Archived 'Settled Science' Is Going the Way of BuzzFeed (americanthinker.com)
submitted ago by sand_mann
Posted by: sand_mann
Posting time: 1.9 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 4/27/2019 10:00:00 AM
Views: 782
SCP: 58
62 upvotes, 4 downvotes (94% upvoted it)
Archived 'Settled Science' Is Going the Way of BuzzFeed (americanthinker.com)
submitted ago by sand_mann
Sort: Top
[–] shrink 1 point 8 points 9 points (+9|-1) ago
They are correct in this article when they say "there's no such thing as settled science." Something might be temporarily settled for now, but anything at all can be opened back up with the introduction of new information. That applies to anything, although there are plenty of things that scientists consider "settled" just because the evidence for them is so overwhelming.
This, however, doesn't give everyone and anyone full reign to say "nuh uh! It may very well not be that way!" simply because they subjectively do not like a scientific conclusion. A problem shows up when people attempt to contradict a scientific conclusion not because they have genuine information or evidence that isn't explained by such a conclusion, but because it runs counter to something they WANT to believe, and so they go looking for something, anything, they can use to try and contradict it. This occurs on both the right and the left; for the right the most obvious example is creationism, and for the left the most glaring issue is the gender bullshit. You cannot perform good science when your motivation for attempting an explanation at all is based on a conclusion you wish to reach.
That being said, the biggest part of the problem that this article gets at is something that's been known in the scientific community for a long time: there's no middle man. There's no translator. There's no method of information transference from the realm of the scientific community to the rest of society, other than the media. And the media, as if no one has noticed, is completely rife with agenda. They will misrepresent things, report on some things, and neglect other things, all in the effort of suiting an agenda. Even when they attempt to accurately represent a scientific article, they can rarely do it correctly. So it's no surprise that articles finding positive or supportive "studies" done by extremely liberal psychology university departments find widespread coverage, yet anything that runs counter to the agenda gets buried. Sometimes things go so far as to retract an article (that was good science) from an actual journal, due to political pressure (I wish I could remember which example this was and what it was about).
[–] 16393295? 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
correct, however some branches of science have become so politicized and set in their ways, such as climate science, that it becomes difficult to know what is actually backed up by the data and what's not
[–] Ken_bingo2 ago
"Climate science" isn't any more of a legitimate science than 'social science'. Adding the word 'science' does not make it science. Just like cutting their dicks off doesn't turn men into women.
[–] Dortex ago
The sources, when read by someone with some training, shed light on the actual heart of any issue being studied. Most people don't have the training or the smarts though, so they're forever doomed to get their information from people with agendas. If you'd like something close-enough to neutral, i suggest Potholer54
[–] RustyBull 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Saying it's 'settled science' is unscientific and it's extreme hubris.
[–] truthwoke33 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago (edited ago)
Using the scientific method we can conclude that blacks are more likely to engage in violent and criminal behavi-
[–] ShinyVoater ago
I'd go further and say the terms "settled" and "consensus" are outright antiscientific. The only thing that can be truly settled is that a theory is brazenly wrong; anything else is merely a lack of a better idea.
[–] The_Cat 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
This article can be summarized as "science doesn't know everything, therefore you can believe anything you want, no matter what scientist say or how much evidence they have."
Why is this even getting upvoted?
[–] RuthlessVett 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I'm sure you have heard of the confirmation bias? Even experts can become deluded or completely misinterpret evidence to their own ends. More people are realizing every day that just because a theory is considered established doesnt mean its true. All humans are fallible and most are idiots, especially arrogant scientists who think they know everything. Take climate change for example, most experts will tell you it is undoubtedly man made and mainly because of Co2 emissions even though a little independent research will show that is complete nonsense. Whats worse is we now know government organizations like nasa have been falsifying a lot of the data to fit their narrative. Maybe the motive is the carbon tax but im sure its a great deal more complicated than just another tax.
[–] xobodox 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
"The first sip out of the cup of science will make you an atheist.. But, God is waiting for you at the bottom of the cup"
[–] A_M_Swallow 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Do not forget religion is a myth. Ask the Japanese what Christianity is.
[–] SHIVASHIVASHIVA 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
"christianity/jesus" is a 2000 year old dirty-gypsy-jew psyop to undermine caucasian roman culture, itraditions and gids... the "apostles" are mossad agents... its pure gaslighting...
[–] HansWithTheGas 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
Was a great read. Then I read the ABOUT section of their website and in the second paragraph they talk about how important preserving the state of Israel is to them.
FAIL
[–] shrink 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
If you're new here, get used to it. Much of the sites hosting the articles that get linked here are pro-jewish or crypto. You'll see the Gateway Pundit show up as a source here all the time, for example. Nobody should read that for more than a week without coming to the conclusion it's controlled opposition, but I suppose my expectations are too high for some.
[–] RuthlessVett 3 points -2 points 1 point (+1|-3) ago (edited ago)
"Settled science" is a huge problem in astrophysics but most are so blind they refuse to believe such a thing is even possible. The mainstream continues to claim that gravity is the only force at work on large scales in the universe yet they fail to even understand how gravity works, instead they invoke hypothetical nonsense like dark matter and energy. With every new discovery there are endless papers of how surprised and baffled these mainstream astrophysicists are as they try to explain it away with gravity alone or by some other mystical means. But when you bring these discoveries to the shunned plasma cosmologist they will say "Of course, that is only to be expected when plasma and electromagnetic energy rule the universe", none of it is any surprise to them yet the mainstream guys will call them crazy and say they have no idea what they are talking about.