#scientific skepticism

[lone-gunwoman-of-the-week]

"There was a thrill in believing she knew something others didn't; in having a mystery's solution at arm's reach. She found herself chasing the feeling more and more." I think of stories like these every time I hear someone called boring for not believing conspiracy theories.

[abuddyforeveryseason]

This is the Buddy for December 10th. Buddy goes to the doctor.

I won't say today's Buddy isn't partially autobiographical, but I hate going to the doctor. You gotta spend a fortune, wait in those depressing rooms while the receptionist talks with her friends on the phone, and then the doctor just gives you a list of exams to do.

Although I don't drink or smoke, I'm not exactly a man without vices, so I can't help but resent it when the rich bastard lording over me tells me I need to do those lifestyle changes.

People talk a lot, especially now in the age of COVID-19, about how we need to trust doctors. And the issue is not that I disagree, but rather that it's hard to do that when spending an afternoon in a doctor's office is such an unpleasant ordeal.

I used to listen to a podcast hosted by a neurologist, Steven Novella. And he'd criticize quack cures and bad medical science. I totally agree with him, but it seems like, instead of trying to convince people not to buy into this type of fraud, he'd be better off trying to make mainstream medicine more affordable, patient-friendly and transparent.

[astrotherapists]

How Does Horoscope Impact Our Life?

Astrology, the age-old practice of predicting and interpreting future life trends through birth charts, remains a captivating subject. By analyzing planetary influences, astrologers decipher an individual’s traits, abilities, and potentials. Despite its enduring allure, astrology is a subject of debate, with some embracing it fervently while others dismiss it as unfounded. However, with the advent of online consultation for astrology, access to astrological guidance has become more convenient. Individuals can now seek astrological insights and advice from the comfort of their homes through astrology consultation services. 

Visit Us: https://astrotherapists.com/how-does-horoscope-impact-our-life/

[astriiformes]

Hi, i just learned about the scientific revolution in europe at school. Can you tell me why you dont think scientific revolutions exist? im curious!

So I feel like I have to lead with the fact that I'm kind of arguing two different points when I say scientific revolutions aren't really a thing

One is that I'm objecting to a specific, extremely foundational theory of scientific revolutions that was put forth by the philosopher Thomas Kuhn, which I think really misrepresents how science is actually practiced in the name of fitting things to a nice model. The other is that I think the fundamental problem with the idea is that it's too vague to effectively describe an actual process that happens.

It's certainly true that there are important advances in science that get referred to as "revolutions" that fundamentally changed their fields -- the shift from the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System to the Copernican one, Darwin's theory of evolution, etc. But there are historians of science (who I tend to agree with) that feel that terming these advances "revolutions" ignores the fact that science is an continuous, accretional process, and somewhat sensationalizes the process of scientific change in the name of celebrating particular scientists or theories over others.

Kuhn's model that he put forth in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (which is one of those books that itself stirred a great deal of activity in a number of fields) suggests science evolves via what he called "paradigm shifts," where new ideas become fundamentally incompatible with the old model or way of doing things, causing a total overturn in the way scientists see the world, and establishing a new paradigm -- which will eventually cave to another when it, too, ceases to function effectively as a model. This theory became extraordinarily popular when it was published, but it's somewhat telling who it's remained popular with. Economists, political scientists, and literary theorists still use Kuhn, but historians of science, in my experience at least, see his work as historically significant but incompatible with how history is actually studied.

Kuhn posits that between paradigm shifts there are periods of "normal science" where paradigms are unquestioned and anomalies in the current model are largely ignored, until they reach a critical mass and cause a scientific revolution. In reality though, there is often real discussion of those anomalies, and I think the scientific process is not nearly so content to ignore them as Kuhn thinks. Throughout history, we see people expressing a real discontent with unsolved mysteries the current scientific model fails to explain, and glossing over those simply because the individuals in question didn't manage to formulate breakthrough theories to "solve" those problems props up the somewhat infamous "great men" model of history of science, where we focus only on the most famous people in the field as significant instead of acknowledging that science is a social enterprise and no research happens in a vacuum!

Beyond disagreeing with Kuhn specifically though, I think the idea of scientific revolutions vastly simplifies how science evolves and changes, and is ultimately a really ahistorical way of thinking about shifts in thinking. Take the example of the shift from Ptolemaic, geocentric thought to the heliocentric Copernican model of the solar system. When does this supposed "revolution" in thought actually start, and when does it "end" by becoming firmly established? You could argue that the publication of Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543 was the beginning of the shift in thinking -- but of course, then you have the problem of asking where Copernicus' ideas came from in the first place.

