6 ms·

I can’t count the number of times I’ve had people tell me “I don’t think it’s appropriate to question science.” I’m always left speechless.

rejectedandsad 5y ago
Not going to defend that phrasing, but I do think that a lay person questioning *scientific consensus is generally of zero usefulness. Loeb's assertions are generally rejected by the scientific mainstream precisely because they are questioned. If they weren't questioned (if he wasn't a domain expert), they'd be ignored.
- bawolff 5y ago
  I think they usually don't get anywhere, but i think its important that the general public realizes that science is a process, and one that can be argued about using evidence. I think a lot of harm comes from treating scientists like priests who reveal divine infalliable wisdom to the mere mortals - in a certain way it even promotes the crazies, since once people start treating science as Truth capital T, beyond questioning, its just as logical for them to switch to some other Truth, whether it be flat earth or whatever.
  - rejectedandsad 5y ago
    I really don't think most people are confused about this - most understand science is a process backed by evidence. When people say "trust the science" they aren't pointing to an immutable conclusion. Generally, at the level of lay people the science being discussed isn't even complicated enough where the process of inquiry is even terribly relevant - there's lots to learn about the origins of the Earth, but "trusting the science" on the fact that the solar system is heliocentric is perfectly valid outside of doing your own experiments. > since once people start treating science as Truth capital T, Woo backed by "science" (see every invocation of "quantum physics" in New Age shit) isn't new, and is not the same as the overwhelming consensus on the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine, for instance.
NortySpock 5y ago
Science's tooling is useful. Hypotheses, experiment, falsifiability... all useful. Science need not be a dogma. If something came along that was more useful than science's tools, somehow, I'm sure we would adopt those.
proc0 5y ago
That person literally confused science with religion. The whole point of science is to question, as oppose to religion where the answers are given.
- umvi 5y ago
  Not so sure. If you question politicized science like climate change or covid you'll be lambasted with an appeal to "scientific consensus"
  - proc0 5y ago
    > politicized science That's sophistry shrouded as science, because it's looking to push an agenda and therefore it tries to fit results to a hypothesis, instead of testing the hypothesis with the results. For any given phenomenon, I don't care what, it is only true to the extent that you can test it in every possible way and still obtain the same results. Anyone who blocks this questioning and testing, is practicing dogma and guarding a belief, instead of doing actual science.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Per usual, it depends :. I am a Catholic who has been told by atheists not to ask questions about meaning because it is “dangerous” (i.e. to run from certain questions). There are questions that have answers that are beyond the scientific method (e.g. does grandma love you?). They are fascinating to contemplate :)
  - proc0 5y ago
    I'm not sure we're disagreeing here, and also don't see how it depends. Religion and science do overlap, but their underlying frameworks are like yin and yang. One is about faith, and the other is about doubt. Without doubt, there is no need to test something, as you already have the answer. Religion is about having faith, and faith is about not doubting. They do overlap, and the overlap is not perfectly clear, so I can see how some can get confused and think there is science that you cannot doubt, but this is false. As far as gramma loving you, I think you can doubt that... and you can test it, right? You can test people's love, and you can collect results over time and then derive conclusions. Maybe the nature of love itself is untestable, and therefore has no framework on which to be doubted, so the nature of love itself might be of a religious nature and it then becomes about faith.
gameswithgo 5y ago
As you present it here, that is indeed ridiculous. But people often questioned well established scientific ideas for no sensible reason at all. "I think the earth is 10,000 years old" -> "Is it appropriate for you to dismiss well established ideas in geology backed up by many independent lines of evidence because you think? Why do you think that?" The appropriate way to question that idea would be find counter-evidence, find mistakes in the data used to arrive at the current orthodoxy, find better explanations, etc etc.
_jal 5y ago
> I can’t count the number of times I’ve had people tell me How does your side of the conversation go?
tablespoon 5y ago
> I can’t count the number of times I’ve had people tell me “I don’t think it’s appropriate to question science.” Or when they invoke "Science" as an authority to resolve clearly unscientific questions (unsurprisingly, always in their favor).

