1623
you're doing ReSeArCh rong!! (lemmy.ca)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
137 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 10 months ago (5 children)

But understanding how science works is key to having trust in it. If you lack that understanding you may just think it's a bunch of stuck up eggheads who pick whatever truth is convenient to them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    But both sides sound as if they have done real science, so a basic understanding of how science is done won't be enough to tell them apart. You can get anti-vaccine books written in an academic tone with citations. They go through the appearance of presenting evidence. The only difference between the two sides that is visible to an ordinary member of the public is that one side represents "the establishment" and the other side doesn't.

    Even professional scientists have to have a lot of trust in the institutions of science - if I read a paper then unless there is something egregiously wrong, I rely on the journal and the scientific community to check that the authors did what they claimed to do and that they got the results they claim to have.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I think you're right, to some extent, but I think a slightly more than basic understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, and perhaps most importantly, statistics, helps you cut through a lot of the bullshit extremely easily

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Sides?

    Oh, so we're talking about those bifurcated into competing groupthinks, not the search for truth with an educated mind.

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting nor rejecting it", not picking a side. And certainly not flinging around sweeping generalisations^1^.

    ( ^1^, and when I was trying to remember/refine that term, I asked an LLM, and it suggested there may also be the following fallacies in that: False Equivalence, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity, Appeal to Trust/Tradition, Straw Man, Vague Reference, Guilt by Association, Reification, Othering, Composition Fallacy, Division Fallacy, Weasel Words, Anonymous Authority, and of course, Sweeping Generalization. That's quite an impressive collection. And you did it so slick. Most slipped my attention. I bet you don't get called up on your fallacies often. Not just from the intimidating arrogant airs, but because you're so slick with them. Hope that helps you introspect and scrutinise your thinking, and is well received to consider.) :)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent