{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Le Dustin xddddd:
5/2/2014 4:32:16 PM
26
Are scientists a reliable source of information?
[quote]http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
'46% of Americans believe in creationism, denying evolution and the big bang.'[/quote][quote]http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx
'40% of Americans believe global warming is a natural phenomenon.'[/quote]
Almost half of Americans seek information elsewhere when it comes to science.
English
#Offtopic
-
4 Replies[quote]Almost half of Americans seek information elsewhere when it comes to science.[/quote]There is actually a really simple explanation for this: we aren't particularly good at explaining what we do to people outside our domain. For instance, when I tell someone what my doctoral research topic is about, they look at me with a blank stare, and that's completely understandable. Trying to "dumb down" (for lack of a better term) a project - or even something like a journal or conference paper - into terms the general public can relate to is pretty damn difficult.
-
3 RepliesI don't trust anyone who makes more money than I, so no.
-
2 RepliesDepends. Science is largely about skepticism in the face of unproven or biased claims, so I'm not a huge fan of the 'cult of science' that had developed in pop culture today where people see a macro image with something like 'SCIENCE proved x is real!', or crap like 'I Fu.cking Love Science'. I think the dumbing down of actual math, data, and statistics is detrimental, and you shouldn't just inherently trust someone because they use the nondescript blanket term of 'scientist'.
-
Scientists are reliable. When people are under-educated they are afraid the scientists will condescend to them, so they avoid them and become hostile by running to alternative explanations to say the scientists haven't figured it all out yet.
-
Edited by BannedPiranha: 5/2/2014 7:40:08 PMThey're generally more reliable sources of information than other individuals. The main reason being that they have a time tested method by which they reach their conclusions compared to most people that reach conclusions mainly based on wishful thinking or philosophical preference. Pretty sure something called [url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect]Dunning-Kruger effect[/url] is coming into play for a certain percentage of people here as well.
-
I trust scientific consensus. Whenever a scientist makes a new discovery, I take it with a grain of salt until the rest of the scientific community verifies it through peer review.
-
ITT:[quote]science conflicts or discredits my personal worldview, therefore I'm voting "no"[/quote]
-
Yes. Real scientists are reliable sources for information. If they're not reliable sources then they're not scientists.
-
One scientist is just a human, and is fallible. 100 scientists working together through a peer review process is a very reliable system. So yea, I like scientists, provided they agree on something.
-
Reading the comments is crazy, because that's the first time I've had people agree with me that scientists ARE NOT infallible. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!
-
11 RepliesI prefer to get my info from Fox News
-
Generally reliable, but certainly not universally. There are plenty of circumstances and situations within this history of science demonstrating the need to question consensus. Scientists can be wrong too. That's not to say disbelieving what a scientist or researcher tells you is 100% justified in all circumstances and situations, but the nature of science itself relies on questioning the consensus to get to more accurate conclusions. If scientists always believed what other scientists said, we'd never have learned anything past Newton and Cooke.
-
9 RepliesThe ONLY reliable source. -blam!- no. [quote]the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.[/quote] The problem with then being reliable is the fact that all sciences are in a constant state of evolving. All known facts are just the best guess until something else is discovered or proven to take it's place. That's not to say they are never right either. But in our life times, we will never know what we hold as 'Fact' today that may be disproved and totally rewritten in the next 100 years. So, ban me.
-
4 out of 5 scientists think people are stupid.
-
Obviously not. Everything they say is a theory. They can't definitively prove anything, therefore they're idiots.
-
How could you possibly say no?
-
[quote]Wha- I- Wh- Oh wait it's Dustin[/quote]
-
1 ReplyThey're not necessarily unreliable
-
11 RepliesNo. More reliable than other avenues of information, but do I consider them genuinely reliable - not really.
-
2 RepliesWha- I- Wh- Oh wait it's Dustin
-
If this poll isn't 100%, the people who voted wrongly should be banned.
-
[quote]If this poll isn't 100%, the people who voted wrongly should be banned.[/quote][quote]If this poll isn't 100%, the people who voted wrongly should be banned.[/quote][quote]If this poll isn't 100%, the people who voted wrongly should be banned.[/quote][quote]If this poll isn't 100%, the people who voted wrongly should be banned.[/quote][quote]If this poll isn't 100%, the people who voted wrongly should be banned.[/quote][quote]If this poll isn't 100%, the people who voted wrongly should be banned.[/quote][quote]If this poll isn't 100%, the people who voted wrongly should be banned.[/quote][quote]If this poll isn't 100%, the people who voted wrongly should be banned.[/quote]
-
More than the bible
-
Honestly what you must do is take their info study the process as to how they got their result and try to make your own interpertation of it. Remember thay we must make sure that the study was done properly so that it can be proven false, it can be done again etc.
-
If they publish and article that is peer-reviewed... you can generally call that information reliable. I’d have to look for it again, but one figure showed that ~1% of articles published were do so in bad faith with improper methods and/or falsified data. Look at the most recent example with making stem cells by simply using acid. Someone made a claim and upon review by peers, it was found to be absolute crap.
-
Yeah, because when I contract a disease easily cured by medical science I totally turn to potcuresallailments.org. What other source of information am I going to turn to duh?
