What Refutes Science...

Indeed, and in addition if your religion is not supported by the facts it's time to revise its assumptions. Religion can deal with new evidence, it's just rather slow compared to say human lifetimes. I suspect thats because the basis of many faiths reasoning is built on philosophy, Christianity in particular. Which is a kind of precursor to experimental science where progress is slow or even circular.

Ideally, yes.
What ends up happening if your research shows new conclusions on the basis of “better science” is that those in power will probably ridicule your new conclusions and findings since it doesn’t align with ‘accepted’ scientific consensus and doctrine. And by ridicule I don’t mean challenging the new theory on the basis of counter data/evidence and reasoning. I mean ad hominem attacks on the researchers themselves. “Well, they graduated from a top 30 university and not MIT, so anything they produce is not worth looking into”. You won’t be funded and the status quo will be allowed to continue without significant challenge.
I used to want to be a researcher when I was younger. My experiences have been wrought with closed-mindedness, arrogance, and lack of critical judgment and objectivity. Maybe my experiences aren’t representative, but hearing from others (at least in my field), I see that this is a systemic and widespread problem within the scientific community as a whole.
How long did it take to convince people the Earth was not at the center of our universe?

Your favorite celebrity

"I did my own research"
Oh, you did? You had a lab, and test subjects and ran double blind studies? Is it peer reviewed?
"Oh, no I listened to Joe Rogan"

How about 47 TikTok videos?

All I gotta say is technology has finally made us dumber

Who has time for YouTube? I get my conspiracies and lies from millisecond-long TikToks.

what if i watched THREE youtube videos?
- You're clearly an expert then, don't hold back
  
  Should probably create another youtube video.
- Then baby we got an algorithm going.

I once saw a cow on a roof. Can science explain that? I didn't think so.
- True, a sphere would roll off
- Cow goes up, cow comes down, can't explain that.
  
  Damn, you're an older millennial.

don't worry, science as conclusions derived from research will soon be replaced by bullshit psuedo-research-AI-word-vomit derived from equally bullshit pre-determined conclusions
- This has already been done by politicians and continues to this day
  
  And some scientists!
  “If I repeat it in enough papers it’ll become true” seems to be the mantra of scientists with hard to defend theories they claim are fact.
- Did you write this with deepseek?
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_fHJIYENdI
  You should really watch this -- AI is being used in real research, and not all of it is bad. Those who think AI is bad are simply uneducated luddites.
  
  Luddites’ main concern was the systemic redirection of revenue from them, the laborers, to the owners of the factories. They did not simply hate technology for technology’s sake.
  The fact that you ignore this basic historical fact betrays an embarrassing ignorance.
  I personally don’t give a shit if some AI is used in research. I think that’s awesome. But AI also actively and materially deprives laborers of compensation for their work, both before and after the model training process. And I fucking hate that.
  
  the problem is that AI can generate a million bogus "research papers" for every single legit paper. and for the general public (ie science writers, bloggers, news reporters, etc.) they are indistinguishable from each other. so unless you have literally done the research on a particular hypothesis yourself (good luck with that, with all the funding cuts), then everything is suspect
  so the question of "are we better off with AI?" as of right now, is absolutely fucking not
  
  AI's primary use case so far is to further concentrate wealth with the wealthy, and to replace employees. People who think AI is bad recognize that it is in the hands of the modern generation of robber barons, and serves their interests.
  Those who don't recognize this are delusional.

It isn’t even better science, it is just more science.

But I said the phrase "scientists don't know everything" so now you have to listen to my bullshit.
- Ahhhhh... Love that line. My brother and his fiance just had a baby and are debating on vaccines or not. They asked me, I said, it's always better to get them and protect your child from as much as you possibly can. Like all of us here are vaccinated. I recommended that they follow what their doctor recommends. My dad chimes in with, "Doctors don't know everything, they're just trying to sell drugs for the pharmaceutical companies, that's all they care about." I looked at him and said, "As someone who studied biology in college, there's a lot that a lot of us don't know. But seeing as that doctor has had significantly more training than I've had, let alone you, I'm going to trust them more than some random article I've read online." He stopped talking to me for a large portion of the day after that.
- If they did, their job would no longer exist! This is proof they don't know everything!

ok, but what about three Youtube videos?
- As long as they're shorts, only showing one vague, unverifiable, third or fourth hand anecdote each.
  
  That makes sense. I heard that my college roommate's pen pal said something like that.
- Are they at least 3rd-hand, (or more) spurious sources with an inscrutable chain of custody, because if not, you can miss with that.
  
  Are they at least 3rd-hand, (or more) spurious sources with an inscrutable chain of custody
  Is there any other kind?
- Maybe, if they're from potholer54
  
  All hail potholer54! The guy is awesome

an anecdote your cousin told you

What you seem to be forgetting is that somebody would have to pay for that science ... in that sense, "control over finance" does , in reality, refute science.

