Comments
rynosoft t1_j6tnrdt wrote
I worry all the time about being the well-actually guy.
fenasi_kerim t1_j6vxu4j wrote
Actually it's pretty easy to not be that guy.
...wait.
OkeyDoke47 t1_j6ux27k wrote
My brother-in-law is the ''well actually'' guy, and he actually does say that.
He is a man of clearly superior intellect, Rain Man level of recall for tiny little factoids about everything. it's just a shame that he always feels the need to prove his superiority with every conversation. This makes him often unpleasant, when he is otherwise a pleasant man.
jorjordandan t1_j6vvzsh wrote
This also reminds me of the idea of reading or listening charitably- assuming the best version of the argument, or that the writer or listener simplified something to make it more legible or interesting… a well actually guy always does the opposite, looking for any detail to jump on to, whether it’s relevant to the conversation or not. I think this behaviour (in addition to being irritating) also lowers the quality of discourse in general by forcing everyone to constantly hedge their arguments against every possible obvious minor nitpick.
buttersstochfan-5956 t1_j6vqesd wrote
Hahaha I just picked up the audiobook for Calling Bullshit, it's really good!
​
Also Alexa will bleep the name out when you play it out of the speaker.
peezyyyyy t1_j6wzbrz wrote
How to help the well actually being so actually ?
Free-Statement-7580 t1_j6yiw8z wrote
How you admire the works of well actually being?
Based_nobody t1_j6sc6tw wrote
You know how quickly people can take this too far, though, right? Sorry, just being sceptical.
CporCv t1_j6snoms wrote
Let the sewage flow!
IAI_Admin OP t1_j6rnx88 wrote
In this talk philosopher Massimo Pigliucci argues twobranches of scepticism that have split in recent history – ethical scepticism and scientific scepticism – should be reunited in an attempt to define a good way of living.
Ethical scepticism, he explains, demands that we either suspend judgment on non evident matters, or act on the basis of probability given available facts. If apparent facts change, or our assessment of facts change, our judgment of the probability that non-evident claims are true should also be updated.
Scientific scepticism, he suggests, means we should demand clarity of definition, consistency of logic and adequacy of evidence for anyclaim made. We must recognise that not everyone is equally equipped to assessevery claim – Pigliucci cites Socrates’ discussion in the Charmides dialogue. Andwe must recognise we have an ethical responsibility to ensure we don’t supporterroneous claims – citing Cicero.
There are consequences for ourselves and others if we accept things such as climate denial or ant-vax movements without properly assessing the foundations of those claims.
Therefore, we have an ethical responsibility to adopt asceptical attitude towards all claims in life. We must recognise knowledge is tentative – the probability of any claims truth is never 0 nor 1 – and be open to revising our judgment in light of new evidence.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6rxdq0 wrote
"There are consequences for ourselves and others if we accept things such as climate denial or ant-vax movements without properly assessing the foundations of those claims."
This quote is interesting considering that both belief in climate change and supporting vaccinations are components of the dominant metanarrative in the Western world, while the quote itself makes it seem that climate denial and anti-vax are the strains of regime approved thinking that need to be scrutinized. This is an odd-inversion of reality. Climate denial and anti-vax are beliefs that are scrutinized by default, as they stand in contrast to the institutionally-supported metanarrative. Are we to be skeptical only of those things that we are allowed to be skeptical of?
EmuChance4523 t1_j6s05qa wrote
No, but anti-vax and climate denial don't have any real foundation in reality, and work with conspiracy theories and religious zealotry and not with evidence and logic on their side.
So, we have an ethical responsibility to evaluate things.
If we go to real scientific theories, we must demand good evidence, definition and consistency in them, and depending on the topic, this is normally provided. The main scientific theories that the scientific community tends to hold, already hold enough evidence and information to be accepted, but the important point there is to also accept that if we found more information and those things need to be discarded, we need to accept that.
ButtcoinSanta t1_j6sd5sb wrote
Which definition of vaccine are you using for your 0/1 antivax take?
EmuChance4523 t1_j6sfd2a wrote
What definition of vaccine do you have that the antivax take is not bs?
If you take any scientific vaccine, this is the answer to the antivax take. It is reasonable to be antivax for example, when the vaccine proposed is the piss vaccine used by crazy cults, but the scientific ones don't have the flaws attacked by the antivax crazies.
This doesn't mean that our scientific methods, or that the process that we used to develop vaccines, or that there isn't corruption in our institutions that we need to fix, but the problems aren't related to what the antivax cults cry.
VitriolicViolet t1_j6v9ii1 wrote
the current modern ones?
the anti-vax movement either focus on A) new shit like the COVID vaccine (its beyond apparent at this stage that its safe) or B) old-ass mercury containing vaccines from the 1930s.
which 'definition' are you using?
i oppose mandatory vaccination on the grounds of inalienable right to bodily autonomy, not some completely inaccurate nonsense about their safety.
[deleted] t1_j6rysch wrote
[deleted]
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6s0wag wrote
It is an inversion of which belief system is socially dominant. All of this is made more interesting considering that climate denial and anti-vax sentiments are both skeptical of their socially dominant counter parts. This is to say nothing of truthfulness or utility of such beliefs, I have not taste of debating the exact details of either case.
Should we be skeptical of that which claims to be skepticism? Most certainly, especially the claims which others posit have passed through the skepticism sniff-test. There seems to be this implicit game of Socratic chicken, in which both parties claim to be the proprietors of true Skepticism and that therefore their truth-claims of the world are factually correct. This easily ends in solipsism in which no claims on reality can be verified.
betaray t1_j6s8qsv wrote
Skepticism isn't just taking the contrarian point of view. As Mr. Pigliucci explains, it's about "taking a look". Which side of the climate change or vaccination debate is actually investigating the claims of that they make?
