4 ms·

> This article is attempting to refute the value of the scientific method. I don't think so. I think it's questioning the assumption that the scientific proces

> This article is attempting to refute the value of the scientific method. I don't think so. I think it's questioning the assumption that the scientific process is infallible, or is necessarily always correct, or should always be trusted completely. That doesn't mean it's not almost always the best way to learn and understand our world (it is), but it does mean that it's not necessarily the case that anything found using the scientific method is as true / correct as other things. > Why is science alone worthy of “debate” about if it’s useful or worthwhile or not? The debate here is in acknowledging that its usefulness varies. I don't think anyone's arguing it's not useful. > Is it perhaps because science often makes statements about the world that cause problems for those with an agenda? Sometimes it causes problems because "what we think scientifically, today" is equivocated with "what is true." We should be able to acknowledge that, through science, we can get pretty close to what is true in some areas. And that's great! But we should also acknowledge that while science in other areas is still useful, sometimes our "best guess as of today" based on the science still isn't good enough to justify overhauling society. > If we discuss articles like this seriously (who’s “philosophy” has been debunked 1000s of times already) then we’re giving voice and allowing doubt to sow about science. Seeing any article like this as trying to refute science completely is being closed-minded. What would be more helpful would be to acknowledge how far science goes toward understanding the truth and be careful not to overstate how correct we think we are.

