@neiltyson Lets not forget that most scientist get funding/rely on it which leads to inherent bias. We trust our scientists to be truthful but there is no recognition for fact-checking in the scientific community now is there?
-
-
-
Fact checking comes in the form of peer review and in future research which may support or disprove findings.
-
obviously it would be a peer-review, but do you know how often scientist engage in that? very little because it proves fruitless for their goals. Ofc theories such as quantum mechanics and the growing field is constantly checked but unfortunately that is not the only field
-
You can’t publish a paper without peer review. Every scientist engages in peer review.
-
Not just peer review, but often _multiple rounds_ of peer review. This serves to address concerns of data validity, methodological assumptions, and interpretation of results. Part of the reason why papers can take a year to get accepted/published.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
I honestly have no idea what that means. You have a question and hypothesis and collect the relevant data. You publish the results that are supported by the data and the analytical model. People do not publish "viewpoints" (whatever that is).
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This type of attitude is why people hate scientists. A subject should and must be evaluated by all groups of society before becoming implemented. We're all just people with flaws and prejudices. Don't stoke the fire.
-
The only people who hate scientists are the ones inconvenienced by their conclusions.
#factsarereal -
I misspoke. I'm a scientist myself. I just did not like
@neiltyson comment that only scientists are capable of debate. I absolutely agree with@PVBrett. I love your books!!! -
I think the issue is that we used to agree on the facts, and debate what to do about them. Now we debate the facts themselves.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
A debate should always be held between parties who are properly informed on the subject matter. But that does not mean the huddled masses of the general public cannot have some valuable insight to provide in a scientific debate.
-
Oh he never said that they should not discuss it, all what he said is that if something is controversial only among non scientists (like evolution) but all scientists actually agree on that, than its not controvertial, no matter how many people say it is
-
Opinion. As stated previously, educated masses can also weigh in a controversial scientific topic and give an educated opinion.
-
The masses can give opinions or qualitative information on some subjects. But the scientific facts and proof have to be the defining, final answer.
-
Has been proven. Even when as you have pointed out Udith scientific fact have proven something to be true. Curiosity among us will have us questioning it. What I enjoy about discovery and research the most. Curiosity leads to bigger and better.
-
Oh well there is no disagreement on that! My problem as i told ypu is people that want some sciemtific fact to be controversial for some precocived view of the world, and ignorance over the scientific theory in question, for the rest I totally agree with you
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
what if the scientists are bought by @MonsantoCo ? Hmmmmmm
-
There’s an episode of Cosmos where Tyson talks about this exact problem. It’s called “The Clean Room.” I highly recommend watching it.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.