/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2578121]

>Scientists don't like black people - Scientists prove the inferiority of blacks with science

>Scientists like black people - Scientists prove that racial differences are not as significant as once thought.

Ever get the feeling that science is just about validating "common knowledge"? Perhaps the true role of the scientist is to legitimize popular beliefs?

[Anonymous No.2578123]

>>2578121
>legitimize popular beliefs?
No, otherwise science would make God = real.

[Anonymous No.2578128]

Try getting fundings from the state for proving black men are inferior (who the fuck proved that anyway) or for proving god doesn't exist

That's what you get with democracy.

[Anonymous No.2578132]

>Ever get the feeling that science is just about validating "common knowledge"?

No.

>Perhaps the true role of the scientist is to legitimize popular beliefs?

I'm not sure what you'd call such people, but scientist is not the name for it.

[Anonymous No.2578137]

>>2578128

>who the fuck proved that anyway
The physical anthropologists did.

[Anonymous No.2578141]

Science is an irreligious belief system.

Scientific research is constantly used in arguments to authority by anyone for any purpose.

[Anonymous No.2578149]

>>2578121

>legitimize popular beliefs
That's how it used to be. It's even worse now. If you have money (corporations), you can make scientists "prove" your claims regardless of how popular they are.

[sage No.2578153]

>>2578121
>Ever get the feeling that science is just about validating "common knowledge"?

Yeah, cause most of science is common knowledge? Most men have known about the higgs boson for centuries, right? They also knew all about cars, electricity and computers for thousands of years!

LMFAO
GTFO FAGGOT!

[Anonymous No.2578154]

Science has truly become a source of legitimacy.

Ever notice how every claim made now begins with "a new study has shown"? If it ain't science it ain't real--so goes the mindset anyways.

[Anonymous No.2578158]

>>2578154

Pity nobody ever gets correlation and causation straight, though.

[Anonymous No.2578159]

>>2578149
You are now aware of the fact that usage of the terms "scientists agree" or "experts agree" in advertising is a ploy to make a product seem better in some way and no scientists or experts were involved at all.

[Anonymous No.2578162]

>>2578153

>Most men have known about the higgs boson
The scientists who work on Bosons are atypical. Far likelier is a scientist who tries to scientifically demonstrate the health benefits of wine etc.

[Anonymous No.2578166]

>>2578121
That's kind of the best approach here for common knowledge, actually having proof and a scientific explanation for it. This way you can know which knowledge is valid and which is just hearsay.

[Anonymous No.2578168]

>>2578141
>Science is an irreligious belief system.
A self-correcting one that produces repeatable, testable results, which sets it apart from most other belief systems.

>Scientific research is constantly used in arguments to authority by anyone for any purpose.
Doesn't make it any less valid. The moment you can present a (set of) method(s) better at making *accurate* predictions than science, you might have a point.

[Anonymous No.2578172]

>>2578158

>Pity nobody ever gets correlation and causation straight, though
That doesn't even matter though. As long as a link between the claim and SCIENCE is established in the popular imagination, their work is done. That's all they want. It's not about truth; it's about getting a magical seal of approval by the wise scientists (who know everything).

[Anonymous No.2578177]

research shows that most scientists actually practice pseudo-science

[sage No.2578175]

>>2578149
Nope,

Real science is peer-reviewed. Specific studies don't mean shit to the scientific community, unless they are peer-reviewed.

Scientist do not recognize any of that "politically motivated nonsense". Only the uneducated public listens to that bullshit. The public is gullible as fuck!

sage cause you're fuckin retarded

[Anonymous No.2578179]

>>2578166

Valid theories are just contradiction-free frameworks for interpreting observations. You could come up with a theory to "prove" any point you want.

[Anonymous No.2578183]

>>2578172
Which, once again, is a criticism of the *application* of science in popular culture and casual arguments, but not against science itself.

[Anonymous No.2578188]

>>2578175
peer review means jack shit in some fields. fields where all the scientist are unscientific

imagine homoeopathy being peer reviewed by a homoeopathy journal - as an extreme case - then imagine similar behaviours in less far fetched areas.

[Anonymous No.2578194]

>>2578175

>Real science is peer-reviewed.
>Real science

Nice try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[Anonymous No.2578196]

>>2578154
I did not mean to use those statements as arguments for anything. I was just stating the facts. I love science. <3
But since you started it:

>sets it apart from most other belief systems.
Only in the sense you described. It's still a belief system.

