5 ms·

If someone is saying “the science is settled”, I immediately dismiss them. That’s how how science works, and when you use that phrase you are making a religiou

If someone is saying “the science is settled”, I immediately dismiss them. That’s how how science works, and when you use that phrase you are making a religious statement not a scientific one.

Nursie 6y ago
Is that never context dependent? What about in a rebuttal to flat-earth "Theory"?
- fatsdomino001 6y ago
  It's better to use different language, like saying how we're exceedingly confident that the earth is round, rather than it being an absolute. Sort of like our confidence asymptotically approaches absolute but never actually reaches it. This is similar to Hume's argument for our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Obviously, we all believe (even flat-earthers) that the sun will rise tomorrow and we have much science to indicate this will continue to be the case for a long time. Still, that doesn't mean we can be 100% confident this is the case. It's frankly just exceedingly difficult to be 100% absolutely sure about anything, unless it's first order mathematics.
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  In that conversation, nobody flat out says "the science is settled" because it is easy to explain the science behind the earth being round. No, "the science is settled" is only ever used as a way to end a discussion without explaining the details of one's position. Not that they're necessarily wrong, but just that they don't know the answers. It is always an attempt to end a conversation on an authoritative basis.
  - notafraudster 6y ago
    I think sometimes it's out of recognition that the amount of effort required to convince someone -- who probably isn't even arguing in good faith -- of something sometimes exceeds the amount of effort required to dismiss them. Which is really sort of the main issue with ongoing discussions about settled topics (creationism, flat earth, young earth, anti-vax, etc.)... it's just miserable from a signal-to-noise POV
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    > In that conversation, nobody flat out says "the science is settled" because it is easy to explain the science behind the earth being round. Not to a flat earther. There is a mountain of garbage you need to wade through. You can sit there and talk about observing the curvature across bodies of water or with satellites or whatever and they will just sit and say "nuh uh". At that point "the science is settled" is way easier than wasting your time with them.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    So, you're arguing that the Earth could be flat?
    - betwixthewires 6y ago
      Where on earth do you get anything close to that from what I've said?
- konjin 6y ago
  The Earth might not be flat, but it isn't round either. That one is a lot more wrong than the other matters little if you're trying to land a spaceship.
  - Thiez 6y ago
    I doubt anyone in a position to land a spaceship would be convinced that the earth is flat. And just because something isn't 100% true doesn't make it useless. Newtons laws are very useful in most real life situations, even though we know them to be wrong.
    - konjin 6y ago
      The Earth being flat is a very useful approximation in all cases where you don't need to land as spaceship. Just because something is useful doesn't mean it's true.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    I would contest that an oblate spheroid with an uneven surface is "round", at least that's a pretty good approximation in general conversation.
- iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
  If you get drawn into a debate about whether the earth is flat, you're the sucker and are being made fun of by the person "debating" you. And retorting that "the science is settled" would be a ridiculous response. In serious debate, "the science is settled" is the intellectual equivalent of "because I said so". But I don't believe it comes up often in serious debate, it's more likely to happen when two parties that don't really understand science are having an ideological debate that they pretend had to do with science as a rhetorical device to gain legitimacy.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    Are you saying that all flat-earthers are actually lying, and just there to troll?
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  No it’s never context dependant. In regard to flat earth, the scientific response is simply that the evidence seems to contradict that theory. If some people think it’s still a valid line of inquiry, then they’re perfectly entitled to pursue it. Science doesn’t dictate what is and is not a waste of time. If some people wish to assert that flat earth theories are definitely true, then that’s fine too. It’s not scientific, because science doesn’t have any mechanism for determining something to be definitely true. If some people want to claim that flat earth is likely true, that’s fine too, but it’s also not a very defensible scientific conclusion either, because the scientific evidence weighs heavily against that conclusion. But saying that something is definitely not true is equally anti-science, because science doesn’t have a mechanism for determining something to be definitely not true either. The problem that people have with this tends to be that when they notice somebody being “wrong” about something, they want to be able to conclusively prove that the other person is wrong, and that they are right. Especially if it’s in regards to an issue they consider important. If you think that the scientific evidence supports your position in a situation like this, the temptation is to claim that science unequivocally proves you are correct. It is however, an outright abuse of the scientific method. This sort of situation has become very common place. When science communicators are faced with anti-scientific assertions of absolute truth, they’re not inclined to acknowledge scientific uncertainty, and the limits of their own understanding. Sadly this has created a culture of anti-scientific science worship.
