3 ms·

The idea of questioning science and informed skepticism is valuable, but I don't think it stems from anti-intellectualism. How can people who distrust science t

by bllguo 7y ago

The idea of questioning science and informed skepticism is valuable, but I don't think it stems from anti-intellectualism. How can people who distrust science to that degree come up with meaningful criticism? I don't see what value climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers are bringing to science, for example.

nostrademons 7y ago
It's not that climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers are themselves improving science, it's that their existence forces scientists to up their game. If you know that someone is going to question your findings, you tend to work harder to ensure that you're actually saying something true and there are no holes in your reasoning. This holds even if those people never actually question your findings - even if you never interact with them at all. The benefit is all because of your own self-criticism. It's like how competition tends to make companies provide better service, even if the competition never actually steals a single customer away. The fact that it could changes the incentives in a way that makes you do your job more rigorously.
- davidcuddeback 7y ago
  That would make sense if science was a monoculture and could only be challenged from the outside, but scientists question each others' findings all the time. You can't have a scientific process without scrutiny.
  - quibono 7y ago
    Why couldn't it be both? Internal scruitny is necessary but I'd say that how well communicated research is influences how much funding and attention it gets which obviously matters a lot in shaping the scientific community.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  I'm not sure how their existence improves science, considering the questions they often demand of scientists come from no area of scientific rigor or examination. If anything we've started seeing the clear opposite, where the climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers have been outright suppressing scientists and reports that disagree with their skepticism.
- bllguo 7y ago
  but I acknowledge that questioning your beliefs is good. It's foundational to the scientific method. I just don't see how uninformed challenges are worthwhile. At this point things like vaccine effectiveness are basic facts. What more can scientists do?

by bllguo 7y ago

nostrademons 7y ago

It's not that climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers are themselves improving science, it's that their existence forces scientists to up their game. If you know that someone is going to question your findings, you tend to work harder to ensure that you're actually saying something true and there are no holes in your reasoning. This holds even if those people never actually question your findings - even if you never interact with them at all. The benefit is all because of your own self-criticism. It's like how competition tends to make companies provide better service, even if the competition never actually steals a single customer away. The fact that it could changes the incentives in a way that makes you do your job more rigorously.

davidcuddeback 7y ago
That would make sense if science was a monoculture and could only be challenged from the outside, but scientists question each others' findings all the time. You can't have a scientific process without scrutiny.
- quibono 7y ago
  Why couldn't it be both? Internal scruitny is necessary but I'd say that how well communicated research is influences how much funding and attention it gets which obviously matters a lot in shaping the scientific community.
fzeroracer 7y ago
I'm not sure how their existence improves science, considering the questions they often demand of scientists come from no area of scientific rigor or examination. If anything we've started seeing the clear opposite, where the climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers have been outright suppressing scientists and reports that disagree with their skepticism.
bllguo 7y ago
but I acknowledge that questioning your beliefs is good. It's foundational to the scientific method. I just don't see how uninformed challenges are worthwhile. At this point things like vaccine effectiveness are basic facts. What more can scientists do?