EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.
Lots of stuff from both social sciences and economics.
Social science suffers greatly from the Replication crisis
Economics relies largely on so-called natural experiments that have poor variable controls.
Both often come with policy agendas pushing for results.
I take their conclusions with a grain of salt.
Economics all makes sense when you understand that they are being paid to produce data backing up the position of the person paying them.
Economics is purely based on assumption, at it’s core. There’s no proof the assumption is true, and recent trends seem to point towards it being false.
Economics assumes people are rational spenders.
But the “economy” is often just represented by the stock market, which is both not rational, and not a good measure of the economy. It’s a great indicator of how much wealth is being extracted from the working class, but it’s shit at representing how most of the money is being spent.
Social “sciences” are the epitome of opinions being pushed as fact via the appeal to authority fallacy. Much of what falls under that label are baseless belief systems built upon towers of lies
Any “science” supported only by belief/faith or trust in authority that can’t be questioned.
That’s not science.
Correct. Its religion/ideology masquerading as science.
Got any examples for us?
“Believe in Science”/“Trust the Science”/“According to Experts” used to inflate credibility of political/ideological decisions.
I’m not sure there are many examples for that, since scientific journals all require peer review and there are many cases of poorly written studies costing a person their degree or credentials.
It took me awhile to accept it. But apparently planting trees on the wrong area could actually contribute to global warming. E.g. Planting on areas, traditionally has no trees, while reforesting would contribute to lowering temperature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00233-0
I learned that from a recent documentary of the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park from Vice.
That somehow the dozens of microphones all around us aren’t listening at all.
Pretty sure the science is very clear that they are. Research papers about smartphones are enough to make the KGB Blush. A study not too long ago looked at the data being collected and sent by TikTok app, turned out the app’s installed data is more spyware than it is the app itself. I like using CalyxOS, which was built up from way back when Android was Open Source, personally because I can disable Microphone and Camera use with the slide-down screen.
But my google home tells me that the microphone is disabled when I say the magic phrase. How can you not trust that?
Also Siri
deleted by creator
If you can’t be questioned, you’re not science.
deleted by creator
You decide what’s fact. Everything you ever thought you knew is stuff someone told you and you believed it based on their presentation. You’ve never seen evidence. You’ve seen them telling you there’s evidence.
Try doing some simple physics experiments with pendulum and stuff. It is quite simple to set up and will make you use many different physics concepts.
For quantum mechanics, I suggest diffraction and the double slit experiment that are quite easy to do with a cheap laser pointer.
That way you can rediscover scientific models yourself!
If you are not willing to try it, then you don’t really have legitimacy criticizing thé work of scientists.
I’m not criticizing work so much as all the things where the claim work is done but wasn’t.
As a flow artist, I understand pendulums more than most. I heckin live pendulums! I play with them every day!
Science is good. Science publishing is out of hand.
I agree with you that science publishing can be of variable quality. One solution for the reader IS to never trust one paper alone, scientific knowledge is established when many papers are published about the same topic and give the same conclusions.
So bigger number = more true?
What if you’re doing the research real-time? What if you, yourself, have done the experiments which logically are evidence? There are a lot of things you can scientifically prove yourself. And there are a lot of phenomena you can mathematically prove without even doing the experiments, although you have to try to mitigate or account for chaos / the specific environment you’re working with.
Conspiracy bullshit like “you haven’t seen the scientific evidence so it might just all be made up by so-called scientists” is garbage. You are a nut if you think that. It is on the same level as flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers.
Oh yeah, I’m not against the idea of science. Doing it yourself from the ground up is pretty solid. All of your own experiences are at the very least valid as you experienced them.
If you can believe the scale of vote fraud Trump pulled off, you can believe that textbooks are often written with an interest in influencing our young. I’m mostly against history as it’s taught. It’s written by the victors and so much of it comes off as fables and allegories to keep people in line.
deleted by creator
So obscure opinions are made visible and we can talk about them?
deleted by creator
Addiction is NOT a disease. Sorry, but your choice do heroin does not get to go into the same category as a child with cancer.
You asked for your problem, they didn’t.
EDIT: This NOT up for debate. I answered OP in good faith. I’m not here to discuss/debate my stance.
Wait, what’s your definition of a disease?
Anything that isn’t self-imposed.
Well, for starters, thank you for answering the prompt.
But, I mean, the barebones definition of Disease is when the organism’s functions behave outside of their evolutionary purpose. I don’t think people evolved their brain’s Sigma Receptors and Dopaminergic Systems just to be triggered by Meth, much less to form a habit based on the results of that interaction, so by definition I think that fits the terminology.
