5 ms·

They are an authority, Saying it is settled tried to end the debate in the laymen eyes. OK maybe I can draw an analogy maybe it will just be more confusing but

by kls 7y ago

They are an authority, Saying it is settled tried to end the debate in the laymen eyes. OK maybe I can draw an analogy maybe it will just be more confusing but I will try. I see it as akin to a police officer telling you, you are under arrest. Where I am just screaming citizens arrest at you. In the one case you stop what you are doing, and don't make any sudden moves it's the end of the conversation you are under arrest by the authorities. In the other case you are just looking at me thinking what the hell is this crazy person screaming citizens arrest and expecting me to freeze. In the case of the cop, I expect him to not go around telling people they are under arrest unless the are certain the person needs to be arrested. They have a moral duty to not try to arrest innocent people. They come from a position of authority. Scientist are like this their words hold more weight, I understand that it can be aggravating to believe something and just want to shut down the conversation but that is not beneficial.

jlebar 7y ago
> They are an authority, Saying it is settled tried to end the debate in the laymen eyes. Granted. And we further assume this scientist has a bona fide good faith expert belief that it is in fact, settled science. Is your position that a scientist in this position should never use their authority to say "X is settled science"? Like, suppose I'm a physicist, and I say, "general relativity is more or less settled". Is that wrong somehow? If that's not wrong, could you help me understand the difference between the two situations? Is the difference simply, you agree with one scientist and disagree with the other? Surely that can't be our moral standard; for instance, lots of people believe that the earth is flat, and so presumably also would reject general relativity. The physicist could reasonably be accused of using their authority to try to shut down a debate over whether the earth is round. Is that wrong?
- kls 7y ago
  Honestly I don't think they should ever say it, had we said that Newton's Laws where settled, I mean they are laws after all, we may not have general relativity. I don't think science is ever settled and if we find a unified theory it may bend relativity to the point that relativity bent Newton's laws. You could certainly say that Newton's Laws where settled, you could certainly say that relativity is settled but it creates an undercurrent that there is no stone left to un-turned. To the laymen it turns off a switch in their mind and they don't really want to process anymore information. I experience it all the time when I talk about the reefs dying, those that have settled on climate change is the reason will not listen to the fact that it is Nitrogen not ocean temperatures killing the reefs. Saying it is settled flips the off switch and people decide one way or the other, not processing new information.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    So would you say that if a physicist said that gravity is a settled matter and absolutely exists, you would similarly call them an authoritarian abusing their position? Do we have an obligation to engage non-experts in debate when they claim that gravity isn't actually real?
    - kls 7y ago
      I believe when the proposition is socio-economic changes being proposed based on research there is a high bar and a high standard for that science and for the researchers conducting that science. I am not sure if I am there on climate change, I would be there on gravity if we needed some tax to offset it's effects. But gravity is physics a far more solid and predictive science than climatology is, so I expect the climate researchers to not proclaim it is as solidly settled as physics.
  - jlebar 7y ago
    > I mean they are laws after all, You may want to do a little reading about what scientists mean by the words "law" versus "theory". It's more of a historical accident / the way scientists used to talk about things than a statement that we believe some things "a lot" and some things "may be wrong". > I don't think science is ever settled I mean, do you believe it's settled science that the world is round? Or that germs cause some diseases? Or that gravity exists and is the cause of the planet's orbits around the sun? Or that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion? "Science is never settled" is kind of a strong statement... On this meta-point that science is never "more or less settled", scientists might disagree with you. What rule elevates your opinion over theirs, such that you're allowed to say it but they aren't? Other than, you believe they're wrong, which surely isn't the right rule?
    - kls 7y ago
      I understand the historical context of laws, my point was they are fundamental and we can believe them as fundamental truths. But those truths are layered, for example the world is round to a point but if holographic projection hold true, then it's true nature is not round at all. That being said there is enough foundational evidence to say that the earth is round is true, but I would not say the science is settled. Not until we answer the question of holographic projection. Some germs cause disease, some are actually extremely beneficial to us, so I would not say germs cause disease is settled. I believe that the science is settled is as strong of a statement as it conveys no more research or discovery is needed. No rules elevate my opinion over theirs, if anything mine should be regarded as less I don't hold my credentials out there as an authority.

by kls 7y ago

jlebar 7y ago

> They are an authority, Saying it is settled tried to end the debate in the laymen eyes. Granted. And we further assume this scientist has a bona fide good faith expert belief that it is in fact, settled science. Is your position that a scientist in this position should never use their authority to say "X is settled science"? Like, suppose I'm a physicist, and I say, "general relativity is more or less settled". Is that wrong somehow? If that's not wrong, could you help me understand the difference between the two situations? Is the difference simply, you agree with one scientist and disagree with the other? Surely that can't be our moral standard; for instance, lots of people believe that the earth is flat, and so presumably also would reject general relativity. The physicist could reasonably be accused of using their authority to try to shut down a debate over whether the earth is round. Is that wrong?

kls 7y ago
Honestly I don't think they should ever say it, had we said that Newton's Laws where settled, I mean they are laws after all, we may not have general relativity. I don't think science is ever settled and if we find a unified theory it may bend relativity to the point that relativity bent Newton's laws. You could certainly say that Newton's Laws where settled, you could certainly say that relativity is settled but it creates an undercurrent that there is no stone left to un-turned. To the laymen it turns off a switch in their mind and they don't really want to process anymore information. I experience it all the time when I talk about the reefs dying, those that have settled on climate change is the reason will not listen to the fact that it is Nitrogen not ocean temperatures killing the reefs. Saying it is settled flips the off switch and people decide one way or the other, not processing new information.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  So would you say that if a physicist said that gravity is a settled matter and absolutely exists, you would similarly call them an authoritarian abusing their position? Do we have an obligation to engage non-experts in debate when they claim that gravity isn't actually real?
  - kls 7y ago
    I believe when the proposition is socio-economic changes being proposed based on research there is a high bar and a high standard for that science and for the researchers conducting that science. I am not sure if I am there on climate change, I would be there on gravity if we needed some tax to offset it's effects. But gravity is physics a far more solid and predictive science than climatology is, so I expect the climate researchers to not proclaim it is as solidly settled as physics.
- jlebar 7y ago
  > I mean they are laws after all, You may want to do a little reading about what scientists mean by the words "law" versus "theory". It's more of a historical accident / the way scientists used to talk about things than a statement that we believe some things "a lot" and some things "may be wrong". > I don't think science is ever settled I mean, do you believe it's settled science that the world is round? Or that germs cause some diseases? Or that gravity exists and is the cause of the planet's orbits around the sun? Or that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion? "Science is never settled" is kind of a strong statement... On this meta-point that science is never "more or less settled", scientists might disagree with you. What rule elevates your opinion over theirs, such that you're allowed to say it but they aren't? Other than, you believe they're wrong, which surely isn't the right rule?
  - kls 7y ago
    I understand the historical context of laws, my point was they are fundamental and we can believe them as fundamental truths. But those truths are layered, for example the world is round to a point but if holographic projection hold true, then it's true nature is not round at all. That being said there is enough foundational evidence to say that the earth is round is true, but I would not say the science is settled. Not until we answer the question of holographic projection. Some germs cause disease, some are actually extremely beneficial to us, so I would not say germs cause disease is settled. I believe that the science is settled is as strong of a statement as it conveys no more research or discovery is needed. No rules elevate my opinion over theirs, if anything mine should be regarded as less I don't hold my credentials out there as an authority.