A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Indeed, and in addition if your religion is not supported by the facts it's time to revise its assumptions. Religion can deal with new evidence, it's just rather slow compared to say human lifetimes. I suspect thats because the basis of many faiths reasoning is built on philosophy, Christianity in particular. Which is a kind of precursor to experimental science where progress is slow or even circular.
Religion can deal with new evidence
Of course it can, all fiction can be easily retconned.
Absolutely!! Unless of course we are talking about "burdening" certain women (or certain men) with the inconvenience of giving birth to another person.
In this case, science has absolutely no place in the conversation!! I don't care when life starts!! No scientist should be allowed to weigh in on whether or not abortion is murder!!!!!
Following this logic, someone who kills a pregnant mother shouldn't be held liable for the murder of 2 people! And fathers who do not want to be fathers but are being forced into the situation should not be held liable for caring for a bundle of cells that they didn't want!
All of these double standards are tiring and gross!!
I don't know whether or not this is sarcasm, and frankly - it doesn't matter. Science provides the facts - it does not provide values. You need to combine facts with values in order to come up with an ethical verdict.
If the resulting verdict is not what you wanted, you can always rethink your values. This is essentially what philosophers have done for millennia. It does mean you'll need to defend your new values, of course, but you don't have to stick with old values when it turns out they have bad implications.
What you don't get to do, is decide to ignore or twist the facts. The facts don't change just because they're inconvenient. If you lie in order to get the ethical verdict you desire, then you are tautologically in the wrong.
Ideally, yes.
What ends up happening if your research shows new conclusions on the basis of “better science” is that those in power will probably ridicule your new conclusions and findings since it doesn’t align with ‘accepted’ scientific consensus and doctrine. And by ridicule I don’t mean challenging the new theory on the basis of counter data/evidence and reasoning. I mean ad hominem attacks on the researchers themselves. “Well, they graduated from a top 30 university and not MIT, so anything they produce is not worth looking into”. You won’t be funded and the status quo will be allowed to continue without significant challenge.
I used to want to be a researcher when I was younger. My experiences have been wrought with closed-mindedness, arrogance, and lack of critical judgment and objectivity. Maybe my experiences aren’t representative, but hearing from others (at least in my field), I see that this is a systemic and widespread problem within the scientific community as a whole.
How long did it take to convince people the Earth was not at the center of our universe?
All I gotta say is technology has finally made us dumber
N@zi published multiple scientific researches to justify their doings.
And better science refuted their junk science. What's your point?
What you seem to be forgetting is that somebody would have to pay for that science ... in that sense, "control over finance" does , in reality, refute science.
"I did my own research"
Oh, you did? You had a lab, and test subjects and ran double blind studies? Is it peer reviewed?
"Oh, no I listened to Joe Rogan"
How about 47 TikTok videos?
And your greasy greasy granny
Dude, have you looked out your window? Its so obvious the qorld is flat... /s
well ... not to be nitpicky, and i recognize this is a sensitive topic ... but i have come to understand that the simpler model is to be preferred, if it is precise enough for the practical purpose. As such, since most people aren't satellite engineers, they don't need to know about earth's curvature. Earth being flat is often the simpler model, of enough precision, to actually prefer it.
Just saying.
Who has time for YouTube? I get my conspiracies and lies from millisecond-long TikToks.
I once saw a cow on a roof. Can science explain that? I didn't think so.
Cow goes up, cow comes down, can't explain that.
Damn, you're an older millennial.
True, a sphere would roll off
what if i watched THREE youtube videos?
You're clearly an expert then, don't hold back
Should probably create another youtube video.
Then baby we got an algorithm going.
It isn’t even better science, it is just more science.
I need a tshirt of this
Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.
Counter examples only refute when they are publicised. When they are ignored because the status quo is preferred they achieve little
See for example low carb nutrition
Counterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study.
In other words, well, science.
Because of the implication.
Isn't a counterexample just da tomb? Even though its only won case-a-dilla, it's still le sahyênçe.
Sorry, I don't understand.
Yeah, I'm being silly.
Isn't a counterexample just one datum? Even though its only one case, it's still science.
FTFM
Isn’t a counter example just data, even though it’s just one case it’s still science
Science requires systematic observation, measurement and usually variation (often experimentally controlled); and, usually, iterations.
One datapoint outside such a system is not science.
You can't even necessarily just insert a new datapoint into a pre-existing scientific sytem. The system itself may need to be adjusted, for example to test and account for biases that often occur due to how observations are made.
Not to my mind, science requires a testable hypothesis and evidence. I would argue that merely refuting someone else's hypothesis without providing a new one doesn't meet the bar of doing science.
Speech-to-text set to the wrong language or something?