And I disagree with that. Which is what you asked about.
2 people take the same dose of heroin, they repeat the experience 5 times each on the same time line. Lets say they both has the same surgery. One person stops easily, experiencing mild withdrawal that feels like a flu and goes on with their life without ever thinking about it again. The other feels a powerful compulsion to take more, they maintain their usage say initially through extending a medical script and later the black market.
What was different between the two? Maybe you think person 2 had terrible moral character but if they had never been given heroin this would never have manifested. We call that pathological difference a disease and try and treat it. What would you call it?
I call it junkies.
So you say the difference is some moral deficiency? ok well why don’t we try and treat that. After all we need pain killers in medicine and we want to make them as safe as possible.
Let’s call junkeyism a disease and see how we can stop it happening. Maybe by understanding if some people respond better or worse to different kinds of drugs, maybe we could identify a test we could do to work out what would be safe for someone?
Like what do you think it means when a doctor calls something a disease? People can make bad decisions and still get diseases. If inject yourself with the blood of everyone you meet you’ll eventually get a few, they don’t stop being a disease just because you gave it to yourself (and also we might ask why someone felt compelled to do something so foolish and could we have helped them).
Junkeyism ALSO isn’t a disease. It’s a bad decision. Tens of thousands of children die of cancer every year. Cancer- a REAL disease. A disease they never asked for.
Their cause of death shouldn’t be categorized alongside dipshits that chose to shoot drugs into their veins.
I’m not arguing this with you. So fuck off.
It’s very rude to just swear at someone who hasn’t done anything to you. You don’t seem very nice.
I’m still confused though, if someone ate some mercury because they bit down on a thermometer or something should their mercury poisoning not be diagnosed as mercury poisoning? should it not be treated the same way?
So you don’t care that the majority of people who abuse drugs are doing it to self-medicate something, be that pain, depression from the state of their life, or an undiagnosed neurological condition?
(Adderall is just a dilute relative of meth, and so has similar effects on ADHD brains, i.e. makes us more functional. Also, there is research showing that cannabis has a positive effect on autistic brains, which would explain why so many autistic people I know love their greenery. Plus, anecdotes from fellow ADHDers of “I microdose weed because it helps me focus better, and it’s easier to get than legal adderall”)
No. I don’t care. A junkie is a junkie. Having a neurological condition doesn’t give you an excuse to get whacked out on meth 7 days a week. CANCER is a disease. Addiction is NOT.
I say this as someone with ADHD and ASD, and as a person who lost a friend to addiction this year.
JUNKIES don’t have diseases. PERIOD.
Both the NIH and DSM-5 would disagree.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK565474/table/nycgsubuse.tab9/
https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/understanding-drug-use-addiction
I can find 10 people to say that ADHD isn’t real for every 1 person who says substance use disorder isn’t a disease.
Does that mean ADHD isn’t a real condition?
Am I disagree with them, which is what OP asked. Are you arguing with everyone here that disagrees with science, or just me?
Believing that the moon landing was a hoax, or that dark matter doesn’t exist, is ultimately harmless. The same cannot be said of disagreeing with proven, helpful medical knowledge, in favour of a gut-feeling based alternative that only makes things worse. It is a moral imperative to make you realise you are wrong, or failing that, thoroughly demonstrate it to everyone watching, so your harmful ideas do not spread.
My ideas are no more harmful than any other opinion here. I didn’t say it I don’t accept it as science, I simply said I disagree with it. As OP asked.
I answered in good faith that this is how I feel. I won’t apologize that it upset you. That’s your problem.
So, unpacking your worldview here, how do you feel about cancer brought about by smoking, or by prolonged exposure to materials that you know are radioactive and/or carcinogenic? Does that change with the knowledge that processed meat and plastics, things that are impossible to avoid unless you structure your life around limiting exposure to them, are most likely mild carcinogens?
Also, please tell me, regardless of how you classify addiction, that you at least understand that the only evidence-based approach to drugs is decriminalisation. Almost all of the societal ills associated with them are entirely the fault of their possession and sale being crimes. You can’t find safe environments to use them in if they’re illegal, nor can you feel safe seeking medical aid if you’ve taken too high a dose without realising it. If you’re a dealer, you have no regulatory bodies to answer to, and pay no taxes on the money you make. If you’re running organised crime, you’re already sitting on enough of a supply to land you in jail for the rest of your life, and that makes murdering competitors seem like a much more palatable option. And then there’s the developing world. Most of the money this makes ends up back in the hands of rebels, warlords and cartels in the developing world, where they cause untold misery and suffering.
But if you legalise them, that nips most of those problems in the bud. You can publicly admit to using them, feel safe seeking medical aid when you mistakenly take too much, get help from programs designed to end your dependence. The dealers go out of business, replaced by actual stores that pay taxes and follow regulations, like not being able to sell to minors or water down your product to sell more of it. Organised crime loses one of its biggest sources of money overnight, given that their expensive material of unknown origin and purity is suddenly replaced by cheaper material of known origin and purity. The cross-border smuggling also ceases, because what else are you going to find that is illegal, compact, and high in value? Oh, and the developing world can actually benefit from drug production, since the criminal groups will be greatly weakened from the loss of profits, and developed world importers would rather deal with legitimate businesses than violent criminals and rebels.
We learnt this shit a century ago with alcohol, one of the most destructive drugs (even meth would not be as destructive if legalised), why are we still doing it?
I said I’m not debating this. And I’m not.
The prompt is dangerous and indulgent for anti-science idiots. You don’t “believe in” science… Science is. You can choose to believe in fairy tales, conspiracy theories and other made up shit like religious dogma, don’t causally equate the two categories - ESPECIALLY not while naming science directly. Maybe say, “what’s a thing that you can’t believe it’s real?” If you need to post.
I see your edit, but it’s still a bullshit post, OP.
Science absolutely involves belief, the idea that the scientific method is a divorced concept from belief might fly in a badly written Wikipedia article description but in terms of actual science, belief absolutely factors massively into science. So does intuition.
Science is just a meaningless constellation of data points without any belief to connect them. One has to be very careful and continually retrospective about what those beliefs are, but it is absurd on the face of it to say that science is magically outside belief.
Science isn’t a collection of facts, it is a collection of questions that arise from hypotheses that themselves arise from belief and intuition. Just because that is scary and opens up the door to conversations about how belief always shapes our thoughts and actions even when it is in the context of science doesn’t mean you can just slam the door and demand that somehow science doesn’t include these things.
What differentiates science from other things is the intentional practice of questioning one’s conscious and subconscious beliefs, not the absence of belief.
Authoritarian minded centrists always want to bludgeon people with the idea that science is just a set of facts handed down by authority, but that is a lazy and ultimately fundamentally incorrect way to understand and advocate for science. The mistake we made was letting the word “skeptic” be redefined from a lifelong practice of questioning one’s own beliefs to being what some random person who knows nothing about a subject is when they just decide not to believe in something for no good reason.
I disagree. Science is making models to explain the data and testing them. Whichever model fits best the data becomes a leading theory. There is no belief whatsoever.
This aside, I agree with you that many people tend to mistake scientific theories for reality, they are merely good models. Thinking otherwise is belief.
Let’s say the universe is a clock that we can’t open. Even if we make a perfect model that predicts the exact motion of the hands, it doesn’t tell us anything about what is inside the clock (it could be anything really). Belief is when you start believing your model IS what is inside the clock.
I understand that this is a nice way to teach kids how science works, but if you don’t think belief factors into every single thing that humans do in science you are massively off the mark.
Without belief or intuition, it’s just data.
Even if belief is very present in human nature, the scientific method is not a form of belief because it is just selectionning the model that fits best the data.
Coming up with models does not necessarily require intuition either when we can automate this process.
Belief is human, but science is universal.
Theory == belief.
Religion is not a theory because it cannot be falsified.
And the theory of evolution is not belief as it can be observed in real time in labs with flies for exemple.
Your equality is therefore incorrect.
Edit: typo
the theory of evolution is not belief as it can be observed in real time in labs with files for exemple.
I don’t believe that’s the same effect we see in humans
I agree it is not straightforward. Evolution arises from gene reproduction, flies are just one easy example because they reproduce very fast. Humans are also using genes reproduction and our evolution can be also be traced. The evidence for evolution is everywhere and it is the simplest explanation that fits all the data.
Why do you believe that humans act the same way flies do?
I don’t see the issue. Here is the truth, do you believe in it or not? Plenty of stuff I have had a hard time accepting which is another way of saying I didn’t believe it. That doesn’t mean I gave up.
Science is.
Umm. So here’s the thing. The scientific method is the best system we have for learning things about the world around us. The problem is scientists are humans.
There are papers published in reputable journals written by lobbyists and special interests to use the trappings and gravitas of science to push their agendas. There are medicines on the market that mostly or entirely don’t work because they were in use before the FDA was a thing. There are lots of papers written by academics entirely to keep the grant money coming, or edited by university management to prevent casting the school in a bad light.
