5 ms·

It's hard to deny that the majority of people take things at face value as long as a guy in a labcoat tells them it's true and that we know it, "because science

It's hard to deny that the majority of people take things at face value as long as a guy in a labcoat tells them it's true and that we know it, "because science." Media coverage of any event will call the people involved "scientists," to give them credibility, neglecting to explain what the actual role of these nebulous "scientists" is. "Because science," is often a question-closer among the majority of people. You don't press further, because "Science," says it's true, so that must mean it is. It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to call this behavior cultish.

Cogito 8y ago
It is reasonable to call it cultish, but it is still very different to what that comparison implies, in that it is fundamentally different to pretty much any other cult. Whenever someone says they believe in something because science they are agreeing to change their mind when shown to be incorrect. In reality people are stubborn or lazy, so there are lots of things slipping through that shouldn't. There's an analogy to be drawn here with crypto algorithms. Almost everyone uses specific crypto algorithms because some expert decided they were the best ones to use. It's generally considered best practice to use open-source algorithms, not because we can prove they are more secure than closed-source algorithms, but because we are able to investigate them ourselves. At no point does it become a pure faith exercise, trust me because I said so, but it's a verifiable trust, trust me but feel free to check my work. There are many many things I believe essentially because everyone else believes them too, but as long as I am able to verify them (and approach the belief with an appropriate amount of scepticism) I don't think that falls in to cultish behaviour. To try and finish this thought, I think things drift into the cultish when everybody believes the same thing and are either unable to or choose not to validate that it's actually true. We should encourage people to be more skeptical of any claim, but especially ones that are justified by 'Science!', but not confuse that with being unable to validate the claim at all.

Cogito 8y ago

It is reasonable to call it cultish, but it is still very different to what that comparison implies, in that it is fundamentally different to pretty much any other cult. Whenever someone says they believe in something because science they are agreeing to change their mind when shown to be incorrect. In reality people are stubborn or lazy, so there are lots of things slipping through that shouldn't. There's an analogy to be drawn here with crypto algorithms. Almost everyone uses specific crypto algorithms because some expert decided they were the best ones to use. It's generally considered best practice to use open-source algorithms, not because we can prove they are more secure than closed-source algorithms, but because we are able to investigate them ourselves. At no point does it become a pure faith exercise, trust me because I said so, but it's a verifiable trust, trust me but feel free to check my work. There are many many things I believe essentially because everyone else believes them too, but as long as I am able to verify them (and approach the belief with an appropriate amount of scepticism) I don't think that falls in to cultish behaviour. To try and finish this thought, I think things drift into the cultish when everybody believes the same thing and are either unable to or choose not to validate that it's actually true. We should encourage people to be more skeptical of any claim, but especially ones that are justified by 'Science!', but not confuse that with being unable to validate the claim at all.