost weight. The loads of sugar and salt made him sick.

My point is that people will look at whatever they see online, in the media, etc. and believe it to be science. They see these "documentaries" and believe them. So when someone disagrees with these "documentaries", this person will often be seen as someone who doesn't believe in science. I wanted to list a few other "documentaries" but they are politically inspired and I didn't want to bring them up. They seem scientific, but truly are "gonzo" journalism.
 
Science is responsible for medicine and developing bigger bombs. Humanity makes bad decisions.
 
Has medicine and nuclear energy done some good to humanity?
Or we should continue with cutting trees for fuel?
 
Aupmanyav said:
Has medicine and nuclear energy done some good to humanity?
Or we should continue with cutting trees for fuel?
Click to expand...
Why not be diverse? We can cut down some trees for a wood stove or for cooking from time to time. Our electrical grid can be run on nuclear, solar, wind, water, etc. I'm a proponent of nuclear energy useage.

Yes, medicine has done plenty of good. But humanity sure likes to ruin it.
 
moralorel said:
Why not be diverse? We can cut down some trees for a wood stove or for cooking from time to time. Our electrical grid can be run on nuclear, solar, wind, water, etc. I'm a proponent of nuclear energy useage.
Click to expand...
Not in Himalayas. They crumble. Of course, all energy sources, except coal.
 
EricPH said:
America could learn from India.
Click to expand...
Can the person whom you have chosen, learn?
In case, the person goes to a private hospital, a family can utilize USD 5,667 per year, not a small aount in India. Helpful, even if not comprehensive (after all this is for 1.47 billion people).

"In India, the government provides health help through various schemes, notably the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY), which offers health insurance coverage of up to ₹5 lakh per family per year (Aup. adds: nothing to pay for it) for secondary and tertiary care to economically vulnerable families. Additionally, all citizens can access free outpatient and inpatient care at government facilities, although many still rely on private providers due to shortages (basically, it is time-consuing) in public healthcare."
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
Yeah, till we get the right answer, researchers will proceed according to their subjective bias. When we get the answer, the bias dissolves and everyone agrees.
Click to expand...
Are you doing any of this research? If not then you are simply taking their word on faith. Which very much underlines my point. :D
 
iBrian said:
Are you doing any of this research? If not then you are simply taking their word on faith. Which very much underlines my point. :D
Click to expand...
No, I am not doing the research, I follow. Qualified people are doing that and other qualified people (thousands of them) are analysing the results (agreeing or disagreeing) and reporting in science journals.
 
Aupmanyav said:
No, I am not doing the research, I follow. Qualified people are doing that and other qualified people (thousands of them) are analysing the results (agreeing or disagreeing) and reporting in science journals.
Click to expand...
Exactly, you put your faith in researchers the way ordinary believers do in priests. You dont understand, you simply have faith. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top