platoprime t1_jaeyi06 wrote on February 28, 2023 at 11:12 PM

Reply to comment by bildramer in From discs in the sky to faces in toast, learn to weigh evidence sceptically without becoming a closed-minded naysayer by ADefiniteDescription

>it's why plate tectonics took so long to dislodge earlier shittier theories despite the strong evidence, for example.

I love it when people argue against the eventual correctness of science by citing a time science stopped being wrong and started being correct.

Never mind they never have an alternative to scientific inquiry. Yes it's flawed but it's the least flawed and most effective avenue of investigation. Wait did I say "love"? I mean "loath".

bildramer t1_jaezqt5 wrote on February 28, 2023 at 11:21 PM

I have no issue with scientific inquiry, and if you carefully read my comment you'll notice most of the problem is with the word "eventual" here. Sometimes you can outperform "science" by following scientific principles instead of looking at what groups of scientists say; nullius in verba, after all. Also, Lysenkoism, if you want a citation of the opposite. Sure, that wasn't science but state power, but where in the world does science operate without state power influencing it?

platoprime t1_jaf0485 wrote on February 28, 2023 at 11:24 PM

Science never promised to be correct now it's just more correct than any other method of determining fact.

> Sometimes you can outperform "science" by following scientific principles instead of looking at what groups of scientists say

And sometimes using a magic 8 ball to guide your life will work out.

Or, instead of going by what scientists say, which is dumb, you go by what they can prove and what evidence they provide.