4 ms·

I find it rather unfortunate that this comment is the top comment, because I think the "science is like a religion" is both misleading and a strategy to dismiss

I find it rather unfortunate that this comment is the top comment, because I think the "science is like a religion" is both misleading and a strategy to dismiss evidence which don't align with ones ideological views (which is a very human reaction to be fair and it takes conscious effort to avoid, speaking from my own experience). As you acknowledge the scientific method has given completely new technology (I find your choice of words "revolutionary useful goods" a bit weird, as if the only purpose of science was to produce new goods). You're setting up a bit of a straw man that science can not tell us with certainty what is the better course of action. Stating that science can give answers with absolute certainty is a stark misunderstanding of the scientific process (something alluded to in the article). However, trusting the (scientific) evidence (what is typically meant when people use "trust the science") can very definitely guide our decision making process. People typically bring up "trust the science" when proposals are being rejected based on some "ideological" reasoning. To give a more concrete example, in the discussion about universal basic income, one of the main counterarguments is that people will just stop working. The answer to that counterargument is "trust the science", because every study made, has found that in fact people don't just stop working. Now one might still reject the concept of UBI for various other reasons, but this should be underpinned by evidence based arguments, not saying that the side which says trust the science (evidence) is treating it like a religion. When people use the term "trust the science" what they typically mean is "trust the (scientific) evidence" and yes that is what we should be doing, even outside the "technological fields". The "trust the science" argument is often made when people reject an

