Why do the majority of people automatically believe scientists ?
Every night on the news or in the newspapers you will see the results of a new study claiming this or that. The sheep of the world collectively go "ow really, that is amazing", blindly believing every ounce to be the truth. When in fact the temptation to exaggerate or prematurely release a finding in order to gain media attention and therefor secure more funding has got to be taken into consideration. The scientists can release any finding, feed it to the ravenously hungry media and unless it is proven wrong by another scientist then who is going to question them. They get the attention, the funding and the ego. I'm sure most findings are legit, but i'm one to question all things instead of blindly believing. thoughts ?
|
2
points
Because science has a LONG track record of being RIGHT? Because I trust people with masters degrees who have studied in their fields for large parts of their lives and have left their research and findings up to peer review from the rest of the scientific community who I find very trustworthy and professional. Don't tell me by posting this you were going to try to use it as an argument for religion being correct over science. Because if you are I assure you one: you're going to fail and you're stupid and two: nobody wants to hear it. For your information AveSatanas, i hate religion. As ive stated above, my concern is (hyperthetically) a scientist exaggerates a finding (or falsifies one) and the media jump on it and it becomes gospel to the millions who believe everything they are told by the media. If that finding is shown to be false, we are not going to really find out about it. 1
point
For YOUR information so do I. More than you know. That being said I don't follow anything blindly. So when I see a new scientific study, at first I can at least say that it is interesting and probably accurate just because whether you like it or not science is trustworthy. But I still look it up online and I find that really every single time it is backed by substantial peer review and evidence. Now the media does blow things up and exaggerate them. They can turn suggestive scientific observations into "facts" when they're not yet facts. But I have yet to discover any modern scientific discovery that is just absolutely false and riddled with lies. It just doesn't happen. Every thing is backed by good ev 1
point
Thank you for posting this! I posted a debate that said you shouldn't use knowledge that a scientist tested that you haven't in an argument. Needless to say I was on the losing. As for your question, the answers they gave me should suffice. It's because the scientists have peer reviews, and everything is based on facts, and all their scientific evidence can be tested and re proven. In many scientific fields, results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by noise, artifacts, and other extraneous data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, he can expect to get away with it – or at least claim innocence if his results conflict with others in the same field. There are no "scientific police" who are trained to fight scientific crimes; all investigations are made by experts in science but amateurs in dealing with criminals. Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh carried out a meta-analysis that pooled the results of 21 surveys of researchers who were asked whether they or their colleagues had fabricated or falsified research. He found that an average of 1.97% of scientists admitted to having "fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once – a serious form of misconduct by any standard – and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices." 1
point
One thing to point out about that study is that "misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers." In other words, the ones that have been paid off by drug companies to falsify the data so they can make a fortune off of the drugs. Still, claims by a single source should always be looked at with a skeptical eye. Here is how I think claims by scientists should be evaluated. 1. Evaluate the credibility of the publication. 2. Evaluate the credibility of the person doing the study. 3. See how conclusive they claim the results of the study are. 4. Check to see if the study has been peer reviewed. 5. See if there are other studies that confirm or contradict their findings. 6. Evaluate whether the person making the claims would have something to gain by falsifying data. People were taught science. People earn degrees in science. People have earned and developed somewhat of a high knowledge in science throughout their academic career. When, a scientist attests to a new life on Mars, people are going to believe them because they grew up believing upon what they said and what they have published in textbooks. 'people are going to believe them because they grew up believing upon what they said and what they have published in textbooks'. My point exactly. People are going to believe. My question is should we believe everything, when there is clear evidence that scientists have, and will always from time to time, stretch the truth for their own gain. And the argument that we should believe because they have a degree....should we believe everything that comes out of a lawyers mouth ? They have a degree. Because the are the most educated and most qualified people in their fields on Earth. Everything they do is being redone many times. There are thousands of people who's make their career by trying to find an error in any work they can. Try to read original paper because majority of reporters are semi literate freaks looking for sensations... Only be aware of Creatards' "scientists" with fake degrees from fake schools and you'll be fine I agree that nearly all scientific finding are probably right. Some people here seem to think i don't believe any of it. Not true. I just question certain findings. I mean how many times have we been told that something is good for you then someone else finds it gives you cancer ? Or vice versa. Things like this make me skeptical. So i researched a little and was surprised to find the level of scientific papers (findings) are found to be false or misleading or exaggerated. Read the stats i posted above. I didn't make them up. |
