Giá Gross Là Gì | Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists


Giá Gross Là Gì đang là nội dung được rất nhiều người tìm kiếm. Vậy nên hôm nay Thủ Thuật 365 sẽ đưa đến các bạn chủ đề Giá Gross Là Gì | Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists thông qua video và bài viết dưới đây:

Many of the world’s biggest problems require asking questions of scientists — but why should we believe what they say? Historian of science Naomi Oreskes thinks deeply about our relationship to belief and draws out three problems with common attitudes toward scientific inquiry — and gives her own reasoning for why we ought to trust science.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design — plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at

Follow TED news on Twitter:
Like TED on Facebook:

Subscribe to our channel:

Tag: Giá Gross Là Gì, TEDTalk, TEDTalks, TED Talk, TED Talks, TED, TED@250, Naomi Oreskes, climate change, history, science

Cảm ơn các bạn đã theo dõi chủ đề Giá Gross Là Gì | Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists. Thủ Thuật 365 hy vọng đã giúp được bạn giải đáp được vấn đề, mọi thắc mắc hay bình luận xuống phía dưới.

Xem thêm: https://thủthuậ


  1. Masterful manipulation. Scientists are not ideal creatures immune to human vise. They can deceive themselves and peers and the whole world for decades. I am sure she knows hundreds of such cases in the history of science.
    A scientist caught on lies and manipulations ("Hide the decline!") should lose trust.
    A scientist making wrong predictions decade after decade should lose his reputation.
    A scientist who manipulates data to fit the theory should be exposed as a scam.
    A scientist who instead of debating a skeptical opponent makes sure he is cancelled should not be a scientist himself.
    Somehow none of that happens in climate science. Why? Too much money and power are at stake?

  2. Well, to be honest most(if not all) of us blindly believe in what the scientists say. Most of us don't really know how they came up with that conclusion. In that sense science itself is sort of a cult(well ya sort of) with all of the world's population being its members.

    For EXAMPLE: we read a book that says the earth and a bunch of other planets revolve around the sun and this entire system called the solar system , which in itself revolves around something, so on and so forth. Well other than the guy who wrote the book, his collaborators and few others no one really knows if that is how it is, we just believe them. Most of us will be like ' oh well they're scientists, they know what they're doing' or 'ahh…science is based on proofs' etc.

    Now, in the hypothetical and unfortunate event, let us assume due to adverse factors and with the passage of time those who have conducted study on matters related to the certain theory that is written in the above mentioned book ( an example) are relics of the past. And due to unknown reasons, literature in relation to the proof of the theory is lost or destroyed (for instance).
    What then?
    I'm sure we would still believe that the earth revolves around the sun but on what basis? How would this belief be any different from the "religious" beliefs people have(except for the absence of an entity known as "god")?
    Would we restart our research with a different approach ?Would those who conduct studies on this matter end up with the same conclusion or a different one?

    Extending the discussion further, it would be appropriate to consider certain "religions" (cultures would be a more appropriate term) in which people worship everything, the sun, the moon, the earth, dogs , monkeys , cows, trees, the wife worships the husband and the husband worships the wife, a statue, a wall, a photograph, etc as God. Some religious books in context of what I just said claim many things. And there are books that are a part of the same religion that question these claims. Books that are assertive and are based on experience and on experiments. Doesnt this sound a lot like science 🤔??
    Many things I used to do back in the day in chemistry lab felt like rituals to me. Some of the rules and regulations were so pointless that I doubted as to whether what I was learning is the right thing or not.
    So how are these two things so different from one another?
    It would sound like a plot hole of sorts if you were a guy from the hypothetical scenario I previously mentioned wouldn't it?
    Well, I don't know but its probably reason enough to ponder and be more trustful and be less in denial, I guess😅
    In contexts where I mention religion(or culture, which better describes it) I exclude all and any monotheistic religions. In this context, they don't satisfy the definition of religion in terms of the example I gave earlier.

  3. This probably applies to most people who blindly believe and have faith in something without any real basis to it. However its a bit different for others.
    As far as western scie…. err…. I mean modern science is concerned, well it has created more problems than it has done good to our planet as a whole (flora, fauna and mankind) and it creates more problems in its futile efforts of attempting to fix its previous ones😞.
    (Vaccines are an example of the above. Healthcare is just not good, to say the least. Visit a doctor and he makes sure you remain a patient for the rest of your life, of course in general that is).
    Today's humans are just too full of themselves. That's the main issue.
    Water gets polluted due to industrial effluent and scientists find a way to purify it, the purifier probably causes global warming so they say they found water and oxygen on Mars so maybe we should go there😕
    This is as stupid as science can get.
    I went off topic. I know.

  4. Trust 'which' scientists? Since the Pharmaceutical Vaccine and Drug Industry funds the W.H.O. and the CDC thru the back door. Isn't this a major conflict of interest. See how Bill Gates monopolizes global health: Are you aware of how the CDC covered-up the MMR vaccine/autism link? For details on how CDC receives funding from BigPharma see documentary titled: "Vaxxed" Just follow the money trail. This corruption has been around for a while and extends into the entire medical field.
    I recommend viewing The Corbett Report critique on of The World Economic Forum's
    'Global RESET'. James Corbett talks about the downside of being controlled by the Globalist agendas: When Trump spoke at the WEForum he was not in favor of their 'Globalist agenda'.
    And then if you want to enjoy a completely original look at climate science: I recommend youtube searching for Tony Heller. His temperature, climate,and forest fire presentations will awaken any media manipulated person. or here:

  5. 11:50 if you extend that graph back past 1900, say go back 12000 years, what you will see is numerous temperature increases that exceed this and not one can be attributed to CO2. These have hard data. And no scientist can attribute them to CO2. The only one that can be attributed to CO2 is this computer prediction that's been manipulated endlessly. It's odd how in the interest of truth this isn't touched upon. What we find instead is this threat to science. She attacks the scientific method and tries to shift science toward group skeptical belief and a consensus of those beliefs. This is because she has no data to show that promotes her political agenda, but the manufacture of a collective belief without data (propaganda) is possible. So she ends with her talk with an assertion that the public must in fact become listeners and followers of this propaganda and deny the scientific method, if they want true science.

  6. Vaccines cure diseases because we make them with biological studies.
    Cellphones work because we make them with chemistry and electricity.
    Cars are made with physics.
    Planes fly because they are made using physics studies.
    Soap is made of pure chemistry.
    Water we drink, whether it's water or bottle water, it's purified using basic reactions to eliminate any and every biological entity from a compound like water.

    Why we don't trust science?
    We literally trust science, is just that, some people need to feel special and recive attention they didn't get as kids.
    Change my mind? Can't.

  7. That was interesting. I also agree with her point. ‘We should believe in science because of scientific method. The methods will tell them their claim is right or wrong. So I think this talk can persuade people to believe in science.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *