4 Answers

  1. It should be understood that this question is from the field of high-brow science.

    I dare say that in science the term “stupidity”, as such, does not exist.

    It is more related to the arsenal of psychotechnics of devaluing gaslighting to indicate role superiority over interlocutors in unproductive types of corporate cultures. Which later manifests itself in a biased attitude and unfair redistribution of remuneration in the team. And no more.

    It should not be used to build estimates and scientific forecasts about the future of scientific knowledge aimed at obtaining a systemic innovation effect. This is a methodological simulacrum that does not correspond to reality. Since this method of purely subjective assessment does not have the main scientific components of knowledge: the actual problem, object, subject, goals, objectives, method and result of research.

    A person who uses such a method of persuasion in public is always asking for “change”. Therefore, it provokes emotional excesses.

    In science, however, there are concepts of reliability and accuracy of facts obtained through scientific tools, passive and active field and industrial experiments, as well as patterns of influence of factorial features on productive features. And, of course, the quality of recommendations and smart products offered on the basis of scientific research.

    In the process of scientific confirmation of reliability and accuracy, the exquisite performances and ambiguity of “imaginary authorities” are completely useless.

    Now, about the value of retrospective and proactive understanding of already existing scientific facts and patterns for their validity in changing conditions.

    With the development of a problem-based and project-based understanding of the situation, a systematic and interdisciplinary methodology of scientific knowledge, and improved tools for observation, measurement, and modeling, facts and patterns are regularly clarified. A significant part of them turn out to be untenable in the new conditions and are excluded from active scientific research and recommendations. They move into the field of culture of past scientific achievements.

    Therefore, there will probably never be a fatal and one-time recognition of the failure of all scientific knowledge in bulk, as presented in the question. The old unreliable and inaccurate information will always be replaced by a new one. The interpretation of long-known facts “in a different coordinate system” may radically change. There would be a demand for a practical and scientific solution to the problem.

    With respect. Alexander.

  2. There are people and there are people. Some people do science. For others, science is at best nauchpop, and at worst ren-TV. A serious difference between them is that the former see science as a process, as becoming, and the latter just get the actual squeeze – it's like if someone bought and cooked store – bought dumplings for you- you didn't make them, didn't buy them, didn't cook them, just got a ready-to-eat product and have no idea how it became the way you see it on the plate.

    Why is this important? Because when you look at science from a historical perspective, you realize that the idea of caloric was not “stupid”. It was a correct scientific theory that worked and corresponded to the ideas of its time. Later, it was absorbed by a larger theory and caloric lost its relevance. Of course, it's stupid to operate on her today. But she wasn't stupid, and she wasn't, and she wasn't. The geocentric model of the solar system wasn't stupid. Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired traits was not stupid. The ether theory was not stupid. There were some stupid things in science, but these stupid things didn't work from the very beginning and never became “modern scientific information”in their time. This is such a rare phenomenon that I even find it difficult to give examples on the spot.�

    But no, I remembered one – Galileo's theory of tides. He came up with it as proof of the Earth's rotation around its axis. He believed that tides arise due to the rotation of the Earth and illustrated this with the rotation of a flask of water, in which the centrifugal force forced the water to move along with the rotation. There was a serious flaw in this theory – it predicted one high tide a day, although anyone who had ever been to the sea knew that tides occur twice a day. Well, this theory was never accepted by the scientific community at any point, and, by the way, its blatant absurdity was one of the reasons why Galileo was convicted at the famous trial – the church wanted proof of the Earth's movement and there were people smart enough not to fall for such a mess. The result is known.

    Are there any things that the average person will soon consider stupid? Yes, of course. The concept of anthropogenesis has changed dramatically in recent years. Now it is known that this was not a linear process, there were many side dead-end branches and soon this information will be available to the general public. It would be considered foolish to think of Neonderthals as our ancestors. I haven't heard anything new about string theory for a long time, perhaps it has completely lost its relevance in the scientific world and soon this information will reach the layman, who will no longer take it seriously. Perhaps, in climatology, one or the other will still win (what does it matter to the layman who those are and who others are?) and then there will be one dominant position on climate change, and the average person will consider the loser stupid. But this is all philistine, and scientists understand that this was not nonsense, but a correct scientific theory that turned out to be wrong. Or absorbed in another theory.

  3. The question immediately arises – what kind of scientific information is meant?

    In the most general form, the birth and establishment of new scientific knowledge occurs as follows: there is a question, and there is a certain amount of empirical facts and materials, on the preliminary analysis of which it is possible to put forward hypotheses – as yet untested assumptions. Hypotheses are constructed in strict accordance with the laws of logic and taking into account the existing scientific knowledge in this subject area. The latter is very important – you need to understand that a scientific hypothesis is not any first thought that came to mind, so to speak, “from a fool”.�

    Then the hypothesis is tested. For example, by experiment, observation, measurement, or calculation. If the hypothesis passes this test, it is considered proven or confirmed. This is how a scientific theory appears – which is not just a proven hypothesis, but contains a detailed justification for the observed state of affairs, on the basis of which subsequent hypotheses can be put forward.

    In this sense, there is no need to speak at all about the “stupidity” of a particular scientific information, if information is understood as a scientific theory or even a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is refuted, it is discarded and the next one is considered. But the hypothesis is never obviously delusional, if put forward by a real scientist.

    However, there is a very subtle point in your question:

    will it seem silly?

    To appear and to appear – there is an abyss between these concepts. Many people today think that vaccinations kill, homeopathy heals, and astrology affects fate. To such people, anything will continue to appear and continue. But all this has nothing to do with scientific information.

  4. So it is so and not somehow or how! The author is right, but this is the correctness of the first approximation to the topic.

    And deeper? The deeper question is philosophical: from what foundations does science grow?

    Of course, well-known principles formulated by R. Bacon.

    Simply put, this means reproducibility and predictability of results.

    But this is all practice, so making a stone axe and knife out of volcanic glass can be considered a scientific experiment.

    This is a very low level of scientific justification.

    Philosophically, the question of science has not been resolved.

Leave a Reply