3 ms·

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

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.

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.