It’s interesting that no-one takes issue with scientists’ ability to predict, say, an eclipse…

…No one is saying “ scientists have been wrong before so I’m not going to trust them on this.”

No one is insisting that predicting eclipses is all part of some massive conspiracy. No one is claiming they can predict eclipses better than scientists because of something they read online.

Indeed, everyone seems quite prepared to admit that scientists are competent and have a really good understanding of the physical world; everyone, in fact, implicitly admits that scientists know more about science than they do.

So why is it that on topics like vaccinations, evolution, climate change, etc., suddenly everyone thinks they know more than scientists do?

Top | New | Old

Jayciedubb · 56-60, M

Because not all scientists agree with each other. Science changes and scientists adapt their opinions with the changes that occur.

Up until recently, most scientists believed that civilization began about 6000 years ago, but now due to an archeological site discovered in Turkey called Göbeklitepe, they are forced to change their beliefs and change it to 12,000 years ago and go from being farmers to hunters and gatherers, ..and 12,000 years ago was the end of their civilization, likely wiped out due to cataclysmic event like meteor strike.

It appears that they knew it was coming and they buried all the proof of their existence in an orderly manner as if to preserve their story.

Unfortunately, Turkey called a hault to all the digging, likely because it goes against the stories in the Quran

That's the beauty of science. It changes with our understanding of the facts. It's not like the Quran or the Bible.

Since science changes, and since there are often opposing scientific theories, expect there to be skeptics. In the meantime, feel free to believe what you want. That's what I'm going to keep doing.

View 1 more replies »

Jayciedubb · 56-60, M

@Waveney I explained that science changes. you're making up those numbers. If evolution was a fact, it would be a law, not a theory. Climate change is real. Of course it is, otherwise we'd still be in the ice age. Since 1986, the producers of vaccines can't be sued if their products cause harm to those who ingest their vaccines. This has caused significantly less testing of newer vaccines.

Idk who's telling you not to get vaccinated though. I certainly didn't. But I think it's funny how you say you will follow the science, not what you want to. ..by saying you will, you're saying it's what you want to do. ..hence the word, will. ..as in free will

Waveney · 41-45, M

@Jayciedubb You’re mixing up some very very basic ideas here, so let’s go slowly :)

First, I didn’t “make up” the numbers. Multiple studies of the scientific literature show that about 99% (ok you got me there, it's not 99.7%) of climate scientists agree that humans are causing modern climate change, which is why Anthropogenic Climate Change is accepted by essentially every major scientific body.

Second, the “theory vs law” thing is a very common misunderstanding. In science, theories do not turn into laws. Laws describe what happens; theories explain why it happens. For example, Newton's Law of Gravitation describes how gravity behaves, while general relativity explains it. Evolution works the same way. The theory of "Evolution by Natural Selection" explains a process we directly observe.

And yes, science changes when new evidence appears. That’s not a flaw. It’s the entire point. When archaeologists found sites like Göbekli Tepe, scientists updated their understanding accordingly. That’s how evidence-based thinking works. :)

So pointing out that science updates with better evidence isn’t really an argument against trusting it, now is it? It’s actually the reason it’s reliable in the first place.

KunsanVeteran · M

@Waveney The methane from cattle contribute to global warming. That’s an established fact.

Trump emits so much methane that he also contributes to global warming—that’s more my opinion, but it’s nevertheless hard to disprove.

Gibbon · 70-79, M

Maybe because of this BS

In the 1970s, several climate-related disasters were predicted to occur by the 2000s, but none materialized:

Global Cooling and Ice Age: Major media outlets like Newsweek (1975) and Time (1974) reported on a supposed "cooling world," predicting a new ice age by 2000. Scientists such as Kenneth Watt claimed temperatures would drop by 11 degrees by the year 2000, leading to severe food shortages and blocked shipping lanes. Reality: Global temperatures have continued to rise since the 1970s, and no ice age occurred.
Oceans Dead by 1980: Paul Ehrlich and others warned that the oceans would be "as dead as Lake Erie" by the 1980s due to pollution and overfishing. Reality: While marine ecosystems face challenges, the oceans have not become universally lifeless, and marine biodiversity remains robust.

Urban Air Unbreathable by 1985: Environmentalists claimed pollution particle clouds would make city air unbreathable, requiring gas masks. Reality: Air quality in most developed nations improved due to regulation and technological advances, contrary to the dire predictions.
75% of Species Extinct by 1995: Biologists like Norman Myers and Sen. Gaylord Nelson predicted that 75% of animal species would be extinct by 1995. Reality: While extinction rates have increased, the planet has not lost three-quarters of its species, and total biomass continues to grow.
These predictions were based on incomplete data and scientific uncertainty of the time. While climate change remains a serious concern today, the specific disasters predicted in the 1970s did not occur as forecast.

View 5 more replies »

Waveney · 41-45, M

@Gibbon LOL.

Of course you're deliberately confusing cherry-picked media headlines with scientific consensus.

It's a fact that in the 1970s the majority of climate papers predicted warming, not an ice age. A few speculative comments amplified by magazines aren't “what scientists said.” The same goes for the other examples, and many were warnings about what would happen without regulation; hence the clean air act and EPA which prevented those outcomes. You know as well as I do that science updates as evidence improves, which is EXACTLYits biggest strength, not a scandal. Pretending uncertainties invalidate modern, data-rich consensus looks as though you don’t actually understand how science works.

But I know you do. You just have nothing.

Waveney · 41-45, M

@Gibbon No, people don't believe because they don't want to. Fact.

Anyone sane knows that scientists' predictions are not set in stone, and are constantly changed and updated.

The fact remains, though is that 99.7% of scientists say that man-made climate change is real, an even higher percentage state that evolution is established fact, and about 98% state that vaccines are safe.

People who disagree do not do so on scientific principles. It's generally political.

So you are dismissed.

Waveney · 41-45, M

@Gibbon No, I haven't creasted a new argument. My argument is the correct one.

The scientific consensus for things that people accept without question, such as eggs raise cholesterol, that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance, and that people have different styles of learning is FAR lower than the consensus for vaccine safety, man-made climate change, and evolution.

So. Why don't people want to believe these three premises that have a FAR higher scientific consensus? Simple. It's politics.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

Much of that assumprtion comes from ignorance of the basic nature of real science.

Also though, some of those topics attract a lot of shallow politicising that needs replace knowledge with ignorance, fear and entrenchment in order to maintain cliques' power-games.

Thevy29 · 41-45, M

I think you need to lay down for half an hour.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

You mean Halleys comet might not come back???😷

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

View 4 more replies »

Waveney · 41-45, M

@Ken4family I've heard that's what eggs cost in America now, thanks to Trump. I mean, I have as much evidence for that as you have for bread costing $10 in Australia. I reported you by the way, and admin are watching you.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@Ken4family I suppose you could pay $10 for a family sized loaf of hand picked heritage grained artisan bread hand kneaded by virgins in a ritzy suburb somewhere. But most regular range bread comes in between $3 to $4, depending on whether it is a brand name or purchased from a franchise bakery. At least that was last week..
Look, no one minds you making this stuff up. It has to be depressing to be this wrong this often. But you can do better..😷

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

pdockal · 56-60, M

Gee maybe because an eclipse actually happens
Gee maybe because once the government gets involved misinformation comes out

Waveney · 41-45, M

@pdockal gee maybe that’s not what I said. Gee maybe it was about “predicting” eclipses

Add a comment...