Kenneth has an incredibly thorough method for checking the validity of scientific claims and that’s what I believe everyone should be doing before citing these “facts”. I can’t absolve myself of perpetrating what I have just reprimanded though. I intend to develop my own fact checking system as well.
I’m honored you mentioned me and YES definitely come up with a system that works for you!
I actually can’t recall my system – I mean, it’s just something I “do” that seems to work.. .and I can usually remember what I usually do when someone really wants to know but can’t atm smile emoticon
but yes yes yes YES yes yes! Figure out how to arm your “bullshit meter” – whatever works for you… and revise as necessary. I don’t know the perfect system… I keep looking for new ways to figure out “this is true enough likely” and “this is utter bullshit” and “this COULD be true but I dunno seems fishy because a) b) c) d) e) f) and sometimes q)…..” etc.
Scientism is on the rise and while it’s not the worst possible new religion to appear on the world scene, it’s annoying because: SCIENCE-SO-ITS-TRUE.
People who ‘get’ Science know it doesn’t work like that. Every “fact” CAN be overturned – that’s the power of it.
People want absolutes and really, that’s fine for them. Certainty is addictive like a drug and people get hooked. But it annoys ME when people have unquestionable Science belief because they’re not APPLYING the best parts of what science can do in their OWN reasoning: Critique, question, probe, don’t get too married to your idea so you’re not blinding by your own awesomeness, etc.