Why do scientists not agree on facts and truth? And how can we verify what they tell us?
How can you know what is true? Not the big philosophical question but just the everyday stuff like Global Warming, the H1N1 pandemic and what scientists tell us are facts based on verified evidence when they still disagree diametrically?
Well, the scientific method supports conclusions with evidence garnered from experimentation and evidence, it doesn't claim to prove them unequivocally. And when it comes to controversial issues, the media and paid lobbyists tend to skew data and distort what has been accepted by the scientific community as accurate.
There are some very basic things you can check to evaluate the credibility of a scientist that in many ways are similar to doctors. Where did they receive their education? Are they members in good standing with professional associations? Do they work at credible institutions? Do they have a conflict of interest? And for scientists specifically, do they publish peer-reviewed material?
If you for instance look at the 'scientists' who deny global warming, you will invariably find that they are not trained in climate science, do not publish climate research in peer-reviewed publications, and do not work for credible scientific institutes. Many will also have a conflict of interest--the Heartland Institute, for instance, which is funded by fossil fuel interests, is a good example.
That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate scientific disputes. A questioning and skeptical mind is important in science, but that investigative spirit needs to take place within the framework of the scientific method and within the framework of the entire body of knowledge which already exists on an issue.
For non-scientists I think there are several relatively easy things to watch out for. Scientists in general are usually extremely careful in describing certainties. So they will say things like, "there is a high level of probability that X causes Y." They will almost never, however, talk in absolutes. Anytime you hear someone say, they know the truth, there is a good chance they are not a scientist.
Scientists, also, in my opinion, tend to be uncomfortable making any claim without providing some evidence for it. People who do so are also unlikely to be scientists. Lastly, a good scientist shouldn't ever simply dismiss legitimate scientific evidence. People who wave their hand at the entire body of work developed to support climate change as if it is some great conspiracy are NOT scientists.
Part of the problem is that in the public realm, very few actual scientists are ever heard from. Mostly, the people we hear from are commentators on the science, which adds that extra filter through which scientific information can get skewed.
People /scientists dont agree on the global warming because there are those that believe falshoods and false data that is faked and skewed, despite the papers they have written anyone who knows the real facts about science and research will realize the age old scientific phenomenon of "garbage in garbage out". Any and all conclusions made on faked or faulty data cannot be trusted.especially when certain data sets have been shown to have been made up by the scientists.
So you cannot always "JUST TRUST" a paper just because the author is well published, works at a prestigeous university or even if it is in a prestigeous journal or is especia;;y well recieved by the media. If their peers are as biased as they are then their review of the document is as good as useless. I do agree "A questioning and skeptical mind is important in science, but that investigative spirit needs to take place within the framework of the scientific method and within the framework of thENTIRE body of knowledge which already exists on an issue", that means from both sides of the issue.
Lastly, some people no matter how much data is aggregated for or against an axiom will continue to believe what they believe. Because they believe, things founded on the fakery of others- and just build on a lie.
as for h1N1, I think with diseases- scientists would rather air on the side of caution than not and end up killing lots of folks. Who wants to be the guy who says "oh this disease is not an issue" and then 80,000 people die from it.
by Credence214 months ago
Dangerous slippery slope sponsored by your strident reactionary neighbors and this current administration, have a read if you please....https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu … democracy/Rightwingers: be on the...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
Science of itself does not present claims and reasons on issues; others interpret it wrongly; it is a useful tool of the humanity ; and if interpreted correctly it is not in contradiction of the truthful religion.
by Oztinato2 years ago
Is the scienctific method infallible?Like many ancient religions modern scientists regard their methods to be infallible. Is this the right attitude?
by paarsurrey18 months ago
As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion and or philosophy. Right? PleaseRegards
by PhenomWriter6 years ago
Buddhism does not have a God. It's principles are very similar to the most modern discoveries of psychology. It never killed anyone to prove itself. It is not supernatural to be honest. Is it any near to being...
by Tammy Barnette5 years ago
WASHINGTON — The melting of polar ice caps raised sea levels by nearly half an inch (11 millimeters) over the last two decades, scientists said Thursday, calling it the most definitive measure yet of the impact of...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.