Philosophy of

M&A Partner at IMAP.com | Business, philosophy, tech | franhb.com

it's not. the reproducibility crisis is real. the corruption of research by for-profit entities is real.

working on infra to displace adtech at /microsub • dance music lover + host of /campfire 🎧

I don't think that crisis define a whole body of knowledge, don't you think? 

Specially now, where fake news and polarization rule the world, we need to defend science!

see...this is the problem: nuance. you can't just "defend science" when a lot of it is clearly trash. it's unfortunately very hard to get people to think for themselves, though. (i'm a huge proponent of science + the scientific method, of course, but the way new "science" is created is corrupt. we need to fight FOR science, not just blindly defend it)

Science

Because science, by default and based on its methodology, is open to studying contradictory evidence. This openness invites us to trust it. Additionally, the progression of science can be traced. We can observe how it evolves and how, in line with this idea of continuous evaluation and improvement, even theories later recognized as false are fundamental reference points that lead to the new theories that replace them.

I agree, but we cannot deny that there is a base and that that's worth defending.  Separating science from pseudo science is a monumental job, that's why you have philosophers of science :)

I agree, but we cannot deny that there is a base and that that's worth defending.  Separating science from pseudo science is a monumental job, that's why you have philosophers of science :)

https://warpcast.com/franhb.eth/0x4759d81c

By the way, @downshift.eth, check out this case, I am sure you will find it interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/06/us/judge-overturns-arkansas-law-on-creationism.html

It was a huge case regarding the criteria and boundaries that distinguish scientific knowledge from non-scientific or pseudoscientific claims.

Trust in traditional media is also a difficult topic, and I can understand why people might distrust them. I would argue that the point here is similar to the one with science. In theory, journalism follows a process (checking sources, etc.), so we should trust it more than "alternative media." However, we have all seen cases of disinformation from large, established media outlets.

I am writing an essay on all these topics (to force myself into thinking) and will share it with you when it is ready :) As you can expect, there are no easy answers...

Also, regarding science vs. pseudoscience and the pharmaceutical industry, I suggest that you check out the books and work by British physician Ben Goldacre. I just wrote a review on "Bad Pharma," and the system surrounding clinical trials is absolutely crazy.

Also, regarding science vs. pseudoscience and the pharmaceutical industry, I suggest that you check out the books and work by British physician Ben Goldacre. I just wrote a review on "Bad Pharma," and the system surrounding clinical trials is absolutely crazy.

https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science

100%, we agree :)

it is HARD to tell the difference, though...especially when doctors/researchers/scientists are getting paid to lie about what is true. the public distrust of media, government, institutions etc. also makes it difficult. how do you think we solve this?