3 ms·

But that's not what the article says.

• pdonis 8y ago
  > that's not what the article says. Meaning, the article doesn't say science is supposed to be an authority? Let's see: "It is tempting to think that scientific authority is natural and will soon reassert itself like a sturdy self-righting boat knocked over by a rogue wave. The ugly truth is that science is more like Facebook, whose positive features are also vulnerabilities. Precisely because it allows us to connect and share, Facebook creates opportunities for misuse. Similarly, science is an exemplary form of enquiry because it is technical, fallible, done in communities and able to reshape our values. But these very features allow detractors to reject the authority even of eminent experts." Sure sounds to me like the author thinks science should be an authority. "Early proponents of the authority of science had to understand the machine and develop countermeasures. Galileo, a rhetorical bulldozer, was a master at it. When his enemies appealed to theology, he went right back at them by citing their own authorities in neat ripostes, such as “The Bible tells us the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go!” This strategy is harder in today’s world." In other words, bullshit arguments from authority are harder to make today than they were in Galileo's time. And the author thinks this is a problem.
  • unknownkadath 8y ago
    Words have multiple meanings. What you are doing is dishonest strawmanning by conflating multiple meanings of the word "authority."
    • pdonis 8y ago
      > What you are doing is dishonest strawmanning by conflating multiple meanings of the word "authority." No, what I am doing is giving meaning to the word "authority" according to how the author actually uses it.