How fucked really is science?

[Watermelanin]

In a perfect world, any scientist would be allowed to ask any question they like, test any hypothesis they have, and not face penalties for finding evidence that contradicts the status quo. Peer review boards would level-headedly read any study and voice only concerns with methodology or how conclusions were came to and not the conclusion itself. And they would review any work in the legitimate pursuit of expanding human knowledge and not for self benefit (beyond, perhaps compensation allotted for the act of peer reviewing a work). New evidence would be taken into account in revising old findings and no theory would be considered immune to scrutiny. Political alignments would be put aside when evaluating evidence and certainly not the other way around. The media would publish the findings of these properly peer reviewed works in an honest manner while accurately describing the strengths and weaknesses of the study in question.
Of course: we don't live in a perfect world. but how imperfect is it?

My assessment:
The media: Yup. It's FUBAR.
There's a few good apples out there, but most of the science media is clickbait headlines, packed with errors that a child could spot, and/or are obviously influenced by political interests. Science media, like all media, is fucked. You all know this just as well as I do. This is a clear and present problem that should be addressed, but doing so is impractical (and arguably immoral) and that sucks.
The actual science: not so much...
There's published papers on race (look at any one of the long list of citations in that wiki article), Testosterone's influence on cognitive function, and even one claiming most published research is wrong. There have, unfortunately, been some scandals. There's also been studies funded by companies with vested interest in the findings. But when those errors are found, they are retracted. The scientific literature has been contaminated to some degree, but at least it makes an attempt to sanitize itself and that is a beautiful thing. Let's hope things stay that way.
As far as the validity of scientific research goes: here's some recommended viewing:

 

[kūhaku]

I've posted this before in a thread about consciousness, here's some recommended viewing from me about scientific dogmas.

Personally I think modern science is pretty imperfect. Science should be about challenging what is known, even if it is widely accepted, and discovering the unknown. It's about gathering new information and ensuring our current information is up to date. Modern society focuses too much on the unknown and doesn't put enough emphasis on checking past discoveries. This is a problem with mindset if anything, and doesn't even scratch the surface of fudged data and corrupt papers used to push agendas.

As you said, in a perfect world any scientist should be able to ask whatever question they want. The question is the first step of the scientific method, but when the science community deems some questions to be wrong or not worth asking, you lose the spirit of science about asking whatever you want. Bringing up the Galileo example, I can bet that the science community during his time thought it would be nonsense to even question anything in the accepted theory of the solar system and space. Science takes large leaps by challenging the status quo, and pushing against the river, rather than being beat down by it.

 

[Watermelanin]

I've posted this before in a thread about consciousness, here's some recommended viewing from me about scientific dogmas.

As much as I want to just take the piss out of that video, I won't. That would be counter-productive if anything.
His questioning of uniformitarianism (in the broadest sense: the idea that the way physics works now is the way it has always worked) is legitimate and people questioning it have been published (which kinda defeats the purpose of the whole lecture tbh). Scientists are taking the idea that constants might be changing seriously and their methods have been sound enough to pass peer review. Here's a video that actually cites some of its sources in the description (the speaker is actually an astrophysicist btw).
Unfortunately, the video you posted is full of "woo-woo" and "we see evidence of [x]" without citing any papers on the subject. If this were posted on wikipedia of all places, his speech would be littered with [citation needed]'s. I'm not saying he's wrong, but he's probably fucking wrong.

 

[DumbDude42]

it varies a lot by field

generally, the fields with real hands-on practical application (all the engineering disciplines, comp sci, bio/chem/phys, etc) are pretty solid and reliable.
the more you move away from fields that study actual physical things, the worse it gets. all the social 'sciences' are irredeemably lost at this point, and society would honestly be better off if they were deleted from campuses entirely.

 

[nohull]

it varies a lot by field

generally, the fields with real hands-on practical application (all the engineering disciplines, comp sci, bio/chem/phys, etc) are pretty solid and reliable.
the more you move away from fields that study actual physical things, the worse it gets. all the social 'sciences' are irredeemably lost at this point, and society would honestly be better off if they were deleted from campuses entirely.

I'd say the wrongfully called "hard sciences" are way less accurate than social sciences as all factual knowledge comes from reason and intuition like Mathematics, not from empirical evidence obtained through perception. See how Physics prostitutes Mathematics.
Theorical models, rather than being oversimplifying they're the most accurate representation of the world itself, which is Mathematical, and theorical models are not polluted by empirical nonsense and the delusions of perception.

But I guess my autism is too advanced for you, keep living in your normie realm with your "epic wholesome 100 facts and logic" *tips le fedora*

 

[Kosher Dill]

I would only consider science to be "broken" in cases where certain fields of inquiry are off-limits. But are there really that many of them?
The only "third rail" I can think of offhand is trying to study any sort of connection between race and intelligence in humans.

 

[Made In China]

"Educate the masses" they said. "You will have a successful nation" they said. This is why you don't appeal to the lowest common denominator unless your only goal is money.

 

[Driftwood]

"Educate the masses" they said. "You will have a successful nation" they said. This is why you don't appeal to the lowest common denominator unless your only goal is money.

Right, liberal arts departments in particular are plauged by the pay for play model. I often heard professors complaining of having to pass students that did not deserve it because administration needed to keep the customers happy and paying. This was back around 2000 or so, so I only can guess how much further standards have fallen since. This was a state flagship uni.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

"Educate the masses" they said. "You will have a successful nation" they said. This is why you don't appeal to the lowest common denominator unless your only goal is money.