Science, as an institution, is not infallible, and should be examined and audited.
And indeed, a core principle of the scientific method is incredulity. A scientist publishes something, you’re supposed to say “That doesn’t seem right, I don’t think I believe it.” and then repeat the experiment to see if you get the same result.
cut funding to your black hole detection chamber
I knew you’d come for my fucking black hole detection chamber you swine
Curses! You’ve found me out! I’LL GET YOU NEXT TIME! MYA~HEHEHE!
First they came for the black hole detection chambers and I said nothing because I was researching Computer sciences.
Then they came for my HPC clusters
I don’t think that we currently know enough about physics to say for sure that faster than light travel is impossible.
I think it’s likely that there are still scientific breakthroughs to be discovered that will make currently impossible things possible.
You might be misunderstanding the problem, though. “Traveling” is relative. It absolutely is not impossible to arrive somewhere faster than light traveling in “normal” 3D space would. For example, 3D space itself is a medium, not an absolute thing. A medium can always be manipulated.
It also depends on how you are measuring time. From the perspective of the light, all travel is nearly instantaneous. It’s only from our perspective that it appears to take a long time.
From the perspective of the light, wouldn’t travel take a long time?
For everyone else, yes, but for you, no. The faster you go, the more time dilation affects your own experience of time. If you were to travel 1 light year at the speed of light, it would be instantaneous for you, but a year would pass for everyone on Earth.
We haven’t seen anything in nature violate it nor in any lab.
I don’t believe scientific progress is analogous with human progress or can be used to “decode” morality, ie the science vs religion dichotomy I don’t believe in. I don’t think science or “reason” guides human societies for instance. This belief is a result of studying Hume and moral philosophy. I think science tells us what is but not what ought to be, and that gap is irreconcilable through science alone, yet it can inform our sense of right and wrong. I disagree with objective morality as well, so the popularization of this science=objective morality idea that Sam Harris has attempted I disagree with entirely. I’m much more aligned with Patricia Churchland’s ideas here, and her popularization she outlines in her book “Braintrust.” I don’t think, as some do, that measuring brain activity decodes human morality, because I don’t believe such a thing exists. I don’t believe human society is controlled and determined by rational actors, I have a more Darwinian and Maxian view on that. When people profess things like “politics should be scientific” I likely agree with their sentiment but I think “science” is not the reason why, and more of a distraction/lazy way to assert being morally right about something, which science can’t actually do because it requires an appeal to human notions of morality, which science cannot determine as it has no measure of which values we ought to hold.
deleted by creator
removed by mod
Here’s a funny video about string theory:
string theory lied to us and now science communication is hard
Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.
It’s actually the simulation. It’s not coincidence, it’s not that we just noticed that thing and it’s everywhere. It’s the simulation running out of ram.
I know in print journalism, you will certainly start noticing trending words go viral through the journalism community. Like the word “slammed” showing up in headlines repeatedly. Or the word “tony” to describe something ritzy/expensive that was trending a couple of years ago.
removed by mod
TrickDacy blasts slammed.
Did anyone else notice a reporting trend years ago where everyone was “tapping” everyone? They used it to mean a newly elected/appointed person recruited or perhaps sometimes consulted someone else, but it was around the time the term was also hot in pop culture where, of course, it means something entirely different.
Psychologists branding everyone with a disorder. You can spend a whole lifetime trying to understand yourself and you won’t. 4 years of schooling and a book full of labels doesn’t give you any extra magical understanding of everyone else.
You know I felt this way for years. I felt that way through psychopharmacology in pharmacy school, and I felt that way during our psychiatry and behavior lectures in medical school. I felt like psychiatry was minimizing behavior to these boxes was far too reductionist. Then I spent a month in an inpatient psychiatry facility as a third year medical student.
While I completely agree that each individual is unique and people are more than their diagnosis, you’d be absolutely shocked by just how similar patients’ overall stories, maladaptive coping mechanisms, and behaviors are within the same psychiatric illness. I can spot mania from a doorway, and it takes less than five minutes to have a high suspicion for borderline personality disorder. These classifications aren’t some arbitrary grouping of symptoms: they’re an attempt to create standard criteria for a relatively well preserved set of phenotypic behaviors. The hard part is understanding pathology vs culturally appropriate behavior in cultures you don’t belong, and differentiating within illness spectra (Bipolar I vs II; schizophrenia vs bipolar disorder with psychotic features vs schizoaffective)
You’re part of the problem.
