5 ms·

Okay, look, science has some ups and downs but unless you expand its definition to include all components of modern society, it's not charging people $300 for i

Okay, look, science has some ups and downs but unless you expand its definition to include all components of modern society, it's not charging people $300 for insulin. That's a result of the various problems of the US medical system. We can check this claim by comparing the price of insulin in different countries, where science (being the same everywhere in the universe) is the same but business works differently.

mikeyouse 5y ago
Right - "Trust the science" means that if your doctor prescribes you insulin for high blood sugar, it's likely to work and to help you live longer and healthier. There are political decisions that cause it to be ruinously expensive in the US. The messy bit is where science necessarily interacts with politics.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Doctor's prescriptions aren't really scientific although they are a lot more science-adjacent than price setting.
ashtonkem 5y ago
What I think GP is hinting at is that low trust in science is part of a general low trust in elites. If you don’t trust elites for whatever reason, personally I think it’s more complicated than $300 insulin, then you’re also not going to trust scientific elites either.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  In what universe are researchers elites and where do I apply for their work visa?
  - geodel 5y ago
    Maybe PhDs or PostDocs are not elites but professors they work for, definitely are elites. If you need work visa you are not in elite category. It is like asking how to apply visa to be senator, governor, member of congress or millionaire entrepreneur and so on.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Elite is not equivalent to rich. In particular their high level of training and education puts them into a special social class that very much makes them elite compared to the rest of society.
  - dls2016 5y ago
    You could replace “elite” with “professional class.”
    - sjwalter 5y ago
      Researchers and scientists are absolutely not elites. However, they almost exclusively rely on the ruling class for their funding, for their platforms, for their careers, and thus they become de facto toadies of the elite. Just go see how well the ruling class is treating the doctors that are actually fighting covid on the front lines, showing it's a treatable ailment, saving lives. Since their perspectives don't align with Team Elite's clear agenda (inject everyone, boosters forever!), they are ridiculed, shamed, relegated to alternative or "low status" press.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        > Researchers and scientists are absolutely not elites. However, they almost exclusively rely on the ruling class for their funding, for their platforms, for their careers, and thus they become de facto toadies of the elite. You’re confusing economic class and social class. PhDs might not be rich, but they have a much elevated social status compared to the vast majority of the populace.
        sjwalter 5y ago
        PhDs in general may have a very minor elevation in status compared to other social groups. There are many, many PhDs, many of them working shitty jobs outside their fields. Think outside STEM, wherein generations of poor saps were sold on the professorial life when entering their PhD program but now have their Gender Studies or Literature PhD proudly on their shared apartment wall while they drive bus for the city of Columbus.
      - dls2016 5y ago
        I agree they aren’t elites, which is why I’m suggesting the term “professional” instead of “scientific elite” in the GP post above. The professional class are the foot soldiers of the elite class. I subscribe to the view put forth in “Disciplined Minds,” a great book on the subject. https://louisville.edu/journal/workplace/martinreview.html https://louisville.edu/journal/workplace/martinreview.html
  - throwaway09223 5y ago
    Elite doesn't mean wealthy. It means superior, and when we talk about scientific research we're talking about work being done by people with elite training compared to the layman. This is why we talk about peer review including the scientific community, not the community of all people. It is an elite group with specific skills.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I would say we shouldn't trust institutions on just the fact that they are an institution (elite, other credentialized thing/person). That people will/should build trust based on demonstratable answers to the questions they have. If it's based on credentialing, then we'll end up with people choosing which credentialed person to believe... and taking veterinarian ivermectin because some figure they trust told them too. In general, I think questioning (within reason) government and other institutions helps weed out bad policy and hold them accountable.
giantg2 5y ago
They aren't really talking about science. They are talking about "trust the science", group-think, and trust in societal institutions. You're right that insulin price has nothing to do with science, but rather economics and societal institutions/policies. The trust in the institution presenting the science is important. The purpose if science is to answer questions in fact objectively through reproducible observations. Telling people not to ask reasonable questions and just "trust the science" is appearently antithetical to people who understand the process.
