Yep. And remember when we all thought the Food Pyramid was Science? Turns out it was advertising for Big Agriculture, pushing grains on us in mass quantities.
That's definitely a thing in the US. My father retired from the university game once his grant funding came with attached strings. No direct editorial privileges, but there expectations that XYZ evidence would be supported while ABC evidence would be less so. Regarding peer review, his favorite saying was "choose your peers wisely." And then there's my aunt, an art professor, where the political slant of that they teach is directly dictated by the department chair, who get their marching orders from the donors. And my cousin the history professor in an Ohio university--a political tug of war region--often tells me she isn't sure month to month which slant they are supposed to support.
Plus most people never see any actual science papers or even hear the results of them except from mass media, which push their own agendas onto it. So what most people believe is "The Science" is actually just tailored to push an agenda.
It’s a slight inaccuracy for North Carolina to claim the first flight.. that was the Montgolfier brothers in France about 250 years earlier the wright brothers had the first controlled flight in a winged craft
Rhode Island got Impact Glass on Mars, huh? That's pretty cool. Probably one of the astrophysicists at Brown. They've got some heavy hitters over there.
I’m also not sure how West Virginia claims the first steam boat . The first steam boat was patented in England in 1729 and the first steam ship in France. also the first steam boat to be built in the US was in Pennsylvania
And in prehistoric fossils there’s no way South Dakota can claim that, fossils were first discussed by Xerophanes in 540bc. But even if we limit ourselves to the modern age their “discovery “ is generally credited to Jean Cuvier who was Swiss
To clarify, I was laughing at myself. Did you all see the irony? We were talking about the reliability of science and my post about the discoveries of science had holes in it.
Look out for the Mustard Cannon! Seriously, they have some no-joke space-dudes over there. Great resources for sci-fi research if you can get them to answer an email. 4:02 on the East Coast here... tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.
I love grapefruit bubbly. Tequila and grapefruit Pelligrino is my jam. It gets hard to find, though, but the Aranciata is a good substitute. Not quite warm enough for those yet. They go down way too easily.
I used to drink tequila but decided to make healthier choices in my life so switched from tequila to vodka.
Sure, I agree. While there may be bad actors in 'science' (which is a huge umbrella, obviously), there are also bad actors in ANY field. I am not trying to denigrate science itself. There are bad apples in religion, too -- remember the 'pedophile priest' scandal in Catholicism? -- but no-one, to the best of my knowledge, suggested seriously that people should storm the Vatican with pitchforks and flaming torches. I've no idea why some people misrepresent science so often. I suppose one reason is because of the word 'theory', which means a different thing in science than it does to a non-scientific layperson. A scientific theory is something that has been tested over and over, and proved to be true. If the Theory of Gravity, for instance, wasn't true, we'd have to replace it with the Theory of Falling Away Into Space. But I doubt that's going to happen any time soon. The Theory of Evolution is a good example. A lot of people have tried to tear it down over the years, most often over religious sensibilities; but just because someone thinks it's wrong doesn't make it so. I'm still waiting for someone to debunk it and offer an alternative that makes as much sense. One of the least convincing 'proofs' I heard came from a radio chat show in the Bible Belt back in the early 2000s. The host was running a phone-in about evolution, and the conversation ran something like this: Host: So Jerry, what do you think about evolution? Should we take any notice of Darwin's theories? Jerry: That Darwin guy never got a Nobel Prize, did he? If he's so great, how come he don't get no Nobel? Host: I think you have a very good point there, Jerry. Such a conversation did occur, and the host wasn't being ironic. But Jerry's question isn't quite the knock-down argument he thought it was. Charles Darwin died in 1882. The first Nobel prize was awarded in 1901.
Mistrust in science is associated with ideological beliefs. Most places in the world, those on the political left trust science more than those on the political right. https://www.statista.com/chart/23248/trust-in-scientists-by-political-leaning/ This is a valid point. I've come across it myself. A scientific theory is well-supported by evidence. Used in every-day language, a theory is meant to be a "hunch." Not the same thing at all. What I have found is that those who try to tear it down have no real knowledge of the vast body of evidence that supports it.
Why not just pick the one with the best prognosis? I'll see your painful chemotherapy and raise you life beyond death!
If alternative medicine worked, they'd call it medicine... Has trust in science become a partisan issue? I don't know...because 'trust' 'to do what's right by the public' and 'political leaning' are all rather oblique terms. Scientists discover, inventions are made - and it's up to those in charge 'to do right what's right for the public' - no one else. Plenty of scientists are leaning on those in charge to cut global warming - which unless you are an oil oligarch, is doing right by the public...
I tend toward the view of Alan Watts in his The Wisdom of Insecurity: "The clash between science and religion has not shown that religion is false and science is true. It has shown that all systems of definition are relative to various purposes, and that none of them actually 'grasp' reality."