A great example of this plays out in the Beyond the Curve flat earth documentary. Those attempting to prove the earth is flat are superficially skeptical. They perform experiments that would demonstrate the earth is flat. That's taking a look. However, when the results confirm the earth is round, they don't accept that evidence. Their belief is more fundamental than evidence.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6scvqk wrote
You can find investigations into the topic, into any topic, from any point of view. There are many sources out there. The biggest issue in all of this is the glut of information that we have to process in order to make informed decisions. How much information do we need to imbibe in order to make our value-judgements educated, or seem educated? Educated to whom? Even having knowledge itself isn't enough to compel action, one cannot turn an Is into an Ought. Science is a tool of understanding reality, not for discerning which actions we should take. This depends on our values.
That is the implicit issue with talking about these topics, that these beliefs are bundled together with other beliefs and their corresponding action (or inaction). When we talk about affirming the validity of Climate Change, what does that even mean? To say aloud, "Climate Change is true", what does this change? What does it change to say the opposite?
Take a look at Germany and their mothballing of some of their nuclear power plants in favor of sustainable green energy initiatives. In light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the tightening of oil supplies, Germany has had to burn more fossil fuels to make up for the lack of energy that would have been supplied by these nuclear reactors. I am sure there are other reasons as to why the nuclear reactors were shuttered, but climate change rhetoric was touted when decommissioning them. I would have much rather that energy come from nuclear power plants than from burning fossil fuels, because it is better for the environment and it loosens the grip that Russia has over continental Europe when making foreign policy decisions.
Would someone who affirms the validity of climate change want both the burning of more fossil fuels and a tighter Russian grip over Ukraine? Probably not. But such rhetoric has in part lead to such a thing, and such a thing should be investigated.
betaray t1_j6siyop wrote
Did you watch the video? This is exactly the point brought up by the Socratic dialog about physicians. As the video mentions, Cicero's criteria are a good starting place.
Anthropogenic climate change is true means that human production of CO2 is leading to overall sea level rise, temperature rise, melting ice sheets and glaciers, and ocean acidification. Those are all testable statements, which is an important part those criteria. It's a broad view which a wide range of evidence supports, and those are a couple other elements of the criteria.
Germany had two goals with its power production strategy. To reduce carbon output and to phase out nuclear power. In the wake of Russia's invasion they've had to compromise both goals. They've extended the life of nuclear power plants and increased the amount of carbon they have produced. That's unfortunate, but what does that have to do with the validity of anthropogenic climate change?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6snsrz wrote
"That's unfortunate, but what does that have to do with the validity of anthropogenic climate change?"
It is not "unfortunate", it was clearly foreseeable circumstance given the both the goals and means which were taken to achieve the goal. This is my contention. I am not contending that climate change is not verifiably true, I am skeptical of the value-judgements made by those who claim to be making decisions with these things in mind.
ButtcoinSanta t1_j6sypok wrote
The good motive and the bad motive occasionally strive for identical outcome. The motive can be selected to fit the narrative
betaray t1_j6t8dkc wrote
I'm not even sure what your objection to the goal of reducing of CO2 emissions that are verifiability causing anthropocentric climate change might be. Your opposition isn't passing Cicero's test of having a specific claim or being internally consistent. A skeptic should reject your claim unless you can provide a testable claim with evidence.
You do make the claim that was a clearly foreseeable outcome. As a skeptic you'd have evidence to support this position. What is your evidence that a limitation of the supply of natural gas was the clearly foreseeable circumstance when this decision was made in 2011?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6tdipo wrote
Not once did I object to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions. I support reducing CO2 emissions. I support it by supporting using nuclear power. But what does "having my support" even do in this matter?
Also, I don't have to pass Cicero's test. I am not beholden to Cicero. You do not have to be beholden to him either.
The circumstances that Germany found itself in 2011 would not extend for the foreseeable future: Pax Americana which allowed for historically low military spending would not extend, uninterrupted supply chain that is predicated upon this Pax Americana would be jeopardized, the severing of energy autonomy (and thus political autonomy) by shuttering nuclear energy makes Germany increasingly susceptible to foreign influence. The resurgence of Russian aggression (which is something both Romney and Trump would derided for highlighting) exposed how fragile these systems upon which such worldviews are predicated. Germany could have shored up its energy and political autonomy by expanding its reliance on nuclear energy.
edit: you have edited your reply 3 times now. I don't even know what I am responding to anymore.
[deleted] t1_j6tf63h wrote
[deleted]
41sa t1_j6t706y wrote
The irony is unbelievable. How can you make the case for "scientific skepticism" and in the next breath talk about how we cannot accept vaccine and climate skepticism?
For better or for worse, these are some of the only laypeople practicing meaningful skepticism about the information they are fed. For the vast majority of people, "science" is synonymous with an appeal to authority that cannot be challenged.
If you are serious about the value of skepticism and strengthening our collective knowledge you should welcome this kind of dissent. I want more intelligent climate skepticism, and I want it out in the open. If you're confident in your position you should be ready to steelman its negation.
UMPB t1_j6x6mgk wrote
> I want more intelligent climate skepticism, and I want it out in the open.
I'd accept that, but currently most climate and vaccine "skepticism" is just outright denial and they don't have their own evidence or data to support their claims properly. We don't need to take that seriously because it isn't serious and doesn't stand on its own merits. The onus is on them to present a valid argument for their dissent. Pushing for acceptance of "Skepticism" will be wielded like a weapon to bring people over to outright denial. I think we have an obligation to recognize that some people literally aren't capable of reasoning their way around complex issues or will not be able to understand the technical aspect of evidence required to gain an understanding and then intervene to prevent them from having dangerous thought patterns implanted in them by bad actors.
Live and let live works fine with bad ideas when everyone's motives are neutral but when people want to use these concepts for nefarious purposes they will co opt any amount of acceptance you give them and turn it into part of their brainwashing.
Chode36 t1_j6umgqw wrote
"The irony is unbelievable. How can you make the case for "scientific skepticism" and in the next breath talk about how we cannot accept vaccine and climate skepticism?'
I agree 100%. But for many, if it doesn't fit their narrative then....
