5 ms·

I heartily agree with your core point. > encouraging people to trust untrustworthy sources for information which doesn't necessarily square with the scientific

I heartily agree with your core point. > encouraging people to trust untrustworthy sources for information which doesn't necessarily square with the scientific evidence To offer up some compassion to those people, you have to remember that we're daily barraged with p=0.05 experiments getting breathless coverage in the media. "Scientists say peanut butter cures cancer." "Scientists say peanut butter causes cancer." Remember back when it was going to be a new Ice Age? Now it's "Global Warming?" The media's coverage of science does not portray research in the proper light, does not give context, etc. So I have a lot of sympathy for people who are skeptical of trusting "science."

throwaway5752 8y ago
Remember back when it was going to be a new Ice Age? Now it's "Global Warming?" No, I don't remember that, because that was never actually the case. If you "remember" it, it is a false impression and you should really deeply introspect why you hold it. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-co...
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  I'm relating the perspective some people have on science. To them, it's chaotic. Answers change constantly. "Theory" is a derogatory term to them. The conversation here is not how any given fact is right or wrong. The conversation here is that "scientific facts" seem to change at a dizzying pace to them, without being tethered to reality. "Global warming?!? It's SNOWING right now!" Do cell phones cause cancer? Do vaccines cause autism? Was there cold fusion in that fish tank? Also see: https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/11/qa-samuel-arbesman https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/11/qa-samuel-ar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge https://gizmodo.com/why-scientific-americans-predictions-from-10-years-ago-1701106456 https://gizmodo.com/why-scientific-americans-predictions-fro... http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/ http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predic...
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    Okay, sorry I didn't pick up on that. My fault for not paying better attention. I agree, but I guess I'm both pushing a bit back on people to have some common sense when ascribing credibility to a source and also push some blame on deliberate bad actors (muddling what is true, and also reducing peoples' trust in the system overall).
    - noxecanexx 8y ago
      You are falling into the same trap described by @chiefalchemsit. Saying normal people should have common sense only makes matters worse
    - VikingCoder 8y ago
      What's "common sense" to you undoubtedly relies on your culture, and core assumptions you make. The things you value, and the things you discredit. Your world view. I have bought lottery tickets, even though I know it's a "Stupid Tax." And apparently many other people do, too: "Americans Spend More On Lottery Tickets Than On Movies, Video Games, Music, Sports Tix And Books Combined" [1] Even though there's ample evidence that: "Here’s How Winning the Lottery Makes You Miserable" [2] A cynic could conclude that people are stupid. I'm not sure what an optimist would conclude, but I think I'd encourage them to consider their peers from the perspective of an anthropologist... View the culture as "different," not "wrong." [1] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-12/2016-americans-spent-80bn-lottery-tickets-more-movies-video-games-music-sports-and-b https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-12/2016-americans-spe... [2] http://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners/ http://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners/
      - throwaway5752 8y ago
        We'll have to agree to disagree. Perhaps both of our approaches have merits in different situations, but in the case where something is concretely falsifiable then people can be wrong not different. Perhaps convincing them otherwise is a job best left to kinder people than me.

throwaway5752 8y ago

Remember back when it was going to be a new Ice Age? Now it's "Global Warming?" No, I don't remember that, because that was never actually the case. If you "remember" it, it is a false impression and you should really deeply introspect why you hold it. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-co...

VikingCoder 8y ago
I'm relating the perspective some people have on science. To them, it's chaotic. Answers change constantly. "Theory" is a derogatory term to them. The conversation here is not how any given fact is right or wrong. The conversation here is that "scientific facts" seem to change at a dizzying pace to them, without being tethered to reality. "Global warming?!? It's SNOWING right now!" Do cell phones cause cancer? Do vaccines cause autism? Was there cold fusion in that fish tank? Also see: https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/11/qa-samuel-arbesman https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/11/qa-samuel-ar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge https://gizmodo.com/why-scientific-americans-predictions-from-10-years-ago-1701106456 https://gizmodo.com/why-scientific-americans-predictions-fro... http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/ http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predic...
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  Okay, sorry I didn't pick up on that. My fault for not paying better attention. I agree, but I guess I'm both pushing a bit back on people to have some common sense when ascribing credibility to a source and also push some blame on deliberate bad actors (muddling what is true, and also reducing peoples' trust in the system overall).
  - noxecanexx 8y ago
    You are falling into the same trap described by @chiefalchemsit. Saying normal people should have common sense only makes matters worse
  - VikingCoder 8y ago
    What's "common sense" to you undoubtedly relies on your culture, and core assumptions you make. The things you value, and the things you discredit. Your world view. I have bought lottery tickets, even though I know it's a "Stupid Tax." And apparently many other people do, too: "Americans Spend More On Lottery Tickets Than On Movies, Video Games, Music, Sports Tix And Books Combined" [1] Even though there's ample evidence that: "Here’s How Winning the Lottery Makes You Miserable" [2] A cynic could conclude that people are stupid. I'm not sure what an optimist would conclude, but I think I'd encourage them to consider their peers from the perspective of an anthropologist... View the culture as "different," not "wrong." [1] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-12/2016-americans-spent-80bn-lottery-tickets-more-movies-video-games-music-sports-and-b https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-12/2016-americans-spe... [2] http://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners/ http://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners/
    - throwaway5752 8y ago
      We'll have to agree to disagree. Perhaps both of our approaches have merits in different situations, but in the case where something is concretely falsifiable then people can be wrong not different. Perhaps convincing them otherwise is a job best left to kinder people than me.