Stated Casually

Scientific consensus is:

4 months ago | [YT] | 31



@mortagon1451

I mostly trust the scientific consensus, but I fear that some fields may have been ideologically captured which is why I am cautious and always try to see if things checks out when I feel something is off, but I'm not a scientist so it can be hard to figure out what's true sometimes.

4 months ago | 9

@jacobp.2024

The worst option except for all others. Scientific consensus is meant to be challenged whenever possible. It is aomething to be treated as the closest to accurate consensus which can be reached with current observable data. It should not be treated as gospel as it tends to be, even if that is what it ends up being to most people.. That is a lie by the way. I just lied to you, as what I described is the ideal, not reality. Scientific consensus is also, unfortunately, heavily political. I do not need to stretch far to prove this, as the likes of Semmelweis were once shunned by the scientific community (his evidence was accurate, observable, and consistent with out current consensus now). Phrenologists as well as racial segregationists once had the backing of scientific consensus as well. We are fallinle dogmatic creatures who will grasp at straws to justify ourselves, and this leeches into the scientific community more than you will ever have openly admitted. It is still a problem. The world would be a better place if more people properly challenged scientific consensus, because we'd have more researchers. It is an iterative process that everyone who is willing to should be participating in with some way.

4 months ago (edited) | 5

@WeiWenqing

If topic has no political impact then scientific consensus is very trustworthy. If it has any potential political impact, skepticism is healthy, and I say this as a biology graduate.

4 months ago | 2

@WinstonSmithGPT

What matters is the consensus of data. We predict apples fall because they always do, not because a geologist, an ornithologist, and a biologist funded by the American fruit growers association agree they do.

4 months ago | 10

@seandavison3916

consensus is always changing as we learn more and our understanding improves. it doesnt mean the consensus of yesterday wasn't useful. using the best flawed model isn't a problem so long as we consistently strive to improve them and only pick the best of the imperfect solutions we have available

4 months ago | 2

@ledbychaos

Something to challenge, especially in times of manipulation, lies, deceit and ego feeding :)

4 months ago (edited) | 0

@RingingBellee

I think I’m approaching this from a different angle than the other commenters have. I chose. The worst option except for all the others, but was highly torn between it and highly trustable. As a member of a minority group, the scientific consensus has, in many cases, historically been used to bludgeon us. It has been used to deny medical care or to create numerous hoops for us to jump through. Research into our group in general is rather lackluster as well and member’s voices are often disregarded. On the other hand, that consensus is being used to push back against a return of some of those older measures, which is a point in favor. If it weren’t for those experiences, I would have just put highly trustable. I guess this could fall into the politically polarizing section? However, that doesn’t properly capture it.

3 months ago (edited) | 0

@aceofspades25

A common gateway belief to science denial is a false perception about what the academic consensus is on a given topic. When somebody wants to deny a scientific finding for ideological reasons, they will frequently move to denial of expertise when they realise the consensus is against them. The thing to keep in mind is that while scientific consensus does change occasionally, this is something extremely rare because often if there is a consensus it is built upon a strong foundation of evidence. What is far more frequent are ideologically driven movements from non-experts that attempt to deny the consensus. The other thing to keep in mind is that there is a really strong incentive to disprove the consensus because the best way to gain recognition in science is to discover something new. Finally, knowing what the consensus is, is no replacement for understanding the evidence and arguments that underpin that consensus. Knowing the consensus is a good heuristic if you don't have time to get into the evidence but if you're interested in a topic, you really should familiarise yourself with the reasons why that consensus is a thing.

4 months ago (edited) | 3

@shafouingue

Highly reliable if the consensus is among relevant experts. But not so much in the few cases where what is rewarded by the institutions is not finding the truth but things like publishing studies that are impossible to replicate, virtue signaling etc.

4 months ago | 0

@gus699

Scientific consensus is the same as peer reviewed. It’s bought and paid for, anyone who doesn’t follow along doesn’t get funding, career is finished. Scientific method is all that matters.

4 months ago | 9

@unicyclist97

Scientific consensus is reliable most of the time. You just have to watch out for the less rigorous sciences and treat them with caution. For example: the field of Jesus Studies is technically a branch of History, which is a science when done correctly. However, the field itself is packed full of theologians rather than historians: so you have to fact-check their claims and make sure their logic is sound.

4 months ago | 0

@incandescentfennec6916

Highly trustable does not equal infallible. Scientific consensus is something that will largely net useful information about the world, but can easily be turned into a propaganda tool against the people. Which is why it is best to do your own research, and I do NOT mean watch YouTube videos about stuff and call it research. I mean reading the articles and citations on any YouTube videos you watch that make a scientific claim, or that are intended to be public educational content. I’m not saying you can’t learn science from watching YouTube videos, but trying to grasp the actual literature and how the labs research was conducted will make you far more equipped than simply believing what the headlines say or what your government leaders cronies say.

4 months ago | 0

@kayamann321

37% of people don’t understand science…wow!

4 months ago | 0

@TakruTori

The 3% 💯❤️

4 months ago (edited) | 0

@petercarioscia9189

There should never be a scientific consensus. Seems to go against the very essence of science.

4 months ago | 0