- Viliam1234 5y ago
  Telling average people to "trust the science" in practice means telling them to trust the guy who says "I am speaking in the name of science". Often, he is just lying. The average people are not going to "trust the science" by reading peer-reviewed studies. Then there is the fact that someone can be a respected scientist in e.g. linguistics and simultaneously a crackpot in e.g. quantum physics, or vice versa. So you need to be careful even with trusting the actual scientists. (Similarly, the doctor talking about covid... is he an epidemiologist, or does he just fix broken legs?) Trying to think about best solution to make the actual science accessible to average people... the "ask science" subreddit is probably the best currently existing option.
  - thereddaikon 5y ago
    You don't even have to go that far. Scientists are just people. They are intelligent and experts in their fields but to be a Phd means you have a very narrow slice that you are an expert in. The problem is when these people try to public support certain government policies. Knowing climate science or quantum physics does not qualify you to be a policy maker. It does qualify you to inform policy makers on your narrow area of expertise. I've seen a lot of scientists pull appeal to authority fallacies by saying, I'm an expert in X and I say the government should do Y. Most people aren't scientists but they are smart enough to know that scientists don't know everything and usually not any more adept at politics or government than anyone else. Politicization of science by scientists has done more damage to the public trust in scientific institutions than anything else.
throwaway894345 5y ago
Criticizing "trust the science" isn't the same thing as criticizing science. "trust the science" is a euphemism for "trust the system" i.e., the media, special interest groups (e.g., pharma), government, etc. "Trust the system's portrait of 'the science' irrespective of whether or not it accurately represents the views of a quorum of scientists". In other words, "trust the system" is about institutions broadly, not science in particular. That said, "trust the science" rhetoric works precisely because science is so complicated for individuals to tease out--we depend on someone (our epistemological institutions) to synthesize it for us.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  I agree with you in the abstract level you're operating on, but in the two cases I know of where the slogan "trust the science" is applied (vaccine safety/efficacy and global warming), the claims about the opinions of scientists are mostly true and the question is whether the studies are right. The big studies do say that the vaccine is effective, and they do say that global warming is real, and you don't have to trust the Institutions(tm) because, well, you can read the studies yourself. Disclaimer: I have not read anywhere near every news article published on either topic, and if you want to make the case that the media is presenting a consensus different from scientist's, that would be worth looking in to.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I'm generally in agreement with you about those two cases as well, but it's hard to ask the public to "trust the science" in those cases when "the science" (i.e., epistemological institutions) don't seem trustworthy more broadly. Moreover, my understanding of the actual science (and it's hard to say for certain because again, science is complicated and institutions distort) is that natural immunity performs at least as well as vaccine immunity (and maybe even quite a lot better), but a lot of people are (perhaps understandably) upset at "vaccine passport" policies which don't make exemptions for the naturally immune. Moreover, "the science" i.e., the media, governments, etc seem (or at least seemed--I haven't kept up with the issue recently and perhaps the media has finally picked it up?) very reluctant to talk about the merits of natural immunity. So even in what seemed like a slam-dunk, happy path where "the science" and the actual science seemed to align, the picture seems plausibly distorted. :(
sjwalter 5y ago
Everyone knows about "regulatory capture", the mechanism via which regulators who are supposed to work for the people become captured by the elite few who control the organizations they ostensibly regulate. But what I think most people fail to see is that the ruling class have effectively captured every major institution in the west, possibly the globe. From the academy, to the science industry, the press, government, the courts, everything, all the way down, is completely and utterly captured by a tiny elite. That anyone, after the past couple years, could think that the elite are in any way well-meaning is absurd--I think the most charitably you could interpret the data is that they are so incompetent they shouldn't be trusted to judge a high school gymnastics competition. When it comes to the scientific institutions, I think Horton, current editor of The Lancet, sums it up well: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."