In_der_Tat t1_j6w9jsq wrote
>dominant metanarrative in the Western world
>regime approved thinking
> institutionally-supported metanarrative
If it is supposedly dominant or given to you by the authority, it does not necessarily make it more or less amenable to scrutiny because the basis for scepticism is always the question >What are your arguments, and what is your evidence for why I should believe in x, y, or z?
Massimo Pigliucci, being a scientist himself, before dismissing e.g. the denial of climage change, implicitly walks through the next step, a behaviour which constitutes the hallmark of an actual sceptic, namely proportioning one's belief to the evidence (David Hume).
In fact, he echoes Cicero—the person who introduced the term "probability" in Latin in the first place by making a calque out of the corresponding Greek term—by stating that
>Knowledge is assumed to be tentative and probabilistic.
Then he whips out the following Bayesian probability formula:
>P(claim) ~ P(evidence|claim) * P(claim, a priori)
which means: the probability of a given claim is proportional to the product of the probability of seeing the evidence as we observe it given the claim times the probability of the claim working a priori, i.e. according to the sum of all the branches of knowledge (theory).
What, instead, I find troublesome in Pigliucci's presentation is that he dismisses e.g. the quest for access to original papers pertaining to a given scientific discipline—specifically medicine in his example—as a kind of unjustified epistemic trespass or arrogance after quoting a dialogue by Plato's Socrates (which I generalized):
>...can anyone pursue the inquiry into [the sphere of a given branch of knowledge or into a fair test of a given expert of it] unless he has knowledge of [said sphere]?
>No one at all, it would seem, except the [expert] can have this knowledge—and therefore not the wise man. He would have to be [an expert] as well as a wise man.
It is, in my view, troublesome because, if one limits his or her inquiry into personal acquisition of knowledge by means of peer-reviewed scientific publications published on respected scientific journals, then these personal knowledge acquisition attempts do not necessarily constitute an instance of epistemic trespass or arrogance notwithstanding the complexity of the material under scrutiny. On the contrary, such attempts, as I see it, follow the spirit of scepticism and, in any case, should be judged against the possible weakness of arguments from authority which, as scientist Carl Sagan puts it,
>carry little weight
because
>authorities have made mistakes in the past
and
>will do so again in the future.
Indeed,
>Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
In effect, by want of a clearer argument, Pigliucci formulates an unsceptical argument from authority if he outright dismisses as unjustified non-experts' quest for access to original papers published on respected scientific journals.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6wots7 wrote
Better put than I.
[deleted] t1_j6sh9i7 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6sq4yp wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j6t7r4f wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
PeripateticAlaskan t1_j6sbj6u wrote
A nuance is sometimes teased out between the synonyms fact vs. truth. Facts are those which pass muster on the basis of scientific skepticism as defined here. Truth, however, incorporates concepts that may be vital to who we are or are striving to become, yet by their nature cannot be evaluated by the scientific method. These are often used interchangeably. Yet to the extent there is this distinction of nuance I would contend that Truth, in appropriate forms, must be understood, accepted, and incorporated into our lives. I therefore come down on the side of ethical skepticism.
Mckay001 t1_j6szt6x wrote
The ant vax movement must be stopped.
Stargazer5781 t1_j6t5hjf wrote
This is best achieved by using more precise criticisms. Calling people with legitimate objections to a vaccine anti-vaxxers serves only pharrnaceutical corporate interests, and that behavior has gotten super popular of late. Medical interventions should have clinical trial evidence of benefit exceeding cost in the demographic cohort for which it is recommended, and exceptions should always be permitted depending on the medical needs of the patient.
This was the norm for decades of public health regulation and was a completely uncontroversial position until extremely recently.
cwk84 t1_j6tgnri wrote
I’ve talked to serval anti vaxxers in person and have used logic and explained statistics and they still didn’t want to let go of the conspiracies.
[deleted] t1_j6ujapn wrote
Are these people against vaccination for all conditions or just Covid? These are two distinct groups
SPammingisGood t1_j6th39a wrote
And that's the problem. They don't want to take part in actual scientific/rational discussion. Many are only driven by emotions not by rational objections.
Couch-Dogo t1_j6w7354 wrote
What do you think happens when a new vaccine is created? They go through hundreds of tests and trials before they’re ever made available to the public. This goes for all medical inventions. It’s fine to be skeptical of something new but people have to learn where to draw the line. If there are hundreds of studies and a mountains of proof saying that vaccines are safe and your still skeptical, that’s just being an idiot.
Stargazer5781 t1_j6wmivj wrote
So a few things.
First, "vaccines are safe." In saying this, are you saying that every single vaccine ever created has been approved by regulators and is presently in use? Have you taken any of the HIV vaccines for example? J&J's? Merck's? Are you saying that every single one of those failed vaccines that did not pass clinical trial muster is safe?
Obviously not. So you're saying that every single vaccine that has ever been approved has been completely safe? So you would, in good conscience, tell a pre-menopausal woman that she ought to take one of the adenovirus vector vaccines for COVID? And that there's absolutely no risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia? And more generally, there's never been a Class I or Class II recall of a vaccine in history? Wow, what a revelation! I am so delighted to discover they were all false!
In terms of our present situation of COVID vaccines, my main objections concern the following:
-
Requiring college-aged students to be vaccinated and boosted with mRNA vaccines when they are the cohort most at risk for myocarditis and least at risk from the disease.
-
Adding the COVID vaccines to the infant vaccine schedule when it is still under the auspices of emergency use authorization. If it's to be added to a schedule, it should pass the FDA's normal rigorous testing requirements.
-
Approving the bivalent booster when the only evidence supporting said approval was the generation of antibodies in 8 mice. The mass distribution of any medical product should at least require safety testing and preferably require efficacy testing as well with clinically beneficial endpoints, not the mere validation of a surrogate endpoint.
