How can we trust science, if we can't trust scientists? \ stacker news ~HealthAndFitness

pull down to refresh

How can we trust science, if we can't trust scientists?

1024 sats \ 12 comments \ @398ja 26 May HealthAndFitness

I've heard of a pharma company, I won't say where. They are privately funded, employing several top scientists who are working on cancer research. I believe they are trying to develop a gene therapy to cure cancer. On the paper, the idea must have looked good, but it turns out it doesn't work. I don't know much about the details of the research, if it's the concept, or their approach that doesn't work, but that's irrelevant for this post (and that's probably good so because I don't want to doxx anyone.)

The reason I'm writing this is because some top people in that organisation are now trying to fake their results, to make them look good, secure their funding and rescue their careers.

Think about it! How can we trust science, if we can't trust the scientists?

I remember how a few years ago, and to a certain extent even today, in certain normie circles, the social cost for questioning the COVID vaccine was so high, that most people just went along, despite all red flags. It was considered heresy...

view all related items

168 sats \ 2 replies \ @ken 26 May freebie

Nobody in their right mind blindly trusts a single result. Science is about consensus.

52 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 26 May

I want to tweak that, but I think this is what you're getting at.

Science is about discovering how the world functions. Therefor, the body of scientific results should fit together in a coherent picture.

If one result deviates dramatically from the larger set, it's worth investigating further, but shouldn't be adopted as the truth immediately.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @ken 26 May freebie

Yes, agreed!

84 sats \ 4 replies \ @LibertasBR 26 May

Good science works like FOSS or an open-source project—researchers share their results in detailed whitepapers and publish in peer-reviewed journals while keeping the scientific community informed and open to analysis. When this is centralized behind patents, low-quality journals, or even community members who lack credibility, it becomes clear that something is off. I believe it's important for everyone to understand how this kind of process works. I'm not saying everyone needs to be a scientist, but they should know how the scientific process functions. I’m not a developer myself, yet I understand how open-source software works, how it is reviewed and validated.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 26 May

Many problems have emerged from this ideal:

Very few people do replications;
Peer-review entrenches the status quo, because that's what all the peers believe;
Null results don't get published, so people fudge their data and methods to generate significant differences,
Fewer and fewer people are interested in being peer reviewers.
Research has become so specialized and complex that there aren't enough peers to adequately assess quality.

Those were the first few that came immediately to mind.

The truth is that there are only imperfect verification systems, so we need to stop treating any verification method as though it's perfect.

The ultimate test of scientific research is when we try to put the knowledge into action and see if the world works as the research proposed. That feedback can take a very long time, though.

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @LibertasBR 26 May

It's not perfect, but it's a valid protocol, and if followed strictly, it ensures good scientific work. The points you raised are definitely valid, and I agree with them—this is where my criticism comes in regarding the lack of people available to evaluate quality published work. Today, there are too few peer reviewers, which is why it takes so long to publish a reviewed paper. I don't necessarily see this as a problem if those who do review are known for fairness and objective evaluations. But this highlights the need for more people to review papers, to help ensure the quality of the journals that publish them.

In summary, I partially agree with the points you raised. This isn't a problem with the protocol itself, but with us—not knowing how to properly assess good research. Especially the major news outlets, which do a poor job of communicating scientific news. They often don't even do the bare minimum, like reading the actual paper and verifying whether all the peer review steps, data, and methodologies were published before releasing sensationalist headlines.

19 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 26 May

Things that work on paper, but not in practice, don't actually work on paper. They were just incompletely described.

I think we'll move towards a more open review protocol. In many ways, we already are. I haven't fully fleshed out what I think that will look like, but it's been on my mind for a while.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DannyM 26 May

This. And many people, including "scientists" especially those who scream "trust the science" do not understed the scientific process anymore

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @flat24 26 May

Sincerely this is a topic of great interest. I think that like everything in this world, it is built on something that works, but at the same time it is used to cheat people with the unstoppable corruption that exists everywhere (vaccines)

When I spend about 2020. I was not able to trust vaccines. In the end I did not take any, they were complicated days because they wanted to impose it to attend anywhere. But as my mind assumes and accepts that there is corruption everywhere, when I could I got a false vaccination voucher and I could move among the sheep they walked guided. And at the same time they say that vaccines do not work and even that there are people dying to take those doses! 🙀 One of the biggest discharges.

Thanks to that event (2020) it was that I woke up and became more conscious about many things that happen in the world and in the end to complete the rebirth offered by the Plan-Demia, at the end of that same year it was to observe Bitcoin with attention for the first time.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 26 May

Don't trust, verify.

109 sats \ 0 replies \ @rootmachine 26 May

This is exactly why whistleblowers matter - and why institutions hate them. When scientists are pressured to fake results just to survive, the system's already broken. And when people expose that rot - whether it's inside a pharma lab or through leaks like WikiLeaks - they're treated like criminals instead of heroes. The COVID example you mentioned shows how messy things get when politics, fear, and public messaging intersect with science. It's a reminder that open debate and skepticism shouldn't be taboo - those are key to good science. Anyway ... We often say "trust the science" but we forget that science is done by people - people with careers, egos, and sometimes dirty incentives.... Real trust comes from transparency, not blind faith. If exposing fraud gets you fired or silenced, how can we pretend the system is built on truth? This is the question. Even so, the real heresy isn't questioning authority - it's pretending it never lies...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @guerratotal 26 May

This is the tragic consequence of fiat science, driven by fiat money. When research depends on pleasing investors, governments, or institutions — instead of being aligned with truth — corruption becomes inevitable. The incentive structure is broken. And it’s not just pharma, it’s across the entire academic and scientific world. That’s why trust is collapsing everywhere. Real science requires intellectual sovereignty, but that’s almost impossible when the system itself punishes honesty and rewards deception.