feralimal 6y ago
Absolutely. Trust, faith in scientists, in journals, opinions, consensus opinion, etc should be irrelevant. The studies/observations/experiments should stand for themselves.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  This sounds good in theory, but how does it work in practice? 99% of people aren’t going to be able to read a scientific paper and judge the scientific merits of the conclusion, at least for anything that is not a complete farce. If I read a paper about some aspect of the event horizon of a black hole, how am I going to judge the veracity without spending a career studying the field? Even if every person could understand every scientific paper, no one has the time to read them all. How should some practically interpret the truth of a scientific claim? I really find it unlikely that the answer doesn’t at some point hinge on “I trust the judgment of this other person”
  - ta8645 6y ago
    This is why abusing the trust of the public in the pursuit of punishing or shaming political rivals is so corrosive. Many people have simply stopped listening to the politicians of the opposite stripe and the main-stream media as authoritative sources because they feel that they're always hostile. For example when authoritative sounding talking heads appear on media and deride 40+% of the voting public as unworthy reprobates without being seriously challenged, a large number of people will completely shut off and turn toward less hostile voices who may or may not actually be worthy of trust themselves... That is a seriously bad thing when you have something important you need the public to rally around. The government and media should be rebuilding trust and making amends because if we can't trust what our leaders say, civil society simply can not do anything but crumble. That's not an easy thing to accomplish, but it could be done if approached in a genuine and humble manner. Unfortunately, there's no sign of that happening anywhere.
  - feralimal 6y ago
    For me, it is at that stage where I would have to prove whatever is being said for myself, rather than accept any claims. Even reading the paper would not be enough - I mean that I would need to verify the claim personally. Obviously I don't have time for that, so my position is that I take all claims extremely skeptically. The problem is that there that the rational position is that there should be no trust in science. 70% of papers cannot be replicated (see the replication crisis). There is also the issue of funding - you get what you pay for. There are really only 3 funding sources of science - government, military and corporations. (To me, these are actually just one source 3 facets of the same beast, but not everyone agrees with me that we live in a fascist state.) But those funding interests don't make for 'free' science. No one will research good diet - confusion reigns on the best diet for people. They will research expensive drugs and treatments. No one researches how climate change isn't happening, only that it is. Etc. The upshot is, that with enough funding you can fairly quickly have reams of papers and documents in support of whatever case you want to promote. The broader scientific 'truth' is left at the wayside.
ncallaway 6y ago
I think you're making a bit much over a phrase. True, no matter how long something has settled in science, it can be overturned by more evidence (hence Newtonian gravity, once quite well settled eventually be doubted then disrupted by GR). But, even given that, it's still true that science on a topic may be presently settled. So, it seems to me, more import than dismissing every use of the phrase is to judge the context of how it's being used. If it's being used to dismiss the presentation of evidence or anomalies ("hey, it seems odd the Mecury's orbit doesn't quite fit the prediction") then the phrase is absolutely being abused. But if instead it's being used to dismiss a claim that lacks any evidence ("the apple falls because the earth is flat and accelerating upward due to the giant turtles it rests on"), then the phrase is better applied.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ghoward 6y ago
  I am not the GP, but when someone says, "The science is settled, I also ignore them, and this is why. "The Earth is flat. The science is settled." "No, it's actually round." "Okay, it's round. The science is settled." "Actually, it's an oblate spheroid." And that last one matters for GPS. Beyond that, there is always a new question. Sure, the COVID vaccine works with small enough side effects. Cool. What about medium-term side effects? What about long-term side effects? Also, "science" is the process, not the body of Knowledge or the consensus. See https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/what-science-is/ https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/what-science-is/ .
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    First, the science was never settled that the earth was flat. For as long as we've had anything resembling science, we've known the earth was round. But none of that addresses my point. I'm not saying that nothing in science is overturned (in fact, I pointed out exactly that). In saying the phrase can be reasonably used in some contexts. It can _never_ be reasonably used to dismiss evidence or anomalies. It can _sometimes_ be reasonably used to dismiss completely unsupported and unfounded claims. If someone claims the earth is flat, I will happily tell them that it is not, and the science on the matter is settled. Again, to rule out evidence or anomalies, no. But to rule out unsupported claims, I'm still going to use it. If you think that wrong, you should probably be ignoring me.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

If someone is saying “the science is settled”, I immediately dismiss them. That’s how how science works, and when you use that phrase you are making a religious statement not a scientific one.

