• Dieterlan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    This might be heresy, but I feel like saying that “science isn’t truth, it’s the search for truth”, and “if you disagree it’s not a disagreement, you’re just wrong” is internally inconsistent.

    • credo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It needs to be “if you disagree without evidence.”

      They can leave that whole “if you’re not a scientist” bit in the rubbish bin.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        If you disagree without evidence, you’re not wrong. You can propose an alternative theory that is consistent with existing evidence and it’s just as valid as anybody else’s. The mission is then to find evidence which disproves one theory or the other.

        Conjecture is fundamental.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    “The Science is settled” and “I believe in Science” are both equally frightening sentences.

    • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Though the first is abused to death, yes, I vehemently disagree with the second. I do believe in science. Just because here and there there are cheaters doesn’t mean that science is valid. Cheaters eventually get caught and science continues. Because of science you have that phone in your hand on which you write your post and read my comment, because of science you are alive. Science is trying to find out what is and why.

      I believe in science and there is nothing scary about that.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think you missed the point, I believe in the Scientific Method as one of the best ways to measure that which is objectively true. It can make no statements on the subjective however, nor the metaphysical.

        However the problem is, too many people act as though we’ve reached the limits of what is possible to know with the sciences and treat it to be “Science’s Infalliable Word”, when the very nature of Science means we’ll gladly throw out anything we already “know” to be true if we find conflicting evidence, and the world has been better off for it.

        Heck the definition of “Dead” has changed several times because we keep learning that it’s more like a spectrum than an on and off switch, which has so many implications that it makes my head hurt.

        • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I know that scientific knowledge gets updated all the time and with that, things sometimes change. That is fine, but at the same time you use what we have up to that point. If today scientific knowledge tells us that eating worms is healthy, we will do that more. If tomorrow it turns out that, oops, it’s healthy on the left but unhealthy on the right, well stop eating them.

          Either way, we go with what science has discovered so far. That is my point. Too many people these days don’t understand how these discoveries are made and as such push against it.

          This is how you get anti vaxxers who are hell bent on destroying humanity while thinking they are saving it. This is how you get flat-earthers.

          Screw that, people need to learn in school how science works, how we get where we are with our knowledge, where that knowledge comes from. They need to learn the scientific method.

          Then of course there are places like Texas where they keep shoving bibles in the schools to ensure kids stay dumb, gotta get them to vote against their own needs somehow…

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I once had a colleague who was raised to live by the bible, never questioning it. He was also a massive shitposter. No matter what dumb shit he said, he’d always say that it was just a joke.

    Well, one of the few times when I genuinely caught him off guard, was when I explained that science did not actually claim to know the one and only truth. That it wanted to be proven wrong.

    I think, that idea itself conflicted with his whole world view. Like, I imagine, his parents also raised him to never question their authority.

          • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            She’s got a lot of supportive and loving uncles.

            Lucky girl.

            It’s crazy how fucking common the crime is

            EXCUSE ME WHAT

            And how a grown man can just… Tell the cops, it didn’t happen. Case closed.

            Wait, so nothing happened? The cops left him?

            • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s an unfortunately common occurrence when the police are brought in for crimes like this. Most sexual abuse is perpetrated by people who have a relationship with the victim, usually family. 1 in 5 women have been raped, a third of those women were raped between the ages of 11 and 17. 81% of women will experience some form of sexual harassment or assault in their lifetimes. Only 20-40% of rapes are reported to the police. Only about half of those result in arrest. 80% of the arrests are prosecuted. 58% of the prosecutions result in conviction. And 69% of the convicted offenders will serve time in jail/prison. So for every 100 rapists, about 3 of them will go to prison.

              source 1 source 2

              • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Uk those times where u see something that changes ur worldview quite a lot? Yea, I think this is it. Didn’t know the world was SO fucked up.

                • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I feel that, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I won’t take the opportunity to shill any specific outlook or worldview. Just know that there are people out there who have made it their life’s mission to fix societal ills like these. While it may be tempting to condemn the entire human race, it’s not particularly productive in the long term. The things you’re thinking and feeling now can be turned into action down the road once you’ve had time to process them and deconstruct.

  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I agree with

    Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth.

    That being said, you certainly can disagree with a scientific outcome. Good science relies on such types of discussions. If someone has a disagreement, then, by all means, please conduct an experiment to show that it’s wrong, or express your opinion and be open to discussion.

    • KredeSeraf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think it’s more about the spirit and legitimacy of the disagreement. “I checked the numbers and stuff seems fishy” is very different than “Facebook told me essential oils cure cancer and doctors are lizards harvesting our brains”. Discussion with people who are also seeking the truth helps. Denial of a point you don’t like because Infowars says otherwise doesn’t.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Keep in mind that dismissing an argument as unworthy, is not an argument for why it is unsound. Furthermore, refusing to engage someone’s argument also doesn’t help in pointing them on a better path.

        • KredeSeraf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Dismissing an argument for lack of substantive foundation is absolutely an argument for why it is unsound. And I am all for pointing someone on another path. Unfortunately the vast, vast majority of people I have encountered in this vein have had this problem with doubling down when presented with evidence contrary to their belief.

          People living with those kind of delusions, that evidence proving their point wrong doesn’t at least warrant a second look, cannot be reasoned with. I reserve my efforts for people with any level of an open mind. Disagreement can be productive, but only when people engage honestly.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Dismissing an argument for lack of substantive foundation is absolutely an argument for why it is unsound.

            Sure, the argument could be unsound, but do note that that doesn’t necessitate that the conclusion is also false. That would effectively be an argument from fallacy. Also that isn’t exactly what I was trying to say — I was talking about how some people avoid engaging with certain classes of people because they don’t think that their arguments are worthy — e.g. flat earthers.

            Unfortunately the vast, vast majority of people I have encountered in this vein have had this problem with doubling down when presented with evidence contrary to their belief.

            This is indeed an issue. I’m not entirely sure what its cause is. Perhaps it’s fear of ridicule, or ostracization? I think the best grassroots method to fix it would be teaching and advocating for proper critical thinking skills.

            People living with those kind of delusions, that evidence proving their point wrong doesn’t at least warrant a second look, cannot be reasoned with.

            Dealing with irrationality is a tricky thing. How does one reason with someone who is unreasonable? I personally don’t think abandoning them is the best solution, but, that being said, I also don’t have an alternative.