Skepticism doesn’t equal question all teh things
This is a great PSA from the folks who moderate the Science on Google+ community. There is also confusion about love for science and skepticism. As a moderator and someone who writes science posts, I get people who argue that everyone should be a skeptic. However, the list below has no room for skepticism in general. Scientists certainly debate new findings in those areas but the foundations (evolution for example) are not up for debate and skepticism.
Originally shared by Science on Google+
PSA: Evidence-Based Science on Google+
Some scientific facts aren’t up for debate in our science community. As scientists, we follow where the evidence leads, and the overwhelming evidence supports anthropogenic climate change, the efficacy of vaccines, the soundness of evolutionary theory, and the safety of GMO. There is vigorous debate within various scientific disciplines on how these settled areas of science work and what future outcomes of (for example) climate change or evolution will be. However, debate over mechanisms and outcomes should never be considered debate over the basic facts of a subject. A person claiming, for example, that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax is making an extraordinary claim against a huge body of peer-reviewed evidence, and barring extraordinary, credible, peer-reviewed evidence to support that claim, a post making such a claim will be removed from this community. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
The focus of our community is on research trying to address these issues, and not to rehash or debate the evidence. Unlike politicians, we don’t take positions to win votes or gain popularity. Rather, we ground our positions in the best evidence available to us, recognizing that scientific evidence may be incomplete but is constantly self-correcting.
What is scientific consensus? : https://plus.google.com/u/0/+Scienceongoogleplus/posts/5LRg4oTFAFU
Cartoon credit: http://joyreactor.com/post/805720
#ScienceSunday
February 1, 2015
Those of us over on number two Science on G+ agree completely. In fact we might be a little more strict. Like the old Avis ad, we try harder.
Between these two huge communities I like to hope we bring science, real, science to everyone.
Thanks Chad Haney and thanks Science on Google+
February 1, 2015
Gary Ray R we are strict on Science on Google+ but we are simply overwhelmed. A lot of drivel gets through the cracks. We keep trying though. Hats off to you and your pals on the other science community. 😉
February 1, 2015
You folks run a tight ship too Chad. And we work our behinds off keeping up with the junk. I tip my hat to all the moderators on both the science communities.
February 1, 2015
GMO’s are safe? http://naturalsociety.com/banned-in-27-countries-monsanto-rbgh-dairy-milk-products/
February 1, 2015
Peter Lindelauf, would you like to test gravity? The fundamentals have zero room for skepticism. Everyone is capable of fraud and ignorant/inflammatory statements. That doesn’t mean you ignore all, fill in the blank, because of a handful of clowns.
February 1, 2015
Scott Lesperance that’s not a peer-reviewed reference. GMO’s are safe. Provide real peer-reviewed evidence or leave.
February 1, 2015
Peter Lindelauf, if you weren’t a friend, I’d be double pissed off by your comment. Maybe you didn’t intend it to be offensive but it was. I’m sure Rajini Rao and Buddhini Samarasinghe would find it offensive too.
February 1, 2015
Chemtrails? Tesla fandom? Electric Universe?
I have not even heard of some of these
February 1, 2015
Peter Lindelauf, maybe my post isn’t making the point clear. Healthy skepticism is a cornerstone to science. Being skeptical in spite of mountains of evidence, e.g., gravity, evolution, vaccines, climate change, etc., is not part of science. Some parts of science are not up for debate.
Debating things like the wolf kill in Canada and parts of the USA are welcomed. They don’t challenge fundamental laws and theories in science. They challenge something less fundamental and more nuanced.
February 1, 2015
Bryce Etheridge, if you go to the Science on Google+ community, sadly you’ll find those things. It’s like a game of Whack-a-mole, with the moderators there.
February 1, 2015
Thanks Peter Lindelauf. I can point you to other examples too. That’s why we have sites like http://retractionwatch.com/. However, as I said before, a few bad apples don’t mean that every scientist is dubious and the fundamental parts of our scientific knowledge are not up for debate.
February 1, 2015
Peter Lindelauf it was scientists who determined that the link between autism and vaccines was a fraud, and it’s scientists who reveal errors in their colleague’s work. The point is not that scientists never make mistakes or that scientists cannot be frauds, rather that the practice of science is self correcting. Therein lies the beauty of the endeavor. It is larger and more robust than the individual and stands the test of time and trial. This post is about the strength of the vast body evidence supporting the elegance of evolutionary change or the inevitability of climate change. It’s not about the infallibility of individual scientists.
As for being etched in stone, something as fundamental of evolution is a self evident truth, like the fact that humans are mostly water or DNA is the material of genes. Evolution shows up in protein sequences, in structures of organelles, in bacterial resistance, in the history of genes, in the fossil record and on and on ad nauseum. Anyone who observes the natural world can appreciate natural selection, just as Darwin did. While academics can have obscure arguments about whether the Homo sapiens NHA2 gene is closer to E. coli NhaA or to T. thermophilus NapA (a topic close to my heart!) that’s a far cry from arguing with a creationist about whether the earth is 6000 years old.
February 1, 2015
Peter Lindelauf, if Rajini and I can’t talk about science and skepticism with a friend, then we are hopelessly lost with adversaries who believe in conspiracies.
February 1, 2015
Would you like some of my snow for Patchy and Jen (before you open the piano), Peter Lindelauf ?