crazydoggers 8y ago
I think your giving the article too much credit. If it were saying what you are saying that’d be fine. But it continually, throughout the article attempts to discredit science all together. Look, science doesn’t make everything clear cut 100% if the time. Science is the act of making theories, and looking for evidence to dispute those theories. Sometimes, in some areas we have to be OK with not understanding things. That’s part of science, it’s not it’s limitation. By admitting ignorance in some areas, we open the doors to the pursuit of knowledge. Here are some choice quotes... “What we nonexperts choose to believe about such matters will depend much more on whom we trust and what we find to be helpful than on what can be known to be true” How about instead we suspend our beliefs and wait for data, rather than trusting someone just because? It’s okay to say, we don’t know! “But if all this activity is just self-correction in action, then why not call alchemy, astrology, phrenology, eugenics, and scientific socialism science as well” Because none of those other fields embraced abandoning beliefs in the face of evidence and data. How one could even compare them with science clearly demonstrates an attempt to misconstrue facts.
- moduspol 8y ago
  > Look, science doesn’t make everything clear cut 100% if the time. Science is the act of making theories, and looking for evidence to dispute those theories. Sometimes, in some areas we have to be OK with not understanding things. That’s part of science, it’s not it’s limitation. By admitting ignorance in some areas, we open the doors to the pursuit of knowledge. I think that's the key takeaway of the article, to be honest. > How about instead we suspend our beliefs and what for data, rather than trusting someone just because? It’s okay to say, we don’t know! This is what I think the author is saying, though. It's a political piece--we can't universally suspend our beliefs for the purpose of making policy. But we can try to evaluate what science is a closer approximation to "true" than others. > Because none of those other fields embraced abandoning beliefs in the face of evidence and data. How one could even compare them with science clearly demonstrates and attempt to misconstrue facts. You can say this with the benefit of hindsight. If you were, say, an American social scientist in the 1920s, you might be supporting eugenics, as it was quite common at the time. If you dogmatically defended eugenics as being "science," called people who questioned the value of it deniers, and equated it with truth... well, you would be wrong. And if you can acknowledge that it happened in the 1920s (and numerous other times), then it can be happening today. It's about being open-minded to the possibility that science (and its process in practice) has varying levels of value, and being able to rationally assess that is important.
  - crazydoggers 8y ago
    >> Look, science doesn’t make everything clear cut 100% if the time. Science is the act of making theories, and looking for evidence to dispute those theories. Sometimes, in some areas we have to be OK with not understanding things. That’s part of science, it’s not it’s limitation. By admitting ignorance in some areas, we open the doors to the pursuit of knowledge. > I think that's the key takeaway of the article, to be honest. If that's the key takeaway, why write an article about it? That's how science is supposed to function. It's not controversial. >> How about instead we suspend our beliefs and wait for data, rather than trusting someone just because? It’s okay to say, we don’t know! > This is what I think the author is saying, though. It's a political piece--we can't universally suspend our beliefs for the purpose of making policy. But we can try to evaluate what science is a closer approximation to "true" than others. It would be REALLY helpful if more politicians suspended their beliefs for the purpose of making policy. And if there's an area where scientific consensus has been made, work your policies around that instead. >> Because none of those other fields embraced abandoning beliefs in the face of evidence and data. How one could even compare them with science clearly demonstrates and attempt to misconstrue facts. > You can say this with the benefit of hindsight. If you were, say, an American social scientist in the 1920s, you might be supporting eugenics, as it was quite common at the time. If you dogmatically defended eugenics as being "science," called people who questioned the value of it deniers, and equated it with truth... well, you would be wrong. And if you can acknowledge that it happened in the 1920s (and numerous other times), then it can be happening today. It's about being open-minded to the possibility that science (and its process in practice) has varying levels of value, and being able to rationally assess that is important. Eugenics wasn't science... it was an attempt to use artificial selection as a way to mold human society. The artificial selection is the science part. It's use and justification for eugenics was just abhorrent. As for things like phrenology, etc, those were never accepted as science... just touted as so by the pseudo scientists.
emodendroket 8y ago
Keep in mind that supposedly scientific movements were also behind eugenics, lobotomies, and other things that, in retrospect, look like obvious mistakes.
- Retric 8y ago
  Mistakes on their own don't discount the approach. Kids learning to walk fall down constantly, that does not mean learning to walk is a bad idea. Science is not about today, it's optimizing over longer than human lifespans.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    I don't recall saying that, but it does give us reason to not have a talismanic faith in whatever scientists recommend.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Not really, that comes down to false positive rates vs everyone else. AKA it's not that science is always correct, it's that their are zero more accurate options available. It's the same reason people take bomb threats seriously. Such threats are very often fake, but getting a bomb threat pushes the odds of a bomb vastly above the odds without that threat.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        Well, I'm going to have to disagree with this view, which would suggest scientists alone should direct public policy with no counterbalance or role for the rest of us.
        Retric 8y ago
        Again no. Science is only saying what the outcomes will most likely be. That's not the same thing as saying the tradeoffs are worth it. That said, many things are like useing seatbelts in that the downside risk is vastly more than the upside. Thus, ignorance simply results in worse outcomes.

crazydoggers 8y ago

I think your giving the article too much credit. If it were saying what you are saying that’d be fine. But it continually, throughout the article attempts to discredit science all together. Look, science doesn’t make everything clear cut 100% if the time. Science is the act of making theories, and looking for evidence to dispute those theories. Sometimes, in some areas we have to be OK with not understanding things. That’s part of science, it’s not it’s limitation. By admitting ignorance in some areas, we open the doors to the pursuit of knowledge. Here are some choice quotes... “What we nonexperts choose to believe about such matters will depend much more on whom we trust and what we find to be helpful than on what can be known to be true” How about instead we suspend our beliefs and wait for data, rather than trusting someone just because? It’s okay to say, we don’t know! “But if all this activity is just self-correction in action, then why not call alchemy, astrology, phrenology, eugenics, and scientific socialism science as well” Because none of those other fields embraced abandoning beliefs in the face of evidence and data. How one could even compare them with science clearly demonstrates an attempt to misconstrue facts.

