• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    No, that’s the point. Disagreeing is already part of the scientific method. To disagree with science as a whole is to argue with the method, not the findings.

    Imagine two explorers searching for a lost ancient ruins. They come to a path running north/south. One says to go north and the other says south. That’s a disagreement. They are both still explorers seeking discovery.

    A third observer sees them arguing and says “Ah, you don’t know the way. We should not be seeking ruins because I already know what is there. I was told in a dream that the ruins were made by Bigfoot, and he made them invisible and impossible to see. Searching is futile, but I can draw you a map from what I already know is there.”

    That’s not a third opinion of equal validity. It’s not even a disagreement. It’s just being wrong.

    • Dieterlan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      While I do agree with what you’re saying, and it’s a way of reading it I hadn’t considered, I don’t think the distinction is clear from the meme. Then again, it’s just a meme, so my expectations can probably stand to be lowered a bit.