Can Science and Technology be fully trusted?

[ALewis30]

Yes

no

[MrOracle]

Science is quite clear that it's merely the best knowledge that we have at the time, and that nearly all of it is subject to change as we learn more. That doesn't mean it isn't largely correct, but it's also not perfect. We've eliminated a lot of early errors, but that doesn't mean that we don't discover the occasional errors in things we believed we'd figured out decades ago. It's rarer today, but not unheard of.

As far as technology goes, it's neither good or evil - but it can be used for either. It's a lot like weapons - they can also be used for good or evil. It's ultimately down to the person wielding it.

A *key* part of science is that things can always be questioned, and hypotheses tested. Most are wrong and will fail, but sometimes you may discover something new. Then you need extensive peer review in order for that new discovery to become the new accepted wisdom.

Anytime you're told not to question things, you know someone is lying to you or hiding things from you. Science cannot survive under censorship. Real scientists always question things, and have evidence to back up their ideas.

You don't trust (or distrust) science or technology - you trust (or distrust) PEOPLE. Science and technology don't have agendas - people do.

[Chazmatazz269]

Science and technology are just things, for now. It’s not the things themselves that build or break trust, but the people behind them.
That said, the philosophical debate surrounding AI is intriguing. I’ll boil down my take like this: If we can’t trust people, how can we trust AI designed by people?
AI will literally have to be generations removed from human design and input in order to design AI themselves before we could determine if it’s altruistic or not. Therein lies a paradox.
When the war starts, i’m going with the apes.

[SueShe]

No and never. Science and technology has proved so many times that it is unreliable and wrong.

A few examples of failed science beliefs.

- spinach contains a lot of iron.

- neutrinos are faster than light.

- the age of earth.

- earth is the middle of the universe

Statements made today may not be accurate in 100 years. Science is a very unprecise and highly doubtful... science.

Technology is equally a failure. Take for example plastic. What was a revolution in 1907 when Belgian chemist invented plastic by combining formaldehyde and phenol is nowadays one of the biggest polluter of our civilization.

Those are just a very few examples of failed science and technology. There are hundreds of examples like these ones that demonstrates that one should be extremely cautious with claims of science and technology.

[JaxiCats]

I would like to comment on the neutrinos being faster than light part. Upon looking into it science has discovered that neutrinos are very small in mass. They depend on other reactions to be as fast as they are since they are neutral and don’t have an electrical charge to them. Light does not have mass as it’s energy so nothing is as fast as it. Neutrinos contain mass and a science website has stated that “They found that, on average, the neutrinos made the 730-kilometer, 2.43-millisecond trip roughly 60 nanoseconds faster than expected if they were traveling at light speed.” If they were traveling at the speed of light on average they would have been faster but they aren’t. Science is constantly testing and figuring out how things work and interact with other things it’s never going to be accurate on the first go. It’s failed at times yes but it’s improved our knowledge and it will continue to be a work in progress.

[SueShe]

@JaxiCats There is one experiment made more than 10 years ago in Italy with the project OPERA but this claim that neutrinos are faster than light has never been duplicated nor has it ever been confirmed by multiple scientific sources...

[JaxiCats]

Like I said it will continue to be a work in progress any bit of science will be a work in progress and it could be years before anything comes up. I don’t deny that science can fail but it’s not always a set in stone thing it will constantly change. You talked about science beliefs whereas I’m talking about science itself not what has or hasn’t been discovered or talked about in terms of science.

[SueShe]

@JaxiCats Of course you are right.

That is also why I say that science, and technology cannot be trusted because what applies today is not applicable tomorrow.

50 years ago Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was the miracle solution for agriculture and now it is prohibited...

[JaxiCats]

Yea but that doesn’t mean it can’t be trusted it’s just gonna change every once in a while

[SueShe]

Thanks for the MHO

[Smoke-n-Growls]

Not really.

Science by its nature is improved by being questioned, and verifying.

Technology can be trusted as far as you trust the humans programming it. Tech doesn't have free will or thought. It does what it's told to do.

[Sixgunsound]

You make excellent points. The unholy rage and socioeconomic devastation unleashed on people daring to question ‘the science’ in the last few years are BS.

[Smoke-n-Growls]

Well, there's questioning science to further understanding.

Then there's denying science to pander to feelings and self-victimization. Anti-vaxx and anti-maskers aren't helping anyone, except if they die.

[Sixgunsound]

So you are a ‘science denier’ about all the peer reviewed papers that have come out on the last six months debunking the narrative?

[Sixgunsound]

I think this is the most accurate description of the changing narrative phenomenon published to date:

https://youtu.be/HlUVBQuwWTk

[Smoke-n-Growls]

Lmao, look at this idiot thinking a YouTuber is a credible source. 🤣

[Sixgunsound]

Typical leftist who goes for the personal attacks when their argument detonates. Thank you for your tacit agreement demonstrated by your lack of refuting anything I posted😁

[Sixgunsound]

You do know YouTube is one of the most left leaning companies owned by one of the most left leaning companies on Earth, right😆

[RedThread]

The thing I love about science is that it's self-reflecting and correcting. Sure many things that we have once believed have been wrong and that's fine. That just shows the system works since we are constantly refining the process.

