▲ 288 ▼ Science Badly Needs Defending Right Now. It Doesn’t Need Your Belief. (newrepublic.com) submitted 1 year ago by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world 70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Geodad@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (13 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Steve@communick.news 1 point 1 year ago (12 children) You shouldn't. They're entirely different. There are many paths to believing something, or accepting it as true. The least reliable is faith. It's just "wishing makes it true." Another, is personal experience. But that's easily biased, and even fooled by our limited and faulty senses. Actual repeatable evidence is the best we have so far. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (11 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children) There is only so much "dumbing down" you can do to scientific research about topics until you lose all contextual nuance or become too long winded for a layperson to understand without being overloaded with information. Then there is the issue with secondary and tertiary sources using simple language that causes confusion because it lacks the contextual nuance necessary to convey the correct interpretation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago That's the point of the second half of my comment. Clickbait popsci sites are called "secondary sources". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Agreed. There's definitely a gap in how conclusions are communicated to the public. It's crazy to me that so much of the general public don't understand that science is just a protocol of observing, recording, testing, and analyzing results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Eh, mostly not the scientists' fault but the media sensationalizing the data in secondary and tertiary sources. And, as you said, general ignorance of how science works internally. That is a problem with education though, again not the fault of the scientists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (5 children) True but the public is also being willfully ignorant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) It's like vaccines. Sure it sounds nice to say that, but denying it to these dipshits is going to get me hurt permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Send them to St Helena? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Steve@communick.news 1 point 1 year ago (12 children) You shouldn't. They're entirely different. There are many paths to believing something, or accepting it as true. The least reliable is faith. It's just "wishing makes it true." Another, is personal experience. But that's easily biased, and even fooled by our limited and faulty senses. Actual repeatable evidence is the best we have so far. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (11 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children) There is only so much "dumbing down" you can do to scientific research about topics until you lose all contextual nuance or become too long winded for a layperson to understand without being overloaded with information. Then there is the issue with secondary and tertiary sources using simple language that causes confusion because it lacks the contextual nuance necessary to convey the correct interpretation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago That's the point of the second half of my comment. Clickbait popsci sites are called "secondary sources". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Agreed. There's definitely a gap in how conclusions are communicated to the public. It's crazy to me that so much of the general public don't understand that science is just a protocol of observing, recording, testing, and analyzing results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Eh, mostly not the scientists' fault but the media sensationalizing the data in secondary and tertiary sources. And, as you said, general ignorance of how science works internally. That is a problem with education though, again not the fault of the scientists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (5 children) True but the public is also being willfully ignorant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) It's like vaccines. Sure it sounds nice to say that, but denying it to these dipshits is going to get me hurt permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Send them to St Helena? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] Geodad@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (11 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children) There is only so much "dumbing down" you can do to scientific research about topics until you lose all contextual nuance or become too long winded for a layperson to understand without being overloaded with information. Then there is the issue with secondary and tertiary sources using simple language that causes confusion because it lacks the contextual nuance necessary to convey the correct interpretation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago That's the point of the second half of my comment. Clickbait popsci sites are called "secondary sources". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Agreed. There's definitely a gap in how conclusions are communicated to the public. It's crazy to me that so much of the general public don't understand that science is just a protocol of observing, recording, testing, and analyzing results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Eh, mostly not the scientists' fault but the media sensationalizing the data in secondary and tertiary sources. And, as you said, general ignorance of how science works internally. That is a problem with education though, again not the fault of the scientists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (5 children) True but the public is also being willfully ignorant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) It's like vaccines. Sure it sounds nice to say that, but denying it to these dipshits is going to get me hurt permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Send them to St Helena? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children) There is only so much "dumbing down" you can do to scientific research about topics until you lose all contextual nuance or become too long winded for a layperson to understand without being overloaded with information. Then there is the issue with secondary and tertiary sources using simple language that causes confusion because it lacks the contextual nuance necessary to convey the correct interpretation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago That's the point of the second half of my comment. Clickbait popsci sites are called "secondary sources". permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Geodad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago That's the point of the second half of my comment. Clickbait popsci sites are called "secondary sources". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago That's the point of the second half of my comment. Clickbait popsci sites are called "secondary sources". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Agreed. There's definitely a gap in how conclusions are communicated to the public. It's crazy to me that so much of the general public don't understand that science is just a protocol of observing, recording, testing, and analyzing results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Eh, mostly not the scientists' fault but the media sensationalizing the data in secondary and tertiary sources. And, as you said, general ignorance of how science works internally. That is a problem with education though, again not the fault of the scientists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Eh, mostly not the scientists' fault but the media sensationalizing the data in secondary and tertiary sources. And, as you said, general ignorance of how science works internally. That is a problem with education though, again not the fault of the scientists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (5 children) True but the public is also being willfully ignorant permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) It's like vaccines. Sure it sounds nice to say that, but denying it to these dipshits is going to get me hurt permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Send them to St Helena? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) It's like vaccines. Sure it sounds nice to say that, but denying it to these dipshits is going to get me hurt permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Send them to St Helena? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) It's like vaccines. Sure it sounds nice to say that, but denying it to these dipshits is going to get me hurt permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Send them to St Helena? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] Geodad@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Send them to St Helena? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Send them to St Helena? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)