moduspol 8y ago
> Look, science doesn’t make everything clear cut 100% if the time. Science is the act of making theories, and looking for evidence to dispute those theories. Sometimes, in some areas we have to be OK with not understanding things. That’s part of science, it’s not it’s limitation. By admitting ignorance in some areas, we open the doors to the pursuit of knowledge. I think that's the key takeaway of the article, to be honest. > How about instead we suspend our beliefs and what for data, rather than trusting someone just because? It’s okay to say, we don’t know! This is what I think the author is saying, though. It's a political piece--we can't universally suspend our beliefs for the purpose of making policy. But we can try to evaluate what science is a closer approximation to "true" than others. > Because none of those other fields embraced abandoning beliefs in the face of evidence and data. How one could even compare them with science clearly demonstrates and attempt to misconstrue facts. You can say this with the benefit of hindsight. If you were, say, an American social scientist in the 1920s, you might be supporting eugenics, as it was quite common at the time. If you dogmatically defended eugenics as being "science," called people who questioned the value of it deniers, and equated it with truth... well, you would be wrong. And if you can acknowledge that it happened in the 1920s (and numerous other times), then it can be happening today. It's about being open-minded to the possibility that science (and its process in practice) has varying levels of value, and being able to rationally assess that is important.
- crazydoggers 8y ago
  >> Look, science doesn’t make everything clear cut 100% if the time. Science is the act of making theories, and looking for evidence to dispute those theories. Sometimes, in some areas we have to be OK with not understanding things. That’s part of science, it’s not it’s limitation. By admitting ignorance in some areas, we open the doors to the pursuit of knowledge. > I think that's the key takeaway of the article, to be honest. If that's the key takeaway, why write an article about it? That's how science is supposed to function. It's not controversial. >> How about instead we suspend our beliefs and wait for data, rather than trusting someone just because? It’s okay to say, we don’t know! > This is what I think the author is saying, though. It's a political piece--we can't universally suspend our beliefs for the purpose of making policy. But we can try to evaluate what science is a closer approximation to "true" than others. It would be REALLY helpful if more politicians suspended their beliefs for the purpose of making policy. And if there's an area where scientific consensus has been made, work your policies around that instead. >> Because none of those other fields embraced abandoning beliefs in the face of evidence and data. How one could even compare them with science clearly demonstrates and attempt to misconstrue facts. > You can say this with the benefit of hindsight. If you were, say, an American social scientist in the 1920s, you might be supporting eugenics, as it was quite common at the time. If you dogmatically defended eugenics as being "science," called people who questioned the value of it deniers, and equated it with truth... well, you would be wrong. And if you can acknowledge that it happened in the 1920s (and numerous other times), then it can be happening today. It's about being open-minded to the possibility that science (and its process in practice) has varying levels of value, and being able to rationally assess that is important. Eugenics wasn't science... it was an attempt to use artificial selection as a way to mold human society. The artificial selection is the science part. It's use and justification for eugenics was just abhorrent. As for things like phrenology, etc, those were never accepted as science... just touted as so by the pseudo scientists.

emodendroket 8y ago

Keep in mind that supposedly scientific movements were also behind eugenics, lobotomies, and other things that, in retrospect, look like obvious mistakes.

Retric 8y ago
Mistakes on their own don't discount the approach. Kids learning to walk fall down constantly, that does not mean learning to walk is a bad idea. Science is not about today, it's optimizing over longer than human lifespans.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I don't recall saying that, but it does give us reason to not have a talismanic faith in whatever scientists recommend.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Not really, that comes down to false positive rates vs everyone else. AKA it's not that science is always correct, it's that their are zero more accurate options available. It's the same reason people take bomb threats seriously. Such threats are very often fake, but getting a bomb threat pushes the odds of a bomb vastly above the odds without that threat.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Well, I'm going to have to disagree with this view, which would suggest scientists alone should direct public policy with no counterbalance or role for the rest of us.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Again no. Science is only saying what the outcomes will most likely be. That's not the same thing as saying the tradeoffs are worth it. That said, many things are like useing seatbelts in that the downside risk is vastly more than the upside. Thus, ignorance simply results in worse outcomes.