There are many more objections, but these are the most egregious ones that would have been considered ludicrous even three years ago. And this insanity is not global by the way. In Denmark, for example, the same practice mandated on our college campuses is banned due to the serious, if rare, side-effects among young men. It's also worth noting that the heads of the vaccine division of the FDA, Gruber and Krause, resigned in protest over this issue. Were they being idiots?
There is serious cause for concern here, and I would encourage you to reflect on why you're so certain there is not. I am not particularly worried about vaccines that went through the FDA's rigorous testing and requirements in years past. I am concerned about how our public health apparatus has changed for the worse.
CactusMonkey12 t1_j6u6vuc wrote
Do you know if Pigliucci has a citable manuscript related to this?
[deleted] t1_j6sfjee wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6sxlsi wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6t46ei wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j6t7a4f wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
SvetlanaButosky t1_j6rvkdx wrote
We should all be skeptics unless we are omniscience gods, lol.
Nobody can ever know everything there is to know about anything, its just not possible, this means everything people produce will be incomplete (even scientific facts), which is why we should never be absolutist about anything, even for the simplest basic facts.
We know enough to survive and do stuff, that's it, reality is far too vast and complex to be understood in its entirety.
bensonnd t1_j6sfnim wrote
I want to live long enough (read way longer than we do now) to master multiple subjects in math and science, like neuroscience/neurology, computer science, physics, quantum physics/mechanics, but also including some of the social sciences like linguistics, economics, anthropology, and sociology.
There's something to learn between them all. It feels like people, societies, and neurons in the brain all look like they coalesce in ways similar to what we see with matter in physics.
Major-Vermicelli-266 t1_j6stm37 wrote
I don't know what that last part is supposed to mean but if you do, don't forget to study medicine.
SvetlanaButosky t1_j6udl9d wrote
You should study AI brain chip instead, because its the holy grail of making people near omniscience.
bildramer t1_j6thqfz wrote
We should be skeptical, but not too skeptical, but of course also be skeptical about who got to define our idea of "too skeptical" and how. Many people seemingly assume they can skip any actual skepticism, and go pick up all the ideas labeled skepticism, and discard all the ones labeled too much skepticism, and be done, and moreover, that they have already done this. You see it all the time in polemics about "critical thinking in schools", for example - the idea that the more critical thinking, the more children's beliefs and opinions (and votes) will end up similar to yours.
mackinator3 t1_j6sjr6r wrote
Well, you can't know it's not possible.
It also doesn't mean everything is incomplete. You can still get lucky and have a complete theory, without knowing everything.
You are presenting such an absolutist argument against absolutism lol
bensonnd t1_j6sq9e1 wrote
OP doesn't seem to be talking about absolutism at all. They're talking about how the stuff we know, including the theories you mentioned, still have underlying probabilities (uncertainty) that we can look at and be almost entirely sure, but never 100%.
It's like determining a sphere's superposition. We can probabilistically determine where a sphere is at by analyzing it in the context of an infinite number of planes, but not the actual sphere itself. And we can extrapolate to the space around it to fill in the gaps between the sphere and its polyhedron representation. But by definition, that gap is uncertain. We can model the gap if it's that important, but it generally isn't. The representation is good enough.
mackinator3 t1_j6sqpl6 wrote
They explicitly says absolutist.
VitriolicViolet t1_j6v9w3z wrote
eh, one day we may know everything, a billion years is a long time.
never seen a convincing reason why we cant learn everything, we just need better tools (all of history supports it)
bonEzz_1 t1_j6xonf6 wrote
to me the problem is that you can never be sure you know everything, since you can always ask "is there something we are missing?", and the answer has to be, by definition "we don't know".
in practical terms it doesn't really mean much since we can get by just fine by doing "what works", but in theoretical terms I don't think you can ever be sure that you have learned everything, that you haven't missed something that would change your understanding of things, and in that sense, you can never be sure of the truth of what you know, so you are forced to remain sceptical about it
SvetlanaButosky t1_j6yumj4 wrote
Exactly, how can we ever know that we have known everything there is to know about reality?
As long as new things are discovered, it will never be complete.
He assumes that we will reach a point when nothing new will ever be discovered for the rest of time, that's a very big claim. lol
HoneydewInMyAss t1_j6s9dtv wrote
This is silly.
Science has a peer review process.
The scientific method has built in processes (like repeatability and falsifiability) to help eliminate bias.
Telling laymen to be "sceptical" about science is irresponsible, especially at a time when Measles and TB are making comebacks
baladibt t1_j6sqsn2 wrote
I scrolled to see just this comment.
Jingle-man t1_j6scxpn wrote
>The scientific method has built in processes (like repeatability and falsifiability) to help eliminate bias.
Has this stopped scientists in the past from falsifying or censoring data to suit their own agenda?
HoneydewInMyAss t1_j6smxsq wrote
Falsifying and censoring data is NOT science, it's lies!
The lies about "vaccines causing autism" is NOT SCIENCE!
It was debunked by science!
It was debunked BY the peer review process!
290077 t1_j6tbdb3 wrote
>The lies about "vaccines causing autism" is NOT SCIENCE!
>It was debunked by science!
>It was debunked BY the peer review process!
The paper claiming that took 12 years to be retracted from the journal it was published in. The peer review process sure took its sweet time.
Jingle-man t1_j6xhdue wrote
>Falsifying and censoring data is NOT science, it's lies!
Well if the only science I have access to is that which is published, and the publishing process is worthy of scepticism (which it is), then what difference does it make? The science that I see, I must be sceptical of.
TheNinjaPro t1_j6ssk2o wrote
Youd be hard pressed to find peer reviewed, repeatable data that was intentionally fabricated.
Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6sxmrq wrote
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant «studies» as data itself is not «Peer reviewed»
Here is one example of how Peer review works in the real world:
https://www.nature.com/articles/515480a
You can also look into ghost writing, the replication crisis and regulatory capture as some keywords for how «science» works in this day and age. People are too naive and think the real world works like they read in some textbook instead of the complicated and profit-driven mess it is.
