I mean, you can’t test everything. And no, following the latest science doesn’t count. Which leaves us authoritarianisming it up like medieval troglodytes.
You must log in or register to comment.
What?
Woof
Meow?
What do you mean by scientific lifestyle? Can you try to rephrase your question?
All science is based on observations whose veracity can’t be completely proven. You may be a brain in a vat and all your life experiences are illusions. All you can do is make sense of the world with respect to your observations and have faith that it is an accurate representation of reality.
Science is still better than religion or plain guessing because in science you are looking for logical consistency. Even if your worldview is false, at least it will be in accordance with itself.
That’s nice, but how about my question?
Your question is really vague; I think that’s one reason people are having a hard time answering. What do you mean by “lifestyle”? Can you give some specific examples of areas or ways in which you want to apply science to your everyday life?
Does science fail at scale?
Why would it?
Because you can’t test everything.
Why should you?
Because it might be important
Go find a real scientist that says you should test EVERYTHING. I won’t wait because they won’t tell you that you should.
No, but given enough people in the field and enough time, you can test most of what matters. You don’t need to test (and re-test) absolutely everything. Just enough to draw consistent conclusions for the decisions people make.
That’s just a drop of investigation in ocean of assumption. It doesn’t feel very scientific.
We don’t need to know everything, we just need to know enough to make a decision off of. We see the same medication work 10000 times, we have evidence that we should use it. We see that a metal expand the same way when we test it 100 times. We can use that metal when we need something that expands consistently with tempreture. We don’t need to know everything because our lives doesn’t involve everything, and if we do discover something new, we either test it ourselves, or submit it to other groups to test.
Scientific lifestyle as in independent verification of everything? No that’s impossible, scientists can’t even do that in their fields. Society requires trust to function.
So call it “scientific authoritarianism”?
If you really want to view it that way, but it’s more about trust structures than outright authoritarianism. It’s not blindly believing the “science authority” it’s having oversight bodies and watch dog organizations to call out when things don’t smell right.
Authority is always a black box. Say what you will about all the good truthy stuff inside, but from the outside it’s always an attractive person with a nice outfit and a loud, confident voice.
Those are celebrities. Don’t listen to them. You may want to Google a guide to recognizing nerds and geeks.
Yes, it is. Me and most people on the planet live a scientific lifestyle, the last time humans didn’t was known as the dark ages. Don’t believe me? Then why haven’t you jumped in front of a train or exiting skyscrapers through the window? The reason is the enormous amount of scientific evidence that tells you otherwise, and no matter how much unscientific people think they are they still follow th scientific method every day for all facets of their life without noticing, they just decide that this or that does not need the same amount of scrutiny that they put on their ability to survive a 100m fall.
But the vast majority of us don’t “follow the scientific method”. What we do is place our trust in scientific authority. That’s quite a different thing.
So do you think you don’t have enough evidence that jumping out of a skyscraper will kill you? Do you need to conduce experiments by yourself? Or do you trust on the scientific authorities for this?.
If you trust them for this, why not trust them for other things? And if you don’t why not jump of a skyscraper?
I have plenty of evidence. A little of it was even offered by a scientist.
You should stop beating around the bush.
I’m not beating around the bush, that is the core of the scientific method, you have plenty of evidence, even if the majority of it is other people’s research. Apply the same to everything else (like you’re probably already doing anyways, since I doubt you have personally invented the computer you’re typing this on)
So should we conduct our own experiment as to whether getting hit by a train is in fact fatal?
Why would anyone want to test everything? That seems like a huge waste of time
Yes, how silly that would be.
What a remarkably helpful answer 🙄
Just have a little faith.
