do you believe that scientific theory are just a theory and scientific consensus are just opinions?
| im curious on what people of mal believes here so vote edit: im mainly talking about hard sciences since soft sciences are less reliable |
degMay 5, 5:15 PM
| No somethings are pretty obvious to anyone with a rational brain...so it is not just mere "conjecture" or "theory"...but scientific fact. |
| Mostly no, but there are exceptions. |
This dance is the pinnacle of human achievement. |
| Aren't scientific theories and consensus evidence based and also supported by peer reviewed research? I don't think they're just opinions, since explanations and conclusions are drawn from extensive scientific investigations and so on. |
Reply to Rhae
Aren't scientific theories and consensus evidence based and also supported by peer reviewed research?
I don't think they're just opinions, since explanations and conclusions are drawn from extensive scientific investigations and so on.
I don't think they're just opinions, since explanations and conclusions are drawn from extensive scientific investigations and so on.
| @Rhae yep they undergone repeated testing of their claims or hypothesis |
| As I've gotten older I've learned there is tons of value in going outside and getting your own understanding of reality. Alot of science now is tainted by investors so it is best to get a strong foundation first before you listen to whatever some authority figure claims. I think a major turning point for me was when this big study on corn syrup was thrown out at the behest of soda companies because the study found it to cause more weight gain than cane sugar. Someone with a basic understanding of reality and going outside could have come to that conclusion but the science is settled and the study was thrown out. Stuff like that ruins any and all faith I have in that kind of system and I'm sure in the well over a decade since that study things have only gotten worse. |
  ♡ Harder Daddy ♡ |
Reply to Nette
As I've gotten older I've learned there is tons of value in going outside and getting your own understanding of reality.
Alot of science now is tainted by investors so it is best to get a strong foundation first before you listen to whatever some authority figure claims.
I think a major turning point for me was when this big study on corn syrup was thrown out at the behest of soda companies because the study found it to cause more weight gain than cane sugar.
Someone with a basic understanding of reality and going outside could have come to that conclusion but the science is settled and the study was thrown out.
Stuff like that ruins any and all faith I have in that kind of system and I'm sure in the well over a decade since that study things have only gotten worse.
Alot of science now is tainted by investors so it is best to get a strong foundation first before you listen to whatever some authority figure claims.
I think a major turning point for me was when this big study on corn syrup was thrown out at the behest of soda companies because the study found it to cause more weight gain than cane sugar.
Someone with a basic understanding of reality and going outside could have come to that conclusion but the science is settled and the study was thrown out.
Stuff like that ruins any and all faith I have in that kind of system and I'm sure in the well over a decade since that study things have only gotten worse.
| @_Nette_ i do not hear any scientific consensus on nutrition science its pseudoscience at this point to me https://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-complicated |
Reply to deg
@_Nette_ i do not hear any scientific consensus on nutrition science its pseudoscience at this point to me https://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-complicated
| @deg When in reality it shouldn't be. But for corn syrup the consensus is that it is on par with cane sugar. Maybe things have changed on that more recently but for a long time that wasnt the case. It isnt rocket science on what is needed to survive and thrive but like here in the US the food pyramid is bullshit, dont need that many carbs wtf. But my point is that the results are what the investors want, whether that is the government or a company. |
♡ Harder Daddy ♡ |
Reply to deg
@Zarutaku can you give some examples of those exceptions? im curious
| @deg Well, for example the theory that before the big bang there was just a singularity and nothing else existed, an assumption outside the realm of verifiability, so I consider it "just a theory" which doesn't mean it's wrong however. |
This dance is the pinnacle of human achievement. |
| I don't believe in objective truth, there is only a consensus. |
 |
| If you think a scientific theory is "just a theory" you don't know what a scientific theory is. It has a definition which is "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." They can be adjusted depending on the results of observations, experiments and mathematical calculations. |