TheNinjaPro t1_j6sy4tc wrote
Both repeatability and peer review were my clauses for acceptability.
You have simply states that articles are unrepeatable, and peer reviews can be scams.
We put the two together and we get…..
Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6sylj9 wrote
You didn’t take the time to Even look at the links. I think that says it all really. The real world does not work like your textbook sats it works. «Peer review» is not some silver bullet if the whole process is largely corrupt.
TheNinjaPro t1_j6t0sv0 wrote
You really REALLY arent reading what im saying. I checked your links dont worry about that. Ive heard these lame excuses all the god damn time.
Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6t26cv wrote
real crises in what we call « science» are for you «lame excuses»? Excuses for what? Here’s another one that will Get your juices flowing, publication bias: also a real problem and a huge threat to «science» as we know it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias
The naive belief most People have in «science» borders on the absurd and betrays a profound lack of understanding of how the world actually works - i call this «scientism», it’s also akin to figuratively living in platos cave and actively denying that reality is more complex than the world of ideas. Reality is messy, and does not work like it says on the tin ;)
TheNinjaPro t1_j6t2c2l wrote
Really easy to put you in the looney bin because you cant keep putting whatever the hell around science.
Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6tagpu wrote
Got it! Don’t mess with mah science or imma call you a big meanie! ;)
TheNinjaPro t1_j6tb1de wrote
Go be a scientist, go dedicate your life to actually understanding things because apparently nobody else can do it.
Or you can just bitch and complain and be somehow more uselss.
Nebu_chad_nezzarII t1_j6tbty5 wrote
Lol, Your comments are just comedy gold! What are you, like 15? :)
TheNinjaPro t1_j6tc2dd wrote
Ah you’re doin the thing!
290077 t1_j6tc1d6 wrote
https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/
You're telling me none of these passed peer review? Look at the timelines, several of these took over a decade between publication and retraction.
TheNinjaPro t1_j6tcgxm wrote
How the fuck is nobody reading my original comment.
Peer Reviewed + REPEATABLE Data meaning MULTIPLE studies from different groups came to the same result using the same parameters.
I am well aware of the abuse under the peer review system, but it does have an once of integrity and with the key word repeatable which everyone is overlooking, you can have some faith that it is correct.
XiphosAletheria t1_j6udfh7 wrote
I think the point people are making is that the process as it currently exists often lacks repeatability, in the sense that many published studies don't actually have anyone trying to repeat the results. Like, sure, you have grasped how the scientific process is supposed to work in theory, but no one is naive enough to think science is like that in the real world.
TheNinjaPro t1_j6uh7e1 wrote
Its just a rule that a study is only as trustable as it is repeatable. Most meaningful science is repeatable, with potentially hundreds of scientists conducting the same experiments.
Major-Vermicelli-266 t1_j6svmjx wrote
If you falsify data, your results can't be repeated. So yeah, it deters scientists who want to have a career in science, but unfortunately not those who want to lick billionaires boots dipped in oil for a living.
Chode36 t1_j6unisg wrote
And when the peers are biased due to Ideologies, how can the truth come out? Speaking about gatekeeping etc.
bread93096 t1_j6syh9b wrote
Scientific models are revised and updated often. We know, for example, that our knowledge of physics is very incomplete. It’s quite likely that new discoveries will be made in our lifetime that fundamentally challenge what we ‘know’ about the nature of reality - and then eventually those models may be revised and updated as well.
If you understand science as what it is, a system of mathematical models which make increasingly accurate predictions and are updated on a generational basis, then it makes perfect sense to treat it with skepticism insofar as it is not a complete or final description of reality. It doesn’t mean you have to become a flat earther. If anything it helps with understanding new discoveries - one of the barriers to laymen grasping quantum mechanics is that it contradicts ‘the truth’ which they thought they already learned it school.
oppairate t1_j6u8tal wrote
they should be skeptical about whether or not what they’re being told is science actually is.
shewel_item t1_j6wcarm wrote
-
the peer-review process is fallible, if not ad-hoc
-
there is no universal scientific method
sahuxley2 t1_j6tv2j0 wrote
Using science is about iteratively getting closer and closer to the truth, it is not about absolutes - since conclusions can become outdated by actually being wrong, or get supplanted by better conclusions. It's about delivering conclusions with high confidence, not absolute facts. In a vacuum, science itself is a perfect, unfailing tool. But since human beings use it, it's used imperfectly. And, when used correctly, the process is driven by data, not ideas. Science itself (meaning the tool) shouldn't be questioned, but the conclusions people reach and the way it is used should be/are questioned. What conclusions we trust should be dependent on factors like how often that conclusion is reproduced, how thorough the methodology is, and how many limitations were taken into account. The average person should have some understanding of this, so that they don't blindly believe in things and so that they aren't fooled into thinking there's a scientific consensus on a matter that does not have a consensus.
WhattheFunk11 t1_j6syv1b wrote
IMO skepticism is becoming less and less prevalent, which is a problem. It seems like the average person gobbles up anything set down in front of them nowadays, with no questions asked. It’s healthy to question things, even if you’re wrong.
rodsn t1_j6un06z wrote
Generally yes. But what I'm witnessing is the people who are aware of that become extremely skeptical to a very toxic degree...
WhattheFunk11 t1_j6urkqw wrote
Too extreme on either side is not a good thing. Life is all about finding a healthy balance I think.
rodsn t1_j6urte7 wrote
Totally agree
JamesAshwood t1_j6wgkia wrote
Kind of ironic that you just go off of this presumtion you have, without any sort of skepticism towards your own perception and not even the hint of trying to back this claim up with actual data. Source = Trust me, bro
basicinstinct72 t1_j6uqz3w wrote
I’m feeling skeptical because of the misspelling in that title
ElefantPharts t1_j6vgo02 wrote
And the continued commitment to said misspelling in the comment from OP, really doubled down there.
BRUN_DMC t1_j6w31sb wrote
It’s how the Brits spell it
Holyvigil t1_j6x0m6t wrote
Do they pronounce it like Septic? Or Skeptic?
