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?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

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.

Waveney · 41-45, M

@Jayciedubb

Hehe you’ve basically just explained why science is reliable and then tried to use that as a reason to ignore it.🤭

Scientists may indeed disagree. But 99.7% of scientists concur that vaccines are safe, climate change is real, and evolution is a fact.

I will believe the overwhelming scientific consensus, thanks. Not "what I want".

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.