4 ms·

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 Newtoni

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.
  - ghoward 6y ago
    I guess you could use it against those that know nothing about the process of science, but then they would just ignore you because they really don't understand what you are saying. However, in my experience, that phrase more often comes from someone who claims to be a scientist, which is why it puts me off. If you don't claim to be a scientist, then I can respect that.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      I don’t claim to be a scientist. The times I use this phrase are typically when having political arguments where what we know is correct is pitted against monied interests that aren’t seeking truth but working hard to obscure it (“is smoking cigarettes harmful?”, “is climate change real?”, “is the earth round?”, etc).
umvi 6y ago
> the apple falls because the earth is flat and accelerating upward due to the giant turtles it rests on Hmm, be careful ridiculing all of this, because under GR the earth is accelerating upward toward the apple; it has to in order to remain in the same spot in curved spacetime.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  I'd argue as a distinction that the surface of the earth accelerates outward, not upward, and nuanced GR takes aside I'll happily continue to gently mock the claims of flat earthers.
  - umvi 6y ago
    Indeed, I just think general relativity would never have been discovered had einstein not questioned settled science. In other words, if einstein assumed "the earth doesn't accelerate upward, the apple accelerates downward! The science is settled!", we would have never been enlightened by his paradigm shift.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > In other words, if einstein assumed “the earth doesn’t accelerate upward, the apple accelerates downward! The science is settled!”, But, insofar as there was a broadly accepted pre-GR scientific explanation, it was not “The earth doesn’t accelerate upward, the apple accelerates downardThe second half, yes, but not the first.
  - falcrist 6y ago
    "Up" is away from the center of the gravity well. Since gravity wells are generally spherical in practice, up is always going to point radially outward, so there's no distinction to make.

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.
- ghoward 6y ago
  I guess you could use it against those that know nothing about the process of science, but then they would just ignore you because they really don't understand what you are saying. However, in my experience, that phrase more often comes from someone who claims to be a scientist, which is why it puts me off. If you don't claim to be a scientist, then I can respect that.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    I don’t claim to be a scientist. The times I use this phrase are typically when having political arguments where what we know is correct is pitted against monied interests that aren’t seeking truth but working hard to obscure it (“is smoking cigarettes harmful?”, “is climate change real?”, “is the earth round?”, etc).

umvi 6y ago

> the apple falls because the earth is flat and accelerating upward due to the giant turtles it rests on Hmm, be careful ridiculing all of this, because under GR the earth is accelerating upward toward the apple; it has to in order to remain in the same spot in curved spacetime.

ncallaway 6y ago
I'd argue as a distinction that the surface of the earth accelerates outward, not upward, and nuanced GR takes aside I'll happily continue to gently mock the claims of flat earthers.
- umvi 6y ago
  Indeed, I just think general relativity would never have been discovered had einstein not questioned settled science. In other words, if einstein assumed "the earth doesn't accelerate upward, the apple accelerates downward! The science is settled!", we would have never been enlightened by his paradigm shift.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > In other words, if einstein assumed “the earth doesn’t accelerate upward, the apple accelerates downward! The science is settled!”, But, insofar as there was a broadly accepted pre-GR scientific explanation, it was not “The earth doesn’t accelerate upward, the apple accelerates downardThe second half, yes, but not the first.
- falcrist 6y ago
  "Up" is away from the center of the gravity well. Since gravity wells are generally spherical in practice, up is always going to point radially outward, so there's no distinction to make.