Ask Lemmy

26890 readers

1905 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

101

What would happen if politicians hat to work like scientists? (ani.social)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Scientists have to list all the sources they use. And they quickly get called out for doing mistakes in that regard and suffer a loss of trust in their work.

What would happen if everything politicians say or write had to contain sources?

Speeches are prepared anyway, so you have to publish all the sources of your speech right after you held it. Saying things differently than in the source would be illegal.

I think it would be quite interesting, and a completely different way to do politics.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (5 children)

If it were such a wide spread issue, then science would not achieve the results it does. It lives from people checking other people’s work and arguing about the results.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

I don't think science has been successful in fields like sociology or psychology in the same way that it has been in hard sciences like physics.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It’s pretty incredible what we know about history, just from guessing by what we find and second guessing the first guess with more findings.

Or how we know pretty much all steps how the language evolved from Latin, thousands of years ago, to Italian, which is spoken today.

What I despise is when things are quite clear and politics just act like we would not know. Like how „brain drain“ is still a valid talking point while science already knows it’s false.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I agree. I only wanted to point out that reaching a consensus about the results of an experiment or a study is more difficult in some areas of research.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah, that’s certainly true.

load more comments (1 replies)