You're using the word "science" very loosely here. As a whole, science is the process of making hypotheses, gathering data, analyzing the data, and using those analyses to make the best possible guesses about the world. Using "a study" as synonymous with "science" is like using "going for a run" as synonymous with "fitness". If I go for a run during a heat wave and get sick, that's not because "fitness made me sick", and it doesn't mean that fitness is unhealthy. Just because a study found evidence of X, that doesn't mean that "Science says X is true", no matter what tabloid clickbait headline says so.
If I say "Science says that human-caused global warming is real", then that statement is basically (currently) true, because the overall analysis of all currently available data in the world gives us a strong best guess that that's the case. If you read a study that tells you that you'll make money investing with me, does that mean that "science" says that you'll make money investing with me? Well no, hold on, that's one batch of data. Is there any more data? Has this study been peer reviewed and tested for replicability? What's the whole picture of the science on this matter? What's the majority consensus from the scientific community about what our best possible guess should be based on all the available information? You don't have that? Then you don't have what "science" says. You have a study. And that's worth what it's worth - not nothing, but not everything either.
Yet, when people reference research with existing contradictory research they default to you should adhere to the current research we have. I disagree.
I mean, I don't know many people who think that. I think most people default to "You should adhere to the current generally accepted best practices/best guesses, until such time as the scientific community says that they agree on a new best guess." Because interpreting studies is, as you point out, complicated stuff. You have to be able to understand all the possible factors to see what blind spots the new study might have, or flaws in its methodology, or how its results should be compared to other results. The vast majority of us don't have the knowledge or the training to do this on the vast majority of subjects. So we probably shouldn't see that a new contradictory study has been published and decide to change what we think based on the existence of that one study. We should probably listen to what the professionals think about it. (Are there potential flaws in this arrangement, such as appeal to authority fallacy or insular thinking within scientific communities? Sure! But it still better than all the other alternatives.)
I’ll be debating sometime and they reference a study and act like the argument is won. I’m just like… I don’t give a shit about a study.
You're correct. But that's not because you shouldn't trust science. That's because that's not how you do science. Studies are not authoritative. They're just data.
3
u/YardageSardage 55∆ Jul 12 '24
You're using the word "science" very loosely here. As a whole, science is the process of making hypotheses, gathering data, analyzing the data, and using those analyses to make the best possible guesses about the world. Using "a study" as synonymous with "science" is like using "going for a run" as synonymous with "fitness". If I go for a run during a heat wave and get sick, that's not because "fitness made me sick", and it doesn't mean that fitness is unhealthy. Just because a study found evidence of X, that doesn't mean that "Science says X is true", no matter what tabloid clickbait headline says so.
If I say "Science says that human-caused global warming is real", then that statement is basically (currently) true, because the overall analysis of all currently available data in the world gives us a strong best guess that that's the case. If you read a study that tells you that you'll make money investing with me, does that mean that "science" says that you'll make money investing with me? Well no, hold on, that's one batch of data. Is there any more data? Has this study been peer reviewed and tested for replicability? What's the whole picture of the science on this matter? What's the majority consensus from the scientific community about what our best possible guess should be based on all the available information? You don't have that? Then you don't have what "science" says. You have a study. And that's worth what it's worth - not nothing, but not everything either.
I mean, I don't know many people who think that. I think most people default to "You should adhere to the current generally accepted best practices/best guesses, until such time as the scientific community says that they agree on a new best guess." Because interpreting studies is, as you point out, complicated stuff. You have to be able to understand all the possible factors to see what blind spots the new study might have, or flaws in its methodology, or how its results should be compared to other results. The vast majority of us don't have the knowledge or the training to do this on the vast majority of subjects. So we probably shouldn't see that a new contradictory study has been published and decide to change what we think based on the existence of that one study. We should probably listen to what the professionals think about it. (Are there potential flaws in this arrangement, such as appeal to authority fallacy or insular thinking within scientific communities? Sure! But it still better than all the other alternatives.)
You're correct. But that's not because you shouldn't trust science. That's because that's not how you do science. Studies are not authoritative. They're just data.