this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
294 points (97.1% liked)

science

20008 readers
514 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 weeks ago (66 children)

Belief has nothing to do with science.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (38 children)

I think you mean faith. Faith has nothing to do with science.
But belief absolutely does. Science is all about convincing people (scientists) to believe or disbelieve some idea.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

Ah yes. I often use the two interchangeably.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You shouldn't. They're entirely different.
There are many paths to believing something, or accepting it as true.
The least reliable is faith. It's just "wishing makes it true." Another, is personal experience. But that's easily biased, and even fooled by our limited and faulty senses. Actual repeatable evidence is the best we have so far.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

The evidence should convince people.

Scientists are failing to adequately communicate with the public.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Agreed. There's definitely a gap in how conclusions are communicated to the public.

It's crazy to me that so much of the general public don't understand that science is just a protocol of observing, recording, testing, and analyzing results.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Eh, mostly not the scientists' fault but the media sensationalizing the data in secondary and tertiary sources.

And, as you said, general ignorance of how science works internally. That is a problem with education though, again not the fault of the scientists.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There is only so much "dumbing down" you can do to scientific research about topics until you lose all contextual nuance or become too long winded for a layperson to understand without being overloaded with information.

Then there is the issue with secondary and tertiary sources using simple language that causes confusion because it lacks the contextual nuance necessary to convey the correct interpretation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Clickbait popsci sites don't help either.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

That's the point of the second half of my comment.

Clickbait popsci sites are called "secondary sources".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

True but the public is also being willfully ignorant

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Then said public should not reap the benefits of scientific research.

Ship them off to an island and let them live without science.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's like vaccines. Sure it sounds nice to say that, but denying it to these dipshits is going to get me hurt

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not of they're isolated away from the rest of society.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

I don't care where.

Chances are that a lot of religion will disappear if wr get rid of them. Win/win.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
load more comments (62 replies)