chopin 6y ago
Socio-economic science is rife of p-hacking. The vast majority of those studies are not reproducible. Your argument would be stronger if you'd choose a different example. I would assume that most studies on UBI are done by strong supporters of it which introduces enough subconscious bias to make them problematic. In the medical area (testing medications) history is full of wrong studies either by negligence or just by greed. "Trust the science" is never a good argument as being to general. I'd trust most of the science in physics, chemistry and mathematics. Apart from those there are too many shenanigans.
- toto444 6y ago
  What do you suggest then ? We claim that every opinion is equally worthy and just stop trying to understand the social world ?
  - chopin 6y ago
    We could set higher bars for what is accepted as "scientifically valid" as an example. What you're saying is that wrong understanding is better than not to try. At least when political action affecting many is derived from science, standards must be higher than currently. For example the mRNA vaccines: As far as I know there is no or little research for possible long term side effects as the original research is for cancer medication which has vastly different risk trade offs. Nevertheless the vaccines are approved for use. I've read and seen in many discussions if one raises doubts that just "trust science" is the answer although there is no science. At least I expect when asked that a proponent can name a study which researches on the long term effects of vaccines or the underlying technology (eg. safety of packaging, which is deemed a trade secret and thus not public afaik). "Trust us" is the wrong answer as long as regulatory capture is a thing.
    - toto444 6y ago
      > What you're saying is that wrong understanding is better than not to try. You can be wrong but state clear hypotheses and a non logically flawed reasoning that allows you to make statements about the world. These can then be tested for their validity. What you claim is that the standard for the quality of the test are not high enough. That may be true or false however this is only one aspect of science. For instance many people misunderstand the use of maths in Economics. The point of using mathematical models is not to be able to make predictions about next year's GDP but to make sure that what follows from your clearly stated hypotheses about human behaviour is consistent.
jedmeyers 6y ago
> one of the main counterarguments is that people will just stop working One of the main counterarguments to the universal basic income is that napkin math does not work out. You don't even need to get the "science" involved, just relatively simple algebra. Humanity does not have the resources for the majority of the population to receive benefits out of thin air. And no, $3200 AMZN is not really a resource most people would feel comfortable surviving on, unless they can exchange it for something of an actual value. p.s. the Amazon bit is related to the "let's divide the wealth of the billionaires and we all will live happily ever after" mantra.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  Well I did not say anything about the cost of UBI, I was not even necessarily advocating for UBI, I simply was giving an example were I had heard a similar "trust the evidence" argument. That said, answering with "napkin math" to a complex costing problem like UBI is exactly the problem and why we should listen more to scientists. Unfortunately, many of us engineering types are way too quick to make very strong statements based on essentially no expertise except for some math and engineering education. Interestingly in my observation this behaviour is less prevalent in scientists (i.e. people coming from a science opposed to an engineering background). Obviously, this is only anecdotal, but I would be interested if others have observed this.
lobotryas 6y ago
In all these discussions we forget that science is “created” by humans and thus just as fallible as humans are. “Trust in science or “because science” are just ways to shut down discussion or lines on inquiry that dare question the existing narrative. Don’t believe me? Here’s an example. Have you ever wondered, just hypothetically, if the Covid outbreak may have had any relation to the bio research lab located in Wuhan? Well, you can’t wonder about that. If you do, being called a conspiracy theorist is the nicest thing anyone will say about you. If you think this is a good thing then you’ll be in for a rude awakening hen you happen to find yourself on the wrong side of the “scientific” debate.
- collyw 6y ago
  Yes, "trust the science" in covid times means "trust the narrative pushed by the mainstream media". The fact your comment is downvoted with no actual counterargument seems to prove this point.
  - MonsterBurger 6y ago
    There is no argument to counter. It's entirely speculative.
zuzun 6y ago
> people don't just stop working Did the participants receive enough money to maintain their current standard of living? Was the UBI granted for life or just for a few years? If it was granted for life, did the participants fear that the program might be ended prematurely? Did they keep working to be a role model for their children, who might never receive UBI? Did the participants even have a job to begin with? A study can give only unemployed people UBI and if the participants don't seek employment, the unemployment rate doesn't change, and your conclusion drawn from this fact is all wrong.
- Izkata 6y ago
  I've only heard of one of them in passing, and the part I remember is that it was known from the start to be a limited-duration experiment. So yeah, not a good example. If anything, I see this as the good example of "trust the science" used as a thought-terminating cliche - a way to shut down questioning without having to provide answers.
dsego 6y ago
I think people would stop working, but it might not be so terrible. Maybe all the "bullshit" jobs would disappear and people would have more time for community activities, volunteering, youth work actions, political engagement, art, culture...and maybe even science?
marcusverus 6y ago
Using the "trust the science" line on UBI studies is a perfect example of the abuse of the phrase. > To give a more concrete example, in the discussion about universal basic income, one of the main counterarguments is that people will just stop working. The answer to that counterargument is "trust the science", because every study made, has found that in fact people don't just stop working. In literally every study ever done, the UBI substitute was not permanent. Studies of the impacts of a temporary stipend do not logically transfer to a permanent stipend. If you get a source of income that will stop in three years, it makes perfect sense to use that income to prepare yourself for life after the income. If you get a source of income that has been guaranteed for life, you've got a completely different set of incentives and there is no reason to assume that studies of temporary stipends apply.

chopin 6y ago

Socio-economic science is rife of p-hacking. The vast majority of those studies are not reproducible. Your argument would be stronger if you'd choose a different example. I would assume that most studies on UBI are done by strong supporters of it which introduces enough subconscious bias to make them problematic. In the medical area (testing medications) history is full of wrong studies either by negligence or just by greed. "Trust the science" is never a good argument as being to general. I'd trust most of the science in physics, chemistry and mathematics. Apart from those there are too many shenanigans.

toto444 6y ago
What do you suggest then ? We claim that every opinion is equally worthy and just stop trying to understand the social world ?
- chopin 6y ago
  We could set higher bars for what is accepted as "scientifically valid" as an example. What you're saying is that wrong understanding is better than not to try. At least when political action affecting many is derived from science, standards must be higher than currently. For example the mRNA vaccines: As far as I know there is no or little research for possible long term side effects as the original research is for cancer medication which has vastly different risk trade offs. Nevertheless the vaccines are approved for use. I've read and seen in many discussions if one raises doubts that just "trust science" is the answer although there is no science. At least I expect when asked that a proponent can name a study which researches on the long term effects of vaccines or the underlying technology (eg. safety of packaging, which is deemed a trade secret and thus not public afaik). "Trust us" is the wrong answer as long as regulatory capture is a thing.
  - toto444 6y ago
    > What you're saying is that wrong understanding is better than not to try. You can be wrong but state clear hypotheses and a non logically flawed reasoning that allows you to make statements about the world. These can then be tested for their validity. What you claim is that the standard for the quality of the test are not high enough. That may be true or false however this is only one aspect of science. For instance many people misunderstand the use of maths in Economics. The point of using mathematical models is not to be able to make predictions about next year's GDP but to make sure that what follows from your clearly stated hypotheses about human behaviour is consistent.

