Can you show me where I actually said my view was that scientific facts are subjective.
This is getting ridiculous.
Once again in this thread you emphasize scientific facts can be questionable and are open to interpretation.
Do you understand what subjective means?
Facts or empirical evidence are based on experiments and observations and are only valid if the experimental and observational procedures meet the criteria of
repeatability and
reproducibility.
Yes and I made it clear that certain facts around climate change are real. I also saied that some with a political agenda or an ideological belief present alternative facts in the name of science even to the point of influencing society such as with policy. Around 20 years ago the science was saying that the oceans would rise 100 feet and wipe out the coastlines and many countries would become deserts. Or around 30 years ago climate scientists went the other way and predeicted climate change would come slowly and there was nothing to worry about.
Governments claimed using evidenced based science for their decision yet these scientific claims turned out wrong. My point is not that there are no scientific facts but that scientific facts get trumped or trashed for political and ideological reasons and then become the real facts that society bases itself on. In other words in these cases scientific facts don't seem to matter enough to uphold their status in a postmodernist society and fake facts seem to win out when it comes to how we should order society.
You are confusing these claims some of which are not even scientific for evidence when they are in fact predictions.
Predictions are not evidence but are falsified by the evidence.
That's silly of course scientists question the facts. As a fact is not absolute and subject to modification or even dismissal so they need to be questioned continually. Science isn't just observation. Its also explanations and predictions about observations. Mutations are observed in the genome. But inferences are made as what mutations do such as they provide a source of phenotype change. Predictions are then made. But for good science these aspects need to be questioned as data comes in.
We are taught from an early age to think of scientific facts as, well, facts. And it can be unsettling when this turns out to not be the case. But does this uncertainty really mean that we can't trust science? According to the Royal Society, the world's oldest independent scientific academy, the answer is quite the opposite. Questioning established facts is actually at the heart of the scientific method.
Why getting things wrong is good for science - BBC Ideas
Encouraging questioning helps to bring the true spirit of science into our educational system, and the art of asking good questions constitutes an important skill to foster for practicing scientists.
Why don’t you try paying attention to what was written in previous posts?
Theories and hypotheses are subject to questioning which try to explain the facts.
If the facts are assumed to be questionable then theories and hypotheses become pointless to make.
Why would Einstein have bothered to develop general relativity if the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit measured in the 19th century was considered questionable and not a scientific fact?
First why does the results of one universities entrance requiremts represent the true state of the overall state of university education. Thats creating an either/or fallacy. If I can't answer those questions does this mean I have failed to support my case that university education in the west is becoming woke and PC and as a result education is being dumbed down.
Second with that in mind I cannot see how you can say that the evidence I provided was rambling on. Are you dismissing that evdience because it doesn't answer your specific objection or because you think its false in relation to my overall point that woke and PC are dumbing down education. You seem to be dismissing all that evidence because I cannot answer your specific fallacy.
Lets not get into specific just yet. Lets focus on the overall issue of PC and Woke in the education system and for that matter in society at large. We first have to establish if there is a problem with PC and Woke in our education system. For that I have provided ample evidence.
You haven’t supplied any evidence at all; providing opinion pieces or irrelevant links does not constitute evidence.
I have given you two predictions where if wokeism/PC has caused a drop in the quality of post doctoral research which is where the cutting edge of science is, one would expect a decline in global university rankings and the number of Nobel Prize winners.
The evidence clearly shows otherwise and countries such as China where wokeism/PC does not exist are still well behind in both metrics.
Not really. First I am not saying that the West has lost their place as being the pioneers and leaders in science and education but rather there are signs of a deminishing education system which postmodernist wokeism and PC has contributed to. Citing mainly past glories in NP winners to refute theres a problem is blinkered thinking.
The fact is we are sliding down the ladder in international terms in education and its mainly happened in postmodernist society which has happened only in recent years but will have an impact now and in the future if not addressed. We are seeing more aned more cancelling of western thinking aned achievements by postmodernism and its well acknowledged. Cancel culture and PC oppose free thinking which is what science is about. The signs are there. A bit like climate change.
China are guilty of a deifferent type of ideology except rather than leftist ideology such as PC and Woke they engage in far Right ideology which denies open and free inquiry. The West has a history of developing science over 100's of years and many successes. This legacy still remains. But PC and Woke ideology has only come in recent years. We have seen the beginning of its effect in how we are cancelling the long held thinking of Enlightenment and science and if nothing is done then we will become more like China in that we cancel and police thinking more and more.
I would say the second reason is most relevant "growing anti-intellectualism in segments of US society" when it comes to woke and PC ideology.
Not only do you have zero evidence to support your assertions but have contradicted yourself in the process by claiming “
PC and woke ideology has only come in recent years.”
Do I need to point out a comment you made in post #416 “
Actually PC was around or beginning to brew in the 1980's. Its the result of the cultural revolutions of the 60's. Philosopher Allan Bloom predeicted woke ideology in the 80's and he has been proven right since.”
If wokelism/PC has been around for forty odd years then its effects should now be noticeable in the change of global university rankings and the transition of Nobel Prize winners from “woke” to “non-woke” countries.
You are either being illogical or disingenuous by changing the goalposts and then claiming these factors are fallacious arguments.
Still the point was a trend towards fraud which is increasing. I am not the one who is sensationalizing things with language such as “disturbing trend”. The scientific article is. If its only a small % then why do they say its disturbing. Nevertheless my point was not just restricted to fraud. It was about bias and lower standards generally in peer review.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Researchers who have examined peer review often find evidence that it works barely better than chance at keeping poor-quality studies out of journals or that it doesn't work at all. That conclusion has been arrived at in experiments like this one or this one and systematic reviews that bring together all the relevant studies, like this one and this one.
Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...
www.vox.com
This is a better indicator than fraud as its about the system itself, how bias and poor quality reviewing allows poor science to get through or to deny or slow down perhaps good science. This relates more to ideology as its allowing subjective thinking and personal/ideological beliefs to get in the way.
Do I need to remind you of being caught red handed for blatant cherry picking?
Your original link made it very clear the retraction rates are around 2-4 papers per 10,000 papers which was ignored in order to discredit the science.
Not only are you now engaging in diversionary tactics through confirmation bias but I can play this game as well by producing at least ten links which show the benefits of peer review for every one of your links indicating peer review is flawed.
What you have demonstrated in this thread is anti-intellectualism doesn’t need to be inspired by wokeism/PC as exemplified by your own posts.
