You didn’t take the time to Even look at the links. I think that says it all really. The real world does not work like your textbook sats it works. «Peer review» is not some silver bullet if the whole process is largely corrupt.

Scientific models are revised and updated often. We know, for example, that our knowledge of physics is very incomplete. It’s quite likely that new discoveries will be made in our lifetime that fundamentally challenge what we ‘know’ about the nature of reality - and then eventually those models may be revised and updated as well.

If you understand science as what it is, a system of mathematical models which make increasingly accurate predictions and are updated on a generational basis, then it makes perfect sense to treat it with skepticism insofar as it is not a complete or final description of reality. It doesn’t mean you have to become a flat earther. If anything it helps with understanding new discoveries - one of the barriers to laymen grasping quantum mechanics is that it contradicts ‘the truth’ which they thought they already learned it school.

Both repeatability and peer review were my clauses for acceptability.

You have simply states that articles are unrepeatable, and peer reviews can be scams.

We put the two together and we get…..

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant «studies» as data itself is not «Peer reviewed»

Here is one example of how Peer review works in the real world:

https://www.nature.com/articles/515480a

You can also look into ghost writing, the replication crisis and regulatory capture as some keywords for how «science» works in this day and age. People are too naive and think the real world works like they read in some textbook instead of the complicated and profit-driven mess it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ghostwriter

[removed]

You must be. That’s the point of critical evaluation.

Critical thought really only works on your shit.

If you falsify data, your results can't be repeated. So yeah, it deters scientists who want to have a career in science, but unfortunately not those who want to lick billionaires boots dipped in oil for a living.

[removed]

[removed]

I don't know what that last part is supposed to mean but if you do, don't forget to study medicine.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

90% of what science thought to be true over history was later revealed to be either wrong or incomplete. It is, therefore, likely that 90% of what science tells you today is also either wrong or incomplete.

https://youtube.com/shorts/edJza53Q_a8?feature=share

Youd be hard pressed to find peer reviewed, repeatable data that was intentionally fabricated.

[removed]

And be sceptic to ourselves too

A favorite quote of mine:

"The civilized man has a moral obligation to be skeptical, to demand the credentials of all statements that claim to be facts. An honorable man will not be bullied by a hypothesis. For in the last analysis all tyranny rest on fraud, on getting someone to accept false assumptions, any man who for one moment abandons or suspends the questioning spirit has for that moment betrayed humanity."

Bergen Evans The Natural History of Nonsense (1946) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_Evans

This is a really good book about how to be skeptical and how to use your newfound powers.

Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World". It's by two professors, Carl T. Bergstrom (Theoretical & Evolutionary Biologist) and Jevin D. West (Data Science). This isn't a book about bipolar but it's very much worth the read (and I highly recommend it ([the full course is on YouTube] (https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPnZfvKID1Sje5jWxt-4CSZD7bUI4gSPS)))

Towards the end, the authors try to instill a sense of responsibility in the reader of their new found powers by providing multiple warnings, which unfortunately could be read as a list of devastating personal attacks on my character provided by someone who has spent serious time with me (I was once told that having a conversation with me "felt like the verbal equivalent of getting mugged"...by a friend, who wasn't wrong).

• "Carelessly calling bullshit is a quick way to make enemies of strangers and strangers of friends." (pg. 266)

• "Scoring rhetorical points on tangential technicalities doesn't convince anyone, it just pisses people off." (pg. 280)

• "The less antagonistic your interaction is, the more likely someone will seriously consider your ideas." (pg. 280)

• "What's a well-actually guy? It’s the guy who interrupts a conversation to demonstrate his own cleverness by pointing out some irrelevant factoid that renders the speaker incorrect on a technicality." (pg. 284)

• "A well-actually guy doesn't care so much about where the argument is going as he does about demonstrating his own intellectual superiority." (pg. 285)

• "A well-actually guy doesn't care about protecting an audience, he is merely interested in demonstrating his own cleverness." (pg. 285)

• "His motivation is to put the speaker in her place while raising himself up." (pg. 285)

• "A caller of bullshit makes a careful decision about whether it is worthwhile to speak up, derail a conversation, risk a confrontation, or make someone feel defensive. A well-actually guy simply cannot help himself. He hears something he believes he can contradict and doesn't have the self-control to think first about whether it is helpful to do so." (pg. 285)

• "He doesn't care about advancing truth, or about the logical coherence of his objections. He is simply trying to impress or intimidate someone with his knowledge." (pg. 286)

We have an ethical responsibility, unless:
Everyone on social, new, and traditional media has rigidly enforced consensus...
Then it is our obligation to adapt our epistemological constructs to accept dogmatic orthodoxy lest we be professionally, academically, or personally, corralled by scary words like denier.

I scrolled to see just this comment.

[removed]

They explicitly says absolutist.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

OP doesn't seem to be talking about absolutism at all. They're talking about how the stuff we know, including the theories you mentioned, still have underlying probabilities (uncertainty) that we can look at and be almost entirely sure, but never 100%.

It's like determining a sphere's superposition. We can probabilistically determine where a sphere is at by analyzing it in the context of an infinite number of planes, but not the actual sphere itself. And we can extrapolate to the space around it to fill in the gaps between the sphere and its polyhedron representation. But by definition, that gap is uncertain. We can model the gap if it's that important, but it generally isn't. The representation is good enough.