3 ms·

> you're not going to force your beliefs on them Beliefs? Science, and scientific evidence became “beliefs” That’s the problem right here.

ericd 6y ago
Yes, it's a belief/acceptance/trust/whatever you want to call it. I believe demonstrated science is fact, but that's still a belief about the world. My parents are in scientific fields, I received a science and engineering based education, and generally have faith in the scientific method as performed by most scientists. But we DO have to convince people, we have to convince people by showing them how it works, and letting them decide that that makes sense, you can't just mandate belief as a science authoritarian. And science is still performed by humans, and we're fallible, and our incentives aren't always good, and every time there's a public failure of the process, and every time a scientist goes on record to shill for a company's chosen viewpoint, it dings the general public's faith in science and scientific experts in general.
- noncoml 6y ago
  You arguments here are the problem. I know that you mean well and in a perfect world what you say would make sense, but when you say “science is still performed by humans” is an opportunity for the school dropout to say, “see even between them they have doubts, the earth is flat”.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    What’s the better alternative? If you don’t explain how we know the earth is roughly spherical, that’s the opportunity for that person to conclude “see, they can’t even refute it; look for yourself, sheeple...”
hvdfhbj 6y ago
Don't you dare use the word "science" to justify censorship. The scientific method is completely incompatible with censorship of dissenting ideas. The scientific method is based on the idea that all knowledge is provisional and subject to change when new evidence comes in. Saying "this is the currently accepted truth, censor everything else" is the opposite of science.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tomp 6y ago
Your understanding of science is pretty bad if you seriously believe there are no rational objections (re: long-term effects) to consuming a drug that didn't even exist a year ago.

ericd 6y ago

Yes, it's a belief/acceptance/trust/whatever you want to call it. I believe demonstrated science is fact, but that's still a belief about the world. My parents are in scientific fields, I received a science and engineering based education, and generally have faith in the scientific method as performed by most scientists. But we DO have to convince people, we have to convince people by showing them how it works, and letting them decide that that makes sense, you can't just mandate belief as a science authoritarian. And science is still performed by humans, and we're fallible, and our incentives aren't always good, and every time there's a public failure of the process, and every time a scientist goes on record to shill for a company's chosen viewpoint, it dings the general public's faith in science and scientific experts in general.

noncoml 6y ago
You arguments here are the problem. I know that you mean well and in a perfect world what you say would make sense, but when you say “science is still performed by humans” is an opportunity for the school dropout to say, “see even between them they have doubts, the earth is flat”.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  What’s the better alternative? If you don’t explain how we know the earth is roughly spherical, that’s the opportunity for that person to conclude “see, they can’t even refute it; look for yourself, sheeple...”

hvdfhbj 6y ago

Don't you dare use the word "science" to justify censorship. The scientific method is completely incompatible with censorship of dissenting ideas. The scientific method is based on the idea that all knowledge is provisional and subject to change when new evidence comes in. Saying "this is the currently accepted truth, censor everything else" is the opposite of science.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tomp 6y ago

Your understanding of science is pretty bad if you seriously believe there are no rational objections (re: long-term effects) to consuming a drug that didn't even exist a year ago.