jedmeyers 6y ago

> one of the main counterarguments is that people will just stop working One of the main counterarguments to the universal basic income is that napkin math does not work out. You don't even need to get the "science" involved, just relatively simple algebra. Humanity does not have the resources for the majority of the population to receive benefits out of thin air. And no, $3200 AMZN is not really a resource most people would feel comfortable surviving on, unless they can exchange it for something of an actual value. p.s. the Amazon bit is related to the "let's divide the wealth of the billionaires and we all will live happily ever after" mantra.

cycomanic 6y ago
Well I did not say anything about the cost of UBI, I was not even necessarily advocating for UBI, I simply was giving an example were I had heard a similar "trust the evidence" argument. That said, answering with "napkin math" to a complex costing problem like UBI is exactly the problem and why we should listen more to scientists. Unfortunately, many of us engineering types are way too quick to make very strong statements based on essentially no expertise except for some math and engineering education. Interestingly in my observation this behaviour is less prevalent in scientists (i.e. people coming from a science opposed to an engineering background). Obviously, this is only anecdotal, but I would be interested if others have observed this.

lobotryas 6y ago

In all these discussions we forget that science is “created” by humans and thus just as fallible as humans are. “Trust in science or “because science” are just ways to shut down discussion or lines on inquiry that dare question the existing narrative. Don’t believe me? Here’s an example. Have you ever wondered, just hypothetically, if the Covid outbreak may have had any relation to the bio research lab located in Wuhan? Well, you can’t wonder about that. If you do, being called a conspiracy theorist is the nicest thing anyone will say about you. If you think this is a good thing then you’ll be in for a rude awakening hen you happen to find yourself on the wrong side of the “scientific” debate.

collyw 6y ago
Yes, "trust the science" in covid times means "trust the narrative pushed by the mainstream media". The fact your comment is downvoted with no actual counterargument seems to prove this point.
- MonsterBurger 6y ago
  There is no argument to counter. It's entirely speculative.

zuzun 6y ago

> people don't just stop working Did the participants receive enough money to maintain their current standard of living? Was the UBI granted for life or just for a few years? If it was granted for life, did the participants fear that the program might be ended prematurely? Did they keep working to be a role model for their children, who might never receive UBI? Did the participants even have a job to begin with? A study can give only unemployed people UBI and if the participants don't seek employment, the unemployment rate doesn't change, and your conclusion drawn from this fact is all wrong.

Izkata 6y ago
I've only heard of one of them in passing, and the part I remember is that it was known from the start to be a limited-duration experiment. So yeah, not a good example. If anything, I see this as the good example of "trust the science" used as a thought-terminating cliche - a way to shut down questioning without having to provide answers.

dsego 6y ago

I think people would stop working, but it might not be so terrible. Maybe all the "bullshit" jobs would disappear and people would have more time for community activities, volunteering, youth work actions, political engagement, art, culture...and maybe even science?

marcusverus 6y ago

Using the "trust the science" line on UBI studies is a perfect example of the abuse of the phrase. > To give a more concrete example, in the discussion about universal basic income, one of the main counterarguments is that people will just stop working. The answer to that counterargument is "trust the science", because every study made, has found that in fact people don't just stop working. In literally every study ever done, the UBI substitute was not permanent. Studies of the impacts of a temporary stipend do not logically transfer to a permanent stipend. If you get a source of income that will stop in three years, it makes perfect sense to use that income to prepare yourself for life after the income. If you get a source of income that has been guaranteed for life, you've got a completely different set of incentives and there is no reason to assume that studies of temporary stipends apply.