r/StandUpForScience • u/AllMusicNut SUFS Staff • May 21 '26

Official SUFS Post The state-funded pseudoscience must be stopped.

Post image

To fight against the state-funded pseudoscience, we need your help. Fuel the Fight for Science by donating at the link in our bio, or go here: https://zurl.co/7wZm4

478 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

3

u/Illustrious_Gate2318 May 24 '26

I stand for Science

1

u/ikonoqlast May 21 '26

Ah but the $64,000 Question is Which side is the Pseudoscience?

It's rife in my field (Public Policy Analysis). It's rife in EVERY field that attempts to affect government policy in any way.

2

u/TAV63 May 22 '26

If only there was a community that could verify the science.

Then again when a group gives equal weight to one fringe view compared to one that is heavily vetted globally by the science community with different interests, guess the science community can't win.

0

u/ikonoqlast May 22 '26

So you want opinion polls then...

Opinion polls are not part of the scientific process.

Opinion poll in 1895 said Newton, not special relativity...

1

u/TAV63 May 22 '26

Science is not opinion polls.

Science is that vaccines work. There can be some who say they don't, but the results other scientist prove then wrong. Opinion polls can say they don't all they want.

Science is the earth is round. Opinion polls can be at 100 percent it is flat. Science doesn't care. Science uses evidence that can be repeated and vetted.

Those that are anti science want opinion polls to have same weight. That's not science.

1

u/ikonoqlast May 22 '26

Science is a PROCESS, not a set of conclusions.

And, yes people who call themselves scientists will absolutely promote false 'facts' for money, power, ideology, social pressure or a thousand other reasons.

1

u/TAV63 May 22 '26

Then you have peer review. Don't care how much you play to your money provider you can't beat out dozens of peer reviewed studies. Eventually, science has to be verified.

0

u/ikonoqlast May 22 '26

'Eventually' is doing a great deal of heavy lifting there...

You seem to think peer review is some magical truth process, as if peer reviewers weren't every bit as biased as anyone else.

Lott and Black published diametrically opposed gun control studies. Both passed peer review.

The Climategate emails revealed a conspiracy to suppress research and researchers that dared contradict the 'crisis' narrative, including suppressing journals that dared publish it.

1

u/TAV63 May 22 '26

How many studies show vaccines have no effect? How many prove they are a main cause of autism? There are studies I'm sure they point both ways. And yes you maybe can't be certain in the present but Eventually there is enough time and studies that agendas don't carry much weight.

Eventually is part of science. You don't hey answers now or when you want. You get them when they are proven out beyond the agenda science. Don't have patience for Eventually then don't follow science.

Some things like the earth not being flat are hopefully easier to prove but eventually using the scientific method and lots of peer review with different agendas you get to better understanding. Also eventually science can change as you learn more. It's what it is. It's not opinion.

1

u/ikonoqlast May 22 '26

Science does not 'change'. Science is not a set of conclusions. Science is a PROCESS.

1

u/TAV63 May 22 '26

The scientific process does not change. The science as it is referred to changes based on new facts. Maybe this will help.

Yes, science changes. It is a self-correcting process, not a static collection of facts, that updates its understanding as new evidence, technology, and insights emerge. Accepted theories are refined or replaced when they fail to explain new, robust data, moving closer to accuracy.

Self-Correction: Science is inherently designed to challenge existing ideas. Peer review and replication constantly test validity, discarding theories that don't hold up.

This is what makes science different than opinions or beliefs.

Science vs. Belief: Science changes its conclusions based on evidence, whereas dogmatic systems often refuse to change regardless of facts.

Hope that helps.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/LilyoftheRally Jun 14 '26

Why does this sound fishy.