The "great men" model of history would suggest Copernicus was a uniquely talented individual who managed to suggest something no one else had ever put forth, but realistically, he was influenced by the scientists who came before him, just like anyone else. There were real objections to the Ptolemaic model during the medieval era! One of the most famous problems in medieval astronomy was the fact that assuming a geocentric model makes the behavior of the planets seem really weird to an observer on Earth, referred to as retrograde motion, which had to be solved with a complicated system of epicycles that people knew wasn't quite working, even if they weren't able to put together exactly why. There were even ancient Greek astronomers who suggested that the sun was at the center of the solar system, going all the way back to Aristarchus of Samos who lived from around 310-230 BCE!

Putting an end point to the Copernican revolution poses similar challenges. Some people opt to suggest that what Copernicus started, either Galileo or Newton finished (which in and of itself means the "revolution" lasted around 100-150 years), but are we defining the shift in terms of new theories, or the consensus of the scientific community? The latter is much harder to pinpoint, and in my opinion as an aspiring historian of science, also much more important. Again, science doesn't happen in a vacuum. Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton may be more famous than their peers, but that doesn't mean the rest of the Renaissance scientific community didn't matter.

Ultimately it's a matter of simple models like Kuhn's (or other definitions of scientific revolutions) being insufficient to explain the complexity of history. Both because science is a complex endeavor, and because it isn't independent from the rest of history. Sure, it's genuinely amazing to consider that Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and the anatomist Andreas Vesalius' similarly influential De humani corporis fabrica were published the same year, and it says something about the intellectual climate of the time. But does it say something about science only, or is it also worth remembering that the introduction of typographic printing a century prior drastically changed how scientists communicated and whose ideas stuck and were remembered? On a similar note, we credit Darwin with suggesting the theory of evolution (and I could write a similarly long response just on the many, many influences in geology and biology both that went into his formulation of said theory), but what does it say that Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with the theory of natural selection around the same time? Is it sheer coincidence, or does it have more to do with conversations that were already happening in the scientific community both men belonged to that predated the publication of the Origin?

I think that the concept of scientific revolutions is an important part of the history of the history of science, and has its place when talking about how we conceive of certain periods of history. But I'm a skeptic of it being a particularly accurate model, largely on the grounds of objecting to the "great men" model of history and the idea that shifts in thinking can be boiled down to a few important names and dates.

There's a famous Isaac Newton quote (which, fittingly, did not originate with Newton himself, but can be traced back even further to several medieval thinkers) in which he states "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." I would argue that science, as an endeavor, is far more like standing on the shoulder of several hundred thousand other people in a trenchcoat. This social element of research is exactly why it's so hard to pull apart any one particular revolution, even when fairly revolutionary theories change the direction of the research that's happening. Ideas belong to a long evolutionary chain, and even if it occasionally goes through periods of punctuated equilibrium, dividing that history into periods of revolution and stagnancy ignores the rich scientific tradition of the "in-between" periods, and the contributions of scientists who never became famous for their work.

[a-typical]

Part of the reason that children are afraid of the dark may be that, in our entire evolutionary history up until just a moment ago, they never slept alone. Instead, they nestled safely, protected by an adult, usually Mum. In the enlightened west we stick them alone in a dark room, say goodnight, and have difficulty understanding why they're sometimes upset. It makes good evolutionary sense for children to have fantasies of scary monsters. In a world stalked by lions and hyenas, such fantasies help prevent defenceless toddlers from wandering too far from their guardians. How can this safety machinery be effective for a vigorous, curious young animal unless it delivers industrial strength terror? Those who are not afraid of monsters tend not to leave descendants.

— The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan (1996)

[buggbuzz]

my gender is like meat leaf i think. boy materials in the structure of girl. like im a girl made out of boy things but not in a transman way like i like being female im just. a girl-leaning boygirl. maybe??

[goldkirk]

When did the latest 1,000 of you follow me??? good lord hi and welcome, I should maybe pay attention to my notifications and activity page more 😭

[pandemic-info]

How to check if a source is credible. Misinformation is straight up killing people

via reddit: What’s some basic knowledge that a scary amount of people don’t know?

EDIT: How to actually check if a source is credible:

- Identify the author and check their credentials. Also, see who their employer is, and consider how it might impact their biases.

- Compare headlines to the actual content of the article. Is it intentionally misleading to provoke an emotional response? Think about whether it's done to intentionally misdirect people.

- Check the date the article was published. When it was released could change if the information is outdated.

- Fact check the story by using websites like FactCheck.org.

- Dig deep to see if the news article cites sources and traceable quotes.

- Check if the URL has any misspellings or odd use of language.

