4 ms·

I think scientism relates to beliefs that equate the current state of scientific knowledge with absolute truth and ignoring unknown unknowns and limits of scien

by xgb84j 5y ago

I think scientism relates to beliefs that equate the current state of scientific knowledge with absolute truth and ignoring unknown unknowns and limits of scientific methods like statistics. A common fallacy is that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". For a government this might mean "There is no definite scientific evidence that substance X causes cancer, so we do not ban it.".

TchoBeer 5y ago
Should we ban everything until we don't have solid proof that they don't cause cancer? Not banning something isn't acting like the substance is benign, it's acting like we don't know.
- xgb84j 5y ago
  There is a middle ground that exists only when you combine science with common sense. Let's say a chemical X is used in baby food production. There are no studies that show that it is harmful, because no studies have been done yet. Many chemicals with similar structure have been shown to be harmful. Scientifically speaking you would be correct to say that there is no evidence that chemical X is harmful. There is no way yet to accurately model the interaction of any chemical with your body without any actual experimentation. You can make an argument that chemical X might be harmful because similar chemicals are harmful, but that would not be science. I would not buy that baby food with chemical X if given a choice. Best case I don't lose. Finding conclusive evidence in science often takes lots of time to gather enough data because there are so many different variables to consider. So absence of evidence means a lot more when you have been looking for a long time and invested lots of resources.
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    >Scientifically speaking you would be correct to say that there is no evidence that chemical X is harmful. I wouldn't say that's true, if chemicals with a similar structure are harmful then there's weak but real evidence that X is harmful too.

by xgb84j 5y ago

TchoBeer 5y ago

Should we ban everything until we don't have solid proof that they don't cause cancer? Not banning something isn't acting like the substance is benign, it's acting like we don't know.

xgb84j 5y ago
There is a middle ground that exists only when you combine science with common sense. Let's say a chemical X is used in baby food production. There are no studies that show that it is harmful, because no studies have been done yet. Many chemicals with similar structure have been shown to be harmful. Scientifically speaking you would be correct to say that there is no evidence that chemical X is harmful. There is no way yet to accurately model the interaction of any chemical with your body without any actual experimentation. You can make an argument that chemical X might be harmful because similar chemicals are harmful, but that would not be science. I would not buy that baby food with chemical X if given a choice. Best case I don't lose. Finding conclusive evidence in science often takes lots of time to gather enough data because there are so many different variables to consider. So absence of evidence means a lot more when you have been looking for a long time and invested lots of resources.
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  >Scientifically speaking you would be correct to say that there is no evidence that chemical X is harmful. I wouldn't say that's true, if chemicals with a similar structure are harmful then there's weak but real evidence that X is harmful too.