Thank you for your insightful and well-researched response. I’ll remember that as I continue to provide high-quality evidence based care to all of my psychiatric patients in the future while you bitch about stuff on the internet.
That stuff you and your buddies wrote together to justify your income isn’t really evidence. Maybe you even believe it is. Everything you ever thought you know is just stuff others told you and you believed it based on their presentation.
No, in fact I believe very heavily in evaluating primary literature to re-evaluate decades-old dogma within medicine. I regularly disagree with my professors when they present outdated information in lecture. I have no income right now, and I have forgone substantial amounts of income by pursuing medical school instead of continuing to practice pharmacy. I’m not in this for the money.
If you would be so kind, I would love to know what evidence you present in contrary to the decades of peer-reviewed cohort, case-control, and RCT data which validate psychiatry as an effective field for managing psychiatric illness. I’d be happy to discuss any scientific data you have that I haven’t seen, and would be happy to change my opinion if it is data-driven.
I can appreciate your skepticism towards medicine and psychiatry, but if you can’t defend your position with anything but accusations and conspiracy, then I don’t think we have much else to discuss.
Funny how you bring up conspiracy given how psychiatry is widely used as a tool to discredit. You all keep control of public image by posing yourselves as authority and your opposition as mentally ill. You’re literally doing it right now.
deleted by creator
I’m trying to understand the underlying presuppositions which lead you to this opinion.
Are you convinced psychiatric medicine:
- is not effective?
- is over-prescibed?
- is a worse treatment than therapy?
- is harmful?
I have a feeling you’re in dire need of their expertise.
Ad hominem.
Just keep control of image. You are authority and your opposition is mentally ill.
Hey it’s ok to be wrong on this one.
Not when it means forcing people on drugs the same way people portray meth dealers.
No one forces people seeking help with dealing with an issue into drug usage. There’s several types of talk therapy for example. Again, it’s ok to be wrong.
Oh you gonna lie to me about my own first hand experience? Get fucked by a cactus.
No I’m not, but your reactions tell me you do suffer from some kind of mental health issue so…
Ad hominem
Not an attack, an observation. You should talk to someone.
Psychology isn’t science so no harm being doubtful about parts of it.
I feel that, I feel like diagnoses is one of the least important parts of psychologists’ work. And if they assign medication based solely on that limited scope, then there is clearly a problem.
EDIT: To clarify, I think medication should be used to treat specific symptoms when there are no contraindications, I think it is wrong to assign medication based on a broad categorization.
4 years where? To become a real psychologist (not a therapist) in most places you need a PhD or a PsyD. In total, you probably do at least 8 years of schooling.
Not to mention that that “book full of labels” is constantly reviewed and was made based on consensus from psychiatrists, which are medical doctors with a lot more than 4 years of schooling.
Ok me and several others are constantly reviewing the pirate anime One Piece. It takes a long time to complete and we’ve collectively decided that it’s better than every other show and probably something that happened for real.
The idea that animals do not have feelings. I don’t believe complex thought is necessary for emotion. You can take away all our human reasoning, and we would still get mad, or sad, or happy at things.
I don’t think there is a scientific concensus on this. We are constantly finding previously unknown similarities between the minds of other animals and humans. I’ve put together a small lemmy community on animal communication and digital bioacoustics, it is somewhat related to this stuff.
Bees play with toys and do happy actions when given toys. I’m of the opinion that some form of internal experience extends at least as far down the brain size scale as at least some bugs, and might extend into single celled organisms and plants.
It’s very widely accepted in science that animals feel an array of emotions.
that comes from religion not science
It’s definitely NOT science that animals don’t have feelings. Maybe 50 years ago.
Now, there’s a concerted effort to discern thoughts and emotions in animals.
It’s scientifically proven that rats giggle when tickled:
If anything I think emotional response is the least advanced part of a human mind. However, if we’re talking about brains of sharks, small lizards, or ants then I think emotion would be a word with a lot more nuance than whatever it is they do.
I recently heard someone make the argument that pain is could intense for simpler animals since they need more explicit punishment for doing dangerous things
We don’t have much way of knowing afaik but it seems plausible
The range of what “emotion” can cover is very broad as well. Like feeling good or scared and shame or respect.
I have remind my partner that dogs don’t share all of the complex emotions we do or at least it’s a lot easier to deal with them if you act like they don’t.
I.E. my dog is never going to care if feeding is fair, and they aren’t going to listen to you out of respect about it. They will however eat a certain way because the like being obedient and knowing their place in the pact, but that takes repetition, rewards and punishments.