Because this whole thing is hilarious.
[deleted] t1_j6xe8yq wrote
[deleted]
xylophonesRus t1_j6tlo4l wrote
I've gotta start reading titles better while I'm scrolling. I read this as "how to be septic."
diggyrelle t1_j7471s3 wrote
Same and then I thought wouldn’t it be skeptic? And then I realized I should travel more.
Jericho_Initiative t1_j6sr4yn wrote
We have an ethical responsibility, unless:
Everyone on social, new, and traditional media has rigidly enforced consensus...
Then it is our obligation to adapt our epistemological constructs to accept dogmatic orthodoxy lest we be professionally, academically, or personally, corralled by scary words like denier.
DooglarRampant t1_j6s6rve wrote
Is skepticism opposed by faith? Each one can be beneficial and we could not live without both. Could the inappropriate application of these modes be the real problem behind "conspiracy theories"? Is it possible to know for certain when one should be skeptical and when to have faith?
fostertheatom t1_j6th6ur wrote
I live quite well without "faith".
malfeanatwork t1_j6tlafh wrote
Faith is just what's at the other end of the spectrum from skepticism, has nothing to do with religion. You have faith in currency, in doctors, airplane pilots, etc.
fostertheatom t1_j6tmt9c wrote
No, I watch the DOW, I research my doctors before choosing one. I expect my airplane pilots to have proper certifications and I research the weather on my route beforehand. I do not just throw myself into situations "on faith".
mosesteawesome t1_j6ttc1x wrote
But you use the DOW or your research etc. to then act on faith. Good faith is built on previous experience or information to believe something. Pilots can make mistakes, even with certifications, but you have faith that they won't. Even switching on a light requires faith that the switch will continue to work as it has in your previous experience. You don't know that it will, but can have a strong faith it will.
fostertheatom t1_j6uf3ij wrote
That's literally not how it works though. That's not faith, that is called research and making assumptions. Assumptions and Faith may be similar at a glance but they are definitely different.
WaveCore t1_j6vznlf wrote
Could you explain why they’re different. It’s worthless to just aggressively insist they are without any reasoning
fostertheatom t1_j6w493b wrote
Sure.
Faith is by definition having "complete trust or confidence in someone or something."
Assumption is... "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."
Yeah I used the wrong term and have been using it for a while. I realized that as I was getting definitions for this reply and I'm just going to leave my misplaced confidence there. I deserve to be humiliated a bit for that. Assumption was very much the wrong word for what I was going for. I was going for something closer to "Hoping everything goes okay because I have to do this but knowing things could go wrong".
With that admitted to, my point still stands (although strike the assumption bit from it). I do not have any form of "Faith" in my Doctor, Pilots, Light Switches, etc. I do not have the "Assumption" that they are going to work or everything is always going to be fine. I make preparations to get the best outcome using the best of my abilities and I roll the dice. Can't control it so I just have to try to find someone good and hope for the best. It's just how life is.
YoutubeBuzzkil1 t1_j6sljnw wrote
Man, not only i am sceptic of everyone i am sceptic of myself most of the times.
weedysexdragon t1_j6sxf5x wrote
You must be. That’s the point of critical evaluation.
Critical thought really only works on your shit.
Glissad t1_j6srhto wrote
A favorite quote of mine:
"The civilized man has a moral obligation to be skeptical, to demand the credentials of all statements that claim to be facts. An honorable man will not be bullied by a hypothesis. For in the last analysis all tyranny rest on fraud, on getting someone to accept false assumptions, any man who for one moment abandons or suspends the questioning spirit has for that moment betrayed humanity."
Bergen Evans The Natural History of Nonsense (1946) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_Evans
Tripanes t1_j6syx9w wrote
Skepticism is good, but group action is often also very good and often requires some degree of blind action.
You need both. A game of skeptics convincing followers and followers following what convinces them. AKA: democracy.
Calvinbah t1_j6tocb5 wrote
I want to like this video, but I'm wary and suspicious of it's motives and message.
FN---2187 t1_j6szzhj wrote
Especially economics. The amount of obviously moronic ideas that are accepted as dogma in economics is astounding
CosmicBebop t1_j6uu6yq wrote
Yeah like capitalism and anti-socialism/anti-communism.
Cue the Keynesianists about to attack me with "reformed capitalism is the single best economic truth." They'll accept a grand narrative without hesitation if it means no bolsheviks, pinkies, and hippies.
HeMan17 t1_j6zm57x wrote
Mixed market Capitalism is without a doubt the best system available.
Socialism has been implemented 26 times and failed every single time.
There is no example in history you can point to in which a system other than capitalism has worked in the long term.
DreamingIntoTheVoid t1_j6u0mpd wrote
That how you end up with Scepticemia.
SquiblyWibly t1_j6ry6v4 wrote
People's ethics today are self centered self righteous and self-serving. They fully believe their opinions outweigh what others believe regardless of what facts prove. They will fully manipulate science or economics to support their position no matter how negatively it affects those who don't think like they do. Ethics do not exist today.
TheMain_Ingredient t1_j6sme1a wrote
Welcome to the human race.
The idea that ethics used to exist and only now have stopped existing has and will always be bullshit.
MooMooStone t1_j6s0ffw wrote
True, the age of being "Sceptical" of spherical Earth, entry-level scientific takes and hatred of all things elevated is upon us. Mostly due to to American super-exeptionalism and hyper-individuallity.
We didn't make it as species because everyone was a sovereign citizen.
RGB3x3 t1_j6s7k2q wrote
I've noticed lately that a certain group of people will be skeptical about all the wrong things. They're not skeptical about a company telling them their untested product cures ailments or that clean coal can save the planet.
They're skeptical about massive scientific research and clearly proven facts. And they're skeptical-bordering-on-conspiracy about the mundane and meaningless. Questioning the wrong authority on things they know nothing about.
MooMooStone t1_j6sdd47 wrote
Absolutely, noticed a line they always incorporate, "I do my own research" and then make the most mind-numbing statement.
