Evidence, Science, Facts, Experts, Medical Evidence, Academic Evidence, dont work like they used to.

Do Evidence, Science, Facts, Experts, Medical Evidence, Academic Evidence, work like they used to?

I dont think so. It used to be that when. You had certain evidence on your side, you were right and the other person was wrong. Unless the other person presented better evidence, you were still right. It used to be that truth, facts, proof and evidence was respected as the difference maker. It used to be that many more trusted these things and enforced them.

I've spoken to many, heard many and read from many. And that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Many express a distrust in science, facts, evidence, experts, and etc. They say things like "they are wrong a lot." "It is used to lie." The biggest things I think I heard is "it has been manipulated for the sake of the power in being right" (Being right used to matter to many because they would obey sometimes if they think the person is right) and "there is a bias in what stuff is right and wrong" and "the enforcement of the facts, truth, evidence is based upon that bias."

I think it is some validity to those opinions. On this forum, on others, on social media, with people around me, in media and other places, it appears to me that there is a bias on mostly all sides of any matter, issue or situation. It appears science has proven certain things but when it gets political and/or about feelings, then what the science says doesn't really matter anymore. Some will claim science backs them up and it doesn't. Some will get some scientist to back them up. Some will go as far as trying to manufacture a scientific concensus, according to what some scientist have said. Then the statistics will say they are wrong then they will come up with there own statistics or say the statistics don't show the entire picture. I've heard claims by actual scientists that other claims were out there by scientists but only one view was being pushed that backed a particular agenda.

Sometimes it appears some will try to use a person's lack of evidence to censor and silence them. If they show evidence they will claim it is wrong even if many others claim it is right.

I think by allowing things like our own desires, feelings, wants, agendas, views, selfish motives and motives we think arr honorable, we as a whole have successful made it a "strongest survives" type of thing. Things like evidence when enforced, when the attempt for being impartial was made with judgement of the evidence and when we conceded to the evidence in an attempt to be non bias, that was when things like evidence mattered more. That's changed.

The difference maker used to be evidence no matter who had the power and no matter who had the majority. At least this was many people's thinking. Maybe that was naive of some to think. Now the difference maker is power.

On this forum, what is the purpose of asking for evidence if many are bias and will judge it to be wrong whether wrong or right? Maybe a few people are going by the old way and trying not to be bias. Maybe those people will consider it even if they normally disagree with the person giving it. But it seems to me most on here don't do that. Then what I see is when people don't accept the evidence, some resort to insults. Some of this is just my observations and opinion. Some is what I heard, seen and read. Even though I don't have the evidence to prove it, I hope the points would be considered and looked into. I know that won't happen most likely.

Evidence appeared to be one way of handling disputes and differences of view in a civil way. Power can be obtained and lost where one side might have it and then another might get it. Even if they get it dishonestly. And then they determine the way it should go.. My thought is when people stop conceding to power in a civilized way what happens. I think violence happens. Some may get tired of some using power to push their own agenda and wants, so when they can't get power the civilized way through elections and etc, they may try to fight for it. Especially if they have evidence on their side and it is being ignored by the ones in power. Some believe just because a group or person is in power doesn't mean is right and it doesn't mean they got their honestlynkr or by the majority. So when justice doesn't happen according to actual evidence, not being right according to power, some may fight with violence.

I've notice when some don't have the power because it was obtain by others in dishonest ways, they resort to the old way, actual non bias evidence.

Oh and this is not about the 2020 election, this is about the way things seem to use to be by some and they way they are now by some as it relates to evidence, facts, truth, experts and etc.
 

vibise

Active member
Science is the most successful method we have for learning about the natural world and how it works. We have used what science has learned to develop things that have made life better and easier, like phones, electricity, microwaves, MRIs, antibiotics, antivirals, vaccines, men on the moon, robots on Mars, etc.

Science is data-based and so is less susceptible to manipulation by those with an agenda.

Science is self-correcting and over time will alter conclusions when the data demand changes.

It is unfortunate that some in power denigrate science and try to subordinate the findings of science for political ends or to make short-term profits.
 

Bob1

Active member
Do Evidence, Science, Facts, Experts, Medical Evidence, Academic Evidence, work like they used to?

I dont think so. It used to be that when. You had certain evidence on your side, you were right and the other person was wrong. Unless the other person presented better evidence, you were still right. It used to be that truth, facts, proof and evidence was respected as the difference maker. It used to be that many more trusted these things and enforced them.

I've spoken to many, heard many and read from many. And that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Many express a distrust in science, facts, evidence, experts, and etc. They say things like "they are wrong a lot." "It is used to lie." The biggest things I think I heard is "it has been manipulated for the sake of the power in being right" (Being right used to matter to many because they would obey sometimes if they think the person is right) and "there is a bias in what stuff is right and wrong" and "the enforcement of the facts, truth, evidence is based upon that bias."

I think it is some validity to those opinions. On this forum, on others, on social media, with people around me, in media and other places, it appears to me that there is a bias on mostly all sides of any matter, issue or situation. It appears science has proven certain things but when it gets political and/or about feelings, then what the science says doesn't really matter anymore. Some will claim science backs them up and it doesn't. Some will get some scientist to back them up. Some will go as far as trying to manufacture a scientific concensus, according to what some scientist have said. Then the statistics will say they are wrong then they will come up with there own statistics or say the statistics don't show the entire picture. I've heard claims by actual scientists that other claims were out there by scientists but only one view was being pushed that backed a particular agenda.

Sometimes it appears some will try to use a person's lack of evidence to censor and silence them. If they show evidence they will claim it is wrong even if many others claim it is right.