Important things to remember:

Always consult multiple sources - Social media is NOT a reliable source (looking at you, Facebook)

- Be open minded and fight against confirmation bias.

- Avoid predictive searching so you don't get trapped in an echo chamber.

—

P.s. I save quite a few things from Twitter. When I do, I look who posted it, what their credentials are, if that's corroborated elsewhere, who else endorses them, etc. (Usually it's from researchers whose work I already knew from years back.) That doesn't mean they or the info is certainly infallible; it's just due diligence, to the extent I can.

If something is incorrect, I want to know. But likewise I'm skeptical depending who says so, what their credentials and sources are, and always: cui bono?

[suncaptor]

Problem with the way I engage with religion is that the only way I maintain belief is by accepting truths in an unknown skeptical void that I placed from the interpretation of reality and therefore Catholicism & meaning growing up which means that I cannot use it to harm myself because God loves me and God is love and I know what that means beyond my own self hate and twisted perceptions, and I am not supposed to sully or tarnish the word of God by my own perception of calamity and horror within myself, but also it feels like I should be punished, it feels like a sin to continue to live. but. that does not make sense with the way I have faith. It's not right in fact. It's wrong to see myself those ways. But also. God will forgive and understand that too. There's no way to escape love and acceptance even if I don't believe I should get it or deserve it.

[luminant-lepidoptera]

I now own a book on witchcraft

[cynophagia]

Weed is cool and fun; dosage, administration, and reasons for use are all completely up to the user, usage is a choice an individual is making about their own body and they should be free to make that choice without judgement. With that out of the way I do think rational, informative, and compassionate dialogues about cannabis induced DPDR and cannabis induced psychosis are seriously lacking. Even just awareness of this being something that can happen to you in general. Especially on Tumblr for instance where there's a disproportionate amount of people who are at elevated risk.

Limited sample size but i feel like I see this in a lot in my peer groups too. Acting like THC is completely and totally safe all the time even in incredibly high doses and can never induce anything that's more uncomfortable than a headache or getting a little paranoid. And obviously we are familiar with the other end of the spectrum, scaremongering and villanization which are equally unhelpful

[whistlingstarlight]

YES!!!! I LOVE THE BAT BEAST!! There’s been some investigation, some people are speculating that it might’ve been some kind of mutated local owl that makes their wingspan match the top of their head to give the illusion of headlessness. But if that’s the case, then there’s been multiple owls over the last decade or so with the same mutation. I’m torn because I’d love to find out there’s a gigantic bat things somewhere in Kent but also if there’s possibly a new type of gigantic owl with this mutation I’d LOVE to see that too

Fun fact I'm currently actually living in the area the Bat Beast was supposedly spotted! And, based on my experience of Kentish teenagers, I wouldn't be surprised if the teens who initially saw it in the 60s it were just crazy stupid drunk or high 😆

I've heard of the owl theory too, and I'd say it could make sense! And combine that with either the light from the moon or a faraway streetlamp and you've got your mysterious UFO that accompanied the Bat Beast.

Either way it's such a fun cryptid, I do plan on visiting the area where the sightings were claimed so if I find anything I'll report back!

[wathanism]

god its always so weird seeing youtubers i used to watch for their atheist vids talk about politics and... really everything other than religion, bc they're all conservative fuckheads that never care about facts or reality despite basing their whole identity around being rational and skeptical. they were important to me in that they were the first exposure i ever had to like, showing even the slightest criticism of religion, but I'm really glad i didn't get too deep into their conservative BS. like yikes dude, you criticize christians for being anti-science but you think trans people aren't real? what can i say except YIKES

[psqqa]

okay i was wondering how they were going to sterilise 50 boxes worth of dirt, but they just meant adding extra jesus 😒

[stqrryskiez]

it’s actually baffling to me how many people believed the alien corpse thingy PLEASE just search it up and stop believing everthing you see on social media 💀

[a-typical]

Some people consider science arrogant - especially when it purports to contradict beliefs of long standing or when it introduces bizarre concepts that seem contradictory to common sense; like an earthquake that rattles our faith in the very ground we're standing on, challenging our accustomed beliefs, shaking the doctrines we have grown to rely upon, can be profoundly disturbing.

Nevertheless, I maintain that science is part and parcel humility. Scientists do not seek to impose their needs and wants on Nature, but instead humbly interrogate Nature and take seriously what they find. We are aware that revered scientists have been wrong. We understand human imperfection. We insist on independent and - to the extent possible - quantitative verification of proposed tenets of belief. We are constantly prodding, challenging, seeking contradictions or small, persistent residual errors, proposing alternative explanations, encouraging heresy. We give our highest rewards to those who convincingly disprove established beliefs.

— The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan (1996)