SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the whom-do-you-trust...-and-why? dept.
Given that collaboration [in science] is the norm, you may be asking yourself the eternal question: Who cares? How does the image of a lone scientist hero cause any danger to me?
The problem arises when there is a debate about a scientific topic. Following this structure, debate is a necessary and encouraged part of the scientific process. This debate happens before the idea is released to anyone outside of a few scientists and, while it can become heated at times, takes place with great respect between proponents of different viewpoints.
The danger can come when scientific results are released to the public. Our society now provides a platform for anyone to comment, regardless of his or her education, experience or even knowledge of the topic at hand.
While this is an excellent method of disseminating knowledge, it can also provide a platform for any opinion—regardless of the weight of data behind it—to be equal to that released in more traditional scientific ways.
Particularly in today's largely populist climate, people are looking to see the lone scientist hero overthrow the perceived dominance of facts coming from academia.
And herein lies the problem. In this situation, the opinion of a lone commenter may be considered on equal footing with that of tens or hundreds of people who have made the subject their life's work to ensure their interpretations are correct.
Everybody is entitled to their own scientific opinion, but everybody is not entitled to their own scientific facts?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:51PM (8 children)
Disastrous results of replication studies - several massive ones were reported in the last year alone - do not reassure anyone to take academia's perceived facts on faith.
Particularly when the advertised facts/"facts" disagree with observation and/or not look like being taken seriously by the very people promoting them.
Unlike applying "common sense" to scientific facts which can easily lead to mistakes, the above heuristics usually work much better than blind faith in a printed/televised/twittered word. For one, observable phenomena occur independently of anyone's advertising budget. ;)
(Score: 3, Funny) by arcz on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:07PM (5 children)
I don't know why this is being downvoted. We should acknowledge the problems with the scientific community instead of sticking our fingers in our ears and singing lalalala.
This is why people don't believe climate change is caused by humans, people that downvote (censor) facts they dislike, as an example of groupthink. And whether or not the scientific community is correct, they need to change their approach.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:24PM (3 children)
No, people need to educate themselves enough to form opinions based on facts and critical thinking. What we have now are a bunch of fools whose superiority complexes tell them that their common sense and confirmation bias is better than actual science. It is a long standing problem science has always had, but the examples of the dissenter being correct are way fewer than the number of idiots pushing bad ideas.
Coupled with known examples of industry finding PR "studies" and really bad "science" opinions from people who are clearly unqualified and ya, you get lots of shouting down. How come the idiots never have to be held accountable and their opinions need to matter? I'm tired of this climate change topic, it is now common sense yet we have enough IDIOTS blocking us from making changes to save our fucking SPECIES!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:03PM (2 children)
People do, in their chosen field(s). Elsewhere, they take shortcuts based on experience.
Every practicing engineer knows a sizable bunch of fools with superiority complexes passing demonstrable bullshit as "actual science" in his own field. From there, it is trivial to extrapolate.
Hard sciences are testable. We've no need to "imagine" how much bullshit is there - we know. Some of us have even added to the pile, doing degree work. Tell us another one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:02PM (1 child)
Most people can't think critically pretty much at all.
Maybe they should just admit that they don't know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:50PM
What for? No one is entitled to getting power over his fellow man just by virtue of talking with aplomb. If someone wants people to believe him but can't be bothered to provide testable proof, he can go to hell. Or into politics. :)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:45PM
You don't know because you are an idiot. There are many, many things you do not know. Even more that you are aware of, but are incapable of comprehending. Get used to it. How about a nice conspiracy theory? You know, they laughed at me at the Royal Academy when first I presented my findings that the entire social media was composed of only two actual persons. Smart scientists like me, and an idiot that would be you. So, obviously I am correct, since I am a lone scientist, and I have an opinion that is at least as valid as anyone else's, and more valid than yours, since you are, by my theory, the idiot side of the internet universe. Go ahead, prove me wrong! History will vindicate me! You'll all pay for disrespecting me! Mouuhahahahaahaaaaa!!!!1!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:17PM
Lol, you're just describing dealing with humanity, no matter what topic. The article in no way says "trust the groupthink." There are facta, and then there are predictions. It seems these days that many people can't distinguish the two and instead rely on confirmation bias and propaganda.
We don't need to blindly accept things, but yet many people will blindly follow the one suspicious "scientist" who confirms what their "common sense" tells them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:58PM
This is an important point. Science has a problem right now. Published, accepted, and unverified bullshit. It's really bad in biology and medicine. There are and will continue to be huge swaths of papers and studies thrown out due to unreproducible experiments.
The most important scientific studies are the studies that reproduce experiments and their results. They don't get the glamor or much funding though. It's somewhat similar to the open source "review the code" problem. No one really wants to outside a very small handful. Doing so costs money and time, and isn't all that fun. Ultimately it has to be funded. Otherwise problems can fester for decades.
As for the original article. Pretty much a joke. No, sorry, not everyone is entitled to a scientific opinion. You must earn that. Read the source material. Reproduce an experiment or two. Understand the fundamentals of the field. Otherwise, kindly shut the fuck up. You aren't helping and your opinion has no value.