Dude, have you looked out your window? Its so obvious the qorld is flat... /s
- well ... not to be nitpicky, and i recognize this is a sensitive topic ... but i have come to understand that the simpler model is to be preferred, if it is precise enough for the practical purpose. As such, since most people aren't satellite engineers, they don't need to know about earth's curvature. Earth being flat is often the simpler model, of enough precision, to actually prefer it.
  Just saying.

That why its such a shame that big corporations can and do regularly buy scientists opinions in exchange for funding setting up a ill give $xxx.xxx for your environmental impact study to not blame my coal mine. Thus by negating the peer review process. science can sadly no longer be taken at face value with out knowing who funded it and why. i miss trusting scientists who are clearly smarter than me because they fell in to the capitalist greed trap RIP real science we should have treated you better and i am sorry.
- This is why you never trust a single source. For anything. Reputable news organizations have never trusted single sources, they always use multiple sources to verify information they are told. Science is not immune from this, and never has been. And even for those that you've followed in the past, times change, especially in a capitalist society with a massive oligarchy that owns the news companies, like modern western civilizations. Trust, but verify.
  
  Big money can buy a lot of sources, even most on topic, and distorts what gets researched. So you still have to look at where the money is coming from.
- How often does this actually happen? The cases where this does occur stand out because they are rare. I really hate the implication that scientists are not trustworthy because some individuals acted in bad faith. Scientific fraud is real but it doesn't mean you can't trust science.
  
  I agree, but also approach much of what is published with skepticism because there are many factors that can lead to results not being reproducible.
  Not that there aren't issues with this idea, but I would like to see peer review change to include another independent lab having to reproduce your experiments as a means to verify the results. The methods you hand over to that lab are the ones that will be published, so if they can't reproduce your results, it stays in review.

Counterpoint: nuh-uh (They et. al., good ol' days).
Citations
They et. al. (Good ol' days). Trump proves that YouTube videos about The Creator that validate your feelings are equivalent to science. Many People Are Saying, 1(2), 10–20. Things I done heard. https://doi.org/I forget
- Thanks, I was wondering what a tiny bit of partially digested dinner would taste like.
  
  That's what I was going for! Sorry about dinner.
- Counter-counterpoint: uh... damnit, I forgot the tooth (already!?).
  A statement which somehow makes so much more sense than the rest of 2025 so far.
  You might want to banana.
  
  Crazy town, banana pants!

Hey, but measles in Texas, and tuberculosis in Missouri, are making comebacks!
Ivermectin! RFKjr! Bleach!
Learn to ReSeArcH!!
- Aren't those just from the gay space lasers and Jewish hurricanes? I feel like their resistance means we're on the right path.

something that does count:
a dream about a snake eating it's own butt (cool story btw)

Absolutely!! Unless of course we are talking about "burdening" certain women (or certain men) with the inconvenience of giving birth to another person.
In this case, science has absolutely no place in the conversation!! I don't care when life starts!! No scientist should be allowed to weigh in on whether or not abortion is murder!!!!!
Following this logic, someone who kills a pregnant mother shouldn't be held liable for the murder of 2 people! And fathers who do not want to be fathers but are being forced into the situation should not be held liable for caring for a bundle of cells that they didn't want!
All of these double standards are tiring and gross!!
- I don't know whether or not this is sarcasm, and frankly - it doesn't matter. Science provides the facts - it does not provide values. You need to combine facts with values in order to come up with an ethical verdict.
  If the resulting verdict is not what you wanted, you can always rethink your values. This is essentially what philosophers have done for millennia. It does mean you'll need to defend your new values, of course, but you don't have to stick with old values when it turns out they have bad implications.
  What you don't get to do, is decide to ignore or twist the facts. The facts don't change just because they're inconvenient. If you lie in order to get the ethical verdict you desire, then you are tautologically in the wrong.

And your greasy greasy granny

N@zi published multiple scientific researches to justify their doings.
- And better science refuted their junk science. What's your point?

While they don't refute it, enough of those do prevent better science from happening though, especially when it's needed.

I need a tshirt of this

Counterexamples also refute, without necessarily being science.
- Counterexamples only go so far. What you really need is counterexamples, and an analysis of their implications, including a probability study.
  In other words, well, science.
  
  Because of the implication.
- Isn't a counterexample just da tomb? Even though its only won case-a-dilla, it's still le sahyênçe.
  
  Sorry, I don't understand.
- Counter examples only refute when they are publicised. When they are ignored because the status quo is preferred they achieve little
  See for example low carb nutrition

Science is important, it helps us solve many of the problems we do not have without science

Foucalt would probably be opinionated on this.