Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Unfortunately, over the last 50 years, "science" has gotten increasingly political, until today so much of science is more politics than actual science.
Who funds "science"? A significant portion is government-funded - whether that's university research or research performed by government contractors (for example, aerospace, weapons, and lots of big tech companies). Most of the rest of it is private companies (which all have big government contracts), such as Big Tech, Big Pharma, and "green" companies. All of these companies have documented histories of lying about "science" in order to push their own agenda which invariably either directs huge amounts of taxpayer money their way or expands their powers/limits their liabilities, and even if we didn't have thousands of trial decisions as evidence, it's OBVIOUS that they would do this, because doing it grows their power and influence.
But this also means that "the science" is often whatever the person or company or organization that stands to benefit the most SAYS it is. We all know how easy it is to cherry-pick statistics that support whatever outcome you are looking for, especially if you combine that with "creative phrasing" that heavily implies one thing even if it technically doesn't explicitly say it.
Take COVID, for example. Fauci was literally just making things up, and in his own words at his senate trial, said whatever he thought "sounded reasonable" at the time with no science to back it up - KNOWING that the government and the media considered anything he said as "the science."
This same thing is absolutely true of all kinds of things, from "green policies" and the "climate crisis" to "gender-affirming care" (which Europe was INSISTING 5 years ago was the only thing preventing mass suicides of trans teens, only to completely reverse themselves a year ago and totally abandoning those policies once they lost control over the narrative of "the science"). My niece, who is a delivery nurse, had to be trained on how to perform pelvic exams and even ultrasounds on "trans women" (aka men - in most cases penis and all) because "the science" demanded that men with penises deserved PAP smears and pregnancy care - even though they have no uterus.
The pendulum is finally starting to swing the other way, as these delusions have constantly failed to hold up to actual science, but the politics are so ingrained that in many cases, entire departments are having to be eliminated before even small changes towards actual science can be made. Even with steady progress in the right direction, we've got decades of wrong to correct, and plenty of people who are going to fight to maintain the status quo because they benefit from it personally, even if it's destroying our culture, our institutions, and people on an individual level.
@goaded Oh, you're going to have a very fun time proving that assertion, given that I can give a dozen major examples where leftist "science" that was heavily pushed has had to be reversed after it was conclusively proven that the "science" either came from cherry-picked data or was made up from whole cloth.
But I'll wait for you to present your evidence.
@goaded No, it was renamed by the Left because the data kept disproving that the Earth was actually warming - when I was a kid in the late 70s, the "green" scientists were trying to sell us on the idea that pollution was going to cause an ice age and that the Earth was cooling - and so by changing the term to "climate change", they could use ANY data to push their agenda. The thing is, Earth's climate has ALWAYS changed, LONG before the Industrial Revolution.
Yes, right now, the Earth is in a warming trend. So is Venus. So is Mars. Hmm... you think it might have something to do with that gigantic ball of nuclear fire that we call the Sun, which is in an active phase right now? What a crazy idea?
Of course we should minimize pollution and take every reasonable step to do so - and we've done a good job and we're getting better all the time - but we shouldn't make stupid decisions - such as completely abandoning oil with no replacement - to try to make a 0.0001% improvement. That's idiotic - which is what most "climate science" is. Well, actually, most of it is pure politics, such as Al Gore's "carbon off-set" scam which has made him a billionaire at the expense of consumers.
Nope. "Frank Luntz, a veteran Republican pollster, disavowed work Thursday in the early 2000s to cast doubt on the science behind climate change and said America, on the whole, wants the federal government to “do more, right now, to address it.”
“I was wrong in 2001,” Luntz told an ad-hoc Senate Democratic climate panel. “I don’t want credit. I don’t want blame. Just stop using something that I wrote 18 years ago because it’s not accurate today.”"
www.politico.com/.../frank-luntz-wrong-climate-change-1470653
"GOP pollster Frank Luntz explains his 1997/1998 memo that became the playbook for how conservatives like President Bush and Senator James Inhofe redefined climate change as really a matter of “scientific uncertainty” and “unfair economic burden.”"
bigthink.com/.../
Well... I certainly don't trust anything thrown at me just because it's labeled "science". And I sure don't take scientists' words for facts just because they're scientists, even if what they are talking about is totally out of their field of research. However, as long as there is comprehensible scientific proof of a given alleged fact, I tend to trust it. And if I cannot comprehend the alleged scientific proof of a given alleged fact due to my lacking of expertise in the given field, I guess I tentatively accept it, remaining aware of a possible misinformation being pulled off on me and being open to any counterarguments, unless the alleged scientific proof contradicts simple logic, in which case I default to rejecting the alleged fact.
Now, I don't think it fits any of the options in the poll. I don't trust everything labeled as "science", but I do trust whatever is actually scientifically proven. I wouldn't restrict the list of potential disruptions of the scientific method to corporations and governments, either, but I guess that would be the closest option. My only comment being that if "science" begins shilling for any disruption of the scientific method, it's not exactly "science" anymore. Oh, and one more thing: whenever "science" claims to prove or disprove the existence of God Almighty, I'm automatically disregarding any such claims. Faith and science do not contradict each other. On the contrary, they actually complement each other pretty well.
Yes, as long as studies don't serve some political agenda, ideology or finances. When a scientist finds an exoplanet or star with traces of short living isotopes, the dangers it's an manipulation or scam practically zero. When some scientists says vaccine is safe but company that produces this vaccines doesn't take any accountability for their product, it's better to assume the scientist lies.
I believe in science, but not scientists. "If you get the vaccine, you can't get Covid."
Opinion
24Opinion
There is no such thing as "the" science. Science is never settled. A true scientist seeks to advance scientific knowledge and understanding by questioning the settled science.
