There is currently a lot of skepticism about science. Some of it is political - if science is politically incorrect,  some people can't bring themselves to accept it.

 

By far, the biggest reason for cynicism about science is shoddy media reporting. It's common to see a headline about some major breakthrough, only to never hear about it again. This is usually due to a poorly educated reporter learning the results of a single clinical study, and writing the trope "and this could lead to, one day, the end of xxxx disease, a cure for cancer, aging reversal" whatever. Of course, a single clinical study is,almost worthless, as it might turn out the study was poorly conducted, the sample was flawed, or instruments were malfunctioning.

 

Science usually corrects itself over time, fortunately.

 

One area where this happens all the time is DNA analysis. This technique is great for finding out the father of a specific baby, but almost worthless for understanding human evolution? Remember Mitochondrial Eve? This was the announcement that the founding mother of Homo Sapiens lived 150,000 years ago. Except now, we have found 300,000 year old Homo Sapiens fossils.

 

The problem is that DNA analysis of ancient samples requires researchers to make assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, the resulta are wrong.  So, assigning haplogroups to certain ethnic groups can turn out to be incorrect. Statements like "Haplogroup J11234 evolved in Saudi Arabia 13,400 years ago" can turn out to be totally wrong, when someone finds DNA 20,000 years ago with that haplogroup, in Japan.

 

Again, much science reporting is poor, so don't believe everything you read.

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Science usually corrects itself over time, fortunately.

That is the important part.

I.e. Newton's laws of motion were originally published in 1687. And mostly they are right - on earth, under our typical conditions.

But later Einstein came up with conditions in which other laws apply.

 

Scientists do their best to describe the world. And this helps us all to understand. And over time there are maybe changes. Fine. Scientists are normally open about other interpretations and changes.

 

As stated above, "normal people", who have often little idea what they talk about, are the people with the problems because they don't understand what scientists do. 

 

 

Science is just observations that appear to be right.

Chemistry & physics, yes.  Add corrupt humans to the equation, then things get a little untrustworthy, especially if money involved.

No.

On 10/17/2023 at 7:57 AM, OneMoreFarang said:

That is the important part.

I.e. Newton's laws of motion were originally published in 1687. And mostly they are right - on earth, under our typical conditions.

But later Einstein came up with conditions in which other laws apply.

 

Scientists do their best to describe the world. And this helps us all to understand. And over time there are maybe changes. Fine. Scientists are normally open about other interpretations and changes.

 

As stated above, "normal people", who have often little idea what they talk about, are the people with the problems because they don't understand what scientists do. 

 

 

Newton was spot on and his equations and calculus are still employed to send rockets and probes about the solar system. A proper genius if there ever were one and most physicists worth their salt will cite him over Einstein as being the most important scientist. Paraphrasing, but of gravity he said ‘this is how it works but I don’t know why it works, that is up to someone else’. Took all those intervening years for Einstein to come along and explain why… the bending of spacetime. 

As to the op, no it’s not entirely reliable because (on the universe at least) as it is in constant flux, as it should be, and based mostly on observation. But it is the best thing we have. On that, Big Nok isn’t far wrong. 
 

And, yes, the elephant in the room is numpty-know-nothing reporters writing tat hastily about subjects they know F all about.

18 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

And, yes, the elephant in the room is numpty-know-nothing reporters writing tat hastily about subjects they know F all about.

That's a good reason to ignore those people.

On 11/14/2023 at 1:14 AM, bignok said:

Science is just observations that appear to be right.

Science is the interpretation of observations into guidance that is effective in predicting the behaviour of the world.

Everyone knew how apples fell to ground, but Newton explained, in principle, how we could get to the moon.

Science is a work in progress and is only good as the researcher. The moment it becomes political then it must be viewed as here-say and high skepticism.

No science is perfect and history has shown it to be quite flawed.

On 12/5/2023 at 2:22 PM, novacova said:

Science is a work in progress and is only good as the researcher. The moment it becomes political then it must be viewed as here-say and high skepticism.

No science is perfect and history has shown it to be quite flawed.

How has history shown that the extrapolation of rules from observations is flawed, and that the review of established opinion based on recent observation is flawed?   We can all hanker for the acceptance of our own mistaken ideas, and I think we can all agree that in the past, people had mistaken ideas that were less effective in predicting the behaviour of the world than the current consensus, but since the clashing of flints to generate a spark, the rubbing of sticks to generate heat, I think that science has moved us steadily onwards and upwards.

You may or may not think that that is a good thing.  It has pushed us, like lemmings, to the possible cliff of climate change, and unlike lemmings, we may not be able to swim to the farther shore.  
I think lemmings are more likely to survive climate change than humans.

