The medical approach is a fantastically useful tool for determining the nature of the universe. Its socio-benefits are self-apparent. I’m definitely not anti-science, if anyone, I’m a huge fan. It improved my life.
Advertisement
But I’m also knowledgeable of its shortcomings.
First of all, knowledge is not associated with truth, and the scientific method is only a very limited device. Yes, we’ve used it with great victory to understand our world, but its value is not common.
Woe to the person who just comprehends the world through scientific reasoning. You would lose life’s most crucial aspects!
In its purest, axiomatic sense, the scientific method ( i. e. attaching a hypothesis to an observation, developing a replicable test, and recording the results ) is self-correcting, because future experiments should address any incongruities. Better data may be produced as the value and consistency of experiments rise.
At least that’s the idea.
But in reality, the difficulty with” trusting the technology” is threefold:
- Academics are only citizens, and people are biased. The medical community is not immune to bias, social pressures, the trap of profession advancements, or the effect of preexisting agendas.
- The scientific method is only as good as the quality of its investigations, and far too many items ( climate change, evolution, natural studies, health ) are challenging to immediately test. For instance, knowing what our present heat would be without any greenhouse gases from man would be extremely helpful. ( Hey, maybe the Global Warming alarmists are 100 % right. ) However, we are unsure because we ca n’t directly test it. Alternatively, we’re left with cherry-picking cluster of details and using them to create different arguments. And that leads to…
- Our current use of “science” has led to a very large number of false positive. That’s because it’s way too easy for biased professionals to garner media attention ( and make money ) by making a statement based on cherry-picked information. It happens all the time, and it’s gotten to the point that it’s almost a cliché: One month, a “scientific review” is announced that says chocolate ( or whatever ) is the key to weight loss. Next year, the research is denounced. It’s essentially a regular occurrence.
Advertisement
Too many immoral scientists cover up their work to give absolutely unscientific conclusions a veneer of credibility. Scientific American newspaper, one of them, was one of the first to announce that it would support Kamala Harris for president next month. In the publication’s famous 179-year past, it has made political endorsements specifically half — in 2020 and 2024 — and both days, they were anti-Trump. ( Very odd, eh? )
Scientific American explained its “logic” in an article released immediately:” The 2024 National Election Will Make or Break U. S. Climate Action”. Because it is n’t a scientific work, it is still worth reading. It’s a public policy screed that’s violently progressive. And because you ca n’t test planetary climate cycles via direct experimentations, the Scientific American “scientists” did the next best thing: They used a computer program that spits out whatever data it’s been designed to regurgitate.
However, that’s exactly what they did. In their content:
To provide a broad look at how potential policies under Harris or Trump would shape future U. S.]greenhouse ] emissions, Orvis’s team at EI used its Energy Policy Simulator, an open-source computer model. The scholar compared the existing policies under the Biden-Harris administration to those that are more ambitious and those that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The research revealed that the latter circumstance “essentially stops the development that’s been made”…
How medical! They used Project 2025 as their only source of republican motion, which Trump has repeatedly rejected. Then they discovered a computer unit that gave them the favor-Harris results they desired.  ,
Advertisement
Presto: How’s the knowledge!
It’s crazy and deceptive. Because of its negative popularity, it even seriously harms the field itself. By contorting “science” into something it’s not, liberal protesters are actually engaging in a very specific kind of Climate Denial: Their unrestrained deceit, political alterations, and audacious populism have created a culture where researchers can no longer be trusted.
It’s very bad. If you’re a true lover of research, this is not at all what you want. But that’s the truth today.
As it turns out, the biggest issues with technology are the academics.