To ask to what extent you trust science?

"Ancient wisdoms", Jesus Christ. If there is actually any genuinely beneficial substance to those "ancient wisdoms", then science is how we'll find out, and they'll become modern practice. Like aspirin. If they're no better than placebo - and the placebo effect is incredible - then they have no substance to them and deserve to stay as woo.

Pesticides help us produce more food but I suspect they are not grrat for us compared to organic food etc.

This is a very broad-brush statement, for which there is very little evidence. Even the organic movement, in its official pronouncements at least, doesn't claim that an organically-grown peach or whatever is better for the person who eats it; the only claims they make (again, officially — the advertising standards people are watching) are in terms of the effects on the environment.

But without modern pesticides and chemical fertilisers there wouldn't be enough food for everyone in the world, by a long way, so organic is mostly a luxury for Western consumers. It's very hard to be vegan and eat organic, for example, since most organic food is grown with animal-based fertilisers — either abattoir waste or slurry/manure — which have their own issues for the environment, as well as being dependent on the existence of a meat/dairy based agriculture, which is not great for the environment. (I'm a hypocrite and eat meat, FWIW.)

These things are often more political than scientific. A few years ago there was a kerfuffle about those cute organic green beans that you can buy out of season at £4.50 for 200g because they're grown in Kenya. The climate change people pointed out that they can hardly be better for the planet simply by being "organic" given all the CO2 involved in flying them to the UK. They got together and reached a compromise, which is that these beans could be labelled as organic, despite the CO2, if they were also Fairtrade. Whatever that is, it isn't science.

Science is a social process. And no, I'm very skeptical

we run the risk of loosing ancient wisdoms

Not true.
Science is very interested in ancient wisdom and in verifying if there is any truth in it. If not, it's not an ancient wisdom it's an Old Wives Tale

"Science" is a process, not a thing or a discovery. Science is how we create knowledge. Science is how we know what is true. It was science that proved that thalidomide caused birth defects. The mistakes we make with technology and medicine and genetics we make because of what we don't yet know.

Yes, I trust the process of science. I understand that the process of knowledge creation is buggy and sometimes there are terrible consequences to this. I also understand that the way to prevent and minimise this in the future is by increasing our knowledge.

Absolutely, in future we will no doubt look back on current cancer treatments the way we look back on leeches

Er, leeches are still used - with good reason - in some therapies. Science has validated their efficacy.

Have RTFT to see quite how "ancient wisdoms" slid in, but they are as susceptible to the scientific method as any other claim someone might make.

If I have a grumble about science, it's that there are times when it isn't applied and should be.

From personal experience, it was an old wives tale that if a woman experienced heartburn during pregnancy, the baby would be born with a lot of hair. This was anecdotally confirmed by a lot of midwives I met, but poo-pooed by science.

UNTIL someone, somewhere (and I CBA to cite, it's Sunday 😀) discovered that the hormone that promotes hair growth in the foetus also happens to cause some sphincter muscles to weaken and it crosses the placenta. The stomach has a big sphincter at the top and if this weakens you get ..... heartburn !

Which explained why when a friend had her lad after suffering almost non stop heartburn, the full head of hair (which he never lost !) was hardly a surprise.

I wonder how much quicker that research and connection would have happened if men got pregnant ...

It is a bit of a strange post, you ask 'do you trust science' and then give examples of where scientific discoveries have resulted in negative outcomes as well as positives. Do you mean 'do you trust science to only ever do good?' It's like saying 'do you trust maths?' Because some numbers are less than others.

I trust the scientific method as a means to advance knowledge. How that knowledge is shared and used/misused isn't intrinsic to science but to society, capitalism and human biases, strengths and failings.

I suggest thinking of science less as a set of facts (or purported facts) and more as a process. No one would claim that the current state of scientific knowledge is 100% correct but the scientific method means we should be taking more steps in the right direction (towards getting things right) than the wrong direction.

Also worth bearing in mind what science can and can’t tell us. Studies may show that a particular operation is safe and effective but that doesn’t mean that everyone having that operation will have the desired outcome. This isn’t always well-communicated.

I spend a decent amount of time searching through scientific studies, articles, effectively producing literature reviews etc. I’m finding myself increasingly frustrated by what scientists are not doing - they found that x worked for y at wavelengths c,e,f, and declare this a success without convincing explanation why they apparently did not test wavelengths a,b,d,g… Or the quality of some descriptions - they tested “a plastic container a few mm thick” - what plastic? What is “a few mm”? I’m unsure how this hasn’t been picked up prior to publication.

