Science is an imperfect, and so far the best, system to try to find out what is true and isn't.
If you can prove something is not true that was widely believed before, it has a good chance of overturning the previous belief. There is frequent disagreement on all kinds of things, all the time, even if it may take a generation for radical new ideas to perculate into the mainstream.
They are so far from being an established church or priesthood I question your understanding of what science actually is.
bell-cot|1 year ago
Sociologically speaking, science and scientists are a huge established church and priesthood.
Supposedly 99.97% honest, self-policing...and amazingly hesitant to accept real outside oversight.
If you want a sense for how well that self-policing thing actually works out - do a search for "Roman Catholic Church abuse".
MattPalmer1086|1 year ago
If you can prove something is not true that was widely believed before, it has a good chance of overturning the previous belief. There is frequent disagreement on all kinds of things, all the time, even if it may take a generation for radical new ideas to perculate into the mainstream.
They are so far from being an established church or priesthood I question your understanding of what science actually is.
Mithriil|1 year ago
Also, the discrepancies with other areas of research should be worrying:
> None of the 331 authors disclosed COIs [(Conflicts of Interest)]. Not a single one.
> This is surprising because:
> COI disclosures in other areas of research, such as bioscience, range from about 17% to 33%;