rejectedandsad 5y ago

Not going to defend that phrasing, but I do think that a lay person questioning *scientific consensus is generally of zero usefulness. Loeb's assertions are generally rejected by the scientific mainstream precisely because they are questioned. If they weren't questioned (if he wasn't a domain expert), they'd be ignored.

bawolff 5y ago
I think they usually don't get anywhere, but i think its important that the general public realizes that science is a process, and one that can be argued about using evidence. I think a lot of harm comes from treating scientists like priests who reveal divine infalliable wisdom to the mere mortals - in a certain way it even promotes the crazies, since once people start treating science as Truth capital T, beyond questioning, its just as logical for them to switch to some other Truth, whether it be flat earth or whatever.
- rejectedandsad 5y ago
  I really don't think most people are confused about this - most understand science is a process backed by evidence. When people say "trust the science" they aren't pointing to an immutable conclusion. Generally, at the level of lay people the science being discussed isn't even complicated enough where the process of inquiry is even terribly relevant - there's lots to learn about the origins of the Earth, but "trusting the science" on the fact that the solar system is heliocentric is perfectly valid outside of doing your own experiments. > since once people start treating science as Truth capital T, Woo backed by "science" (see every invocation of "quantum physics" in New Age shit) isn't new, and is not the same as the overwhelming consensus on the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine, for instance.

NortySpock 5y ago

Science's tooling is useful. Hypotheses, experiment, falsifiability... all useful. Science need not be a dogma. If something came along that was more useful than science's tools, somehow, I'm sure we would adopt those.

proc0 5y ago

That person literally confused science with religion. The whole point of science is to question, as oppose to religion where the answers are given.

umvi 5y ago
Not so sure. If you question politicized science like climate change or covid you'll be lambasted with an appeal to "scientific consensus"
- proc0 5y ago
  > politicized science That's sophistry shrouded as science, because it's looking to push an agenda and therefore it tries to fit results to a hypothesis, instead of testing the hypothesis with the results. For any given phenomenon, I don't care what, it is only true to the extent that you can test it in every possible way and still obtain the same results. Anyone who blocks this questioning and testing, is practicing dogma and guarding a belief, instead of doing actual science.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Per usual, it depends :. I am a Catholic who has been told by atheists not to ask questions about meaning because it is “dangerous” (i.e. to run from certain questions). There are questions that have answers that are beyond the scientific method (e.g. does grandma love you?). They are fascinating to contemplate :)
- proc0 5y ago
  I'm not sure we're disagreeing here, and also don't see how it depends. Religion and science do overlap, but their underlying frameworks are like yin and yang. One is about faith, and the other is about doubt. Without doubt, there is no need to test something, as you already have the answer. Religion is about having faith, and faith is about not doubting. They do overlap, and the overlap is not perfectly clear, so I can see how some can get confused and think there is science that you cannot doubt, but this is false. As far as gramma loving you, I think you can doubt that... and you can test it, right? You can test people's love, and you can collect results over time and then derive conclusions. Maybe the nature of love itself is untestable, and therefore has no framework on which to be doubted, so the nature of love itself might be of a religious nature and it then becomes about faith.

gameswithgo 5y ago

As you present it here, that is indeed ridiculous. But people often questioned well established scientific ideas for no sensible reason at all. "I think the earth is 10,000 years old" -> "Is it appropriate for you to dismiss well established ideas in geology backed up by many independent lines of evidence because you think? Why do you think that?" The appropriate way to question that idea would be find counter-evidence, find mistakes in the data used to arrive at the current orthodoxy, find better explanations, etc etc.

_jal 5y ago

> I can’t count the number of times I’ve had people tell me How does your side of the conversation go?

tablespoon 5y ago

> I can’t count the number of times I’ve had people tell me “I don’t think it’s appropriate to question science.” Or when they invoke "Science" as an authority to resolve clearly unscientific questions (unsurprisingly, always in their favor).