I'm assuming you entered a field where you weren't prepared for the egos and controversy surrounding a topic.
This is what a lot of students hit if they're ill prepared (this is not a bad thing on behalf of the student). I remember my advisor saying he saw it as his responsibility to shield the new students from something crazy controversial until we knew how to walk for ourselves, make plots quickly easily, understand the jargon and materials... aka until we were mid-way through, then we should be thrown to the wolves to form our own opinion on topics.
You're now falling for the daily mail mistake of 'big sensational headline in field X' therefore it must be false.
Just look through the nobel awards for understanding what directions and leaps fields of science are making and ignore the self-perpetuating egos that end up on the front of 'Nature' or the daily fail.
We have cloned animals, we have perfected fiber-optics, we have discovered the nature of the Higgs Boson, gravity waves and I don't even understand enough about chemistry to understand why or how that field has advanced but it clearly has.
Unfortunately I'd suggest your supervisor failed to prepare you for your PhD.
Don't worry I can point to several papers which have maths flaws in that impact the result by 2-sigma, but nobody cares about those results because it doesn't change the over-all message. "We saw nothing after intensive scrutiny and looking for it." despite being on flaky mathematical groundings.
That 'rabble' of science deniers is growing very quickly (just look at the evolution diners in the US) and keep making arguments like. "you can't take the people of of science".
If the rabble gets big enough, politicians listen and then when politicians are listening to anti-science people on whatever topic, funding inevitably gets cut or re-directed and scientific research suffers.
Don't worry I'm not talking about types of research that supports raytheon by making bigger bangs, but research that cures cancer in babies and infirmity in adults and makes better and materials for the world...
This is what a lot of students hit if they're ill prepared (this is not a bad thing on behalf of the student). I remember my advisor saying he saw it as his responsibility to shield the new students from something crazy controversial until we knew how to walk for ourselves, make plots quickly easily, understand the jargon and materials... aka until we were mid-way through, then we should be thrown to the wolves to form our own opinion on topics.
You're now falling for the daily mail mistake of 'big sensational headline in field X' therefore it must be false.
Just look through the nobel awards for understanding what directions and leaps fields of science are making and ignore the self-perpetuating egos that end up on the front of 'Nature' or the daily fail. We have cloned animals, we have perfected fiber-optics, we have discovered the nature of the Higgs Boson, gravity waves and I don't even understand enough about chemistry to understand why or how that field has advanced but it clearly has.
Unfortunately I'd suggest your supervisor failed to prepare you for your PhD.
Don't worry I can point to several papers which have maths flaws in that impact the result by 2-sigma, but nobody cares about those results because it doesn't change the over-all message. "We saw nothing after intensive scrutiny and looking for it." despite being on flaky mathematical groundings.
That 'rabble' of science deniers is growing very quickly (just look at the evolution diners in the US) and keep making arguments like. "you can't take the people of of science".
If the rabble gets big enough, politicians listen and then when politicians are listening to anti-science people on whatever topic, funding inevitably gets cut or re-directed and scientific research suffers.
Don't worry I'm not talking about types of research that supports raytheon by making bigger bangs, but research that cures cancer in babies and infirmity in adults and makes better and materials for the world...