Yep, understood. But who is at fault for the misunderstanding?
Assigning fault is overrated. Remember that it happens, adjust when you find it has, and move on.
Yep, understood. But who is at fault for the misunderstanding?
Scientific "fact" should be poked at.
Scientific "fact" should be poked at.
Absolutely. But not *scientists*! They're not politicians, or PR people. Anything you hear from them is really secondary to the hard work they're busy doing. And if they fail to communicate it well - that's unfortunate, but that's not what they're busy trying to do. Take that up with your teachers and college lecturers, maybe - that is their job.
So ask questions; but be nice to the scientists and don't call them names like "stupid" because you didn't understand something. That's just mean, and says more about the speaker than the subject. They're just normal people working hard. That's reasonable, don't you think?
Yes. However, I don't think that is what is happening here. The way to poke at scientific fact is with scientific experiment. Casting shade on the efforts of hundreds from the comfort of relative anonymity and you own home? That doesn't serve.
That first bit's not true at all. A successful scientist has to be a PR person, politician, and marketer to win funding and other resources for their work. Convincing people of the value of their work is part of their job, and if they can't do it they don't get far. Politics in academia can be vicious, and in the corporate world it can be bad enough. Decisions do get driven by social dynamics rather than data, and when they do, it's reasonable to call it "stupid,"
Your "trust the experts" stance is not always helpful because sometimes the experts act like a herd of lemmings.
Umbran's "you must not understand science" approach is not helpful because it doesn't convince,
and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand.
I'm not seeing this at all. Even though I'm the main one asking about the science, I don't see any "trust the experts" or "you must not understand science" in anyone's responses.Mishihari Lord said:Your "trust the experts" stance is not always helpful because sometimes the experts act like a herd of lemmings. Umbran's "you must not understand science" approach is not helpful because it doesn't convince, and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand.
Experiments don't happen unless someone looks at what's there and says "hey, that doesn't look right" first.
That first bit's not true at all. A successful scientist has to be a PR person, politician, and marketer to win funding and other resources for their work. Convincing people of the value of their work is part of their job, and if they can't do it they don't get far. Politics in academia can be vicious, and in the corporate world it can be bad enough. Decisions do get driven by social dynamics rather than data, and when they do, it's reasonable to call it "stupid," although you can soft-pedal it with other terms if you wish. Freyar pointed me to some info that showed that the emphasis on dark matter is reasonable than I had thought, but based on my previous readings the research emphasis looked a lot more like something driven by social dynamics than by data. Your "trust the experts" stance is not always helpful because sometimes the experts act like a herd of lemmings. Umbran's "you must not understand science" approach is not helpful because it doesn't convince, and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand. Frex in my case, I've participated in research so it was a bit insulting. Freyar's approach of engaging on the subject matter is the one that's useful.
*ENVY!*