/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12397725]

Why do people think the scientific consensus = reality? As in "if something is currently thought of as true by most scientists in the field then it's a fact"?
Scientists used to claim that:
>Pluto is a planet
>time is not relative
>bread should be abundant in your diet
>tobacco isn't that bad for you
>lobotomy and electroshock therapy should be common medical practices
>homosexuality and transsexuality are illnesses
>the universe is eternal
And now they claim otherwise.

[Anonymous No.12397733]

Give it a rest

[Anonymous No.12397939]

>>12397725
Everything on that list is a fact.

[Anonymous No.12397947]

>>12397725
What really bakes my noodle is that perhaps every paradigm has been like this. An initial breakthrough that creates momentum and then slowly collapses into insularity and irrelevance because of parasitic elements infiltrating, seducing and dominating.

[Anonymous No.12397948]

Scientific consensus may not be reality but it should be the reality for laypeople who don't know any better.

[Anonymous No.12397973]

>>12397939
If so, then they are wrong now. It's either then or now for each of these. Whichever it is, it proves scientists can be absolutely wrong and yet sois will repeat after them with absolute certainty.

[Anonymous No.12397974]

>>12397725
>Pluto is a planet
definition games
>time is not relative
more precise model was created
>lobotomy and electroshock therapy
medical things improve over time? lobotomies were over used and electroshock were over used. They are now used more appropriately.
What anti mainstream science are you preaching OP?

[Anonymous No.12397994]

>>12397974
Yeah so they used to be wrong (probably) and are not anymore.
So when you claim some "facts" are true because "muh basedence" you are somewhat likely to be wrong too.

[Anonymous No.12398000]

>>12397994
In other words - what scientists believe today isn't necessarily true and yet people act as though it is.

[Anonymous No.12398089]

>>12397974
I don't see how OP is pushing anything fringe or pseudoscience. Maybe he does hold those beliefs, but I think he is accurately pointing out that scientific consensus can change.

>>12397974
You are correct, I don't understand your point anon. All of those explanations illustrate examples of the scientific consensus changing. Phlogiston is another good example. So is the aether.

[Anonymous No.12398122]

>>12397973
No they aren't.

[Anonymous No.12398133]

being contrarian doesn't mean you're right either, retard

[Anonymous No.12398141]

>>12398122
They aren't what? Faggotry either is or isn't an illness. So either scientists were dead wrong or are now about this.
And given that they've been wrong on so many issues (or are now) there's more of falsehood to be revealed.

[Anonymous No.12398142]

>>12397725
Because people are fucktards
>>time is not relative
You are a fucktard if you believe that time is relative

[Anonymous No.12398144]

Because we're better off most of the time listening to the opinions of educated folk than laymen.

key word most

[Anonymous No.12398146]

>>12398133
I'm not saying it does.

[Anonymous No.12398147]

>>12397725
Scientists never claim those things. They claim that those are the most likely hypothesis as per the current data. Then as new data comes in, they change their hypothesis. This is 100000x better than refusing to change their idea at all. Would you rather have that? Fucking midwit

[Anonymous No.12398162]

>>12398147
I'm not critisizing the scientists here. I'm against the morons who think:
>science guys mostly say X
>X is true
Which has been repeatedly debunked.

[Anonymous No.12398166]

>>12398162
Ah okay, I agree.

[Anonymous No.12398178]

>>12398162
>I'm against morons who have moronic thoughts
water is wet
shit thread
delete please

[Anonymous No.12398182]

>>12398178
>a thread about a very common misconception regarding science
>on a /sci/ board
Not going to delete sorry.

[Anonymous No.12398249]

>>12397939
yeah I'm thinking based. fuck trannies, fuck faggots, and fuck lung health

[Anonymous No.12398341]

>>12397725
If anything, I see it as proof that the general public shouldn't have access to this information. Pop science and politicization and corporate interference turns genuine concepts into complete fucking taint.

