3 ms·
The problem is that the word science has been robbed of its meaning. Or the meaning didn't scale well. Every side of the so-called debate throws it left and ri
by foxfired 6y ago
The problem is that the word science has been robbed of its meaning. Or the meaning didn't scale well.
Every side of the so-called debate throws it left and right, now which science do you believe in? As if belief is part of the equations.
And the other issue is that there are no debates. You send a tweet, and tag WHO or some authoritative figure and then we have to believe it. Those who don't believe it are not following the science.
Edit: Science is supposed to evolve as new data comes in. Today, we stop at the first sensational news. When a fact is updated or retracted, it doesn't make the news.
- RhysU 6y ago> As if belief is part of the equations. In the data starved regime, belief indeed does enter the equations in the form of a Bayesian prior. Agreed that new data should update the results.
- orwin 6y agoYou can't rob a word of its meaning. If it encompass to much, you can create a new one or be more precise. Anyway, i think the point of this article is that people that are not scientists themselves can debate with each other, but should avoid perturbing (i'd say polluting even) the scientific debate, whether its by disparaging an adversarial opinion or but elevating a scientits too high (see what has happened with the pr Raoult cult in France). This is too much noise and scientist are people too.