Based and Aristocracy-pilled

 

[Xarpho]

One of the annoying side effects of "science" is thinking that scientists are some sort of be-all end-all of how the world works. I remember one PHD Comics strip (a webcomic I used to read, but it doesn't matter all that much since they haven't posted a new comic in almost six months) where politicians going against "science" were portrayed as bad, not really taking into account that scientists are the puppets of policy-makers, taxpayers, and special interests, not the other way around.

That's not to say anything about how certain groups will swear up and down on "science" when it comes it to why they must send trillions of dollars away in the name of climate change, but saying there are only two genders is tantamount to hate speech.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

it varies a lot by field

generally, the fields with real hands-on practical application (all the engineering disciplines, comp sci, bio/chem/phys, etc) are pretty solid and reliable.
the more you move away from fields that study actual physical things, the worse it gets. all the social 'sciences' are irredeemably lost at this point, and society would honestly be better off if they were deleted from campuses entirely.

So where would astro sciences fit on this scale?

 

[kūhaku]

As much as I want to just take the piss out of that video, I won't. That would be counter-productive if anything.
His questioning of uniformitarianism (in the broadest sense: the idea that the way physics works now is the way it has always worked) is legitimate and people questioning it have been published (which kinda defeats the purpose of the whole lecture tbh). Scientists are taking the idea that constants might be changing seriously and their methods have been sound enough to pass peer review. Here's a video that actually cites some of its sources in the description (the speaker is actually an astrophysicist btw).
Unfortunately, the video you posted is full of "woo-woo" and "we see evidence of [x]" without citing any papers on the subject. If this were posted on wikipedia of all places, his speech would be littered with [citation needed]'s. I'm not saying he's wrong, but he's probably fucking wrong.

When he says “studies have been done” or “there’s evidence that,” I take it as meaningless. My point was moreso that he’s correct that we should be able to challenge these assumptions, should be able to ask questions, and while the constants may be challenged as you said, to dismiss all the others without investigating them is stupid.

 

[Meat Poultry Veg]

All this high level talk and not one single damn post about how the WHO recommended trashing the world economy to protect people from le coof.

 

[Watermelanin]

When he says “studies have been done” or “there’s evidence that,” I take it as meaningless. My point was moreso that he’s correct that we should be able to challenge these assumptions, should be able to ask questions, and while the constants may be challenged as you said, to dismiss all the others without investigating them is stupid.

In the interest of keeping this discussion somewhat organized, can we focus on these "unchallenged assumptions" one by one?
Where would you like to start?

 

[Kung Pow]

You see, back in the day the Church had intellectual authority over Europe and by intellectual authority I mean that said authority didn't came, primarily, from forcing you to do or not to do something because of the state or laws, but instead from logic, reason and so on. If someone say to you 2+2=4 that "someone" is exerting intellectual authority over you and if you try to argue against it, if it is true or not, you will look like a buffoon.

What they are trying to do, in my opinion with all the political shit, is to turn the science community into a "modern church", a modern "intellectual" authority that will have power over morallity and truth just like the Church did back in the day. And, most important of all, it will be financed and controlled by them. And it wouldn't be a scientology kind of garbage, they will look empiracally at what works and doesn't to whatever retarded shit they will try to push next, if they aren't doing it already.

 

[Strange Wilderness]

One of the annoying side effects of "science" is thinking that scientists are some sort of be-all end-all of how the world works. I remember one PHD Comics strip (a webcomic I used to read, but it doesn't matter all that much since they haven't posted a new comic in almost six months) where politicians going against "science" were portrayed as bad, not really taking into account that scientists are the puppets of policy-makers, taxpayers, and special interests, not the other way around.

That's not to say anything about how certain groups will swear up and down on "science" when it comes it to why they must send trillions of dollars away in the name of climate change, but saying there are only two genders is tantamount to hate speech.

Agreed. The main problem with Science is that people get involved in it. Governments and corporations have their own selfish interest in science, they will champion what supports their views and discredit what goes against their beliefs. Scientists themselves are not immune to their own biases or needs. People are people regardless of the time and just like religion of yesteryear people will twist it for their viewpoints.

 

[Positron]

Science will thrive, but the leadership of science will shift away from the Woke World, to Russia, China, Japan, and India.

 

[LazarusOwenhart]

Anthropology is becoming increasingly hobbled by the fact that you're not allowed to study humans in the way you can study animals. At the end of the day the human race is a bunch of monkeys that think too much of themselves and if we study ourselves in detail we might learn a few uncomfortable truths about humanity but we can't because the moment you suggest there might be some psychological. physical or sociological differences between people of different ethnic backgrounds you're a fucking racist apparently.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Science will thrive, but the leadership of science will shift away from the Woke World, to Russia, China, Japan, and India.

I don't think that's true yet. For the most part, the best universities, the best research institutions, and the highest standard of living for professional scientists remains in the US and Europe. Science will continue to be run out of there, except in cases where local laws (or SJW nonsense) prevent it.
For example, countries like South Korea and Japan are surging ahead in stem cell research and regenerative medicine today because of the more favorable regulatory climate there. But they're not poised to take over all of science because of that - South Korea in particular still publishes a fair amount of lolcow science alongside the legitimate work.
China and India are complete jokes when it comes to original research, for various reasons.

I just don't think there are enough scientific "third rails" in Woke World to touch off a mass exodus. For the most part, the military-industrial complex wants science to keep chugging along.

 

[Lemmingwise]

When he says “studies have been done” or “there’s evidence that,” I take it as meaningless. My point was moreso that he’s correct that we should be able to challenge these assumptions, should be able to ask questions, and while the constants may be challenged as you said, to dismiss all the others without investigating them is stupid.

I pretty much use to phrase as empty phrases when talking to plebs. They go "ooohhh" and "ahhh" as if I'm 16th century explorer and I've just lighted a match and showed a couple of light reflecting marbles to a couple of natives.