[Anonymous No.12398802]

>>12397725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3ess8txBX0

[Anonymous No.12399712]

This is such a strange thread. Almost every poster has had the immediate reaction to attack OP despite his statement being indisputably true. This leads me to think that >>12398341 is absolutely correct. People seem to be too stupid to think for themselves.

[Anonymous No.12399727]

>>12397725
Is the Paradigm shift, people like being part of what a majority believes and says, otherwise they may feel isolated of society, most people can't stand that.

[Anonymous No.12399755]

>>12397725
>Why do people think the scientific consensus = reality?
It's the best version of reality we can come up with at the moment. And you don't even know what consensus is.

>Pluto is a planet
Irrelevant classification.

>bread should be abundant in your diet
Not science

>tobacco isn't that bad for you
Not a consensus

>lobotomy and electroshock therapy should be common medical practices
Not science

>homosexuality and transsexuality are illnesses
Not science

>the universe is eternal
Not a consensus

>And now they claim otherwise.
And how do you know the prior claims are wrong? Oh it's because you follow the current consensus.

[Anonymous No.12399775]

>>12399755
>>homosexuality and transsexuality are illnesses
>Not science
The DSM-5 used to say that homosexuality was scientifically an illness, so it is part of what science used to say.
>And how do you know the prior claims are wrong? Oh it's because you follow the current consensus.
There were people on those days that denied those claims, doesn't matter that that's the current consensus, you are missing the point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

[Anonymous No.12399778]

>>12399755
You're an idiot who has no idea what OP is even asking.

[Anonymous No.12399783]

>>12397733
fpbpoat.

[Anonymous No.12399788]

Am I missing something or is OP just a postmodern neoMarxist who is offended by the idea that truth exists so he can peddle his relativism doctrine?

[Anonymous No.12399791]

>>12399775
>The DSM-5
Not science.

>There were people on those days that denied those claims, doesn't matter that that's the current consensus, you are missing the point.
This doesn't respond to what I said. How do you know those claims are wrong?

[Anonymous No.12399799]

>>12399778
I know exactly what OP is asking. Facts may be wrong, that doesn't mean you shouldn't treat them as facts.

[Anonymous No.12399805]

>>12399791
>Not science.
> Medicine is not science
Retard. Not gonna bother with someone as retarded as you.

[Anonymous No.12399807]

>>12399788
No it's the opposite.
OP is an actual Empiricist who understands that the scientific method can not even in principle find the truth and all it does and all it tries to do is make simplified models that describe observed behavior to some high degree of statistical certainty, all of which are not perfect and are always scrutinized.
He's asking why shit for brains normies don't understand this and think that science is actually on the search for Truth(TM) as opposed to being understood as the study of simplified models.

[Anonymous No.12399820]

>>12399805
>> Medicine is not science
Yes, good job.

[Anonymous No.12399833]

>>12399807
if so he communicated that incredibly poorly, the original post definitely reads like he's rejecting empirical evidence so he can believe whatever he wants. I think you're just projecting your own beliefs onto his post.

[Anonymous No.12399841]

>>12399833
Maybe I am but that's how I read the OP.

[Anonymous No.12399848]

>>12399841
I guess this is the art of a good bait thread. Be so incredibly vague so people start arguing about what you even mean.

[Anonymous No.12399861]

>>12398162
>science guys, who dedicate their lives to the study of a particular subject, given their current knowledge, think that a certain model they've come up with is the most fitting description of reality until it starts losing predictivity, or a better more fitting one comes out
>it might not ontologically be reality, but it's the best knowledge we've got on the subject
>given that most people don't have neither the knowledge nor the mental tools to understand this very subtle distinction it's easy for them to confuse the two things
>in everyday conversations it's also unlikely this comes out, as it's a very tedious preamble
I think we can give people a pass, unless you're specifically looking for something to be offended.

That being said, this thread is epistemology, not science. Fuck off to /lit/ or some other board where anon likes to stroke their intellectual penis.

