3 ms·

Do we need institutions to give us actionable information? That starting point contains quite a few assumptions that aren't obvious to me. It's obviously conven

Do we need institutions to give us actionable information? That starting point contains quite a few assumptions that aren't obvious to me. It's obviously convenient if you have such an institution that's accurate, and there's some logical and cost effective action that comes with it, but if no such institutions exist then the right thing to do is not trust one anyway. On the topic of consensus specifically, I don't believe that's actually true. Science is full of people claiming there's a consensus but often when investigated it turns out not to be true, and instead there is an ongoing attempt to cover up or suppress disagreement. A claim of scientific consensus always needs to be checked, unfortunately, although that check can often be quite an easy one of the form "does someone make some well functioning technology requiring this belief to be correct". There is no requirement that information come from institutions, let alone that it be actionable. If you look at where the most accurate information has been coming from throughout it's been bloggers, skeptics, bands of anonymous researchers like DRASTIC and so on. It's not good and it's not better than having trusted institutions, but all such institutions have been hopelessly destroyed from within, largely thanks to ideology. I see no reason to continue genuflecting at their feet of their smoking hulks. Perhaps better institutions will arise, or perhaps people will learn how to filter information and make decisions without being told what to do. Or perhaps both.

pasabagi 5y ago
> Do we need institutions to give us actionable information? We're at a point where scientific work is the sum of an enormous number of specialists, most of whom are only marginally able to judge the work of those outside their field. That implies that, to engage with a scientific fact (say, global warming) you are always engaging with a gigantic aggregate of facts from an enormous variety of disciplines. It's just not realistic for a layperson to absorb all the literature that leads to a consensus and come to an informed conclusion. Sometimes, people who are experts in their fields can do something on that level, but ultimately, they're making those summary judgements at the mercy of implicit or explicit consensus, hierarchy, reputation - all the elements of group-think that make up institutions. I think what you're describing in regards to consensus is just what a consensus is. Take evolution for example: you can't imagine a more starker difference in views between like, Dawkins or Lyn Marguiles over what that word means. So there's a 'consensus', in that both of them are evolutionary biologists, but a dissensus insofar as what they mean by that. People, in a vacuum, have an infinite variety of opinions, many of which are superficially similar, but are different on a ton of subtle points. There are a lot of problems in this kind of setup, but I feel if you're going to call institutions in western society 'smoking hulks' when it comes to trust or credibility, mainstream science is one of the last ones you should come to.

pasabagi 5y ago

> Do we need institutions to give us actionable information? We're at a point where scientific work is the sum of an enormous number of specialists, most of whom are only marginally able to judge the work of those outside their field. That implies that, to engage with a scientific fact (say, global warming) you are always engaging with a gigantic aggregate of facts from an enormous variety of disciplines. It's just not realistic for a layperson to absorb all the literature that leads to a consensus and come to an informed conclusion. Sometimes, people who are experts in their fields can do something on that level, but ultimately, they're making those summary judgements at the mercy of implicit or explicit consensus, hierarchy, reputation - all the elements of group-think that make up institutions. I think what you're describing in regards to consensus is just what a consensus is. Take evolution for example: you can't imagine a more starker difference in views between like, Dawkins or Lyn Marguiles over what that word means. So there's a 'consensus', in that both of them are evolutionary biologists, but a dissensus insofar as what they mean by that. People, in a vacuum, have an infinite variety of opinions, many of which are superficially similar, but are different on a ton of subtle points. There are a lot of problems in this kind of setup, but I feel if you're going to call institutions in western society 'smoking hulks' when it comes to trust or credibility, mainstream science is one of the last ones you should come to.