Should we trust science?

 Should we trust science?

We must determine things what we mean about "trust science"? The fact is that the purpose of science is to search and observe things and find answers to many questions. 

In the beginning, we must separate science and scientist. The scientist is the person who is making science. So scientists can tell lies. And also greatest scientists sometimes make mistakes. 

When we think about things like the universe. Our knowledge of that thing is increasing. But then we are facing one thing. We want to know more and more about that thing. We are part of the universe. 

And when we can think that our knowledge is like the universe itself. Limits of our knowledge and confirmed knowledge expand. And we find new connections between the particles. In the same way, we can find new connections between other things. 

The exosolar systems, exoplanets, and other kinds of things were pure science fiction. Today we know that there are many other solar systems than our own. 

In the past, we believed that the species are alone. Today we know that the species are cooperating. As an example, some trees call ants to protect them against aphids. But in sociology is the thing called conspiracy theory. 

Sometimes conspiracy theories are told in purpose for shaking the trust of authorities. Sometimes we might say that things like the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy are a conspiracy. Sometimes is also said that if the murder of the JFK is open because there are no convicted persons in that case. There were too many chefs in that soap. And great publicity made it impossible to give the solution for that case. 

Two commissions researched that case.

The Warren Commission was set by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1963, just after the Kennedy murder. That commission is the major source for the people who are believing that Oswald shot President and operated alone. The problem with that commission was that it acted very soon after the shot of JFK. 

The chairman of the commission was the judge, Earl Warren. The thing that caused criticism was that the commission was not the research was there somebody behind Lee Harvey Oswald. And another thing was that the authorities like the FBI didn't have any kind of room to operate. So Lyndon B. Johnson set the Warren Commission too soon. And its work was disturbed by the media. (Wikipedia/Warren Commission)

The other commission: the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was supported the Warren Commission report. But they could not exclude the possibility that some individual members of some paramilitary- or criminal organizations were involved in that crime. 

"The committee also stated that the conspiracy did not involve any organized crime group, anti-Castro group, nor the FBI, CIA, or Secret Service. The committee found that it could not exclude the possibility that individual members of the national syndicate of organized crime or anti-Castro Cubans were involved in a probable conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy".  (Wikipedia/ United States House Select Committee on Assassination).

But today, we can only notice that nobody will ever get punishment. But things like papers full of black lines and censored details feed the conspiracy theories. So what have we learned about this case? The secrecy and hiding information are feeding the theories. 

Unusual equipment, such as the Mannlicher Carcano rifle, sparked debate. Was that rifle meant to be taken home after someone was shot? Was Oswald staging someone to blame for that incident? Or did someone carry that gun to Oswald's home? Officially that question remains open. 

There is an example of the story that probably meant releasing the military forces from their responsibility of nuclear weapon development.  When scientists created nuclear weapons. Some people told. That scientists alone carried the responsibility of the development of nuclear weapons. 

Department of Defense gave orders to develop nuclear weapons in all nuclear states. Head of the state and general staff have accepted those weapons and their development. The military command has been given the materials for testing those systems. And that means there were many other people than scientists who play a big role in those projects. 

In great public, the "conspiracy theory" is used in a very negative way of the view. In many stories, conspiracy theories are connected with mental disorders. The juridical term "conspiracy to commit the crime" means that a group of people is planning criminal activity. 

 But there is another thing in that kind of "theory". Many times the news is full of conspiracy theories. And sometimes the voice of that news is very stamping. 

People who believe those things are often marginalized as stupid. And that thing happens very often before things like massive cartels (illegal fixing the prices between companies) or some high-scale financial crimes uncover. 

But there is the thing that is called mass-effect that makes people answer as they believe in those theories. That mass effect is the social pressure that forces people give some answers. What they don't mean. Or they don't want to give. That thing is called virtual believing. 

Researching and confirming information is the best way to fight against falsified information. The thing is that the world is full of things that are not told to the public audience. Or those things are published in a very limited publication. And some high-level researchers are reading those articles. 

https://bigthink.com/questions/should-we-trust-science/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission