#genuinely dont think that the major truth -seeking process should be comprehensibly taught to only those people who might

[theskyexists]

You know what I think is so....there's such a pseudo respect for science on this website specifically but - just like in many societies generally - only when it speaks with authority. And yeah, the scientific method is how we're trying to find out truth about things, so we can base our decisions on this truth. At one point - you're gonna have to speak with some authority based on the research that has been done. But. So many people - in society and on this website - have not studied to become scientists. They have not learned about the scientific method. So all they see is apparently - science as authority. But science as authority is a consensus. 'Consensus' reached by multiple individual scientists who are no longer in major disagreement because so much research has been done that it SEEMS LIKE we're on to something. And yet, even then, everything may turn out to be wrong. Because people have been fabricating results for example (happened really seriously within the field of psychology) or because it turned out that most studies' methods or assumptions were less rigorous or accurate than desirable (lookin askance at economics) or the classic paradigm shift in physics where some whole new set of ideas topples earlier ones. It seems like we've reached a pretty solid idea of things. But when is that point? Very few people have been taught to recognise it. Which requires actually reading/scanning studies. Or at least good summaries. Getting a sense of what the landscape of ideas is. What are major theories and assumptions and results? (In uni, you get handed this in a course). More importantly, what is missing?? Once you go digging into any subject it generally turns out there's more gaps in understanding and especially empirical results WITH good methods than what's actually known. In uni, you're taught to recognise how researchers might have fucked up (at least, they attempt to teach this). What's solid stuff? What's rigorous research? What is valid and reliable? When is something TRUE? Here comes my personal opinion: if there's not 3- 10 citations behind a statement then you're knitting a web of maybes together. Actually it's NOT just my personal opinion, it's a major problem in scholarship and science that scientists are NOT reproducing studies because they are not rewarded for it - when the scientific method REQUIRES reproduction of results for any kind of robust 'truth' to emerge.

But most people are simply 100% not taught about HOW our societies make truth (emerge) - or rather how scientists should be doing this. They are delivered truth by the authority: science. But the nature of the scientific process delivers differing narratives, theories, hypotheses, especially until a kind of consensus is reached. So people take one study and run with it. Or 7 wildly differing studies which seem to be about the same thing but really aren't. And that's not even non-uni-educated people only, I've seen plenty of paper-publishing people knit their stuff together that way. Sometimes that's all the information there is! But though scientists are taught to point to the sources of information for statements they make - that doesn't mean that everything published is Fact. Most discussions of results would acknowledge this strenuously. Still, they're often cited that way if it suits the narrative of the paper pointing at them.

My point? Wish people would be MORE skeptical of 'science'. What? I hear you ask? More crazies who don't listen to reason? No - I just wish more people would have access to and the means to and the desire to and have respect for doing one's own research with the scientific method as FALLIBLE BUT ENDLESSLY SELF- ADJUSTING TRUTH-SEEKING MECHANISM in the backs of their minds. Which means reading. Literally just means reading, and staying critical, and recognising when things are not nearly ready to be called TRUTH yet at all and when things ARE ready to be called TRUTH (looking at climate change and its human causes and the major consensus on this).

What I mean is - again - wish people would actually read studies. Wish this was a thing taught to every child in secondary school. Otherwise you get people pointing at 30 studies about completely different arguments / completely different scope that lead back to about three studies of actual results eventually which didn't have amazing methods. And that's TRUTH and anyone who denied this Substantiated Common Sense is a moral idiot. Maybe let's do some rigorous testing first and then some pilots.

#genuinely dont think that the major truth -seeking process should be comprehensibly taught to only those people who might #do research in the future. should be taught to every citizen. #my stuff #personal #do i think that after having researched nuclear power plants four times 'superficially' i know whether its good or bad to invest in? #no #maybe the risks are overstated or maybe the risk is minimal and worth it maybe waste CAN be managed well despite historical #problems. maybe the risk of a huge national security risk and international health risK REALLY IS worth it BECAUSE #tech HAS developed enough and responsibility risks can be prevented eniugh that emissionless energy output for 30 years will be essential #do i know? no. and obviously im skeptical #but i never deny that there is a possibility i just need to get a clearer picture by actually looking at some actual literature #maybe its gonna save the damn world! who knows #not me #people r so bad at not knowing