| Bruh Scientific theories are theories because science never claims to give you definitive answers. Scientific theories are not absolute truths but rather our best explanations based on available evidence. There must always be some leeway left for eventual refinement in case new information surfaces. So even the concept of gravity is called the theory of gravitation. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. It is supported by a large body of evidence and has withstood rigorous testing. The theories, for all practical purposes, are facts, though. So yeah, it’s a theory in academia, but in real life, gravity is not ‘just a theory.’ In everyday life, we don’t doubt gravity—it’s a practical reality. Objects fall, planets orbit, and tides occur due to gravitational forces. However, scientists continue to refine our understanding. Einstein’s theory of general relativity expanded upon Newton’s ideas, providing a more accurate description of gravity. Scientific consensus occurs when all scientists agree upon a scientific theory’s credibility. The theories that reach the level of scientific consensus might as well be facts and not ‘just opinions’ for laypeople. But the scientists themselves never want to close the door for improvement, further sophistication, or revision, so they prefer the term ‘theory’ over ‘fact.’ To make it even simpler, facts are observable and verifiable phenomena—like water boiling at 100 degrees—but the Kinetic Theory of Gases explains how and why water boils at 100 degrees. This is always going to be a theory because we can always dig deeper and deeper into what is happening at the most fundamental level. But what even is the most fundamental level? That requires a theory as well. So yeah, that would be my explanation. |
 Maleficent 🖤 |
| It depends. The earth being round and it revolves around the sun are proven scientific facts. I'm less certain about issues such as climate change, economics and such, since I don't think they are as concrete as physics and rely on a lot of speculation. Scientists are people, just like you and me. And just like anyone else, they are prone to bias, pride and emotional judgments. I'm wary of anyone who doesn't like people questioning them, even if they are scientific experts. Somebody's gotta watch the watchmen. A lot of the "anti-intellectualism" that is rising in society I think is moreso a reaction against pseudo-intellectual snobbery and elitism rather than people actually being proud of their ignorance. |
| Well not really. That is exactly why peer to peer reviews is encouraged so much in scientific fields. There's cross verification in theory and practical's. It's not like the theories of the past have never been challenged and rectified. It happens a lot more frequently |
| the scientific theory is just a description for empirically understanding the world it's forming a hypothesis and trying to disprove it until you can't anymore. it's a description of something universally practiced the issue isn't with the process, but with how people misunderstand it and also misunderstand our limits as humans you can't "prove" anything with it, only fail to disprove until you get better tools for investigating the world and people tend to think our paradigmic assumptions are necessarily true instead of just a forced foundation but yeah, idk, with that out of the way, consensus is not just opinions but it is based on assumptions and these assumptions should always be challenged. for example, for the longest time, cognitive psychology borrowed the paradigmic assumption from behaviorism that the field is seeking nomothetic, universal explanations, disregarding individual differences in the process. this is obviously silly, and creates a new myth of averages (through exclusion, too). but you can't begin to challenge this if you just discredit the empirical process altogether lol |
| It depends on a lot of factors, but I generally trust people in their fields. What happens often is that a study which was not intended to say something gets presented in the wrong light. |
 |
| People keep saying that I am going to die, and that gravity exists and stuff but Idk... I can't SEE gravity. |
 |
| No, they aren't just opinions. Some science is facing a replication crisis and should looked at with that in mind. The solution to that isn't acting like quantitatively testing hypotheses is just an opinion like any other. Also, often science interlinks with other science. If you believe physics for instance is a valid form of scientific inquiry, you have to accept that we know how greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide would cause a rise in global temperature. rho34 said: I don't believe in objective truth, there is only a consensus. This sounds like it goes well beyond just doubting science. You don't believe in objective truth? Is a car hurtling towards you at 40 miles an hour as you cross the street just an opinion? |
| I guess it depends on who proposes the scientific theory. i.e Einstein's theory of general relativity (maybe credibility would help to distinguish either) Although I'm not too well versed in the topic itself |
| There is an underlying fact of the matter behind science, it's just that it's hard to reach that. We use as a proxy "what best describes the observations that are made", and when something has better explanatory power, you supplant it. Like the atomic models that have been supplanted over the years, or say Newtonian physics vs quantum physics and special relativity. There remain many questions still unanswered, and not just super obscure issues. It's still not entirely known why (or how) sleep is necessary, the exact mechanisms by which it helps with say long term memory consolidation and so on. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-023-01536-9 |
