5 ms·

Isn't trusting authority contrary to trusting science? The point of science is that we can verify truths for ourselves without relying on authority. Hence, if

by yters 8y ago

Isn't trusting authority contrary to trusting science? The point of science is that we can verify truths for ourselves without relying on authority. Hence, if any authority, 'scientific' or otherwise, asserts their authority instead of providing individually verifiable evidence of its claims, then we can say they are being unscientific, regardless of title.

Barrin92 8y ago
I don't think that's the point of science at all to be honest. The point of scientific endeavour is to discover facts about the world. That's a really hard job, and the majority of people are not scientists, and even a trained scientist cannot verify the overwhelming majority of existing science by themselves, which means that science, like any other sufficiently large human collaboration, requires institutions, trust and authority. The difference between scientific and religious institutions is not that the former functions without authority or trust, it's that the success of the former is measured against observable and replicable results and material progress and not based on infallible spiritual promise. So if someone understands nothing about science at all, and worships it like a religion, at least they had the good sense of picking a religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick.
- xyhopguy 8y ago
  is trusting scientific authority the same thing really? Believing the theory of evolution is different than trusting that the $100 genome is around the corner... And unlike religious institutions, scientific institutions typically reflect that difference in their rhetoric.
- sintaxi 8y ago
  The goal of science is to acquire knowledge while mitigating human bias. No science ever eliminates bias completely. A good science teacher drills this point home constantly.
- roenxi 8y ago
  > So if someone understands nothing about science at all, and worships it like a religion, at least they had the good sense of picking a religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick. Religion has proven capable of welding large communities together, and that sort of shared belief system wins wars. If you ignore the fact that the doctrine is more allegorical than factual, religion has a lot of utility when resources are scarce. Being part of a large group is frequently more important than being part of a technically correct group. I think the last 200 years of history has demonstrated that science is a superior strategy, but it isn't obvious enough to be hand-waved. There is some evidence that to successfully abandon religion societies have to first have an ungodly surplus of resources. The new trend towards no religion hasn't been tested in a war yet either; back in WWII religious/nationalistic sentiment was famously high.
  - yters 8y ago
    Then there is the fact that science was created by religious societies, Christianity in particular. Many of the fundamental discoveries came about due to religious motivations and religious principles: the world is orderly and understandable because it was created by a transcendent mind. Take away religion and we would not have science.
    - pvaldes 8y ago
      Well, Aristotle is still studied. Nobody pray to Zeus.
      - yters 8y ago
        Aristotle believed in intelligent design.
      - ardy42 8y ago
        > Well, Aristotle is still studied Didn't Aristotle basically say a projectile will move in a straight line until it basically "runs out of gas," even though everyone who's ever thrown something can see that's not true, just because he thought it ought to work that way?
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  > religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick Your phrasing makes it sound like you're conflating science and physical reality... that's kind of a pet peeve of mine (sorry). Science provides some of the knowledge required for engineers and doctors to do their jobs, but it's the work they do with that knowledge that accomplishes those things. I think that's an important distinction. We can't credit science with creating the natural world or its mechanisms, though it has enabled us to understand and work with it.
  - xvector 8y ago
    I think that is very pedantic. Of course science != physical reality. However, in general discussion no one is going to say > "potentially flawed but workable approximation of natural 'rules' that allow us to to manipulate natural phenomenon in a manner that results in food on our table, planes in your sky, and cures for our sicknesses" No, it's much more reasonable to say > science that puts food on our table, planes in our sky, and cures for our sicknesses
    - TimTheTinker 8y ago
      > I think that is very pedantic. I know it is... hence the apology. But in practice, I don't think it would be inaccurate to say the terms "science" and "natural world" are being used interchangeably in common vernacular. That bugs me. "Science" is not what you see when you look through a telescope or microscope.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > Your phrasing makes it sound like you're conflating science and physical reality Really, it doesn't. Science is exactly the process that does all those things, because science is the process which forms the methods and artifacts we use in such a way that they successfully exploit the mechanisms of the natural world. > but it's the work they do with that knowledge that accomplishes those things That is an obviously nonsensical statement. Yes, that work is a component of accomplishing those things, but so is the science. An engineer or doctor that did not use scientific results nor scientific methodology would not accomplish anything either. And arguably, what engineers and doctors do, when done right, is also science. An engineer building a plane is building a (physically represented) hypothesis of how something can be made to fly, and then tests that hypothesis. The only difference between what you would call a scientist and what you would call an engineer is the generalized applicability of their result, not the fundamental methodology they are using to arrive at that result--in particular in comparison to the "alternative", namely a faith-based epistemology, which is what is generally proposed by those sceptical of the scientific method.
- pdonis 8y ago
  This is fine as long as each individual has the choice of which scientific conclusions to follow and they individually bear the consequences of their choices. It is no longer fine when public policy decisions potentially costing trillions of dollars and affecting billions of people are riding on scientific conclusions. Then the claim that "well, we're just discovering facts about the world" no longer holds water. Nor does the claim that "well, science requires institutions, trust, and authority, so just trust us, the scientists". Members of the public have to be able to independently evaluate the claims so they can make informed decisions about what public policies to support.
MockObject 8y ago
> Hence, if any authority, 'scientific' or otherwise, asserts their authority instead of providing individually verifiable evidence of its claims, then we can say they are being unscientific, regardless of title. Indeed, the motto of the Royal Society is "Take nobody's word for it". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
- effie 8y ago
  Folk-wisdom version: 'talk is cheap'.
  - js2 8y ago
    Those don't mean the same thing at all.

