Uncertainty in Scientific Interpretations

When someone says that the facts speak for themselves, not only is that a bit of the reification fallacy, but facts need to be interpreted. This is taught in introductory creation science where it is pointed out that we all have the same facts. Science is involved, sure, but worldviews are extremely important.

From the beginnings of COVID-19 through variants today, people are proclaiming facts that seemingly support differing viewpoints. People supposedly prove the vaccines cause more harm than good, others point to the efficacy of the Fauci jab. However, there is a greater principle involved here.

Medical material, Pixnio / Bicanski

One of the problems in the peer review process is that results in papers often cannot be replicated. Similarly, there are "facts" that have gone unchallenged for years, then someone wants to do science and discovers that those facts aren't. Some rabidly believe in Scientism as the only means to truth. It doesn't work that way.

Whether it is social sciences or hard sciences, people have political and religious biases. Many times, scientists want to make names for themselves and resort to unethical behavior. The public has a loss of confidence in pronouncements of scientists, especially when it is shown that the secular science industry supports anti-God leftist agendas.

Scientism is the belief that the scientific method is the best (if not only) reliable way to find truth. In defense of scientism, the logical positivists used the argument that scientific conclusions can be replicated by others. Unfortunately, several meta-studies of scientific publications “have repeatedly failed to replicate a significant proportion of previously published results.” So says a European team seeking to understand why this is so.

To read the rest, see "Scientific Uncertainty Is Cosmic in Scope."