FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 29 days ago...lemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square171fedilinkarrow-up1742arrow-down1186
arrow-up1556arrow-down1image...lemmy.blahaj.zoneFundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 29 days agomessage-square171fedilink
minus-squareSparrowHawklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12arrow-down19·28 days agoBut it does. Cigarettes were healthy and climate change didn’t exist 50 years ago
minus-squareHonytawk@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14arrow-down1·28 days agoClimate Change has existed for over 110 years in science.
minus-squaremojofrododojo@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·27 days 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-squareAntiproton@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·28 days agoThere was never any science saying “cigarettes are healthy”.
minus-squaredariusj18@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down3·28 days agoDefine healthy. Nicotine is a stimulant and does improve mental acuity.
minus-squareLeviathan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·28 days agoNeither of those things were backed by science. Confusing convincing lobbying with science is a problem today was it was then.
minus-squareDraconic NEO@mander.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down1·28 days agoI mean those things didn’t change, it was just about how research was manipulated by money and human biases.
minus-squareFundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up18arrow-down3·28 days 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-squareSparrowHawklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14arrow-down2·28 days 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/
There was never any science saying “cigarettes are healthy”.
Define healthy. Nicotine is a stimulant and does improve mental acuity.
Neither of those things were backed by science. Confusing convincing lobbying with science is a problem today was it was then.
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