3 ms·

We put our faith in the scientific institution. (And if we are religious, political or etc, we put our faith in the appropriate institution for that too.) Fact

We put our faith in the scientific institution. (And if we are religious, political or etc, we put our faith in the appropriate institution for that too.) Fact is, virtually all knowledge about what lies beyond our personal sight and understanding is authority-based. Maybe that's unavoidable. The key feature of science could be said to be the institution of the rule that, to be considered truly high-quality, a model must have a strong experimental reference. Or you could say that the key feature of science is that we get such high-quality models that experimental reference is unnecessary. Which is a little scary. It's like we're just creating a more-airtight dogma. (Wow, they're actually downvoting you.)

foobarian 7y ago
A hugely influential 'experimental reference' throughout history were wars. Don't believe oxygen exists? Think explosions are magical voodoo? Think you get sick from bad air? Good luck when the musketeers come knocking bearing blankets. Executed your best mathematicians for proposing heretical models of the universe? Will have a hard time getting your artillery to be as accurate as your foe's. I think this kind of natural selection on a societal scale begrudgingly kept people believing in science and engineering, but now that progress has kind of leveled off and/or migrated into realms which don't have direct consequences the rest of society is sadly unbound.
- mellow2020 7y ago
  > Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible. George Orwell
grawprog 7y ago
I've noticed a fairly big distinction in what I learned as science and the philosophy of science as it was practiced up until around the last 20 years or so and now. Science was based on rigorous falsification. Scientists actively tried to prove themselves and other scientists wrong. Science has always been more about, 'well we know it's not all of these things, so it's probably that until we prove that wrong too'. Sometime in the last couple decades, it's stopped being like that. Instead it's, 'my models and data say this, so it is this and everything else is wrong'. Science at this point is really only authority driven because journals and even governments charge exorbitant prices for access to them, cutting out a vast majority of the population from actually partaking in any part of the scientific process. When all you get is contradictory news reports on a handful of selected research from journalists that barely understand what they're reading, you're going to be stuck with an elitist authority driven system. There's zero reason for this in todays world other than control and profit. Even within the scientific community, there's 'caste' systems, financial guardianship and other such barriers, keeping again, many people from learning and partaking. Science isn't hard, it isn't magic, it's a systematic way of looking at the world through observation and falsification. That is all science is. Anyone can do science. I've taken groups of kids, volunteers and many people and in short time, taught them to do science. It's just people don't really get taught to do this. It's easier to control a population that's trickled information through 'authoritative' sources than it is one that's educated and capable of thinking for themselves. This is stuff I was literally taught in school, by other scientists. Like, we were actually taught that most people need to be given only the information they need to know, because essentially they're too dumb to understand and scientists should just run things in the world. I'm not making this up, we were actually told this by several of our professors.
- rovolo 7y ago
  I have two comments on your takeaways: > Science isn't hard, it isn't magic, it's a systematic way of looking at the world through observation and falsification. That is all science is. Science is also being open to critique from others, and listening to what others have found. If you only focus on your own observations, you can test Newton's and Maxwell's laws, but you'll be hard pressed to discover relativity or quantum mechanics. Some discoveries are hard because they require foundational knowledge and equipment and insight. > We were actually taught that most people need to be given only the information they need to know, because essentially they're too dumb to understand and scientists should just run things in the world. A more charitable explanation is that it takes time to learn things, and we can't know everything. For example, you don't need to know the experimental design to use the results from an experiment, but you would if you're evaluating the experiment. It takes time and effort to do peer review. You're delegating effort to scientists so that you can use the results of multiple experiments without a large investment of time. I totally agree with teaching everyone the tools of science though. I just think you're overestimating how well those tools will protect people against charlatans. Some claims take expertise to debunk.

foobarian 7y ago

A hugely influential 'experimental reference' throughout history were wars. Don't believe oxygen exists? Think explosions are magical voodoo? Think you get sick from bad air? Good luck when the musketeers come knocking bearing blankets. Executed your best mathematicians for proposing heretical models of the universe? Will have a hard time getting your artillery to be as accurate as your foe's. I think this kind of natural selection on a societal scale begrudgingly kept people believing in science and engineering, but now that progress has kind of leveled off and/or migrated into realms which don't have direct consequences the rest of society is sadly unbound.

mellow2020 7y ago
> Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible. George Orwell

grawprog 7y ago

I've noticed a fairly big distinction in what I learned as science and the philosophy of science as it was practiced up until around the last 20 years or so and now. Science was based on rigorous falsification. Scientists actively tried to prove themselves and other scientists wrong. Science has always been more about, 'well we know it's not all of these things, so it's probably that until we prove that wrong too'. Sometime in the last couple decades, it's stopped being like that. Instead it's, 'my models and data say this, so it is this and everything else is wrong'. Science at this point is really only authority driven because journals and even governments charge exorbitant prices for access to them, cutting out a vast majority of the population from actually partaking in any part of the scientific process. When all you get is contradictory news reports on a handful of selected research from journalists that barely understand what they're reading, you're going to be stuck with an elitist authority driven system. There's zero reason for this in todays world other than control and profit. Even within the scientific community, there's 'caste' systems, financial guardianship and other such barriers, keeping again, many people from learning and partaking. Science isn't hard, it isn't magic, it's a systematic way of looking at the world through observation and falsification. That is all science is. Anyone can do science. I've taken groups of kids, volunteers and many people and in short time, taught them to do science. It's just people don't really get taught to do this. It's easier to control a population that's trickled information through 'authoritative' sources than it is one that's educated and capable of thinking for themselves. This is stuff I was literally taught in school, by other scientists. Like, we were actually taught that most people need to be given only the information they need to know, because essentially they're too dumb to understand and scientists should just run things in the world. I'm not making this up, we were actually told this by several of our professors.

rovolo 7y ago
I have two comments on your takeaways: > Science isn't hard, it isn't magic, it's a systematic way of looking at the world through observation and falsification. That is all science is. Science is also being open to critique from others, and listening to what others have found. If you only focus on your own observations, you can test Newton's and Maxwell's laws, but you'll be hard pressed to discover relativity or quantum mechanics. Some discoveries are hard because they require foundational knowledge and equipment and insight. > We were actually taught that most people need to be given only the information they need to know, because essentially they're too dumb to understand and scientists should just run things in the world. A more charitable explanation is that it takes time to learn things, and we can't know everything. For example, you don't need to know the experimental design to use the results from an experiment, but you would if you're evaluating the experiment. It takes time and effort to do peer review. You're delegating effort to scientists so that you can use the results of multiple experiments without a large investment of time. I totally agree with teaching everyone the tools of science though. I just think you're overestimating how well those tools will protect people against charlatans. Some claims take expertise to debunk.