But also extra funny because my comment is downvoted.
XiphosAletheria t1_j6uervp wrote
Or perhaps they are questioning the authorities that have a track record of openly lying to them, as when, early the pandemic, the experts all said masks weren't very useful against Covid, not because they didn't know better but because supplies of decent masks were limited and they didn't want a run on them.
And you see a lot of lies like that from governments, the establishment, etc. Often their core supporters don't even experience the lies as lies, because the lies aren't meant to fool them. As when then primary-candidate Obama promised blue collar workers he'd tear up NAFTA, while sending messages to the Canadian government assuring them this was just a campaign lie. When it came out, it didn't kill Obama's political fortunes, because his core supporters all knew he was lying any way, to get those low information idiots onboard.
But the penalty for lying repeatedly to people you don't respect is that they eventually start to just assume everything you are saying is a lie. And it seems like a lot of Americans have reached that point with the government and its associated experts.
Wow00woW t1_j6w0oct wrote
I really don't believe that at all. people just didn't want to be inconvenienced. they took any opportunity of confusion and clinged to it. we saw it when the truth about masks was concrete. they still believe masks are ineffective or downright harmful.
also bringing up Obama has nothing to do with this, except that the same obstructionist group of people are just that; petulant children.
XiphosAletheria t1_j6x8i39 wrote
>I really don't believe that at all.
You don't believe that if people are repeatedly lied to, they eventually begin to mistrust those who lied to them? Because that's a basic psychological truth, really.
Lethalclaw115_2 t1_j6ubrnw wrote
Ethic are nothing but sets of rules by which we conduct ourselves so even if self-centered they are still ethics, they are not dead they've changed and from my perspective for the good because selfishness is in the human nature so egoist ethics are closer to the human.
SquiblyWibly t1_j6vd3k7 wrote
Having ethics, as in being ethical, or having no ethics, as in being unethical. Definition of ethical: pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. Having ethics is to conduct with morality, not having ethics is to conduct without morality. Self-centered is unethical or having no ethics. Your comment is exactly the point of my original post, twist and bastardize whatever you need to in order to justify your opinion.
weather_watchman t1_j6sl4dh wrote
Well I'm gonna go ahead and be skeptical of skepticism, don't mind me
pleasekillmerightnow t1_j6ssazc wrote
And be sceptic to ourselves too
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j6sswd4 wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
genuinely_insincere t1_j6ttra9 wrote
Words have connotations. Skepticism is different from critical thinking
Loud-Direction-7011 t1_j6tvely wrote
I’m already a contrarian, so I’m good to go
element8 t1_j6u4dge wrote
Is there a transcript or subtitles?
[deleted] t1_j6uecww wrote
[deleted]
syntheticcontrol t1_j6ug6rf wrote
Hm... I'm skeptical of this advice.
willehrendreich t1_j6upjzj wrote
Not so sure about that.
CosmicBebop t1_j6utfr7 wrote
"to economics and history in the pursuit of a good life for ourselves and others."
Uh huh...and how many people saying this will still turn out to be bleeding heart neoliberals who jerk off Capitalism. Willing to bet this crowd is hardcore anti-communist/anti-socialist. "Be skeptical about everything, except the only economic system that works" capitalist realism.
HydraHamster t1_j6uycxw wrote
I don’t need help to be a skeptic. I already don’t believe anything scientist say about how the universe began, how the universe works, the origins of our existence, and what will happen when we die.
There is no such thing as an all knowing scientist and philosopher. Theories are not facts, so I don’t believe in the Big Bang nor nothingness until there is solid proof. For now, scientists like Hawking have gotten on my nerves for never admitting to not knowing the answer to something and just guess base off belief. They failed to come up with a good alternative or show proof of one while talking down about religion and spirituality.
Remake12 t1_j6v0z5r wrote
But what if you’re skeptical of the wrong thing?
PhishOhio t1_j6vcudm wrote
Except the covid response, lab origin theory, or efficacy of the vaccines, we can’t be skeptical about that. Or Pfizer.
GoofAckYoorsElf t1_j6vnsh9 wrote
Especially now that we have developed tools with which everybody can perfectly fake reality (ChatGPT, Diffusion models, generative AI in general). It has always been possible to convincingly fake facts, but it used to be a bit of a challenge. Now basically everyone can easily do it with a little bit of reading and tinkering around.
Kall_82 t1_j6vqe4x wrote
TRUE. But there’s a difference between skepticism and being stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Independent_Poem_171 t1_j6w4io6 wrote
One day when it's just the local group, people may say the universe is tiny, made up of nothing more than a few galaxies. We'll conclude its getting smaller because mass attracts mass and we will no longer see obvious background radiation, or we will but it will provide any number of possible reasons for it. And that will be true for a while.
Don't worry, I agree with you, be a skeptic, but also don't be. Be accep5ing, but also don't be. Shits complicated. And it's all guess work, informed guess work, and a best guess even. Suits simple.
Anyway, hello all.
rammleid t1_j6w8w8r wrote
Why should I?
Gripegut t1_j6ssoii wrote
90% of what science thought to be true over history was later revealed to be either wrong or incomplete. It is, therefore, likely that 90% of what science tells you today is also either wrong or incomplete.
SpencerKayR t1_j6ui0h8 wrote
In order to agree with this, you'd have to agree with the following premises:
-
90% of the body of scientific knowledge dreamed up has been proven wrong or incomplete
-
The above trend is likely to apply to the scientific knowledge that is considered likely to be true today
-
The types of discoveries that show science to be incomplete mean that the old theory wasn't worthwhile and has no use
-
This 90% figure can be applied to all the science that laypeople encounter.
The first one is going to be a toss up, especially if you include all the theories which are disproven by testing. If this is being used to reach this figure, it doesn't do a good job of building the case for this premise because it's an example of science working properly, eliminating theories that make inaccurate predictions.