Technology on the other hand is a different beast. Technology also grows more advanced but companies and governments have a tendency to use it to collect data and personal information which isn't in our best interest. Basically, the technology itself isn't a problem, it's how people intend to use it which is true for most things.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Science isn't about trust, its about facts.


It's how you learn the difference between whats true and what isn't, so you no longer have to trust.


Technology isn't sentient, so it can't be trusted because it can't make a claim in the first place.


The trust part is actually about trusting the people who built the technology as to whether its safe or is spying on you, but again, science exists, so we can just read the code and look at the hardware and know for a fact if our chosen device is spying on us or doing other malicious things.


Never rely on trust, always try to figure out the truth.

[cth96190]

Science and technology are what they are.
As yet, they do not have a will of their own.
The problem is what evil people do with science and technology.
Believe nothing that government and corporations say.
When did government and corporations NOT lie to you?

[RolandCuthbert]

Of course science and technology can be trusted. Maybe you might distrust certain folks who claim to be scientists or technologists, but that is totally different than distrusting a discipline.

I am a technologist. I get paid to resolve technology problems. And as long as I do that I get paid.

People trust me because of my work history. That's all I ask for.

[LikeALog]

True science and technology can be trusted in general. Some facts may corrected as science and technology progresses.
Can scientists and technologist be trusted? No. Their research results will favor the entity funding their research. Cherry picking data and not considering certain populations because they "aren't germain" results in false science.

[OddBeMe]

What does "fully trusted" mean? Do I fully trust my wife? In the most general term of course. Are there things I wish she'd done better? Sure.

Same for science. We base our trust on accomplishments. My grandparents have been saved by medical science. My business is based on communication sciences.

[Apulu_Imback]

Only if it is correct and proved, not false theories. It's basically logic.

[AndrésC64]

It's not science or technology to be trusted, it's people. And people cannot be trusted fully.

[BUTIMRIGHTTHO]

I think it can if it is created by good, capable people.

[John_Doesnt]

Asking this question on a science device and allowing scientific programming to post it through a scientific web service.
Like those people in the 70's who tried to ban telephones by calling people to tell them about the evils of telephones.

[NathanDavis]

you can trust and be certainly 100% sure that a lot of it is designed to pry on your every move... lol

[Guy13]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/O5b0ZxUWNf0

[Guy13]

Watch the whole clip. ⁉️

[Staximus]

The only thing that can be trusted is the laws of nature

[Sandeeppingping]

Waiting for the "Trust no one" comment

[Anonymous]

Technology and science dont have morals. People do. I think what you're really asking is~

"Can people be fully trusted?"
Maybe. If they earn it.

[Light909090]

Well if you Read the Bible it says people are not to be Trusted

[Opinion Owner]

Eh. I'm not religious, but I do kind of agree with that. I dont think you should blindly trust anyone. Trust is earned. It's built over time. Otherwise it's just faith

[Light909090]

Trust is an Illusion
That Trust can be built over time but I bet that you could always Put that Trust to the test and testing that Trust you’d find out how much that person is only Trustworthy until that person gets Offended.
Love doesn’t Turn to Hate because A person loved that person It’s because love is an illusions reality settles in when you test that person who claims to love you only to find out that person actually doesn’t love you.
There’s no Limit to what someone will do For love but that is exactly why love doesn’t exist and is a Illusions because Love always Has limits and something that is Truly loved cannot have limits therefore it’s Just an illusion

[Opinion Owner]

Well sure. Everything is an illusion on that sense. If you want to get Cartesian, you're talking to right guy lol. We both know that everything you feel and even your temperament is a result chemicals in your brain and perhaps the memories driving them. All of that isn't really 'real' it's just data and chemical responses. You can't touch happiness, fear, regret, love etc because they're not real. That doesn't mean I want to live my life as a hollow husk, though...

Nihilism is an interesting philosophy, but it's not where you find passion. Regardless of whether or not love is an illusion, it certainly still feels nice.

[Opinion Owner]

I'm very much enjoying this discussion by the way. You're an interesting person

[Light909090]

Would you Ever work a Job that You work 28 hours and you get 322 bucks?
Been feeling like a slave doesn’t even feel worth it

[Opinion Owner]

I actually dont make much more than you do. I'd probably get about 380 for that amount of time, after taxes. I'm also in school though, so in not crazy worried about getting a better job at the moment. If something better popped up I'd probably take a chance, but I'm not actively looking around

If you're so stressed out over it, maybe it's time for a change

[exitseven]

No, because they are run by people who have their own interests.

[KlinkyCoder]

I hate the norm/pervasiveness of the internet and social media. Face-to-face businesses and activities are in trouble because of the Web.

[AngryCarl]

Well science is a work in progress. So is technology. Every time they invent something, the first thing it does is go wrong.

[Lucychen]

If we disconnect from the network, I think even survival is a problem

[MountAverage]

The scientific method? Yes, it can be trusted. Or what do you mean?

[Anonymous]

Hashtag believe all scientists? Nah.
But compared to activists, politician and journalists... Well..

[joeldalton]

Considering they're all run by humans, the answer is always 'no'.

[Methis]

Nope. They have made 7 terminator movies showing why.

[maximumpower]

Yes; however, the data and results manipulated by people can be suspect.

[Hanrej]

Science... Yes. Tech, no. Tech fail at times.

[Kiran_Yagami]

Can anything be fully trusted. Of course the fuck not.

[Jamie05rhs]

The humans behind them cannot.