[Anonymous No.12399869]

>>12397725
Because in the 21st century anything vaguely "sciency" is instantly bandwagonned and cheerled by normies who never read a book in their lives and couldn't solve a basic quadratic equation if their lives depended on it

[Anonymous No.12399889]

>>12399755
You have a low IQ. Everything you said literally supports OP's argument that scientific paradigms changes over time. From your tone, it sounds like you are trying to argue against OP, however none of what you've posted actually refutes OP's claim because you haven't shown that scientific paradigms don't change. You would have to show that there have never been any changes in scientific beliefs over time, which is actually impossible since by definition science has to change when new evidence and theories become available - that's what makes it science.

You are clearly not very educated on stuff like epistemology, inductive reasoning, or the scientific method. You should go read up on probability and the philosophy of science.

[Anonymous No.12399900]

>>12397725
>Why do people think the scientific consensus = reality?
only stupid people who don't do science would think that

[Anonymous No.12400072]

>>12399889
>hurr you agree with OP
>just ignore every sentence directly directly refutes OP, with quotes
Illiterate people have no business calling others low IQ.

[Anonymous No.12400326]

>>12399755
lmao this is the most retarded thing I read this year until now

[Anonymous No.12400344]

>>12397725
so you're unironically saying this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3Ak-SmyHHQ

[Anonymous No.12400753]

>>12399712
No, I think arguments on the internet just tend to spiral out of control due to anonymity and a lack of face to face dialogue. To sum up this thread in my words, I think OP’s right in the technical sense, of course science doesn’t claim to be the end-all of reality, but his post has a bit of a mocking tone towards those who use science as a basis for reality, which is annoying because we have to use SOME framework for basing ourselves in, and science is the best one, by far. Even with its constant changes, even if it doesn’t 100% represent reality, is it the best tool we have BY FAR, hence why the people OP is angry at exist

[Anonymous No.12400760]

>>12397725
Whats the alternative?

[Anonymous No.12400763]

>>12398141
Depends on your definition of an illness.

[Anonymous No.12400772]

>>12398162
Scientist would never say "X is true". they would say" given the data x is most likely true" if thats what the data showed.

[Anonymous No.12400775]

>>12400760
data modeling has been shown to be terrible at predicting the future, governments need to stop relying on it so much

[Anonymous No.12400778]

>>12400753
This is a reasonable response to an incredibly unreasonable post. It's almost as though OP made his original post intentionally shit to stoke the flames of disagreement.

[Anonymous No.12400784]

>>12400775
Are you talking about Economics? Because they aren't scientists.

[Anonymous No.12400814]

>>12400775
What applications of data modeling have failed? Which have succeeded? What industries have exploded as a result of successful "data modeling"

[Anonymous No.12400842]

>>12397725
Whether or not Pluto is a planet is completely irrelevant and depends on your definition of what a planet is. I don't understand why midwits care so much about Pluto's classification when it changes absolutely nothing about Pluto itself other than a meaningless label.

[Anonymous No.12400862]

>>12400842
Yeah what aspect of “reality” is OP getting at here? Bread, tobacco and Pluto all exist no matter what we call/say about them. Most of what science says on these topics is just for human understanding and evaluation. The only reality bending concept I can see is time dilation

[Anonymous No.12400870]

>>12397725
Yeah, scientists change their opinion based on new info.

[Anonymous No.12401552]

>>12397725
>we are alone in this solar system.

[Anonymous No.12401705]

>>12400862
He didn't say anything about the existence of bread or tobacco, he said the scientific position of their consumption has changed which is true

[Anonymous No.12401801]

>>12401705
Right but what I'm trying to argue instead is that "reality" has little to do with science, since science never makes a claim on what reality IS, only what it appears to be to us. Science is a human endeavor, and so we classify and reclassify things like pluto, tobacco, or electroshock therapy as "planet, bad, good" but there was no claim on objective reality with any of those, just labelling.

I'm arguing that OP's best points for his argument are those that actually define reality, i.e. time manipulation and an expanding universe. Everything else on that list isn't related, scientific consensus != reality and anyone who claims otherwise is not a scientist, or a very bad one at that

[Anonymous No.12401853]

>>12401801
You and OP are in agreement then.

