Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
It's not that people don't believe in science, it's that academic research is corrupted by incentives that often create a bias at best, or outright fabricate evidence at worst.
People are right to be skeptical when doctors highered by tobacco companies release a report on cancer. They are right when climate scientists hired by oil companies report on global warming. What people don't realize is they should also be skeptical when studies can only get funding if they are looking to confirm the sky is falling narrative of global warming, or are forced to incorporate some DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity) nonsense in the proposal.
When people can get hoax papers published in scientific journals because they used the right mind-virus jargon, we know we've got a problem.
What if science was funded just to discover something about reality instead of imposing an agenda on it?
|
That's the problem. People can attribute or even make up a motive for everything. As long as people believe in a motive, then their perception is biased. And there's always reason to believe in a motive. Because if you can get people to believe the world is going to explode from driving and ICE, buy a Tesla, they're going to buy a Tesla. If you can get them to believe that driving and ICE is actually good for the planet because it gives plants more CO2, then they'll keep driving and ICE. So who are people going to believe? The one who they don't attribute a motive towards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Then there's the problem of binary thinking. "Do toothbrushes work"? If I used it once a week, does it work? If I only brush 1 tooth does it work? If I brush twice a day for 2 full minutes does that guarantee I'll never get a cavity? Hardly anything in the world is works/doesn't work. People don't leave room for nuance or deeper understanding.
|
Very true. There are also people that unforgivenly criticize even the smallest of inaccuraces, which is kind of the same thing.