 |
| @Freshell My statement is more of a really cynical one. What I mean is that we accept something as truth, because of how unlikely it is to not be true. I think you should question literally everything, I don't believe anything blindly. We accept it as truth because we can't disprove it, but that doesn't mean everything that can't be disproven should be taken as truth, that's how you get flat earthers to exist. It's not the truth unless the outcome of something is the same 100% of the time, but 99.9999999% ≠ 100%. Something that we believe is the truth, can't be with 100% certainty be the truth, because we can always discover new information, which can disprove it. I can't be an expert in every field, and that's why I choose to believe something, just because it sounds plausible, or it would be stupid/unlikely to not be true. I don't have to test/research everything myself, because others have already done it before me, and I choose to believe them. But to answer your question "Is a car hurtling towards you at 40 miles an hour as you cross the street just an opinion?", yes, idk how it could not be true, because of how unlikely it is to not be true and I can't disprove it, but not being able to prove that it can be true 100% of the time, makes it an opinion. |
rho34May 5, 5:56 AM
|
| Science gets things that are definitely facts, so that shouldn't be contradicted, but you are free to have opinions as long as you remember what the truth is. |
 |
| So you don't believe in evolution? And think it is only a "theory" rather than scientific fact??? |
| Well... Theories are theories, facts are facts. There is also a middle ground, where theory has so many valid evidences that it's more likely than unlikely to be close to a scientific fact, but due to various problems it can't be fully proven (i.e. lacking technology and relying on complex calculations alone; researching black holes, more or less, was in that position years ago). I believe in the power of consensus, but without fetishizing it. Science, like anything else, is evolving, so it'd be unwise to toss away all alternative points of views, having solid fundaments, only because the old consensus says otherwise. Of coirse, it also depends on what kind of scientific field or studies we are talking about, or even what particular theory is being discussed. |
AdnashMay 5, 7:20 AM
| All modern physics and math is beyond my understanding even though I was deep into algebra years ago. Now I just accept the consensus and trust wikipedia. PS: Scientific peer review is myth if the subject is not one of a few hot topics. It takes ages to carefully read a single math thesis, even harder with experimental physics I guess. |
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
| @rho34 Don't know how much we differ other than I am willing to call something a fact even if I can't be completely certain that it's true. Maybe there's a 1 in 1 million chance some error was made or there's some conspiracy making it so Mount Fuji is not actually about 12k feet tall, rather about 10k feet tall. I will still say it's a fact that Mount Fuji is about 12k feet tall. |
| Yeah, but certain theories are backed by very, very strong evidence...so they are most likely true... |
Reply to Freshell
@rho34
Don't know how much we differ other than I am willing to call something a fact even if I can't be completely certain that it's true. Maybe there's a 1 in 1 million chance some error was made or there's some conspiracy making it so Mount Fuji is not actually about 12k feet tall, rather about 10k feet tall. I will still say it's a fact that Mount Fuji is about 12k feet tall.
Don't know how much we differ other than I am willing to call something a fact even if I can't be completely certain that it's true. Maybe there's a 1 in 1 million chance some error was made or there's some conspiracy making it so Mount Fuji is not actually about 12k feet tall, rather about 10k feet tall. I will still say it's a fact that Mount Fuji is about 12k feet tall.
| @Freshell I am not actually this obnoxious in my daily life. I just think it's a fun thought experiment. The word "fact" still exists in my dictionary, I just am very open- and broadminded. It's a waste of time to bring into question every minor thing, if something is so unlikely to be false, or if something is inconsequential, and doesn't have any real impact on your life whether it's true or false. I do think it's important for people to not too easily accept things as truth, and actually think for themselves once in a while. |
|
| But scientific theories have way more evidence than religious dogma!!! |
| This is far too general of a question to have any meaningful discussion. At the end of the day, scientists are people too, they make mistakes, and want to get attention on their work. It's generally dangerous to decide everything purely on consensus and nothing else. |
 This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Reply to DreamWindow
This is far too general of a question to have any meaningful discussion. At the end of the day, scientists are people too, they make mistakes, and want to get attention on their work. It's generally dangerous to decide everything purely on consensus and nothing else.