by yters 8y ago

Barrin92 8y ago

I don't think that's the point of science at all to be honest. The point of scientific endeavour is to discover facts about the world. That's a really hard job, and the majority of people are not scientists, and even a trained scientist cannot verify the overwhelming majority of existing science by themselves, which means that science, like any other sufficiently large human collaboration, requires institutions, trust and authority. The difference between scientific and religious institutions is not that the former functions without authority or trust, it's that the success of the former is measured against observable and replicable results and material progress and not based on infallible spiritual promise. So if someone understands nothing about science at all, and worships it like a religion, at least they had the good sense of picking a religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick.

xyhopguy 8y ago
is trusting scientific authority the same thing really? Believing the theory of evolution is different than trusting that the $100 genome is around the corner... And unlike religious institutions, scientific institutions typically reflect that difference in their rhetoric.
sintaxi 8y ago
The goal of science is to acquire knowledge while mitigating human bias. No science ever eliminates bias completely. A good science teacher drills this point home constantly.
roenxi 8y ago
> So if someone understands nothing about science at all, and worships it like a religion, at least they had the good sense of picking a religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick. Religion has proven capable of welding large communities together, and that sort of shared belief system wins wars. If you ignore the fact that the doctrine is more allegorical than factual, religion has a lot of utility when resources are scarce. Being part of a large group is frequently more important than being part of a technically correct group. I think the last 200 years of history has demonstrated that science is a superior strategy, but it isn't obvious enough to be hand-waved. There is some evidence that to successfully abandon religion societies have to first have an ungodly surplus of resources. The new trend towards no religion hasn't been tested in a war yet either; back in WWII religious/nationalistic sentiment was famously high.
- yters 8y ago
  Then there is the fact that science was created by religious societies, Christianity in particular. Many of the fundamental discoveries came about due to religious motivations and religious principles: the world is orderly and understandable because it was created by a transcendent mind. Take away religion and we would not have science.
  - pvaldes 8y ago
    Well, Aristotle is still studied. Nobody pray to Zeus.
    - yters 8y ago
      Aristotle believed in intelligent design.
    - ardy42 8y ago
      > Well, Aristotle is still studied Didn't Aristotle basically say a projectile will move in a straight line until it basically "runs out of gas," even though everyone who's ever thrown something can see that's not true, just because he thought it ought to work that way?
TimTheTinker 8y ago
> religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick Your phrasing makes it sound like you're conflating science and physical reality... that's kind of a pet peeve of mine (sorry). Science provides some of the knowledge required for engineers and doctors to do their jobs, but it's the work they do with that knowledge that accomplishes those things. I think that's an important distinction. We can't credit science with creating the natural world or its mechanisms, though it has enabled us to understand and work with it.
- xvector 8y ago
  I think that is very pedantic. Of course science != physical reality. However, in general discussion no one is going to say > "potentially flawed but workable approximation of natural 'rules' that allow us to to manipulate natural phenomenon in a manner that results in food on our table, planes in your sky, and cures for our sicknesses" No, it's much more reasonable to say > science that puts food on our table, planes in our sky, and cures for our sicknesses
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    > I think that is very pedantic. I know it is... hence the apology. But in practice, I don't think it would be inaccurate to say the terms "science" and "natural world" are being used interchangeably in common vernacular. That bugs me. "Science" is not what you see when you look through a telescope or microscope.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > Your phrasing makes it sound like you're conflating science and physical reality Really, it doesn't. Science is exactly the process that does all those things, because science is the process which forms the methods and artifacts we use in such a way that they successfully exploit the mechanisms of the natural world. > but it's the work they do with that knowledge that accomplishes those things That is an obviously nonsensical statement. Yes, that work is a component of accomplishing those things, but so is the science. An engineer or doctor that did not use scientific results nor scientific methodology would not accomplish anything either. And arguably, what engineers and doctors do, when done right, is also science. An engineer building a plane is building a (physically represented) hypothesis of how something can be made to fly, and then tests that hypothesis. The only difference between what you would call a scientist and what you would call an engineer is the generalized applicability of their result, not the fundamental methodology they are using to arrive at that result--in particular in comparison to the "alternative", namely a faith-based epistemology, which is what is generally proposed by those sceptical of the scientific method.
pdonis 8y ago
This is fine as long as each individual has the choice of which scientific conclusions to follow and they individually bear the consequences of their choices. It is no longer fine when public policy decisions potentially costing trillions of dollars and affecting billions of people are riding on scientific conclusions. Then the claim that "well, we're just discovering facts about the world" no longer holds water. Nor does the claim that "well, science requires institutions, trust, and authority, so just trust us, the scientists". Members of the public have to be able to independently evaluate the claims so they can make informed decisions about what public policies to support.

MockObject 8y ago

> Hence, if any authority, 'scientific' or otherwise, asserts their authority instead of providing individually verifiable evidence of its claims, then we can say they are being unscientific, regardless of title. Indeed, the motto of the Royal Society is "Take nobody's word for it". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba

effie 8y ago
Folk-wisdom version: 'talk is cheap'.
- js2 8y ago
  Those don't mean the same thing at all.