By JULIAN RODRIGUES*
To everyone's surprise, the epistemological debate about the validity of scientific knowledge has become hype.
Who would have thought that in the middle of the grace year of XNUMX, in the environment of the evil internet, a serious and relevant bullshit would gain prominence (in a certain bubble, of course). What is rational, scientifically validated, and what is just wishful thinking masquerading as science?
The origins of bas-fond they refer us to the Covid pandemic and the civilizing role that biologists, doctors, specialists from various areas played in the fight against the denialism of fascist governments. The film don't look up sums up with humor and irony the prevailing climate in recent years.
Flat-Earthers, anti-vaxnegationists of all kinds have taken social media by storm. A type of civilizing regression that despises both liberals and social democrats or socialists. They establish new regressive parameters. An impressive thing.
Who would have guessed? In the year of grace 2023, we have to live with thousands (or millions?) of people around the world who think the earth is flat, doubt that we've even stepped on the moon, are against vaccines.
Or worse: adults choosing to take chloroquine – a medicine against malaria – to treat Covid? Didn't they know the difference between viruses and protozoa?!
Not that I have any empathy for these nazi-fascist denialist crazy people who didn't get a vaccine and stuffed themselves with chloroquine and who knows what else. Each one of them and each one that left this planet did humanity a favor.
The problem is that they continue to strengthen the extreme right “all around the world!
The great Drauzio Varella, Sergio Sacani, Pirula, Daniel Gontijo, Atila Iamarino, Natalia Pasternak, Pedro Hallal – they do a great job of civilizing the networks. It's like they were Voltaires ou Darwins fighting against obscurantist common sense (too bad they have no reference in the Marxist tradition).
Returning to the thread: despite the benefits brought by the popularization of scientific topics, the risk of excessive simplifications is enormous. The logic of social networks presupposes exaggerations, scandals – everything that can seduce the user. How then to combine the imperative of attracting clicks and simultaneously preserving the accuracy of published content?
Take, for example, the recent controversy over psychoanalysis. If the theory/method/practice created by your Sigmund cannot be considered scientific – why would psychology as a whole deserve such status?
Which branch of psychology is the best, really? Is the cognitive behavioral or other approach superior to the others? Sounds like recycled and modernized behaviorist orthodoxy to me.
It's still ironic. The anti-psychoanalysis offensive carried out by some psychologists can quickly turn against themselves.
Psychiatrists must be having fun – after all, they usually solemnly despise psychologists. Long live the meds, all power to the pharmaceutical industry (or not)! But seriously: this industry's quandary has to do with the economic model — not the drugs themselves.
Indago, extrapolating: did Americans really step on the moon? Wasn't the Covid virus created by the Chinese? Who says the earth isn't really hollow and Jules Verne was right in 1864?
When in doubt, I always recommend: rationality, logic, evidence-based science. Our epistemological paradigm must always be the scientific method, despite all its limitations. Against irrationality – whether it comes from the right or the left – even Popper is worth it at this point in the championship!
* Julian Rodrigues, journalist and teacher, is a PT militant and an activist in the LGBTI and Human Rights movement.
the earth is round exists thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE