Science should be the most liberating culture. The truth is always the goal and explorations are always given room, right?
Somehow, this is the mindset students manage to believe they are fulfilling even while the exact opposite is true within the schooling they receive. It can be rooted out easily with a deliberate application of realism and logic, but so few even have the skills to do that even if they had the notion to do so. Society at large isn't helping either with their "everyone needs a college education". The problem here is that people have lost track of what an education even is.
"The science is settled" is something people have believed in their time for all of humanity. As humans, we seem to always believe we are in some sort of Golden Era of understanding. Today is no different.
From climate change to vaccines and even the fundamentals of physics, we are clearly in a time where we have so much to learn, yet to question the consensus narrative can be a truly dangerous thing to do.
A good example I have heard a few times is when Ignaz Semmelweis attempted to show that washing hands could help save lives in the maternity ward. In short, his belief that washing hands after autopsies and before deliveries ended him in an asylum where he may have been beat to death.
I don't know if it is simply because people are just so intellectually lazy or something else, but it is obvious that humanity resists changes in what they understand to be true; viciously at times.
Consensus.
Historically, it has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way for the society at large to feel they have an understanding of a concept, but it is often a severely superficial and binary understanding. The truth is rarely black and white, but consensus science forces the dialogue to follow these narrow views from the perceived authorities above.
Opinions are too cheap.
Without direct and immediate accountability for spewing the common rhetoric, the majority quickly falls in line. This is true on a large societal scale and it is true in niche environments, but natural law will not sit idly by. Just look at examples like Semmelweis and Chernobyl; the real truth will usually show up all the more viciously if ignored or corrupted with continued lies.
In the absence of the state, these things would be a problem, but likely to work out much more quickly. Opinions (consensus) backed by the barrel of a gun have a habit of going as far as natural law will allow.
Posted from my blog with SteemPress : https://prohibition.diggndeeper.com/tryanny-tuesday-science/
The study of the world around us us fascinating, but "science" so called is just plain indoctrination. It's not science at all, it's mind control and ultimately behavior control. And who can argue with "science"? The cult of the white lab coat.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think the result of what we have and have had for all of humanity is mind control, but I think science as defined is true science, if only it were practised as such and done so openly.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It can be very challenging to question and/or go against the status quo for scientists for many reasons. In some ways and in some circumstances it does make sense though that the scientific community doesnt accept a new idea right away. Scientists make mistakes all the time, so in order to demonstrate that a scientist has found something real their work needs to be replicated by another scientist. If other scientists cannot replicate their work, then they may have made a mistake or cheated their results or something. In the humanities sciences there is a replicability crisis in that scientists are having a lot of trouble replicating others work to the point where they believe that at least 50% or more of the scientific literature is wrong. This is due to a much wider issue regarding how universities and scientific journals create an environment that almost forces professors to do shotty work. But that's a whole other story.
Overall I think it's a pretty challenging situation. You dont want every single new idea to be accepted at first glance before the work is replicated but at the same time you want the community to remain open to new ideas that may question the status quo. It's sort of a balancing act.
Great post. Its definitely food for thought. It really got me thinking :)
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think that is exactly the point.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit