Serious question: What do you do when your perceptions and experience contradicts the results of supposedly objective, scientifically peer-reviewed facts?
Do you assume your perceptions are wrong, or do you assume that the supposed ‘objective truth’ you know to be incorrect?
You’re gonna have to give us some examples. If this is just some ‘well I didn’t see anyone die from covid’ shit, then yes, your perceptions would be wrong. It’d be like scooping a handful of water out of the ocean and declaring whales aren’t real because you don’t see any
Not OP, but I’m a gnostic atheist, so I’ll give you my perspective:
The question you’re asking doesn’t make sense in my worldview. The idea of a supernatural cause doesn’t even enter into my consciousness as an option. If my understanding of something does not match evidence, then either my understanding is incomplete, my understanding is incorrect, or the evidence wasn’t measured/understood correctly.
More broadly, when science can’t explain a phenomenon, that’s the interesting part! It’s at the edges of our understanding that scientific progress is made. In some cases, that’s just because a system is so complex that we can’t (yet) model the whole system, like nutrition research, or climate science, or understanding cognition. In other cases, it’s because models made at one scale don’t work at another, like quantum physics or what happened right after the Big Bang.
Reality is everything, so it’s all that I consider. Non-reality based ideas are fiction—lots of fun, but not relevant to my decision making or worldview.
The question you’re asking doesn’t make sense in my worldview
Then your worldview is flawed as science is not yet a complete understanding of everything. I am not invoking the supernatural at any point in my arguments and the fact that you think I am says more about you than it does me.
I am speaking about experiential truth that contradicts current scientific consensus pointing to the fact that current scientific consensus is incomplete. Not trying at all to invoke the supernatural.
Reality is everything, so it’s all that I consider.
How sophomoric and full of yourself you seem.
Can you show me a molecule of empathy? What is the atomic weight of democracy? What standard scale do we measure the love of a mother for her children?
Human thought has created conceptual realities that affect our lives just as surely as gravity. Money, fairness, hope for the future, the concept of states and nations, all of these things are not ‘reality’, they are not inherent in the structure of the universe and do not obey the laws of physics as we understand them.
Look I get it, you’re all doped up on the heady ferment of casting off religious shackles, and you feel that this bright new world absent of supernatural entities is the ‘clear eyed vision’ of objective truth that Sagan spoke about.
I hate to tell you this but your fanatical adherence to atheism has blinded you to the fact that other things exist that do not adhere to your estimation of reality.
And lastly: ‘gnostic atheist’ is a funny title, considering that we have yet to gain complete understanding of the universe so ‘knowing’ that the supernatural doesn’t exist is kind of impossible.
You are just another worshiper of scientism, blind to everything that doesn’t have spin or mass.
It’s pretty clear to me that you have a strong emotional reason to be replying to everyone who’s talking about science in this thread with at least a healthy bit of skepticism. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I wholeheartedly agree that we should be skeptical about claims which outweigh evidence available in science. I also think that it’s good and cool to talk about all the things that we can’t explain with science and to revel in and appreciate their beauty.
But at the same time, you’re hyper engaged here with people and pushing a really strong narrative in a way that at times feels dismissive and uses some strong language (blinded you, funny title, arrogance, self-satisfied, etc) to paint pictures that aren’t necessarily reflective of the world as it exists but perhaps more reflective of the world as you’ve experienced it. It’s not exactly good faith to treat others this way and some folks have already reported your comments as being a bit aggressive and in general not nice.
It might be a good idea for you to either disengage with this thread, or work on softening your language and asking more questions rather than making strong statements about others.
It’s pretty clear to me that you have a strong emotional reason to be replying to everyone who’s talking about science in this thread
Not really, as mentioned I’m a STEM major that uses the scientific method on a near daily basis. Any assumptions say a lot more about you than me.
I’ve already mentioned that, proving that you don’t really want conversation and just enjoy seeing your posts on the internet.
more reflective of the world as you’ve experienced it.
Yes, that is the ENTIRE purpose of my post, personal experience trumps peer reviewed study. Not sure why you seem to think this is a negative.
It’s not exactly good faith
Not a single reply, including yours, has been in good faith and most of you didn’t even bother reading more than one or two sentences before you started replying.
your comments as being a bit aggressive and in general not nice.
Yes they are. I am both aggressive and a not nice person in general (it’s medical: EDS) that has been treated exceedingly not nice in this thread and I am responding as such. Are you going to now have the arrogance to tell me I need to change who I am to communicate on beehaw? I see you’re flying your admin flag in this thread so I’m interpreting this entire reply as an implied threat.
It might be a good idea for you to either disengage with this thread
It might be a good idea for you to get bent six ways from Sunday, then establish a research foundation staffed with the world’s most brilliant bentologists in order to research new and interesting ways to get bent in. Then do them.
Our only rule here is to be nice. We expect people to treat others with a modicum of good faith. I’m only stepping in here because your comment was reported, assuming I’m here because I have the ‘arrogance to tell you that you need to change who you are’ is not good faith, and the reality is that this is a shared space and if you’re not able to follow the rules you do either need to change or we’ll show you the door.
I’m going to give you a temporary ban for a week to give you some space to cool off. If you’re not able to treat others nicely around here, it’s just simply not going to be a good fit for you.
As someone else who is not naturally kind, you may want to use your self-awareness about why you’re losing it right now to redirect your aggression to something inanimate or if you have to make someone suffer right now there are plenty of people on Reddit and 4chan who really need to be torn into. Attacking people here is going to be something you’ll regret when this episode passes. I know it’s unsolicited and I would not appreciate being told this while I’m taking on all challengers in a fury but I would want to be told if I were in your place.
Although I think you should seriously chill with the condescending tone you used to reply to @blindsight here, this is a conversation that interests me.
The nature of objective reality, if it exists, is extremely tricky and oftentimes incomprehensible to our human minds. We are only capable of experiencing reality as filtered by our senses and limited faculties. While an individual perspective is functionally the same as all of reality from that person’s point of view, it may or may not contain all of what is objective reality. Although unlikely in my opinion, it is possible that the only thing that exists in the universe is a mind (my mind from my perspective and your mind from your perspective) whose moment to moment perceptions constitute all of reality. It is similarly possible that I’m a brain in a jar stimulated to make me perceive a reality which is not occurring outside of the limits of my brain causing it to be impossible for me to ever become aware of an objective reality which exists beyond what I’m being made to experience. Although these scenarios are each possible, it is not possible for someone in either scenario to ever know for sure if those are correct explanations. Since non-disprovable claims are infinite (you can’t disprove my claim that I am an undercover norse deity using a magical disguise to appear to be a regular human commenter) I don’t think it is useful or productive for any of my desires if I considered them other than for entertainment purposes.
Although acknowledging that there is no possible way for me to know if what I experience has any relation to objective reality, there are things which I can learn and do which are practical to me which are consistent in my perception of “reality.” I am (actually) a human who needs things such as food, water, shelter, companionship, etc. To be comfortable, I have to do things with my community to make sure these human standards are met so we can have some degree of satisfaction. Tools help us to accommodate these practical concerns. Some tools are physical, while others are ideas. Humans have always needed plans and cutting tools.
For us to most effectively pursue our needs and desires through the use of tools, better tools yield better results. Better understanding of meteorology has had a direct practical effect on the average person’s ability to survive severe weather and natural disasters. More abstractly, the study of physics has been related to advancements in safety and efficiency of tools we need to get what we need.
Because we desire better tools, a systemic approach to the pursuit of knowledge which is constantly advancing is very useful. Empirical philosophy is based on using evidence to disprove hypotheses and claims, with those which have not been disproven being considered most likely to be true. This is in contrast to earlier approaches which considered primarily direct sensory experience and intuition. Nothing in Science is assumed to be true other than as the most practical basis upon which to build further claims and hypotheses. The reason we use the scientific method instead of other historical epistemological approaches is because the scientific method yields results which are more useful to pursue our needs and desires. Ideas which are counter-intuitive to us but borne out by evidence may now possibly be applied to create tools and ideas which an intuitive approach would lack all the necessary considerations to replicate. We would not be able to use meteorology to increase our ability to survive without having used the scientific method. No faith in any claim is necessary in science, and science itself would not function without the skepticism to doubt conclusions which are considered most likely.
Although my biases are with empiricism and the scientific method because I have found these approaches to be most useful for my purposes and understanding, I also appreciate scientific anarchy. Based on my knowledge, nature, and nurture I find my epistemology to be fine by my own standards. This does not mean I can ever be certain that this approach is the “best” approach for every application.
It’s likely that many things I consider true for practical purposes would be considered hopelessly primitive in a few centuries. By my own approach, it could possibly be disproven that empiricism is the most practical framework for me to know the things I need to pursue my needs and desires. While my belief system allows for no true beliefs, I believe for almost all practical purposes the empirical and scientific approach to the pursuit of knowledge is the best approach and that belief may be altered by evidence. This is not the same as faith that the claims made as a product of science are “objectively” true, or that science (or any possible approach) could ever establish “objective” truth. Although nothing we know may be considered as “fact,” in my opinion those ideas which have not been disproven by science are more useful to consider as “fact” than “facts” established through less rigorous or more traditional methods.
I’ll admit I did read between the lines in your comment. I see I was incorrect that you were alluding to the supernatural in your parent post.
Regardless, all the topics you’re talking about can be investigated scientifically. Human cognition is an incredibly complex system, as is human psychology. At the macro scale, economics and politics are similarly complex systems.
Regardless, the explanations for all of human psychology comes from biological origins, which can be studied scientifically. We have uncovered some (partial) “truths” about all of the above, but complex systems require complex models and detailed observations, so of course science doesn’t have a definitive answer to everything.
Still, I reject that the social sciences should be dismissed as “un-scientific” just because they aren’t concrete. (Not saying that’s what you’re saying, btw, just rejecting the absolute stance along that spectrum.)
As for all comments on my belief system, that’s fine that my beliefs don’t make sense to you. I am comfortable with my gnosticism and I’m not trying to convert anyone.
I live my life by facts and evidence and I am not reliant solely on my own experiential evidence.
If I come across something that seems to contradict what I believe to be a fact, I research it (to the best of my ability) to see if it’s just me who is wrong.
Of course, I am human, and fallable, and my emotions certainly can get in the way. But I try to be aware of them so I can put them into perspective.
Beyond that, I would need specific examples to address, as I’ve never had any experience that I can recall which contradicted anything already explained by science.
But what in the cases where you are not equipped or educated enough to perform the research properly?
This is especially relevant in the field of medicine and nutrition as we have so much more to learn about biology and chemistry and those are subjects almost no layman has the resources or knowledge to study. .
The example I gave to the original top of this thread was the keto diet.
If you found that by eating very few carbs you lost significantly more weight WITHOUT reducing your caloric intake, would you have the biological and chemical knowledge to research this in a meaningful way?
Yet you would have had the physical experience of losing the weight, you would KNOW it works because it worked for you.
That’s the beauty of science, I don’t have to experience something to believe it to be factual, and if I experience something that I don’t understand, I can work to find out without having to immediately believe something is objectively factual or not. I’m okay with not knowing until I find out. That’s the problem with religionists, they require answers but substitute superstition and “faith” in place of actual provable fact. The point of science is the endless pursuit of objective discovery and fact.
All this to say, I do not buy into the premise that I must make a belief in something just because I experience it.
That’s where you learn to leverage experts and their findings. No one can learn every field themselves, but what I can learn is how to spot fake experts and fake reviews regardless of field, which helps direct that.
Please provide some specific examples. Anyone who paints science in such a negative light, as you have, usually has a specific personal example of where their feelings or internalized nonscientific beliefs conflicted with reality and became an issue for that person. If you are not being a troll, please follow through with the conversation sincerely.
Perception is inherently flawed and for all intents and purposes cannot be as correct as objective, peer-reviewed science. The scientific method exists in large part to remove hand-waving guesswork and pure fictitious nonsense that is speculated from direct perception from our understanding of everything. Being sceptical of our perception and feelings is critically important, arguably even more important than being critical of scientific work.
A great example is a feather falling slower than a bowling ball in atmosphere. Your first perception would not lead you to understand the science of gravity as we now know it thanks to rigorous scientific proof. It would lead you astray, as it has lead many people astray before and today.
Anyone who paints science in such a negative light, as you have
I think you may have some deep-seated issues, I’m a STEM major. Science is pretty awesome, just not the end-all be-all of human experience.
Please provide some specific examples.
Ok. So in the mid-90s the scientific consensus for weight loss was simple: You must maintain a calorie deficit, this is the only way to lose weight.
If you went to your doctor and asked ‘How do I lose weight without burning more calories than I consume’, you would be told it is impossible, against the laws of thermodynamics, and if such a method could be found it would probably involve drugs with strong side effects.
This is not true.
And we’ve known its not true for a while now, but ‘scientific consensus’ refused to acknowledge results that disproved the earlier stated ‘peer reviewed facts’.
You can (easily) lose weight on a low carb diet (keto) even if you exceed your calorie consumption by 1000kcal or more (I was intaking 4500-5000 kcal of food a day and lost over 80 lbs in a pace of two years.
The thing is, scientific consensus is JUST NOW starting to catch up with this, and NOW there are peer-reviewed studies showing losing weight on keto doesn’t require a caloric deficit.
This illustrates my point: There is an arrogance in academia that precludes so many things based on assumptions.
That isn’t even touching the current Reproducibility Crisis that is calling into question decades of supposed ‘objectively peer reviewed’ results.
Perception is inherently flawed and for all intents and purposes cannot be as correct as objective,
I’m sorry but going from 290 to 210lbs in a years time isn’t a flaw in perception.
. The scientific method exists in large part to remove hand-waving guesswork and pure fictitious nonsense
Up until basically only five years ago, nearly all medical professionals called weight loss without caloric deficit pure fictitious nonsense. I think this proves that just because a bunch of out of touch researchers, self-satisfied in their academic prestige, declare something fictitious nonsense that it does not automatically mean that it actually is.
A great example is a feather falling slower than a bowling ball in atmosphere. Your first perception would not lead you to understand the science of gravity as we now know it thanks to rigorous scientific proof.
I sincerely disagree. Everyone on the planet will tell you that the feather will fall slower in atmosphere.
I think you are trying to reference the same experiment in a vacuum.
But I’m getting the impression you are less a practitioner of science than you are a religious fanatic with science as your god.
I appreciate 90% of your comment. *I thought it was a wall of text at first but a fantastic example of science being misapplied, and I appreciate it. Thank you for following through.
Part of what science purists need to understand is that current science can be - and sometimes is - completely incorrect.
I will also point out, however, that one anecdote does not discredit my original argument. Yes perception is important but the human condition is inherently flawed. Your perception is not perfect, no matter if it ultimately is “right” or “wrong.” We must be critical and question results. I am glad in this case that losing weight is possible without a calorie deficit (and in fact am doing it myself through the same method you mentioned!). But that doesn’t mean our perception is somehow better than the scientific method. It means - as you rightly pointed out - that science was not being practiced by those doctors, et al, who said it was “impossible.”
You misunderstood my point about perception and the feather/bowling ball, though I see what you mean and am not upset about that. Yes, basically all people will tell you that the feather falls slower. However, does that mean that gravity affects the feather less? If a person didn’t already have modern science/knowledge to tell them how gravity and air resistance, fluid mechanics, yadda yadda work, a person might come to the wrong conclusion - as many did before - which is that gravity affects heavy things more. It’s completely nonsense, as you and I know. But we know that because of that objective, thoroughly reviewed science.
The jibe about science as my “god” is personally insulting but understandable for you to make, especially since I have zero patience with trolls and will immediately discredit and block them. I will not argue with you if you want to discredit me in a similar way, I simply want people to not be idiots and want them to use science rather than regurgitating the same horseshit that they “feel” is right.
Serious question: What do you do when your perceptions and experience contradicts the results of supposedly objective, scientifically peer-reviewed facts?
Do you assume your perceptions are wrong, or do you assume that the supposed ‘objective truth’ you know to be incorrect?
You’re gonna have to give us some examples. If this is just some ‘well I didn’t see anyone die from covid’ shit, then yes, your perceptions would be wrong. It’d be like scooping a handful of water out of the ocean and declaring whales aren’t real because you don’t see any
Not OP, but I’m a gnostic atheist, so I’ll give you my perspective:
The question you’re asking doesn’t make sense in my worldview. The idea of a supernatural cause doesn’t even enter into my consciousness as an option. If my understanding of something does not match evidence, then either my understanding is incomplete, my understanding is incorrect, or the evidence wasn’t measured/understood correctly.
More broadly, when science can’t explain a phenomenon, that’s the interesting part! It’s at the edges of our understanding that scientific progress is made. In some cases, that’s just because a system is so complex that we can’t (yet) model the whole system, like nutrition research, or climate science, or understanding cognition. In other cases, it’s because models made at one scale don’t work at another, like quantum physics or what happened right after the Big Bang.
Reality is everything, so it’s all that I consider. Non-reality based ideas are fiction—lots of fun, but not relevant to my decision making or worldview.
Then your worldview is flawed as science is not yet a complete understanding of everything. I am not invoking the supernatural at any point in my arguments and the fact that you think I am says more about you than it does me.
I am speaking about experiential truth that contradicts current scientific consensus pointing to the fact that current scientific consensus is incomplete. Not trying at all to invoke the supernatural.
How sophomoric and full of yourself you seem.
Can you show me a molecule of empathy? What is the atomic weight of democracy? What standard scale do we measure the love of a mother for her children?
Human thought has created conceptual realities that affect our lives just as surely as gravity. Money, fairness, hope for the future, the concept of states and nations, all of these things are not ‘reality’, they are not inherent in the structure of the universe and do not obey the laws of physics as we understand them.
Look I get it, you’re all doped up on the heady ferment of casting off religious shackles, and you feel that this bright new world absent of supernatural entities is the ‘clear eyed vision’ of objective truth that Sagan spoke about.
I hate to tell you this but your fanatical adherence to atheism has blinded you to the fact that other things exist that do not adhere to your estimation of reality.
And lastly: ‘gnostic atheist’ is a funny title, considering that we have yet to gain complete understanding of the universe so ‘knowing’ that the supernatural doesn’t exist is kind of impossible.
You are just another worshiper of scientism, blind to everything that doesn’t have spin or mass.
It’s pretty clear to me that you have a strong emotional reason to be replying to everyone who’s talking about science in this thread with at least a healthy bit of skepticism. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I wholeheartedly agree that we should be skeptical about claims which outweigh evidence available in science. I also think that it’s good and cool to talk about all the things that we can’t explain with science and to revel in and appreciate their beauty.
But at the same time, you’re hyper engaged here with people and pushing a really strong narrative in a way that at times feels dismissive and uses some strong language (blinded you, funny title, arrogance, self-satisfied, etc) to paint pictures that aren’t necessarily reflective of the world as it exists but perhaps more reflective of the world as you’ve experienced it. It’s not exactly good faith to treat others this way and some folks have already reported your comments as being a bit aggressive and in general not nice.
It might be a good idea for you to either disengage with this thread, or work on softening your language and asking more questions rather than making strong statements about others.
Not really, as mentioned I’m a STEM major that uses the scientific method on a near daily basis. Any assumptions say a lot more about you than me.
I’ve already mentioned that, proving that you don’t really want conversation and just enjoy seeing your posts on the internet.
Yes, that is the ENTIRE purpose of my post, personal experience trumps peer reviewed study. Not sure why you seem to think this is a negative.
Not a single reply, including yours, has been in good faith and most of you didn’t even bother reading more than one or two sentences before you started replying.
Yes they are. I am both aggressive and a not nice person in general (it’s medical: EDS) that has been treated exceedingly not nice in this thread and I am responding as such. Are you going to now have the arrogance to tell me I need to change who I am to communicate on beehaw? I see you’re flying your admin flag in this thread so I’m interpreting this entire reply as an implied threat.
It might be a good idea for you to get bent six ways from Sunday, then establish a research foundation staffed with the world’s most brilliant bentologists in order to research new and interesting ways to get bent in. Then do them.
All at once.
Our only rule here is to be nice. We expect people to treat others with a modicum of good faith. I’m only stepping in here because your comment was reported, assuming I’m here because I have the ‘arrogance to tell you that you need to change who you are’ is not good faith, and the reality is that this is a shared space and if you’re not able to follow the rules you do either need to change or we’ll show you the door.
I’m going to give you a temporary ban for a week to give you some space to cool off. If you’re not able to treat others nicely around here, it’s just simply not going to be a good fit for you.
As someone else who is not naturally kind, you may want to use your self-awareness about why you’re losing it right now to redirect your aggression to something inanimate or if you have to make someone suffer right now there are plenty of people on Reddit and 4chan who really need to be torn into. Attacking people here is going to be something you’ll regret when this episode passes. I know it’s unsolicited and I would not appreciate being told this while I’m taking on all challengers in a fury but I would want to be told if I were in your place.
Although I think you should seriously chill with the condescending tone you used to reply to @blindsight here, this is a conversation that interests me.
The nature of objective reality, if it exists, is extremely tricky and oftentimes incomprehensible to our human minds. We are only capable of experiencing reality as filtered by our senses and limited faculties. While an individual perspective is functionally the same as all of reality from that person’s point of view, it may or may not contain all of what is objective reality. Although unlikely in my opinion, it is possible that the only thing that exists in the universe is a mind (my mind from my perspective and your mind from your perspective) whose moment to moment perceptions constitute all of reality. It is similarly possible that I’m a brain in a jar stimulated to make me perceive a reality which is not occurring outside of the limits of my brain causing it to be impossible for me to ever become aware of an objective reality which exists beyond what I’m being made to experience. Although these scenarios are each possible, it is not possible for someone in either scenario to ever know for sure if those are correct explanations. Since non-disprovable claims are infinite (you can’t disprove my claim that I am an undercover norse deity using a magical disguise to appear to be a regular human commenter) I don’t think it is useful or productive for any of my desires if I considered them other than for entertainment purposes.
Although acknowledging that there is no possible way for me to know if what I experience has any relation to objective reality, there are things which I can learn and do which are practical to me which are consistent in my perception of “reality.” I am (actually) a human who needs things such as food, water, shelter, companionship, etc. To be comfortable, I have to do things with my community to make sure these human standards are met so we can have some degree of satisfaction. Tools help us to accommodate these practical concerns. Some tools are physical, while others are ideas. Humans have always needed plans and cutting tools.
For us to most effectively pursue our needs and desires through the use of tools, better tools yield better results. Better understanding of meteorology has had a direct practical effect on the average person’s ability to survive severe weather and natural disasters. More abstractly, the study of physics has been related to advancements in safety and efficiency of tools we need to get what we need.
Because we desire better tools, a systemic approach to the pursuit of knowledge which is constantly advancing is very useful. Empirical philosophy is based on using evidence to disprove hypotheses and claims, with those which have not been disproven being considered most likely to be true. This is in contrast to earlier approaches which considered primarily direct sensory experience and intuition. Nothing in Science is assumed to be true other than as the most practical basis upon which to build further claims and hypotheses. The reason we use the scientific method instead of other historical epistemological approaches is because the scientific method yields results which are more useful to pursue our needs and desires. Ideas which are counter-intuitive to us but borne out by evidence may now possibly be applied to create tools and ideas which an intuitive approach would lack all the necessary considerations to replicate. We would not be able to use meteorology to increase our ability to survive without having used the scientific method. No faith in any claim is necessary in science, and science itself would not function without the skepticism to doubt conclusions which are considered most likely.
Although my biases are with empiricism and the scientific method because I have found these approaches to be most useful for my purposes and understanding, I also appreciate scientific anarchy. Based on my knowledge, nature, and nurture I find my epistemology to be fine by my own standards. This does not mean I can ever be certain that this approach is the “best” approach for every application.
It’s likely that many things I consider true for practical purposes would be considered hopelessly primitive in a few centuries. By my own approach, it could possibly be disproven that empiricism is the most practical framework for me to know the things I need to pursue my needs and desires. While my belief system allows for no true beliefs, I believe for almost all practical purposes the empirical and scientific approach to the pursuit of knowledge is the best approach and that belief may be altered by evidence. This is not the same as faith that the claims made as a product of science are “objectively” true, or that science (or any possible approach) could ever establish “objective” truth. Although nothing we know may be considered as “fact,” in my opinion those ideas which have not been disproven by science are more useful to consider as “fact” than “facts” established through less rigorous or more traditional methods.
I’ll admit I did read between the lines in your comment. I see I was incorrect that you were alluding to the supernatural in your parent post.
Regardless, all the topics you’re talking about can be investigated scientifically. Human cognition is an incredibly complex system, as is human psychology. At the macro scale, economics and politics are similarly complex systems.
Regardless, the explanations for all of human psychology comes from biological origins, which can be studied scientifically. We have uncovered some (partial) “truths” about all of the above, but complex systems require complex models and detailed observations, so of course science doesn’t have a definitive answer to everything.
Still, I reject that the social sciences should be dismissed as “un-scientific” just because they aren’t concrete. (Not saying that’s what you’re saying, btw, just rejecting the absolute stance along that spectrum.)
As for all comments on my belief system, that’s fine that my beliefs don’t make sense to you. I am comfortable with my gnosticism and I’m not trying to convert anyone.
I live my life by facts and evidence and I am not reliant solely on my own experiential evidence.
If I come across something that seems to contradict what I believe to be a fact, I research it (to the best of my ability) to see if it’s just me who is wrong.
Of course, I am human, and fallable, and my emotions certainly can get in the way. But I try to be aware of them so I can put them into perspective.
Beyond that, I would need specific examples to address, as I’ve never had any experience that I can recall which contradicted anything already explained by science.
But what in the cases where you are not equipped or educated enough to perform the research properly?
This is especially relevant in the field of medicine and nutrition as we have so much more to learn about biology and chemistry and those are subjects almost no layman has the resources or knowledge to study. .
The example I gave to the original top of this thread was the keto diet.
If you found that by eating very few carbs you lost significantly more weight WITHOUT reducing your caloric intake, would you have the biological and chemical knowledge to research this in a meaningful way?
Yet you would have had the physical experience of losing the weight, you would KNOW it works because it worked for you.
That’s the beauty of science, I don’t have to experience something to believe it to be factual, and if I experience something that I don’t understand, I can work to find out without having to immediately believe something is objectively factual or not. I’m okay with not knowing until I find out. That’s the problem with religionists, they require answers but substitute superstition and “faith” in place of actual provable fact. The point of science is the endless pursuit of objective discovery and fact.
All this to say, I do not buy into the premise that I must make a belief in something just because I experience it.
That’s where you learn to leverage experts and their findings. No one can learn every field themselves, but what I can learn is how to spot fake experts and fake reviews regardless of field, which helps direct that.
“supposedly objective, scientifically peer-reviewed facts” “supposed ‘objective truth’”
Please provide some specific examples. Anyone who paints science in such a negative light, as you have, usually has a specific personal example of where their feelings or internalized nonscientific beliefs conflicted with reality and became an issue for that person. If you are not being a troll, please follow through with the conversation sincerely.
