Science can be trusted, scientists cannot - FB conversation

A post by a FB friend.

-------------------------

shared Skepticus's video.

March 14 at 9:29pm ·

LikeShow more reactions

CommentShare

66

Comments

Rich  Science simply describes what's happening. It's not a trust issue, it's simply methodology, a tool to gather information. Bitches.

Like · Reply · Yesterday at 8:50am

Ian  But one can have trust in the process of science

Like · Reply · 1 · 17 hrs

Rich  If those who are doing the process are trustworthy.

Like · Reply · 8 hrs

Craig  Rich but that's life, not science's problem. People observe and hypothesize scientifically. The problem is trusting people, not trusting science.

Like · Reply · 1 hr

Rich  Science is done by scientists. If they are not trustworthy, science is not trustworthy.

Like · Reply · 42 mins

Adam  The fact that the method produces a result that is measurable...or even observed, doesn't have to be believed by the scientist. I don't know why we need to discuss these things.

Like · Reply · 1 · 28 mins

Rich A result that is interpreted and reported by a flawed human being according to worldview and any agenda. I don't know why we don't need to discuss these things.

Like · Reply · 24 mins

Craig  You can't play both sides of the coin. Science is or People are. Not both. 
Science exists with or without humans. We are but observers. To which I'd say that if you believe "science" is not trustworthy, you are incorrect. Factually. This is not an opinion since science is inherently and solely fact based.

Like · Reply · 21 mins

Rich  *Things* are what they are. *Measurements* are what they are. The interpretation of data is the human element, which is flawed. This is not an opinion, since humans are inherently and solely fallible.

Like · Reply · 19 mins

Craig Then dont interpret someone else's interpretations. Interpret the data and develop your own conclusions. If that is not feasible due to personal knowledge constraints than trust the scientific method of peer review. The statistical likelihood that a peer reviewed and accepted theory is flawed is next to none.

Like · Reply · 19 mins

Rich  "A report on the issue, published in Nature this May, found that about 90 percent of some 1,576 researchers surveyed now believe there is a reproducibility crisis in science."http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/.../talking-about-bad...

Talking About Bad Science Being Funded

LABORATORYEQUIPMENT.COM

Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 14 mins

Adam Wow, a troll has found an audience. I am done. Thanks for showing us that your mental capabilities piqued at grade 4.

Like · Reply · 8 mins

Rich  Typical leftist. Parting insult. Well done.

Like · Reply · 8 mins

Craig  The thing about this is that you see it as a "failure" of science and I see it as a success of science. This is the scientific method at work. This is the peer review system proving that theories are flawed and experiment results were not interpreted correctly. Science is not an end game. There are not rules that will never change. There are rules, as the scientific community understands them today, but they are open to being "broken" later when we have a better or more full understanding of them.

Like · Reply · 6 mins

Craig Example: CERN's thought that they had discovered a particle traveling faster than the speed of light in 2010. They could not interpret their data in a manner which led them to a different conclusion. The released the data WITH THEIR "IMPOSSIBLE" CONCLUSION and the process correctly found the error. If given long enough, the process will correct itself.

Like · Reply · 5 mins

Craig Also, just to point irony, you were patronizing to "Adam Zilinski". That is insulting, as you are assuming a mantle of superiority. I'm out too. I don't think we'll convince ourselves of each other's perspective. Thanks for the mental work out. It was fun.

Like · Reply · 2 mins

Rich  I think we're arguing to the same ends. Scientists are flawed, science is a process. Yet somehow questioning scientists is conflated with questioning science.

When scientists start making pronouncements and advocating political agendas, they demonstrate their separation from science as a discipline. They are rightly criticized for such behaviors, since those things destroy science.

Like · Reply · 2 mins

Rich  I simply responded with the exact same tone as Adam. "I don't know why we need to discuss these things" is inherently patronizing.

Adam  Because you personally can go out and reproduce that same result. Thus proving a theory. It doesn't have to be a scientist. 
You want to say that scientists are the ones that are biased. Do the research yourself and come up with the same conclusion, or not. Either way, proving the theory is the end goal.

Adam  The fact that you can point to one article that may prove, or help prove your point isn't helpful to you. This is why you have peer reviewed studies in science. Others try to disprove the theory as well as the method to acquire the evidence and the final judgement. 
Typical conspiracy theorists never believing anything, so they argue forever.

Rich  I count an equal number of replies from each side. Maybe you should try insulting me again.