Lying Increases Trust In Science, Study Finds
(archive.ph)
Comments (25)
sorted by:
It’s not lying as much as appeal to authority. If the designated person declares x, the people will follow. It doesn’t matter if it’s a lie of not, sheep follow the shepherd or “authority”.
yep. how many times have you heard "X number of scientists agree, therefore it must be true" in scientific discourse? they literally shut down entire fields of research by appealing to someone else.
My retort is always that Galileo wouldn't have passed peer review.
Consensus is not the same as truth.
if only peer review focused on method and not results.
My favorite thing in the past decade was liberal professors getting hoisted on their own petard over the appeal to authority fallacy. I got kicked out of classes just to get an automatic A because I would Socratic method professors into rage quitting, the upside (cheat code) is when you and your family has money to sue, the program head will fold nearly immediately.
Look out! Antonio of Venice will lecture you over using a capital X! 😆 The guy is such a retard.
The history of science is littered with bad things done "by consensus". Not nearly as bad as other areas, but they stand out all the more.
Piltdown Man: an obvious fake but pushed by 'elite scientists' and their institutions.
Red Paint People: who lived along the North American Atlantic coast 7000BC to 3500BC. On land now flooded by the sea. All evidence was considered "nonsense" until suddenly it wasn't :/ And then of course elite scientists said "Oh we knew this all along" after decades of denials.
Song that is always relevant in succinctly explaining how these things work and how easy they are to abuse or wield like a weapon.
They put on a very good live show.
Absolutely. Always small crowds so its an outright party of hardcore fans, and concert thots.
They get a pretty big crowd when they tour through at MAGFest periodically.
I'm told their East Coast shows get pretty huge, which makes sense as they are local to Tennessee and are constantly touring around that area. Lots of fans and collabs to be had.
However, they very rarely come out to my area of the other half the country (West half but not West Coast) so its usually a small venue of like 50 people. Which probably keeps them from coming back short of big events.
That's the principle of organized religion. 'Trust the science' is a religion. 'Climate change' is a religion. 'Democracy' is a religion. Even atheism is a religion.
It absolutely is. It's a "religious philosophy" which is the exact same thing as a religious belief. Try telling hardcore atheists that though, their heads literally explode.
Yes. A religion doesn't need spirituality. It only needs dogmas. I absolutely abhor dogmas in every form on a fundamental level which is why I'm staunchly anti-religious. In my opinion religions with political ambitions are one of the most dangerous things in existence.
Just repeating a lie over and over makes people believe it.
Its called the "illusory truth effect".
So if the news says over and over that one things true, and even though some of us know its not, most normys are going to believe it because they are ignorant of how reality works lmao.
lol
"When we hide our evil deeds, the public doesn't trust us. And when we are evil out in the open, they trust us even less. It is a complete mystery as to why it is happening, so we should commission a study to find any excuse other than the truth to blame it on."
The reason transparency reduces public trust is because pieces like this with retarded/nakedly self-serving presuppositions like "the ideal result is the public trusts academia 100% without any accountability." somehow keep passing muster.
The trust you get with full transparency is the trust you fucking deserve, and clearly they deserve far less then they currently get if it keeps going down when the public see what they actually do.
If you want to earn more trust, try having some fucking standards or principles instead of being conniving propagandists and willing political whores.
Lying is a sin. Anything achieved by sinning is fruit from a poisonous tree.
"Take nobody's word for it" is effectively the pioneering mission statement of science.
https://royalsociety.org/about-us/who-we-are/history/
Science doesn't require trust. That is it's strength. No matter how much you doubt someone's claims, you can reproduce them.
There's a different term for claims that rely on faith for their support.
Does this guy not realize "the root cause of the problem, which he argues is the public overidealising science" is itself caused by miseducation and lack of transparency? So it's not the root cause of the problem. And lack of trust isn't bad anyway unless that trust is lower than is warranted by reality (and currently it is not).
It's always the same with these people: anything less than 100% trust (in elections, journalists, science, etc.) is presupposed to be bad. Rather like the Gell-Mann effect, they selectively forget there is something called a healthy skepticism when it comes to their pet subject.
These people are retarded Communists and I don't seem to have the same religious adherence to their cult of subjective reality.
Surely this isn't a cooked study and accurately reflects the high trust Society these United States has become. Surely lying about literally everything since JFK mysteriously died increased trust in trusted authorities TM and never backfired or had long term impacts.
They've been lying since the Lusitania and the Maine :/
The US gov't finally came clean about the Lusitania in (iirc?) 1995? 80 years of pushing an easily disproven lie. They just punished anyone who told the truth & mocked them as "conspiracy nuts". I don't think the Brits have admitted to it yet? Maybe I'm mistaken.
i don't trust this article to not be lying.
I believe it.
When someone is in a abusive relationship, often times that person will love their abuser more the worse they are treated.