Steps of the scientific method:
- Make an observation or ask a question. ...
- Gather background information. ...
- Create a hypothesis. ...
- Create a prediction and perform a test. ...
- Analyze the results and draw a conclusion. ...
- Share the conclusion or decide what question to ask next: Document the results of your experiment.
When it is forbidden to question the consensus, you know that the consensus is a scam. Fauci's phrase, "the science" was a perfect example. The idea was to squelch research and debate, and impose a dogma.
That's something that corporations and governments do for profit. But it is anti-science.
Yes and no. I don't trust any doctor who has something to gain or lose. That's why I have a doctor I know is good, but have another good doctor who I consult separately.
If there's enough REAL evidence and it does not contradict my own observations, yes. Science is an interpretation of data. Sometimes the scientists mess up and have the wrong perspective 🤷♂️ Of course, the same goes for me.
Fun fact: the hippocratic oath not only is no longer required, but has been modernized and no longer binds the oath-taker to "cause no harm." In fact, a 2023 study showed that "preventable harm" is caused 24% of the time a patient is admitted to a hospital. That's almost 1 in every 4 patients. Oh, and of the 700,00 yearly deaths in US hospitals, an estimated 200,000 are due preventable "medical errors." That's almost 29%.
I trust science but not "THE SCIENCE" I've often take the time to read scientific articles and when i see something suspicious like them not mentioning how they got a certain piece of data or use flawed logic/sources i will not trust the so called "Science".
Scientists of certain subjects are far more likely to have been bought off or just release false information with the worst offenders being in the fields of biology (especially in regards to medicine). While astronomy is the most likely to be factual. Other sciences are hard to prove wrong or right scientists just get it wrong unintentionally all the time such as for Paleontology and Phycology.
Most scientists if there's no proof there's no way if you want to learn about a good science one who has made breakthrough after breakthrough and everything I've ever thought of in life and people thought I was crazy this guy is finally bringing it to light and I'm not crazy LOL a good YouTube and watch Greg Braden this guy will blow you away on some of the stuff that they have found out and he's a scientist but he is now a different type of scientist because of what he has found out very smart man
I find it a very interesting topic, but I don't "trust" everything about science. I believe mainstream science covers up a lot of things from the society. For example, let's take NASA, if you believe them 100%, well, I'm sorry for you. Often, I like to do my own research, try relating things, see things from different perspectives and come up with a conclusion. Dig down deep, you'll find some intriguing things.
Science can’t explain everything but it is amazing. I’ll give credit where credit is due. The fact we can talk about this probably several countries away is enough proof of it’s awesomeness if you ask me, but when “scientists” claim the universe created itself (by exploding, which has ONLY ever destroyed things), they make fallen angels seem like the second wisest beings ever.
If you know HOW to read the methodology or are familiar with the institutions credibility them yes. Applied sciences are ripe for manipulation but rational thinking and habits of mind will train you to spot the subterfuge.
u I study science, do not trust all scientists
No, there are no testable statements in my lowly and servile world.
The Covid bullshit has destroyed my faith in the medical field and turn a mild distrust into active hate for our government and the media
Covid was total bullshit. Thank you. Glad to know there’s still some sane people out there
@Kingofkings1992 Yes, he insisted that at most 50,000 (0.15%) Americans could ever die of it.
Totally sane.
@gorydetails ah, look. It’s one of the retards. Where do people like him come from? Was he made in a lab somewhere that hinders his brain from functioning properly?
@goaded Yup. It's well known that you were coded as a covid death if you had a heart attack and had covid.
It's also well known that ventilators and remdesivir killed people and was poor treatment
It's also well known that sick people are more likely to recover if they have family and a support system... so we isolated covid patients and made them die alone
It's also well known that you're more likely to die from covid if you're fat and aren't' getting vitamin D. So we closed gyms and beaches and kept people inside ordering mcdonalds from doordash.
@Kingofkings1992 You're sweet. Do you think that a million more deaths than usual in America was made up as well? I wonder if Republicans liked that it extended social security a little longer or hated it.
@Kingofkings1992 He's a loser. He's never been successful at anything. So when the opportunity to be successful at following covid rules came up he latched onto it. He could finally feel like he was helping. Remember how proud of themselves the covidians were?
@Kingofkings1992 That last part is probably the only correct thing you've said about covid.
I teach science and have my degrees in science, so I support science. Obviously, like any human endeavor, it is not 100% correct 100% of the time, but what is?
The scientific method? Yes.
However there is unfortunately a increasing amount of faux science like gender studies coming to the conclusion that gender is a social construct.
Really? Like what papers?
I mean, they've established that trans people's brains are structured more like the typical for their preferred gender than their antipreferred. That's science, isn't it?
Some things you may not know about Transgenderism! ↗ (That's an old Take, I wouldn't comment on it.)
Good question hard to guess everything is so hard now mostly money it's hard to know where they lie now I guess a little bit hopefully a little bit of each 50/50
Nope. Scientists will say one thing, then change their minds 2 weeks later.
Simples...
Depends. Some things referred to as “science” is actually instead intentionally misleading propaganda designed to fit the narrative of a political agenda.
"Science" the agenda that govt. and corporations want to shove down our throats
More than the tale of the invisible man in the sky.
Really? You trust the magic Germans more than God?
@CaptainSmartass What magic Germans?
Scientists.
Depends on which stage of peer review it’s in
I do trust science. I DON'T trust those who tell me to trust the science.
Capitalism has co-oped much of science.
Yes I do cause science is honest
Depends, in what context?
I trust science, not "The Science" TM
Option b
nope
You can also add your opinion below!