Nursie 6y ago

Is that never context dependent? What about in a rebuttal to flat-earth "Theory"?

fatsdomino001 6y ago
It's better to use different language, like saying how we're exceedingly confident that the earth is round, rather than it being an absolute. Sort of like our confidence asymptotically approaches absolute but never actually reaches it. This is similar to Hume's argument for our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Obviously, we all believe (even flat-earthers) that the sun will rise tomorrow and we have much science to indicate this will continue to be the case for a long time. Still, that doesn't mean we can be 100% confident this is the case. It's frankly just exceedingly difficult to be 100% absolutely sure about anything, unless it's first order mathematics.
betwixthewires 6y ago
In that conversation, nobody flat out says "the science is settled" because it is easy to explain the science behind the earth being round. No, "the science is settled" is only ever used as a way to end a discussion without explaining the details of one's position. Not that they're necessarily wrong, but just that they don't know the answers. It is always an attempt to end a conversation on an authoritative basis.
- notafraudster 6y ago
  I think sometimes it's out of recognition that the amount of effort required to convince someone -- who probably isn't even arguing in good faith -- of something sometimes exceeds the amount of effort required to dismiss them. Which is really sort of the main issue with ongoing discussions about settled topics (creationism, flat earth, young earth, anti-vax, etc.)... it's just miserable from a signal-to-noise POV
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > In that conversation, nobody flat out says "the science is settled" because it is easy to explain the science behind the earth being round. Not to a flat earther. There is a mountain of garbage you need to wade through. You can sit there and talk about observing the curvature across bodies of water or with satellites or whatever and they will just sit and say "nuh uh". At that point "the science is settled" is way easier than wasting your time with them.
- mcguire 6y ago
  So, you're arguing that the Earth could be flat?
  - betwixthewires 6y ago
    Where on earth do you get anything close to that from what I've said?
konjin 6y ago
The Earth might not be flat, but it isn't round either. That one is a lot more wrong than the other matters little if you're trying to land a spaceship.
- Thiez 6y ago
  I doubt anyone in a position to land a spaceship would be convinced that the earth is flat. And just because something isn't 100% true doesn't make it useless. Newtons laws are very useful in most real life situations, even though we know them to be wrong.
  - konjin 6y ago
    The Earth being flat is a very useful approximation in all cases where you don't need to land as spaceship. Just because something is useful doesn't mean it's true.
- Nursie 6y ago
  I would contest that an oblate spheroid with an uneven surface is "round", at least that's a pretty good approximation in general conversation.
iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
If you get drawn into a debate about whether the earth is flat, you're the sucker and are being made fun of by the person "debating" you. And retorting that "the science is settled" would be a ridiculous response. In serious debate, "the science is settled" is the intellectual equivalent of "because I said so". But I don't believe it comes up often in serious debate, it's more likely to happen when two parties that don't really understand science are having an ideological debate that they pretend had to do with science as a rhetorical device to gain legitimacy.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Are you saying that all flat-earthers are actually lying, and just there to troll?
AmericanChopper 6y ago
No it’s never context dependant. In regard to flat earth, the scientific response is simply that the evidence seems to contradict that theory. If some people think it’s still a valid line of inquiry, then they’re perfectly entitled to pursue it. Science doesn’t dictate what is and is not a waste of time. If some people wish to assert that flat earth theories are definitely true, then that’s fine too. It’s not scientific, because science doesn’t have any mechanism for determining something to be definitely true. If some people want to claim that flat earth is likely true, that’s fine too, but it’s also not a very defensible scientific conclusion either, because the scientific evidence weighs heavily against that conclusion. But saying that something is definitely not true is equally anti-science, because science doesn’t have a mechanism for determining something to be definitely not true either. The problem that people have with this tends to be that when they notice somebody being “wrong” about something, they want to be able to conclusively prove that the other person is wrong, and that they are right. Especially if it’s in regards to an issue they consider important. If you think that the scientific evidence supports your position in a situation like this, the temptation is to claim that science unequivocally proves you are correct. It is however, an outright abuse of the scientific method. This sort of situation has become very common place. When science communicators are faced with anti-scientific assertions of absolute truth, they’re not inclined to acknowledge scientific uncertainty, and the limits of their own understanding. Sadly this has created a culture of anti-scientific science worship.

