5 ms·

I think the opposite: current mass media approach turns science into a religion -- see the explosion of "I believe in science: (insert desired slogans)" posters

by ptero 5y ago

I think the opposite: current mass media approach turns science into a religion -- see the explosion of "I believe in science: (insert desired slogans)" posters. Allowing scepticism, including experiments to challenge widely held beliefs, is fundamental to science. Seeing scientists disagree, debate and use repeatable experiments to settle disagreements could help bring the rational argument back, instead of the current "my science is stronger than your science" style of debate. My 2c.

Robotbeat 5y ago
The problem is the Internet did teach people that scientists disagree, but people didn’t use that to develop healthy self-skepticism (really the core of good science is to not fool oneself) but instead to weaponize science to fight in the culture war. The “skeptics” are not skeptical of their own, often inane ideas, but “skeptical” of everything on the other side of the culture war. People LARP as scientists, but they only use that skepticism to avoid expert wisdom. Science is messy, scientists are fallible, and yet it’s better than any other process we’ve got. But people think that fallibility is therefore evidence that the fake certainty of chiropractic alternative medicine or conspiracy theories or woo is better. I’m not sure it has been a net good at all to teach about skepticism but not going all the way to instill self-skepticism.
- ptero 5y ago
  In my opinion, self-skepticism, the way I understand it, is not a critical attribute: almost any scientist has an emotional attachment to his work and, during investigation, focuses on the good parts. I personally see nothing unhealthy about this. What I do see as a critical failure of the current state is the lack of a scientific method to resolve disagreements: the clearly explained methodology, reproducible results, etc. And in the lack of it, the only way to resolve disagreements is to shut down opponents, which also gives rise to a cottage industry of consensus forming and discrediting minority opinions. Push back to this and return to debating topics on merits would be a great help. My 2c.
tchalla 5y ago
> Seeing scientists disagree, debate and use repeatable experiments to settle disagreements could help bring the rational argument back, instead of the current "my science is stronger than your science" style of debate. My 2c. In order to do that, there has to be a framework. The framework currently used is a peer reviewed publications. Currently, the disagreements are being settled not based on experiments in but on opinions in mass media, Twitter threads and Facebook posts. That's not the agreed upon framework. I know that "peer review is fallible" but that's the current agreed upon framework. None of the others are ideal, it's the best we have at the moment unless we come up with another one.
- ptero 5y ago
  Well working peer review is a good thing but is not a guarantee of success: there are many examples of external powers driving things by making sure only those with proper views are selected for the peer reviews. Focusing on reproducibility helps a lot: when one can do an experiment with fruit flies one can see if genetics or lysenkoism better explains the results. Last but not least, I agree completely with your view that disagreements are solved today on Twitter and FB and this is not good. While somewhat tangential to my main point (focus reproducibility and scientific methodology can remove most other obstacles): given their impact on society and the active role they decided to play means that they should be regulated the same way as other mass media, both for monopoly checks and for responsibility for publishing materials.
- watwut 5y ago
  Peer review is not mechanism for settling differences. Scientific consensus is. Peer review is bare minimum, plus some nitpick, plus formalities checked. Scientific consensus is "when almost all scientists in this speciality believe this" and takes a lot of time to reach.
  - tchalla 5y ago
    > Scientific consensus is "when almost all scientists in this speciality believe this" and takes a lot of time to reach. Scientific consensus also happens via peer reviewed summaries of research in a particular domain.
ithacaman 5y ago
That movement was in reaction to populzaried science denial. This could include climate change denial and vaccination efficacy denial (remember, this was all long before COVID).

by ptero 5y ago

Robotbeat 5y ago

The problem is the Internet did teach people that scientists disagree, but people didn’t use that to develop healthy self-skepticism (really the core of good science is to not fool oneself) but instead to weaponize science to fight in the culture war. The “skeptics” are not skeptical of their own, often inane ideas, but “skeptical” of everything on the other side of the culture war. People LARP as scientists, but they only use that skepticism to avoid expert wisdom. Science is messy, scientists are fallible, and yet it’s better than any other process we’ve got. But people think that fallibility is therefore evidence that the fake certainty of chiropractic alternative medicine or conspiracy theories or woo is better. I’m not sure it has been a net good at all to teach about skepticism but not going all the way to instill self-skepticism.

ptero 5y ago
In my opinion, self-skepticism, the way I understand it, is not a critical attribute: almost any scientist has an emotional attachment to his work and, during investigation, focuses on the good parts. I personally see nothing unhealthy about this. What I do see as a critical failure of the current state is the lack of a scientific method to resolve disagreements: the clearly explained methodology, reproducible results, etc. And in the lack of it, the only way to resolve disagreements is to shut down opponents, which also gives rise to a cottage industry of consensus forming and discrediting minority opinions. Push back to this and return to debating topics on merits would be a great help. My 2c.

tchalla 5y ago

> Seeing scientists disagree, debate and use repeatable experiments to settle disagreements could help bring the rational argument back, instead of the current "my science is stronger than your science" style of debate. My 2c. In order to do that, there has to be a framework. The framework currently used is a peer reviewed publications. Currently, the disagreements are being settled not based on experiments in but on opinions in mass media, Twitter threads and Facebook posts. That's not the agreed upon framework. I know that "peer review is fallible" but that's the current agreed upon framework. None of the others are ideal, it's the best we have at the moment unless we come up with another one.

ptero 5y ago
Well working peer review is a good thing but is not a guarantee of success: there are many examples of external powers driving things by making sure only those with proper views are selected for the peer reviews. Focusing on reproducibility helps a lot: when one can do an experiment with fruit flies one can see if genetics or lysenkoism better explains the results. Last but not least, I agree completely with your view that disagreements are solved today on Twitter and FB and this is not good. While somewhat tangential to my main point (focus reproducibility and scientific methodology can remove most other obstacles): given their impact on society and the active role they decided to play means that they should be regulated the same way as other mass media, both for monopoly checks and for responsibility for publishing materials.
watwut 5y ago
Peer review is not mechanism for settling differences. Scientific consensus is. Peer review is bare minimum, plus some nitpick, plus formalities checked. Scientific consensus is "when almost all scientists in this speciality believe this" and takes a lot of time to reach.
- tchalla 5y ago
  > Scientific consensus is "when almost all scientists in this speciality believe this" and takes a lot of time to reach. Scientific consensus also happens via peer reviewed summaries of research in a particular domain.

ithacaman 5y ago

That movement was in reaction to populzaried science denial. This could include climate change denial and vaccination efficacy denial (remember, this was all long before COVID).