| @DreamWindow But what else do you have besides "consensus"? Common sense doesn't apply when it comes to quantum mechanics. |
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
| My only "scientific belief" is that black matter does not exist. Otherwise, it would simply be foolish to disbelieve that gravitational waves have been observed a few years ago. The question is obviously ill-posed, but there is no need to take a firm stance on string theory (say); some parts of it are fascinating and have already had striking applications to mathematics, but we do not have to decide now if it actually belong to theoretical physics or is a "field of mathematics from the 21st century." LoveYourEyes said: All modern physics and math is beyond my understanding even though I was deep into algebra years ago. Now I just accept the consensus and trust wikipedia. PS: Scientific peer review is myth if the subject is not one of a few hot topics. It takes ages to carefully read a single math thesis, even harder with experimental physics I guess. This is the other way around in fact: people who work on hot topics manage to publish more easily their +epsilon garbage, and there will not be much scrutiny on it. On the other hand, those who work in smaller fields tend to be more careful (in fear that their work will receive more scrutiny from their peers—not just from the referees), and from what I see, the referees are usually doing a great work. I would say that the main current danger is that in the most popular fields, it has become common to use some theories as "black boxes," and it is quite unpleasant to see ignorami pretend that the theory easily extends to new settings while they do not even master its basics... However, the growing success of formal verification of proofs (Lean, Isabelle, Coq, etc) will hopefully prevent the edifice from falling altogether, although I believe that we will need in a decade or two new Bourbakis to clear up the mess of some fields. A thesis is just a few articles, and it should not take an expert more than a few days to go through an average article, so I believe that it is quite inaccurate to pretend that it takes "ages" to carefully check a PhD thesis in mathematics... I would not even trust Quanta when it comes to scientific news (they can only publish meaningless clickbait; here, they mistake a rather mundane conflict to give more rigor to a small sub-field of geometry—symplectic geometry—for something far more serious). LoveYourEyes said: @DreamWindow But what else do you have besides "consensus"? Common sense doesn't apply when it comes to quantum mechanics. He has shady blogs and YouTubers who reveal the truth about the deep state...  Mirania said: People keep saying that I am going to die, and that gravity exists and stuff but Idk... I can't SEE gravity. Is it supposed to be a joke? |
Reply to LoveYourSmile
@DreamWindow But what else do you have besides "consensus"? Common sense doesn't apply when it comes to quantum mechanics.
| @LoveYourEyes The consensus comes after the study of facts and objective reality, which can and does get revised as our understanding changes. If you are in a specific field it's one thing, but not everything in life needs to be decided by consensus. That's all I was getting at. Meusnier said: He has shady blogs and YouTubers who reveal the truth about the deep state... You have a problem with me? It's not like you made any intention of actually understanding my position last time, so if you are just going to hot side and start shit for no reason, I'd appreciate it if you take it up with me. |
DreamWindowMay 5, 2:16 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| Yes, theories are theories. If they were blords then we'd call them blords. And a consensus is not an opinion. It is either a true fact or a false fact. |
| その目だれの目？ |
Lucifrost said: false fact That's a priceless oxymoron, I might use it some time for the lulz. |
This dance is the pinnacle of human achievement. |
DreamWindow said: Meusnier said: He has shady blogs and YouTubers who reveal the truth about the deep state... You have a problem with me? It's not like you made any intention of actually understanding my position last time, so if you are just going to hot side and start shit for no reason, I'd appreciate it if you take it up with me. What position? The one of a narrow-minded individual who was hysterical about the awful propaganda that forces the poor kids to learn foreign languages at school... God forbid if you learn anything "useless" before your life as a corporate slave... And I have not forgotten about your posts related to Covid, so no need to play dumb. |
| There's a nice Sci-Fi novel series called the Three Body Problem that talks about this. |
| Soldier F is Lance Corporal David James Cleary |
Reply to Meusnier
DreamWindow said:
You have a problem with me? It's not like you made any intention of actually understanding my position last time, so if you are just going to hot side and start shit for no reason, I'd appreciate it if you take it up with me.
