Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

243

Trust science, not scientists. Science is based on factual evidence and consensus among scientists. Any scientist has the right to question hypotheses or theories of other scientists, because it's what science is about. When somebody says "trust the science" in mass media, it means they are illiterate or just trying to fool people.

Trust science, not scientists. Science is based on factual evidence and consensus among scientists. Any scientist has the right to question hypotheses or theories of other scientists, because it's what science is about. When somebody says "trust the science" in mass media, it means they are illiterate or just trying to fool people.

(post is archived)

[–] • 6 pts

Almost right, but consensus is part of the iterative process, but only the result should be used when referring to the science.

The whipping boy would be (((climate science))). Because people have made consensus such a large part of science (((they))) can block any research into alternatives at every level. At the same time research that will likely never produce fruit, like string theory, continue to get funding no one is allowed to write papers in climate science that doesn't fit into the "consensus".

You can see this in everything, and the current "pandemic" is the fruit of the same flawed/corrupted scientific method.

[–] • 2 pts

Exactly... I have said this many times, propping up a "politicized science" that has either been proven to be propped up with hoaxes or something not testable by the scientific method is slowing down scientific growth... Almost like we are in a scientific dark age, all because certain people withing mankind did not want to be held accountable to a creator and blinding others to the complexity that proves design... Funding research on these are a waste of money, or a siphon...

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Peer review has been subverted and turned into a cancer.

Publish FIRST, then peer review. Don't beg your direct competitors to allow you to publish. Don't give them something to deny and then (badly) copy into their own works. Don't let them have a chance to kill your years of work over petty rivalry, or that your results aren't part of ((The Party))'s narrative.

Then again, good luck getting funding at that point.

[–] • 1 pt

The whole thing is a ball of corruption. tenure track, peer review, grants, other funding, peer pressure, etc. In actual science (not much political in some fields) it is great to see the arguments and fighting for what the truth is and the research that comes out of that. When you don't see that in a (((field))) then you know it is fubar.

[–] • 4 pts

Trust science, not scientists.

I like that you phrased it this way. Trust science. Not 'trust the science' as you often hear. Science is a process, not an end-goal.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

...and consensus among scientists

No, not that. That's how you get published or land in a news article (and you know that this is some bullshit "science" when a bunch of scientists agree that, say, there are 90 genders).

This is science:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Any scientist has the right to question hypotheses or theories of other scientists

But they should only do so through conducting additional science. Criticisms of science are considered very low-quality additions to science and are often just wrong - it's conjecture. Peer reviews are higher quality than criticisms (because they follow a standard/rigor to get officially published/rejected). Results duplication/rejection are the additional science that is high quality. <-Look for this kind of science.

Best science yet is Random Control Trials and Meta-Analyses (even better if you conduct a meta-analysis comprised of Random Control Trials.

When pieces of shit say "trust the science" in mass media, it means they are illiterate or just trying to fool people.

Trust the peer reviewed, published in reputable journals, results duplicated science. Of which we have a very very large amount for almost everything COVID-19 related. As you said, don't trust the news or any internet writer that is not the author(s). Even on this site, I've found news articles posted that were written by absolute morons who didn't understand the study they were writing about. I skip the bullshit and go straight to the study.

Side-note: sampling methodology is pretty much the end all be all of high quality a study will be. It's "all" in the sampling methodology.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Thanks. Fixed.

[–] • 0 pt

I edited my comment even more.

[–] • 1 pt

Peer review is a good idea in theory, but it only works when the peers doing the reviewing are honest and objective. Alas, that is the world we live in.

[–] • 0 pt

The "science" the public is aware of is really propaganda. In this world, all you need to do is declare something is so... and poof! It is. Depending on who makes the proclamation determines if it's considered real or not.

[–] • 0 pt

"science"="politics"

[–] • 0 pt

Anybody who has said trust the science is either a demon or deeply ignorant.

I would have given people shit in the past for using "demon" but what else is a being who tempts the hearts of men to do evil? These demons aren't content merely with doing evil but that others must do evil also, that is a demon.

For the deeply ignorant show them: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G0b38vpruFo

That is a documentary on thalidomide, watch it yourself if you haven't already. There is an important legal presidencies this demonic act set in britain that you must understand to grasp this new speak about 4th trimesters. In short a jury refused to convict hospital staff who admitted to mercy killing thalidomide babies at request countless times and many such cases were brought and covered up across the west such that it's likely the majority of thalidomide babies were murdered in the hospitals shortly after birth.

Trust the science is quite possibly the most disgusting phrase to come from our current propagandists.