Comment on I believe science but I don't understand science. Does that make me religious?
Sukisuki@lemmy.world 8 months ago
You don’t believe science. Science is the process of understanding and learning the universe. There is nothing to believe. If you agree you agree, if you disagree you prove otherwise. No dogmatism, rituals, beliefs are present unlike religions. So apples to oranges.
You can also choose to understand science if you invest enough time. You cannot, for example, see a god if you work hard. Again, apples to oranges.
theKalash@feddit.ch 8 months ago
You can believe in what scientists say with no understanding what so evern.
Sukisuki@lemmy.world 8 months ago
There is nothing holding you back from being educated on the matter and making those observations yourself
sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 8 months ago
Brb, gonna build a particle accelerator in my backyard.
Sukisuki@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Lemme know when you’re done, I have some particles to accelerate. I know those damn scientists are lying to me.
cricket97@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Yes there is. Plenty of experiments require millions to billions of dollars in capital to make the same observations that you are trusting scientists to be honest about. This is a cope take. There is plenty of blind trust in the way the general public understands science.
redballooon@lemm.ee 8 months ago
But which scientist? There are so many doctors of biology that say the climate crisis isn’t a result of human activity.
And what to do if two scientists disagree?
cynar@lemmy.world 8 months ago
That’s where the scientific consensus comes in. It’s the latest group understanding.
On climate change, well over 99% of scientists agree it’s man made, and a serious issue. The only debate is over how bad it will be. All the controversy comes from either political or religious individuals, or from big oil funded scientists.
A good example of this process working is the room temperature superconductor paper, that recently made the news. Multiple groups immediately tried to verify it. Unfortunately, none could. The paper either missed critical information, making it useless, or was fraudulent. This was all before it was even “published”, and so subject to peer review.
cricket97@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Consensus does not mean something is true or even accurate. Plenty of historical examples of this.
theKalash@feddit.ch 8 months ago
Isn’t that obvious? You rally people that support your guy and go to war with the people that support the other guy.