Quote:
Originally Posted by txdot-guy
I believe that eyecu2 is referring specifically to the scientific method.
The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has been referred to while doing science since at least the 17th century. The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation. Scientific inquiry includes creating a testable hypothesis through inductive reasoning, testing it through experiments and statistical analysis, and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on the results.
The scientific method pulled us out of the dark ages into the age of enlightenment. It’s not a religion and should absolutely be believed.
Scepticism over results is part of the scientific method but sceptics of all kinds ignore the second half of the requirement. Inductive reasoning and statistical analysis.
RFK Jr and many like him feel that things are wrong but have not done the testing, inductive reasoning and statistical analysis to change their feelings into facts. But for some reason people still BELIEVE other wise. Why is anyone’s guess.
|
The scientific method is an approach. The consequence is that science undergoes systematic re/evaluation.
The issue is when regulatory capture and entrenched interests subvert the pure scientific method.
We were ad nauseum reminded to "trust the science" in the events of the past couple of years, only to see the skeptics vindicated.
Is it any surprise that the pigs feeding off that mantra got rich in that time?
We were told processed foods like breakfast cereal were better that eggs, that lobotomies were good treatment, that mercury is a good treatment for syphilis, that Thalidomide is safe and effective, that oxycodone can't be abused, that was all settled science.
Add to that forgery, look at Alzheimer's research controversy.
There are plenty of conflicting motivations in science. If you propound the popular thing, you get grants, and get published. If you don't you get shunned.
RFKJ is a corrective move in this regard.
What does the guy do? He poses questions and thoughtfully addresses them. He doesn't have all the answers but there is plenty of research to draw on.
If he's such a kook let's have at it. Rather than smearing him let's open up that "Overton window" and discuss.