2 ms·
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 ge
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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.