Perception is inherently flawed and for all intents and purposes cannot be as correct as objective, peer-reviewed science. The scientific method exists in large part to remove hand-waving guesswork and pure fictitious nonsense that is speculated from direct perception from our understanding of everything. Being sceptical of our perception and feelings is critically important, arguably even more important than being critical of scientific work.
A great example is a feather falling slower than a bowling ball in atmosphere. Your first perception would not lead you to understand the science of gravity as we now know it thanks to rigorous scientific proof. It would lead you astray, as it has lead many people astray before and today.
I think you may have some deep-seated issues, I’m a STEM major. Science is pretty awesome, just not the end-all be-all of human experience.
Ok. So in the mid-90s the scientific consensus for weight loss was simple: You must maintain a calorie deficit, this is the only way to lose weight.
If you went to your doctor and asked ‘How do I lose weight without burning more calories than I consume’, you would be told it is impossible, against the laws of thermodynamics, and if such a method could be found it would probably involve drugs with strong side effects.
This is not true.
And we’ve known its not true for a while now, but ‘scientific consensus’ refused to acknowledge results that disproved the earlier stated ‘peer reviewed facts’.
You can (easily) lose weight on a low carb diet (keto) even if you exceed your calorie consumption by 1000kcal or more (I was intaking 4500-5000 kcal of food a day and lost over 80 lbs in a pace of two years.
The thing is, scientific consensus is JUST NOW starting to catch up with this, and NOW there are peer-reviewed studies showing losing weight on keto doesn’t require a caloric deficit.
This illustrates my point: There is an arrogance in academia that precludes so many things based on assumptions.
That isn’t even touching the current Reproducibility Crisis that is calling into question decades of supposed ‘objectively peer reviewed’ results.
I’m sorry but going from 290 to 210lbs in a years time isn’t a flaw in perception.
Up until basically only five years ago, nearly all medical professionals called weight loss without caloric deficit pure fictitious nonsense. I think this proves that just because a bunch of out of touch researchers, self-satisfied in their academic prestige, declare something fictitious nonsense that it does not automatically mean that it actually is.
I sincerely disagree. Everyone on the planet will tell you that the feather will fall slower in atmosphere.
I think you are trying to reference the same experiment in a vacuum.
But I’m getting the impression you are less a practitioner of science than you are a religious fanatic with science as your god.
I appreciate 90% of your comment. *I thought it was a wall of text at first but a fantastic example of science being misapplied, and I appreciate it. Thank you for following through.
Part of what science purists need to understand is that current science can be - and sometimes is - completely incorrect.
I will also point out, however, that one anecdote does not discredit my original argument. Yes perception is important but the human condition is inherently flawed. Your perception is not perfect, no matter if it ultimately is “right” or “wrong.” We must be critical and question results. I am glad in this case that losing weight is possible without a calorie deficit (and in fact am doing it myself through the same method you mentioned!). But that doesn’t mean our perception is somehow better than the scientific method. It means - as you rightly pointed out - that science was not being practiced by those doctors, et al, who said it was “impossible.”
You misunderstood my point about perception and the feather/bowling ball, though I see what you mean and am not upset about that. Yes, basically all people will tell you that the feather falls slower. However, does that mean that gravity affects the feather less? If a person didn’t already have modern science/knowledge to tell them how gravity and air resistance, fluid mechanics, yadda yadda work, a person might come to the wrong conclusion - as many did before - which is that gravity affects heavy things more. It’s completely nonsense, as you and I know. But we know that because of that objective, thoroughly reviewed science.
The jibe about science as my “god” is personally insulting but understandable for you to make, especially since I have zero patience with trolls and will immediately discredit and block them. I will not argue with you if you want to discredit me in a similar way, I simply want people to not be idiots and want them to use science rather than regurgitating the same horseshit that they “feel” is right.