arteteco @arteteco@qoto.org

@strypey

That's kind of a problem for policy making, as I was saying. From a scientific POV, is totally ok.
Pretending that it's not ok is not understanding how this works.

And I'm not saying we should "believe" in science, skepticism is a very welcome thing, I consider myself a skeptic as well. Just let's not mistake this for a blind, emotion-based refusing of the evidence so far brought forward, as it could be with the climate change issue.

@seasharp

@strypey

Probably here is the point of not understanding each other.
I don't know of any scientist claiming that we can say for sure what a healthy diet is for everyone, or that we surely understood everything about a topic.

@seasharp

@strypey

I do believe that there is such a consensus, but I wouldn't say that it's only because of that that I think human-driven climate change is real. I read quite many researches, we surely have a margin of doubt on many things, especially on the ecological models that try to predict the effects of such a warming up (in that sense we are in high sea, IMO), but some stuff, some stuff we got it.

May be we wrong? Sure. I call back what I said before: we've been wrong in the past, it's ok. The amount of times the consensus has been right (or to better say, "right enough") is pretty strong, though, and we do not have any better option anyway. Or, do we?

I think I'm missing the point and I fear we are talking in parallel about 2 different things, because I feel confident we don't disagree in this.

I'm sorry in this case, maybe I can't catch your point or explain myself.

@seasharp

@strypey

I'm not sure if I'm making that mistake. If you take a plane you trust the technology and by proxy the research and the knowledge (and the statistics) that confirms that it is "safe".

If you don't trust the method you don't trust the results of the method neither, so I don't see why you can't make an epistemological argument by starting from a tool.

It's like, if I do not believe in those saying homeopathy works I do not take those water-pills. If I did take them, I'd recognize that I trust the research and its methods.

@seasharp

@strypey

I hope I'm getting the point here

You that the science "fucked up".

Science didn't fucked up. It guesses wrong and corrects itself with time. That is the scientific method in action. It's not like Newton fucked up because Einstein disprove it, you need Newton to have Einstein, it's a neverending process.

And in that process, on a medical level, we got so many huge, awesome stuff that they are hard to count. And yes, many mistakes too along the way, and surely many present at the moment. So what?
Something which has a high consensus it's still your best bet.

the author says:
science has earned its lack of credibility with the public

Really? With the scientific method we know stuff like the evolution, we grow our food, we fly, we write at this very moment...

I don't even think this trust is really eroded. People take planes, take medicines, undergoes surgeries, and so on, all without too many doubts.

@seasharp

@reinhard_codes@chaos.social

Could you point out any nazist account on qoto?
@starbreaker@mastodon.sdf.org

@starbreaker@mastodon.sdf.org If by your definition of the word "association" federation is a kind of it, I guess fine, who am I to say your definition is not good.

I well then rephrase: we do not have any particular relationship with any instance.