feralimal 6y ago

Absolutely. Trust, faith in scientists, in journals, opinions, consensus opinion, etc should be irrelevant. The studies/observations/experiments should stand for themselves.

cortesoft 6y ago
This sounds good in theory, but how does it work in practice? 99% of people aren’t going to be able to read a scientific paper and judge the scientific merits of the conclusion, at least for anything that is not a complete farce. If I read a paper about some aspect of the event horizon of a black hole, how am I going to judge the veracity without spending a career studying the field? Even if every person could understand every scientific paper, no one has the time to read them all. How should some practically interpret the truth of a scientific claim? I really find it unlikely that the answer doesn’t at some point hinge on “I trust the judgment of this other person”
- ta8645 6y ago
  This is why abusing the trust of the public in the pursuit of punishing or shaming political rivals is so corrosive. Many people have simply stopped listening to the politicians of the opposite stripe and the main-stream media as authoritative sources because they feel that they're always hostile. For example when authoritative sounding talking heads appear on media and deride 40+% of the voting public as unworthy reprobates without being seriously challenged, a large number of people will completely shut off and turn toward less hostile voices who may or may not actually be worthy of trust themselves... That is a seriously bad thing when you have something important you need the public to rally around. The government and media should be rebuilding trust and making amends because if we can't trust what our leaders say, civil society simply can not do anything but crumble. That's not an easy thing to accomplish, but it could be done if approached in a genuine and humble manner. Unfortunately, there's no sign of that happening anywhere.
- feralimal 6y ago
  For me, it is at that stage where I would have to prove whatever is being said for myself, rather than accept any claims. Even reading the paper would not be enough - I mean that I would need to verify the claim personally. Obviously I don't have time for that, so my position is that I take all claims extremely skeptically. The problem is that there that the rational position is that there should be no trust in science. 70% of papers cannot be replicated (see the replication crisis). There is also the issue of funding - you get what you pay for. There are really only 3 funding sources of science - government, military and corporations. (To me, these are actually just one source 3 facets of the same beast, but not everyone agrees with me that we live in a fascist state.) But those funding interests don't make for 'free' science. No one will research good diet - confusion reigns on the best diet for people. They will research expensive drugs and treatments. No one researches how climate change isn't happening, only that it is. Etc. The upshot is, that with enough funding you can fairly quickly have reams of papers and documents in support of whatever case you want to promote. The broader scientific 'truth' is left at the wayside.

ncallaway 6y ago

I think you're making a bit much over a phrase. True, no matter how long something has settled in science, it can be overturned by more evidence (hence Newtonian gravity, once quite well settled eventually be doubted then disrupted by GR). But, even given that, it's still true that science on a topic may be presently settled. So, it seems to me, more import than dismissing every use of the phrase is to judge the context of how it's being used. If it's being used to dismiss the presentation of evidence or anomalies ("hey, it seems odd the Mecury's orbit doesn't quite fit the prediction") then the phrase is absolutely being abused. But if instead it's being used to dismiss a claim that lacks any evidence ("the apple falls because the earth is flat and accelerating upward due to the giant turtles it rests on"), then the phrase is better applied.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ghoward 6y ago
I am not the GP, but when someone says, "The science is settled, I also ignore them, and this is why. "The Earth is flat. The science is settled." "No, it's actually round." "Okay, it's round. The science is settled." "Actually, it's an oblate spheroid." And that last one matters for GPS. Beyond that, there is always a new question. Sure, the COVID vaccine works with small enough side effects. Cool. What about medium-term side effects? What about long-term side effects? Also, "science" is the process, not the body of Knowledge or the consensus. See https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/what-science-is/ https://gavinhoward.com/2019/11/what-science-is/ .
- ncallaway 6y ago
  First, the science was never settled that the earth was flat. For as long as we've had anything resembling science, we've known the earth was round. But none of that addresses my point. I'm not saying that nothing in science is overturned (in fact, I pointed out exactly that). In saying the phrase can be reasonably used in some contexts. It can _never_ be reasonably used to dismiss evidence or anomalies. It can _sometimes_ be reasonably used to dismiss completely unsupported and unfounded claims. If someone claims the earth is flat, I will happily tell them that it is not, and the science on the matter is settled. Again, to rule out evidence or anomalies, no. But to rule out unsupported claims, I'm still going to use it. If you think that wrong, you should probably be ignoring me.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]