Obviously funding is one big issue. Whether that funding arises from the public, private, or third sector, the end result is the same - to gain funding you need a track record of results and for your topic to be de rigueur.
Then there’s the funding of the journals themselves…

Overall though, I absolutely trust the scientific method. I think one just has to approach the review of studies with a critical eye and form one’s own conclusions.

I trust in the scientific process. That doesn't mean I believe it is always applied appropriately or that it is infallible. I also don't trust all those who are involved in the application of science...AI being a prime example of this. On the whole I think science has brought humanity a long way, it is government, society and some other specific actors that have misused or misunderstood science in some contexts. But that doesn't undo all the good that has come.

I mostly trust science, but I keep in mind that scientific evidence is often misrepresented in the media, unevenly applied in health care and that the real world often lags far behind the newest scientific findings.

I trust science. I don't always trust people.
Business, personal and political motives can creep into science and pollute it.
The major issue in my opinion is that the general population don't really understand how scientific advance works - that theories are developed to explain observed phenomenon and they are just that - theories - and are open to being challenged and improved on. Even evolution is still a theory, but one that has stood the test of time for so long it can to all intents and purposes be treated as fact.
Same with Climate Change, although that process has been squished into a mere 40-50 yrs and has been a case study in business and political interests trying to push the process off course.

And FYI the issue with Thalidomide was arguably that they didn't do enough animal testing - if they had done more on apes rather than mice they would have seen the deformities

Yours seems like a very crude, rather basic view for someone who is a qualified radiologist. The thalidomide scandal happened because of laxer testing protocols in the 1950s, because of far less knowledge about drugs crossing the placental barrier, and laxer requirements for selling drugs over the counter. (Interestingly, the US didn’t approve it.) The consequences of the full horror of what it caused led to changes in testing and licensing protocols, the necessity for drugs to be tested on humans before licensing, and the necessity to provide actual evidence they’re safe for use by pregnant women if they are prescribed for use in pregnancy, plus the invention of the yellow card scheme to allow anyone to share unknown side effects quickly. When thalidomide is prescribed now, women taking it need to be on two forms of contraception and take regular pregnancy tests.

That doesn’t in any way mitigate the sufferings of those affected, but science will always be working with what it knows at any time, and the pharmaceutical industry will be looking at ways to profit. Absolutely, in future we will no doubt look back on current cancer treatments the way we look back on leeches and bloodletting, but that’s always been the case.

we run the risk of loosing ancient wisdoms

Er, ok?

A lot of the UK funding is very impartial. The process is rigorous, involving external review, and very fair.

I trust science 90%. The other 10% accounts for new/improved data, bias, human error or maliciousness etc.

Interesting debate.

I think, as a PP mentioned, people need to understand that it's more method than anything else, and that not everything can be set in stone via the results because research is often ongoing.

One bug bear of mine about people being intractable about something, say with regards to medicine, because "science" is that while something might work / be safe for 95% of subjects, if you're in the 5% who suffers a catastrophic reaction or injury for whatever reason, there's an attitude if "well, that's unfortunate but never mind, everyone else is OK, and if you make a fuss you're going against science". I know that sounds a bit muddled and simplistic, but I do think that it's possible to acknowledge that science isn't infallible, and look after those on the rough end without denying them the right to be a bit upset about it.

I trust the science, but not the people in charge of the science/data, they will only tell us what they want us to know.
For instance I'm on medication due to having osteoporosis, and the data around this drug, its use and most importantly has changed greatly in the ten years I've been on it. However many people are prescribed it when not meeting the criteria for it and aren't told the issues re missing a dose or coming off it despite this now being scientifically proved data. The medical reps don't mention it, many doctors don't research or even believe it at times when flagged by a patient and because it's an injection the patient is less likely to see or read the leaflet which has some of the info albeit couched in manufacturers terms

Science is a lot less about "knowing stuff" (as the great public believe it is) and much more about the process of getting to know stuff.

Hence science will never be finished.

Coupled with the fact that real scientists deliberately put their work into the hands of other scientists (and occasionally the public) to find fault with. Which is the yardstick by which you can spot charlatans and snake oil salespersons a mile off - they are the exact opposite. Secretive and dismissive.

I trust science. Science doesn't have all the answers, but it has the best answers available to us at any given point in time.

I have zero issues with medical testing on animals. It's very very highly regulated, and a necessary evil.