Scientists tell us that a thing is the truth, but only as we know it at this time and is not only subject to change but is expected to, hence OPs question as to why people believe what science tells them at all.

To be fair he is asking this on a science related board where many are likely to question scientific doctrine but try questioning the scientific position about mask wearing or vaccines for example on social media and witness yourself be discredited as a conspiracy theorist in minutes.

[Anonymous No.12401873]

The issue comes from a combination of the media's need to showcase "something neat" to generate views, and the scientists' need to publish something "cool."

You end up with studies full of shit due to things like p-hacking and lack of incentives to replicate studies to better screen out shit from the good.

And you end up with things being misquoted by the media such as "scienitsts say outrageous thing is now fact!" and the mass public then flocks to it and says it must be so.

Scientific consensus is nothing bad per se, but you know what's worse than raging snoy bois who pretend to be science zealots? willfully blind anti-science retards who are only partially aware of the current shortcomings of the scientific community and latch onto it to dismiss any scientific claim.

[Anonymous No.12401894]

>>12401853
Well, here's the clincher. While OP and I agree technically, there's a sublevel to this that you're not paying attention to. OP argues that science can change, and wonders why people can believe it's "fact". And now we start arguing semantics, because while day-to-day life will say "scientists say this, therefore it's a fact", actual scientists are a lot more careful with the word.

My main logic is that OP seeing science changing, and he thinks "How can anyone believe this stuff is rock solid?"
I see science change an think "Of course it changed, now their model is better"
The key think for me is that in, say, 3000bc, geocentrism was "fact', and for all humans living on the earth at that point, it might as well have been (for that was their best model at the time). The model grows, it gets updated, and now with 7billion people and giant scientific programs our model is REALLY good.

My only concession is that if it turns out our current understanding is completely 180'd then OP would rightfully feel smug about sciences blunders, but even then since the trade allows for growth and correction the model will always be the best thing we have available

[Anonymous No.12401899]

[Anonymous No.12401945]

>>12398000
So theyre wrong a bout some things over time....this isnt a good reason to screech about science being wrong for everything. It generally gives a basis for logic and tethering to a system that is mostly right is better than whatever the alternative is.

[Anonymous No.12401961]

>>12401945
>better than whatever the alternative is.
you're like nine months into "two weeks to flatten the curve" AKA the great reset, all in the name of science.

[Anonymous No.12401968]

>>12398146
we do the best with what we got, pointing out it's not perfect doesn't make you smart it makes you insufferable

[Anonymous No.12402025]

>>12397725
People always overestimate the maturity of their current age. In truth people centuries from now will look at us the same way we look at those from the Middle Ages: as primitive barbarians. And they’ll be right, too.

[Anonymous No.12402264]

>>12397974
>medical things improve over time?
Go to reddit?

[Anonymous No.12402312]

>>12401894
There's still much to learn about the universe, and over the course of the 21st century, we'll make great strides in understanding what's beyond earth.

[Anonymous No.12402328]

>>12401961
Honestly no lockdown and just letting it happen would have been pretty based. Corona spreads well enough I think we could be at like a 90%+ infection rate. Hospitals would be overwhelmed instantly so it's pretty conservative to assume that the fatality rate would be around double what it is now. That gives us at least 40 million deaths in the US alone. Pretty based if you ask me, the world would be a much better place.

[Anonymous No.12402345]

>>12402312
And on that point I am 100% in agreement. No matter how radical our shift in science, a shift is a wonderful thing to witness. I wish I had been around to witness general relativity's birth

[Anonymous No.12402591]

the keyword bool in most programming languages is the exact same as the modern Mongolian word for "slave": bool.

бooл • (bool) (Mongolian spelling ᠪᠣᠭᠤᠯ (boɣul))

[Anonymous No.12402834]

>>12397939
>anon, why arent u this based in real life?

[Anonymous No.12402845]

>>12397725
>>homosexuality and transsexuality are illnesses
they are though