26 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

How has history shown that the extrapolation of rules from observations is flawed, and that the review of established opinion based on recent observation is flawed?   We can all hanker for the acceptance of our own mistaken ideas, and I think we can all agree that in the past, people had mistaken ideas that were less effective in predicting the behaviour of the world than the current consensus, but since the clashing of flints to generate a spark, the rubbing of sticks to generate heat, I think that science has moved us steadily onwards and upwards.

You may or may not think that that is a good thing.  It has pushed us, like lemmings, to the possible cliff of climate change, and unlike lemmings, we may not be able to swim to the farther shore.  
I think lemmings are more likely to survive climate change than humans.

Oh…sorry to confuse you 🤔

44 minutes ago, novacova said:

Oh…sorry to confuse you 🤔

No apology required.

I think I know what I understand - I am just not sure that I understand what you think you know.

If it is important, I am sure you will explain it; if not, I will read it again tomorrow and do my best on my own.

12 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

No apology required.

I think I know what I understand - I am just not sure that I understand what you think you know.

If it is important, I am sure you will explain it; if not, I will read it again tomorrow and do my best on my own.

Deciphering your previous post, it’s apparent that political based science is superior to observational science. Two opposing systems. One that is an evolution to discover the truth and understanding of nature. The other that fashions towards an allusion of understanding true nature.

17 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

I think we can all agree that in the past, people had mistaken ideas that were less effective in predicting the behaviour of the world than the current consensus

You must be brave to imagine that our science is any more advanced that it ever was. It still can't cure cancer, stop people having too many babies and create world peace, so what <deleted> use is it? Who cares if it allows us to fly to the moon- of no use to most on the planet. Science gave us the internet which just made it easier to watch porn, send stupid e mails and waste time on forums.

Get back to us when it stops wars.

17 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

How has history shown that the extrapolation of rules from observations is flawed, and that the review of established opinion based on recent observation is flawed?

Science has always been used by the 1 % to advance themselves over the peasants ( us ). Doesn't matter that science says sugar is very bad when bad people use science to contaminate most processed food with sugar and other bad chemicals.

I could come up with many similar examples, but simply put, science is used to enrich some people at the expense of every one else, and not, IMO, to make a better world for our future.

People used to be happier in the 1950s than they are now, and PCs didn't exist. Men flew to the moon in 1969 and PCs didn't exist ( they used slide rules ), students left school being able to read and write and subtract 6 from 9, because PCs didn't exist.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Science has always been used by the 1 % to advance themselves over the peasants ( us ). Doesn't matter that science says sugar is very bad when bad people use science to contaminate most processed food with sugar and other bad chemicals.

I could come up with many similar examples, but simply put, science is used to enrich some people at the expense of every one else, and not, IMO, to make a better world for our future.

People used to be happier in the 1950s than they are now, and PCs didn't exist. Men flew to the moon in 1969 and PCs didn't exist ( they used slide rules ), students left school being able to read and write and subtract 6 from 9, because PCs didn't exist.

I'm really grateful to the scientists that clashed flints together; I'm really grateful for pasteruisation, vaccination, internal combustion, electric lighting, international communication, municipal sanitation, and I use the internet more than I should.

I don't feel downtrodden, and I think poor people are better off now than they were in the past, if you look at deaths in childbirth, life expectancy, the length of the working week, the number that achieve obesity etc.

Science has effectively improved our ability to do what we want.  I think your concern is that you are unhappy with what people do.

Science gives us opportunity.  If you want totalitarian control, you wil have to manage that by yourself.

 

10 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

I think poor people are better off now than they were in the past

Only in countries that pay them to survive.

 

Do you think the kids digging out stuff to make car batteries in the Congo are doing it for fun? I know you don't- that was a rhetorical question, but I'm sure you get my point.

10 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

I'm really grateful to the scientists that clashed flints together; I'm really grateful for pasteruisation, vaccination, internal combustion, electric lighting, international communication, municipal sanitation, and I use the internet more than I should.

I don't feel downtrodden, and I think poor people are better off now than they were in the past, if you look at deaths in childbirth, life expectancy, the length of the working week, the number that achieve obesity etc.

Science has effectively improved our ability to do what we want.  I think your concern is that you are unhappy with what people do.

Science gives us opportunity.  If you want totalitarian control, you wil have to manage that by yourself.

 

I agree to a certain extent, but I wish science hadn't invented the PC, as I'd have had a much more fulfilling life since 2000 if I'd never been able to buy that first PC. Obsessions are never a good thing.

 

 

I think your concern is that you are unhappy with what people do.

Science gives us opportunity.  If you want totalitarian control, you wil have to manage that by yourself.

Near enough to correct.

However, I don't want to control other people and I'd rather be able to live far far away from the lot of them, but that'd be hard to do, given the cost nowadays of land, and I'm not allowed to just go and set up on a convenient spot as it's all owned now, if not by an individual, by the state.