4 ms·

You're reasoning from first principles in contradiction of statements of scientific fact that are being communicated to you, however imperfectly. Resolving the

You're reasoning from first principles in contradiction of statements of scientific fact that are being communicated to you, however imperfectly. Resolving the contradictions in your own understanding does not constitute a proof. The simplest explanation is that you do not yet correctly understand and that you need further information.

light_hue_1 7y ago
The point of science communication isn't stamp collecting random disconnected facts. It's to give people mental models that they can use to answer questions. If this information is so half-baked and imperfect that you can't make a basic inference from it, then it's not good science communication.
RobertRoberts 7y ago
You sound well reasoned, but are not countering or answering his questions with anything of substance.
- escape_goat 7y ago
  He is taking his current understanding and coming to the conclusion that the mechanism by which soap renders viruses inactive is 'actually' because it destroys proteins. I am pointing out that this exercise is futile and does not result in useful knowledge. If a domain expert says something that does not make sense to you, there is a small chance that the domain expert is wrong, but it is more likely that what the domain expert is saying is correct and your own knowledge is incomplete.
  - sizzle 7y ago
    Maybe lay people might also share this person's misconceptions/concerns, so it's in the interest of the common person for a subject matter expert to provide them with some citations or supplementary reading (where to go to learn more on your own time). Critical thinking and asking questions should be welcome and reinforced in the public sphere to improve our collective intelligence and buy-in for hand washing, proper respiratory etiquette, etc. towards containing and eradicating this pandemic, among a multitude of many other greater societal good reasons.
    - escape_goat 7y ago
      Sure. You will notice that I was not criticizing anyone for thinking critically or asking questions. I was pointing out something that I still believe to be a failure of critical thinking, and that we could know a priori that this was a bad way of reasoning about things without reference to prior knowledge. I notice that my opinion is unpopular with people interested in this topic, and I'm certainly familiar with being wrong about things, but in my opinion going from "an expert told me that envelope viruses are deactivated when soap destroys the envelope" to "the real reason that soap deactivates viruses is because it destroys proteins" on the basis of the semantics of a line from a Wikipedia entry is categorically problematic on the face of it. Most of us here are in the habit of relying on our ability to discover knowledge by reasoning about limited information. It is how one solves puzzles. It is not how one learns things about the world. Believing that we know something which we don't know is dangerous in this situation. Convincing others that we know something we don't know is also dangerous. What I am doing right here is exactly attempting to improve our collective intelligence. I am certainly not dissuading anyone from washing their hands. I am encouraging people to second-guess themselves before they second-guess others.

light_hue_1 7y ago

The point of science communication isn't stamp collecting random disconnected facts. It's to give people mental models that they can use to answer questions. If this information is so half-baked and imperfect that you can't make a basic inference from it, then it's not good science communication.

RobertRoberts 7y ago

You sound well reasoned, but are not countering or answering his questions with anything of substance.

escape_goat 7y ago
He is taking his current understanding and coming to the conclusion that the mechanism by which soap renders viruses inactive is 'actually' because it destroys proteins. I am pointing out that this exercise is futile and does not result in useful knowledge. If a domain expert says something that does not make sense to you, there is a small chance that the domain expert is wrong, but it is more likely that what the domain expert is saying is correct and your own knowledge is incomplete.
- sizzle 7y ago
  Maybe lay people might also share this person's misconceptions/concerns, so it's in the interest of the common person for a subject matter expert to provide them with some citations or supplementary reading (where to go to learn more on your own time). Critical thinking and asking questions should be welcome and reinforced in the public sphere to improve our collective intelligence and buy-in for hand washing, proper respiratory etiquette, etc. towards containing and eradicating this pandemic, among a multitude of many other greater societal good reasons.
  - escape_goat 7y ago
    Sure. You will notice that I was not criticizing anyone for thinking critically or asking questions. I was pointing out something that I still believe to be a failure of critical thinking, and that we could know a priori that this was a bad way of reasoning about things without reference to prior knowledge. I notice that my opinion is unpopular with people interested in this topic, and I'm certainly familiar with being wrong about things, but in my opinion going from "an expert told me that envelope viruses are deactivated when soap destroys the envelope" to "the real reason that soap deactivates viruses is because it destroys proteins" on the basis of the semantics of a line from a Wikipedia entry is categorically problematic on the face of it. Most of us here are in the habit of relying on our ability to discover knowledge by reasoning about limited information. It is how one solves puzzles. It is not how one learns things about the world. Believing that we know something which we don't know is dangerous in this situation. Convincing others that we know something we don't know is also dangerous. What I am doing right here is exactly attempting to improve our collective intelligence. I am certainly not dissuading anyone from washing their hands. I am encouraging people to second-guess themselves before they second-guess others.