>Doesn't make it any less valid.
It was already invalid to begin with. Useful though.

[Anonymous No.2578202]

>>2578183

>the *application* of science
Science is just an abstraction.
The only thing that matters IS it's application.

[Anonymous No.2578208]

>>2578179
>You could come up with a theory to "prove" any point you want.
Prove it by coming up with a theory that proves that Pepsi prevents the common cold.

[Anonymous No.2578209]

>>2578188
>scientist are unscientific

That would make them marketers and not scientists at all you bumblefuck.

[Anonymous No.2578218]

>>2578202
Wrong. "Science" in this context is not an abstraction, but a reference to scientific methodology. People making appeals to authority by saying "According to science, you're a faggot" are *not* part of this methodology, and therefore not part of "science". They are simply the ones who misappropriate it.

[Anonymous No.2578223]

>>2578209

>>scientist are unscientific
The problem is that at least 75% of scientists aren't "true scientists". That is to say, they don't rigorously follow the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.2578235]

>>2578162
>Far likelier is a scientist who tries to scientifically demonstrate the health benefits of wine etc.

Nope. Are you fucking high?
Where the fuck are you getting this "science" from? POP-SCIENCE IS NOT SCIENCE DUMBSHIT!

Real science knowledge is conveyed in peer-reviewed journal articles, and scientific conferences. It is not conveyed in some shit article you read in news-week.

[Anonymous No.2578238]

>>2578196
>Only in the sense you described. It's still a belief system.
Well, yeah, I didn't actually say anything to the contrary. I was simply pointing out that the difference between science (as a belief) and most other beliefs is in its reliability. No other faith, whether it's religious, New Age, or anything else, can make accurate predictions the way science can.

>It was already invalid to begin with. Useful though.
No, my point was that the misappropriation of the results of scientific research doesn't necessarily render those results invalid. When my awesome science research predicts that things will most likely always fall down, because of gravity, then this prediction will *not* be rendered invalid by people using it in a fallacious context.

[Anonymous No.2578245]

>>2578194
>can't logic properly

No wonder you don't understand science.

[Anonymous No.2578240]

>>2578218

>misappropriate
You can't just excise the misappropriators though. In the real world, scientific misappropriation is thoroughly mixed with Science itself.

A methodology cannot meaningfully be examined apart of its implementation my friend.

[Anonymous No.2578246]

>>2578235

>POP-SCIENCE IS NOT SCIENCE DUMBSHIT
Sure it is.

[SAGE No.2578249]

>>2578121
This thread is fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.2578252]

>>2578235
Haliburton is making pharmaceuticals? Like "sweet-n-low"? And "sodium hexaflouride" is fluoride, because it has an fluorine in it?

[Anonymous No.2578270]

>>2578223
Then they are not scientists at all any more than a carnival charlatan is actually psychic. The scientific method is something of a prerequisite to science.

[Anonymous No.2578280]

>>2578240
>A methodology cannot meaningfully be examined apart of its implementation my friend.
That's all well and good, but with my previous post, I was simply clarifying that my use of the term "science" wasn't as abstract as it may have come off. I was referring purely to a set of methods, not to the problematic "Magic Seal of Approval" effect you described earlier. I certainly do acknowledge this problem, though, but not quite as an inherent flaw of scientific methodology. I mean, sure, fallacious appeals to authority are inevitable, but I fail to see how this side effect is a valid criticism of the scientific process and its results.

[Anonymous No.2578285]

>validating "common knowledge"?

Tell me how gravity works, and why it's manipulable.

[SAGE No.2578293]

>>2578246
There is a big difference in between knowing "the basic scientific method and talking about science occasionally", and being "an actual scientist".

The shitty pop-science you read isn't up to par with the science done by the real scientific community. It isn't held up to the same standard, peer-reviewed, or even check for accuracy/truthfulness.

Anyone can call themselves a fucking scientist and write and article in some bullshit (not peer-reviewed) magazine. And you are fucking gullible enough to read it, and accept it as science.

The problem you have isn't with the scientific community. You don't read scientific papers!

Your problem is that your dumb as fuck.. Stop being fucking retarded! Are you christian by any chance? You seem to have their shitty reasoning ability!

[Anonymous No.2578300]

>>2578293

>peer-reviewed
>peer-reviewed
>peer-reviewed
>peer-reviewed

Argumentum ad populum

[sage No.2578309]

>>2578300
>doesn't understand what peer-review is

No one can be as fucking retarded as you.
I'm calling troll. Good day sir.