Meusnier said:
He has shady blogs and YouTubers who reveal the truth about the deep state...
He has shady blogs and YouTubers who reveal the truth about the deep state...
You have a problem with me? It's not like you made any intention of actually understanding my position last time, so if you are just going to hot side and start shit for no reason, I'd appreciate it if you take it up with me.
What position? The one of a narrow-minded individual who was hysterical about the awful propaganda that forces the poor kids to learn foreign languages at school... God forbid if you learn anything "useless" before your life as a corporate slave... And I have not forgotten about your posts related to Covid, so no need to play dumb.
| @Meusnier I simply aired my grievances about french being taught in the curriculum, and you come along, making sweeping accusations that because I have these grievances, I must automatically have the mindset of a small boy, and be against all subjects, such as mathematics, and only want people to be dumb enough to fill out tax forms. It seemed as if you saying that because I had any grievance whatsoever with french being apart of my curriculum, that I must be a retarded uncultured oaf, as if the only two options are being satisfied with the status quo, and being a complete idiot. Even though we share similar grievances with the institution, and I would even agree with some of your critiques. Yet despite this, simply because I have a problem with my school curriculum, you treat me like an idiot who has no idea about the "soul" despite not providing me any reason why I should listen to you. It's basically saying "fuck you, you're an idiot" in a more verbose way. It's completely dumbfounding how bad faith and antagonistic this conclusion is. |
DreamWindowMay 5, 5:15 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| That's one dumb question, because the people who say "That's just a theory" don't understand that that word has 2 different meanings depending on context. Also not all science is made equal: There are well established fields like basic physics. There are those with massive inherent variance built-in, like cosmology. And there are those that also have a great incentive for fraudulent studies for the sake of profit. |
 |
Reply to vasipi4946
There's a nice Sci-Fi novel series called the Three Body Problem that talks about this.
| @vasipi4946 That's exactly what I'm reading at the moment lol. Not for the first time though. |
LoveYourSmileMay 5, 4:17 PM
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
Reply to Zarutaku
Lucifrost said:
false fact
false fact
That's a priceless oxymoron, I might use it some time for the lulz.
| @Zarutaku How else would you describe the statement, "my uncle is 20 meters tall?" Height is an objective measurement whereas opinions are subjective. |
| その目だれの目？ |
Reply to LoveYourSmile
| @LoveYourEyes Good book, nice to see that others read it too. |
|
| im mainly talking about hard sciences since soft sciences are less reliable |
Reply to Zarutaku
Mostly no, but there are exceptions.
Mostly no, but there are exceptions. @Zarutaku Your definitely right. ....................................................... |
 |
Reply to JaniSIr
@LoveYourEyes Good book, nice to see that others read it too.
| @JaniSIr I'm not that much into philosophical sci-fi honestly. My tender heart resonates more with human drama, dystopia and existential reflection than with any scientific concepts. It's just a coincidence that we read the same book. I typically prefer something more emotional, like Ishiguro, Murakami or Pelevin (just some random names of decent modern authors from the top of my head). |
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
Reply to Lucifrost
@Zarutaku
How else would you describe the statement, "my uncle is 20 meters tall?" Height is an objective measurement whereas opinions are subjective.
How else would you describe the statement, "my uncle is 20 meters tall?" Height is an objective measurement whereas opinions are subjective.
| @Lucifrost That's not what I was getting at, I was merely talking about the phrase "false fact" because a fact can, by definition, never be false. |
This dance is the pinnacle of human achievement. |
| Scientific theory is uhm literally called theory, so yes. All facts can have a consensus and not every consensus is about a fact so they can be about opinions too. |
 |
More topics from this board
» Twitter is officially X.com nowdeg - Today |
23 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
23 minutes ago |
|
» I showed the music that I've produced to my father, he liked itweirdmusty7 - Today |
16 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
41 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » is marriage compulsory? ( 1 2 )FruitPunchBaka - May 10 |
74 |
by NoelleIsSleepy
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» Favorite places in Japan(to thos who have been to Japan) and where would you like to visit in the future when you go again?KiraraFan - May 7 |
31 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Are you a wizard? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Mar 9 |
54 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
1 hour ago |