4 ms·

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 ac

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).

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).