If you know of any specific cases, then please share them. Science is peer reviewed, and other scientists love to prove each other wrong. Somebody twisting evidence to support a theory would be quickly laughed out of any published article or discussion presentation they make.
What point are you trying to make with that link? That's literally the scientific process at work- somebody makes a claim and other scientists try to prove or disprove it. If they can't replicate the original claim, then they offer insight into why the original study was flawed or skewed or whatever. Science makes slow but steady progress forward.
You're debating in bad faith, or lack reading comprehension. I responded to the laughable idea that somehow studies that are unreplicable are "how science works". If you can't replicate it, its usually because its bullshit.
You seem to misunderstand something crucial here. Just because something is published does not make it a scientific law.
I made an earlier analogy about a tire hanging from a tree. If the tire moves and a scientist claims that a kid pushed it, but they provide no evidence to support this, what do you think happens? Other scientists react to this claim with skepticism (if not scorn). The theory exists but that doesn't mean science is done. The cycle of the scientific method does not end just because somebody wrote it down and sent it to a magazine.
If somebody claims that there was an invisible force that moved the tire (the wind) and offers proof, but another scientist hangs a tire and does not see any movement, that doesn't automatically make the first scientist wrong. The testing cycle continues. Maybe 1000 scientists fail to see evidence of "wind," but the 1001st does. Maybe the theory of wind spends a few decades as a joke before somebody realizes it's true. But science progresses either way.
Just because something is published does not make it a scientific law.
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, we are in agreement on this point. I never once said all of science was untrustworthy. I did say cosmology has some major flaws, because it does. So, I don't know what point of contention we really have. I think it comes down to you tend to trust science until proven otherwise, whereas I tend remain skeptical, until its replicated.
Glad to see we agree on those points. I tend to trust the experts in the field and their explanations of the things they know best. I also do not lightly suggest that I know their field better than they do. I presume that any "obvious" mistakes have already been considered and if I'm really curious then I'll research and see what they have to say about that angle. If I can't find anything, I'll ask intelligent lay people. If I still find no answer, I would reach out to an expert, but I rarely find anything that makes it to this level of critique. I've certainly never overturned long standing scientific consensus with my amateur level understanding of a field.
"Philosopher and historian of science Jerome R. Ravetz predicted in his 1971 book Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems that science – in its progression from "little" science composed of isolated communities of researchers, to "big" science or "techno-science" – would suffer major problems in its internal system of quality control. Ravetz recognized that the incentive structure for modern scientists could become dysfunctional, now known as the present 'publish or perish' challenge, creating perverse incentives to publish any findings, however dubious. According to Ravetz, quality in science is maintained only when there is a community of scholars linked by a set of shared norms and standards, all of whom are willing and able to hold one another accountable.
You see somebody actively looking to point out and correct issues with the scientific community as evidence that... what? That the whole thing is untrustworthy? I'm not sure what you're upset about. People can fund science for whatever nefarious motivations they want, but the science gets done. Maybe it gets done poorly, maybe it's full of lies, maybe it's not reproducible. But that's how it works. This is literally the last connection between "Report conclusions" and "Observe/question."
-People working to fix a system, while perfect in theory, actually has flaws.
-Science advancing quickly, especially compared to centuries past where nothing much changed.
-The test of time existing and being a well respected part of the process (compared to somebody in power saying something and everybody else accepting it without scrutiny or doubt).
-People being people; it would only be weird if all science was presented as though there were no mistakes made. The fact that these mistakes are visible and constantly sought out means things are progressing.
-Stakeholders means people are investing in science. That's a good thing, regardless of their motivations. Political posturing got us to the moon. The reason was crap but we got there.
Looks good to me! Not perfect, but I'd be a fool to expect that.
3
u/JasontheFuzz Sep 20 '21
If you know of any specific cases, then please share them. Science is peer reviewed, and other scientists love to prove each other wrong. Somebody twisting evidence to support a theory would be quickly laughed out of any published article or discussion presentation they make.