FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 7 months ago...lemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square168fedilinkarrow-up1737arrow-down1188
arrow-up1549arrow-down1image...lemmy.blahaj.zoneFundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 7 months agomessage-square168fedilink
minus-squareSparrowHawk@feddit.itlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12arrow-down19·7 months agoBut it does. Cigarettes were healthy and climate change didn’t exist 50 years ago
minus-squareHonytawk@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14arrow-down1·7 months agoClimate Change has existed for over 110 years in science.
minus-squaremojofrododojo@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·7 months agojust the start, too. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://commonhome.georgetown.edu/topics/climateenergy/defense-denial-and-disinformation-uncovering-the-oil-industrys-early-knowledge-of-climate-change/ https://theconversation.com/what-big-oil-knew-about-climate-change-in-its-own-words-170642 https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/desmog-fossil-fuel-industry-climate-risks-1950s-denial/
minus-squareLeviathan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·7 months agoNeither of those things were backed by science. Confusing convincing lobbying with science is a problem today was it was then.
minus-squareAntiproton@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·7 months agoThere was never any science saying “cigarettes are healthy”.
minus-squaredariusj18@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down3·7 months agoDefine healthy. Nicotine is a stimulant and does improve mental acuity.
minus-squareDraconic NEO@mander.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down1·7 months agoI mean those things didn’t change, it was just about how research was manipulated by money and human biases.
minus-squareFundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up18arrow-down3·7 months agoThe truth doesn’t change. Scientific consensus does. Scientific consensus has been wrong on countless things. After all, science is about getting things a little less wrong every time.
minus-squareSparrowHawk@feddit.itlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14arrow-down2·7 months agoYes but science is a process, not a thing, and that process is corruptible. There is a differentiation between the natural world for how it’s made and the human process that quantifies that knowledge. Science has always changed, just like human culture did
But it does. Cigarettes were healthy and climate change didn’t exist 50 years ago
Climate Change has existed for over 110 years in science.
just the start, too.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
https://commonhome.georgetown.edu/topics/climateenergy/defense-denial-and-disinformation-uncovering-the-oil-industrys-early-knowledge-of-climate-change/
https://theconversation.com/what-big-oil-knew-about-climate-change-in-its-own-words-170642
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/desmog-fossil-fuel-industry-climate-risks-1950s-denial/
Neither of those things were backed by science. Confusing convincing lobbying with science is a problem today was it was then.
There was never any science saying “cigarettes are healthy”.
Define healthy. Nicotine is a stimulant and does improve mental acuity.
I mean those things didn’t change, it was just about how research was manipulated by money and human biases.
The truth doesn’t change. Scientific consensus does. Scientific consensus has been wrong on countless things. After all, science is about getting things a little less wrong every time.
Exactly.
Yes but science is a process, not a thing, and that process is corruptible.
There is a differentiation between the natural world for how it’s made and the human process that quantifies that knowledge.
Science has always changed, just like human culture did