5 ms·
Yeah but it's a thin line to walk. If you don't do it, then you let all the pseudo-science out there masquerading as real science, which is bad. But if you ov
by lapnitnelav 8y ago
Yeah but it's a thin line to walk.
If you don't do it, then you let all the pseudo-science out there masquerading as real science, which is bad.
But if you overdo it, you feed into the distrust of proper science too, see Brexit and we're done listening to experts soundbite, or any of the anti-vax crowd.
- Baeocystin 8y agoIn my experience, people that have profoundly anti-scientific beliefs have always been such; whether their purported trigger is Jenny McCarthy or an odd alignment of Jupiter, it's hard to know if it's even relevant- the problem is that they don't have the skillset to make rational choices. And I just don't see a Sokal-style hoax making a whit of difference in their minds, as there are a million other things that could do the same. In other words, their feelings of anti-science came first. Whatever reason provided is ex post facto confabulation. Meanwhile, the sciences themselves need this kind of scrutiny to stay scientific. I'm open to being wrong. But I think it is a mistake to put too much weight to the 'we should be careful what the people who never use science anyway' consider.