I think by allowing things like our own desires, feelings, wants, agendas, views, selfish motives and motives we think arr honorable, we as a whole have successful made it a "strongest survives" type of thing. Things like evidence when enforced, when the attempt for being impartial was made with judgement of the evidence and when we conceded to the evidence in an attempt to be non bias, that was when things like evidence mattered more. That's changed.

The difference maker used to be evidence no matter who had the power and no matter who had the majority. At least this was many people's thinking. Maybe that was naive of some to think. Now the difference maker is power.

On this forum, what is the purpose of asking for evidence if many are bias and will judge it to be wrong whether wrong or right? Maybe a few people are going by the old way and trying not to be bias. Maybe those people will consider it even if they normally disagree with the person giving it. But it seems to me most on here don't do that. Then what I see is when people don't accept the evidence, some resort to insults. Some of this is just my observations and opinion. Some is what I heard, seen and read. Even though I don't have the evidence to prove it, I hope the points would be considered and looked into. I know that won't happen most likely.

Evidence appeared to be one way of handling disputes and differences of view in a civil way. Power can be obtained and lost where one side might have it and then another might get it. Even if they get it dishonestly. And then they determine the way it should go.. My thought is when people stop conceding to power in a civilized way what happens. I think violence happens. Some may get tired of some using power to push their own agenda and wants, so when they can't get power the civilized way through elections and etc, they may try to fight for it. Especially if they have evidence on their side and it is being ignored by the ones in power. Some believe just because a group or person is in power doesn't mean is right and it doesn't mean they got their honestlynkr or by the majority. So when justice doesn't happen according to actual evidence, not being right according to power, some may fight with violence.

I've notice when some don't have the power because it was obtain by others in dishonest ways, they resort to the old way, actual non bias evidence.

Oh and this is not about the 2020 election, this is about the way things seem to use to be by some and they way they are now by some as it relates to evidence, facts, truth, experts and etc.
You can thank Drumpf, in part, for a lot of the distrust. He whipped his followers into a cult-like mentality and went around labeling any information he didn't like as "fake news" (the term has become a joke at this point). His cult followed their leader and now likewise label anything they disagree with as "fake".
 

Carol

Member
Do Evidence, Science, Facts, Experts, Medical Evidence, Academic Evidence, work like they used to?

I dont think so. It used to be that when. You had certain evidence on your side, you were right and the other person was wrong. Unless the other person presented better evidence, you were still right. It used to be that truth, facts, proof and evidence was respected as the difference maker. It used to be that many more trusted these things and enforced them.

I've spoken to many, heard many and read from many. And that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Many express a distrust in science, facts, evidence, experts, and etc. They say things like "they are wrong a lot." "It is used to lie." The biggest things I think I heard is "it has been manipulated for the sake of the power in being right" (Being right used to matter to many because they would obey sometimes if they think the person is right) and "there is a bias in what stuff is right and wrong" and "the enforcement of the facts, truth, evidence is based upon that bias."

I think it is some validity to those opinions. On this forum, on others, on social media, with people around me, in media and other places, it appears to me that there is a bias on mostly all sides of any matter, issue or situation. It appears science has proven certain things but when it gets political and/or about feelings, then what the science says doesn't really matter anymore. Some will claim science backs them up and it doesn't. Some will get some scientist to back them up. Some will go as far as trying to manufacture a scientific concensus, according to what some scientist have said. Then the statistics will say they are wrong then they will come up with there own statistics or say the statistics don't show the entire picture. I've heard claims by actual scientists that other claims were out there by scientists but only one view was being pushed that backed a particular agenda.

Sometimes it appears some will try to use a person's lack of evidence to censor and silence them. If they show evidence they will claim it is wrong even if many others claim it is right.

I think by allowing things like our own desires, feelings, wants, agendas, views, selfish motives and motives we think arr honorable, we as a whole have successful made it a "strongest survives" type of thing. Things like evidence when enforced, when the attempt for being impartial was made with judgement of the evidence and when we conceded to the evidence in an attempt to be non bias, that was when things like evidence mattered more. That's changed.

The difference maker used to be evidence no matter who had the power and no matter who had the majority. At least this was many people's thinking. Maybe that was naive of some to think. Now the difference maker is power.

On this forum, what is the purpose of asking for evidence if many are bias and will judge it to be wrong whether wrong or right? Maybe a few people are going by the old way and trying not to be bias. Maybe those people will consider it even if they normally disagree with the person giving it. But it seems to me most on here don't do that. Then what I see is when people don't accept the evidence, some resort to insults. Some of this is just my observations and opinion. Some is what I heard, seen and read. Even though I don't have the evidence to prove it, I hope the points would be considered and looked into. I know that won't happen most likely.

Evidence appeared to be one way of handling disputes and differences of view in a civil way. Power can be obtained and lost where one side might have it and then another might get it. Even if they get it dishonestly. And then they determine the way it should go.. My thought is when people stop conceding to power in a civilized way what happens. I think violence happens. Some may get tired of some using power to push their own agenda and wants, so when they can't get power the civilized way through elections and etc, they may try to fight for it. Especially if they have evidence on their side and it is being ignored by the ones in power. Some believe just because a group or person is in power doesn't mean is right and it doesn't mean they got their honestlynkr or by the majority. So when justice doesn't happen according to actual evidence, not being right according to power, some may fight with violence.

I've notice when some don't have the power because it was obtain by others in dishonest ways, they resort to the old way, actual non bias evidence.

Oh and this is not about the 2020 election, this is about the way things seem to use to be by some and they way they are now by some as it relates to evidence, facts, truth, experts and etc.

Humans "work" as they always have.
 
Top