The second is uncertain. We don't know what the future holds, but we know that we're not likely to discover that quantum mechanics is pseudo science on the level of leeches to cure plague. The science that the world uses today to make medications and computers and all the material spectacles we enjoy today has been validated to the point that any new theories will likely give them greater context and not simply wipe them away, much like Einstein's theories didn't completely demolish the theories of Newton and Galileo. Which segues into:
The third premise is pretty easy to dismiss. Newtonian physics has been thoroughly demonstrated to be incomplete, yet his discoveries are still used to guide the trajectories of satellites. Some science keeps being useful even when it's no longer able to describe extremes of our perplexing universe.
The final premise is that this 90% figure, wherever it came from, will prove to be true for the science we learn in high school. This, again, is unlikely, precisely because by the time science becomes a high school topic, it has usually withstood hundreds of years of validation. The most recent science in schools is probably the standard model of the atom, which has been so impossible to disprove that they have to keep making larger and larger super colliders trying to find anything at all to threaten its validity.
So no, I don't think 90% of the scientific knowledge people are meant to have learned will be made completely useless anytime soon. But in the current climate, it's possible that a large percentage of the science people have convinced themselves is true is nonsense, only that it was already proven to be nonsense centuries ago
Gripegut t1_j6vkz4o wrote
The 90% figure is a placeholder for healthy skepticism. Does it really matter if the correct figure is 69% or 96% when we will never, in our short lifetime, know the actual figure? Not really, no. The point is that almost everything we were taught in school about science was either completely untrue or incomplete.
If we look at what scientists have believed to be true over the span of scientific discovery, almost all of what was believed to be true was later found to be untrue or incomplete. How arrogant must we be to think that, as if by magic, that at this moment in time, we have most scientific beliefs 100% right, let alone everything right?
Let's look at the COVID-19 pandemic as a recent example. Almost everything the experts told us in the beginning was later shown to be untrue. And who knows what else we will learn with more time?
Let's look at global warming/climate change. Not a single prediction that was accepted by the majority was accurate....not one. Not a single computer model accurately predicted the temperature today. The doomsday predictions are patently absurd, yet they are widely accepted as true. Science today is so tainted by funding bias and politics that most of what is passing as science is nothing more than propaganda or drivel. Even the peer review process is largely a sham.
Let's look at dietary recommendations that have produced a hoard of unhealthy people. I can do this all day. Look at any area of science, and new discoveries are made all the time that turn what was previously believed on its head. And don't get me started on the science behind the pharmaceutical industry.
Now, of course, there are always exceptions, but exceptions don't negate the rule. At this point, it would take an incredible amount of naivete or faith to believe anything scientists say is absolutely and irrevocably true.
SpencerKayR t1_j6x76r3 wrote
I don't think you're really engaging with what I'm saying. I think that you're introducing a flurry of new premises (in, if I can be honest, a Gish Gallop) in the hopes of tying me up dismissing them. Who's climate predictions? Which ones specifically? Because I could just as easily retort that we've outpaced most predictions from the Inconvenient Truth era of climate understanding, but I suspect that that would have no impact on you just as your casual claims have had no impact on me, because I suspect that you occupy a specific media realm that has supplied you with these talking points. Some of this is just absurd; there's no such thing as a climate model that can predict the temperature with guaranteed accuracy the next day, let alone years in advance. But this doesn't mean that our understanding of the interactions between air masses of varying temperatures and moisture content is a pseudoscience like phrenology. You're not just moving goalposts, you have selected a goalpost on casters you can scoot around at will.
Jack0fHearts18 t1_j6tibge wrote
HAHAHAHAHA
Jack0fHearts18 t1_j6tigg6 wrote
HAHAHAHAHA
L_knight316 t1_j6v9mum wrote
Oh good, I'm not the only one thrown off by the use of sceptic
Esnardoo t1_j6vybdk wrote
Be sceptical? I'm skeptical of this...
No_Specific5998 t1_j6wv7as wrote
How can I take info from a poster who cannot spell????
Cli4ordtheBRD t1_j6srcew wrote
This is a really good book about how to be skeptical and how to use your newfound powers.
Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World". It's by two professors, Carl T. Bergstrom (Theoretical & Evolutionary Biologist) and Jevin D. West (Data Science). This isn't a book about bipolar but it's very much worth the read (and I highly recommend it ([the full course is on YouTube] (https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPnZfvKID1Sje5jWxt-4CSZD7bUI4gSPS)))
Towards the end, the authors try to instill a sense of responsibility in the reader of their new found powers by providing multiple warnings, which unfortunately could be read as a list of devastating personal attacks on my character provided by someone who has spent serious time with me (I was once told that having a conversation with me "felt like the verbal equivalent of getting mugged"...by a friend, who wasn't wrong).
"Carelessly calling bullshit is a quick way to make enemies of strangers and strangers of friends." (pg. 266)
"Scoring rhetorical points on tangential technicalities doesn't convince anyone, it just pisses people off." (pg. 280)
"The less antagonistic your interaction is, the more likely someone will seriously consider your ideas." (pg. 280)
"What's a well-actually guy? It’s the guy who interrupts a conversation to demonstrate his own cleverness by pointing out some irrelevant factoid that renders the speaker incorrect on a technicality." (pg. 284)
"A well-actually guy doesn't care so much about where the argument is going as he does about demonstrating his own intellectual superiority." (pg. 285)
"A well-actually guy doesn't care about protecting an audience, he is merely interested in demonstrating his own cleverness." (pg. 285)
"His motivation is to put the speaker in her place while raising himself up." (pg. 285)
"A caller of bullshit makes a careful decision about whether it is worthwhile to speak up, derail a conversation, risk a confrontation, or make someone feel defensive. A well-actually guy simply cannot help himself. He hears something he believes he can contradict and doesn't have the self-control to think first about whether it is helpful to do so." (pg. 285)
"He doesn't care about advancing truth, or about the logical coherence of his objections. He is simply trying to impress or intimidate someone with his knowledge." (pg. 286)