[Anonymous No.2578312]

>>2578280
Sorry, I just noticed that I completely skipped over your first point.

>In the real world, scientific misappropriation is thoroughly mixed with Science itself.
I don't think this is true to an extent that would prove the methodology to be inherently flawed, mostly because it (the process) already accounts for misappropriation of results, and subsequent self-correction. Mind you, I'm no naive ideologist who thinks that scientific research is somehow above corruption, but the point is that corrupted, illegitimate results will not, *can not* prevail in a scientific environment. If Scientific Research A "proves" cigarette smoke to be good for your teeth, then Scientific Research B, C, D and E will most likely prove it wrong, simply because the tobacco industry (or any single party) can't control everyone.

[Anonymous No.2578323]

>>2578209
point was about peer review, not about what people choose to call themselves, bumblefuck.

peer review is a flawed process.

[Anonymous No.2578326]

>>2578312

>corrupted, illegitimate results will not, *can not* prevail in a scientific environment
I disagree. Shared biases prevent us from exploring certain avenues. Humans are flawed creatures. Never forget it.

[Anonymous No.2578329]

>>2578309
of course we all understand. you just don't accept that peer review is not perfect.

so you just added the tautology that "peer review works when done by people that make peer review work"

sound reasoning there bro

[Anonymous No.2578337]

>>2578323
>flawless process

Why can't I universal constant?

[Anonymous No.2578333]

>>2578312
huge idealism detected

[Anonymous No.2578339]

>>2578333
Too bad you didn't detect your lack of an argument.

[Anonymous No.2578358]

>>2578339
was my first post in this thread mr butthurt

the others have given convincing arguments about how the scientific method can go wrong, and therefore, perhaps, will go wrong.

[Anonymous No.2578368]

>>2578326
>I disagree. Shared biases prevent us from exploring certain avenues. Humans are flawed creatures. Never forget it.
Acknowledging human nature and its flaws is probably the main reason why I have more "faith" in scientific methodology than in any philosophy, or religion.

Again, you don't have to convince me that science is prone to corruption. The notion that this corruption could possibly survive scientific rigor in the long run is what I'm disagreeing with.

[Anonymous No.2578372]

>>2578368
but so much shit has survived scientific rigor.

evidence everywhere.

[Anonymous No.2578374]

>>2578358
>was my first post in this thread mr butthurt
Uhm, yeah, and I pointed out that it didn't contain an argument.

[Anonymous No.2578382]

>>2578372
The fact that you know of many examples actually is evidence that bullshit ultimately does get sorted out by scientific rigor.

[Anonymous No.2578393]

You are all so convinced of this theoretical state of perfect scientific knowledge. What if there is no such thing? What if science has no end point? What if our scientific journey remains corrupted forever?

[Anonymous No.2578399]

>>2578393
Then at least we'll have halfway decent predictions and repeatable results along the way.

[Anonymous No.2578421]

>>2578372


Sooo... you're saying blacks are smarter than whites?

[Anonymous No.2578425]

>>2578382
well, your reasoning right there is flawed.

you assume bullshit is never added to "knowledge" and we are basically chipping away, using sound tools, at something static.

when it is likely that bullshit is being added all the time, and our flawed tools will be a significant contributor to the bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2578462]

>science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2LpvmrJBXg

[Anonymous No.2578476]

How many times do we have to say this?

SOCIAL SCIENCE IS NOT SCIENCE.

In fact everything with science in its name is not science.

[Anonymous No.2578540]

>>2578425
>well, your reasoning right there is flawed.
Not really. The fact that you know of instances where scientific rigor proved previously held beliefs to be wrong really is evidence of the (relative) effectiveness of scientific rigor.

>you assume bullshit is never added to "knowledge"
No, I don't. I didn't say, or even imply anything like that. I made it very clear that my position is that bullshit doesn't survive *in the long run*, not that it is never accepted as truth for certain periods of time.

>when it is likely that bullshit is being added all the time, and our flawed tools will be a significant contributor to the bullshit.
Yes, as I said before, it's not necessary to convince me that the scientific method is imperfect and corruptible. I'm fully aware of its shortcomings, but I also acknowledge its inherent self-correcting mechanisms, which many people in this thread seem to gloss over entirely.

[Anonymous No.2578541]

>>2578326

His argument holds because he's talking about a 'scientific environment'. But shared biases and inherent human flaws can make such an environment impossible to create in a human society.