To clarify here, I don’t feel like I’m significantly smarter than most people, but I feel like people have a hard time doing any sort of thinking about stuff. Especially when it comes to verifying “facts.”

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    Even our scientific method is a bit wanting in this area, since if we hear X, how can we prove X?

    by looking at their lab notes and repeating their experiment and seeing if we can make the same observations. if they lied about their process (see the guy that claimed he made a room temp superconductor…) they get caught out.

    I think you thoroughly misunderstand the process involved. yeah, there’s more emphasis on being first… but no… there’s definitely still verification. Oh. and. yes. we can image atoms.

    • Match!!@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Agreed, science is essentially set up as a competition such that disproving important things is also rewarded; reproducibility comes up more for niche fields

    • comfydecal@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Totally agree that most of the tools are there, but how many trials have you personally duplicated? The average person?

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        That doesn’t make the scientific method wrong. If someone isn’t following the scientific method, that’s on them, not the science.