mikeyouse 5y ago

Right - "Trust the science" means that if your doctor prescribes you insulin for high blood sugar, it's likely to work and to help you live longer and healthier. There are political decisions that cause it to be ruinously expensive in the US. The messy bit is where science necessarily interacts with politics.

whatshisface 5y ago
Doctor's prescriptions aren't really scientific although they are a lot more science-adjacent than price setting.

ashtonkem 5y ago

What I think GP is hinting at is that low trust in science is part of a general low trust in elites. If you don’t trust elites for whatever reason, personally I think it’s more complicated than $300 insulin, then you’re also not going to trust scientific elites either.

whatshisface 5y ago
In what universe are researchers elites and where do I apply for their work visa?
- geodel 5y ago
  Maybe PhDs or PostDocs are not elites but professors they work for, definitely are elites. If you need work visa you are not in elite category. It is like asking how to apply visa to be senator, governor, member of congress or millionaire entrepreneur and so on.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Elite is not equivalent to rich. In particular their high level of training and education puts them into a special social class that very much makes them elite compared to the rest of society.
- dls2016 5y ago
  You could replace “elite” with “professional class.”
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    Researchers and scientists are absolutely not elites. However, they almost exclusively rely on the ruling class for their funding, for their platforms, for their careers, and thus they become de facto toadies of the elite. Just go see how well the ruling class is treating the doctors that are actually fighting covid on the front lines, showing it's a treatable ailment, saving lives. Since their perspectives don't align with Team Elite's clear agenda (inject everyone, boosters forever!), they are ridiculed, shamed, relegated to alternative or "low status" press.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      > Researchers and scientists are absolutely not elites. However, they almost exclusively rely on the ruling class for their funding, for their platforms, for their careers, and thus they become de facto toadies of the elite. You’re confusing economic class and social class. PhDs might not be rich, but they have a much elevated social status compared to the vast majority of the populace.
      - sjwalter 5y ago
        PhDs in general may have a very minor elevation in status compared to other social groups. There are many, many PhDs, many of them working shitty jobs outside their fields. Think outside STEM, wherein generations of poor saps were sold on the professorial life when entering their PhD program but now have their Gender Studies or Literature PhD proudly on their shared apartment wall while they drive bus for the city of Columbus.
    - dls2016 5y ago
      I agree they aren’t elites, which is why I’m suggesting the term “professional” instead of “scientific elite” in the GP post above. The professional class are the foot soldiers of the elite class. I subscribe to the view put forth in “Disciplined Minds,” a great book on the subject. https://louisville.edu/journal/workplace/martinreview.html https://louisville.edu/journal/workplace/martinreview.html
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  Elite doesn't mean wealthy. It means superior, and when we talk about scientific research we're talking about work being done by people with elite training compared to the layman. This is why we talk about peer review including the scientific community, not the community of all people. It is an elite group with specific skills.
giantg2 5y ago
I would say we shouldn't trust institutions on just the fact that they are an institution (elite, other credentialized thing/person). That people will/should build trust based on demonstratable answers to the questions they have. If it's based on credentialing, then we'll end up with people choosing which credentialed person to believe... and taking veterinarian ivermectin because some figure they trust told them too. In general, I think questioning (within reason) government and other institutions helps weed out bad policy and hold them accountable.

giantg2 5y ago

They aren't really talking about science. They are talking about "trust the science", group-think, and trust in societal institutions. You're right that insulin price has nothing to do with science, but rather economics and societal institutions/policies. The trust in the institution presenting the science is important. The purpose if science is to answer questions in fact objectively through reproducible observations. Telling people not to ask reasonable questions and just "trust the science" is appearently antithetical to people who understand the process.

Viliam1234 5y ago
Telling average people to "trust the science" in practice means telling them to trust the guy who says "I am speaking in the name of science". Often, he is just lying. The average people are not going to "trust the science" by reading peer-reviewed studies. Then there is the fact that someone can be a respected scientist in e.g. linguistics and simultaneously a crackpot in e.g. quantum physics, or vice versa. So you need to be careful even with trusting the actual scientists. (Similarly, the doctor talking about covid... is he an epidemiologist, or does he just fix broken legs?) Trying to think about best solution to make the actual science accessible to average people... the "ask science" subreddit is probably the best currently existing option.
- thereddaikon 5y ago
  You don't even have to go that far. Scientists are just people. They are intelligent and experts in their fields but to be a Phd means you have a very narrow slice that you are an expert in. The problem is when these people try to public support certain government policies. Knowing climate science or quantum physics does not qualify you to be a policy maker. It does qualify you to inform policy makers on your narrow area of expertise. I've seen a lot of scientists pull appeal to authority fallacies by saying, I'm an expert in X and I say the government should do Y. Most people aren't scientists but they are smart enough to know that scientists don't know everything and usually not any more adept at politics or government than anyone else. Politicization of science by scientists has done more damage to the public trust in scientific institutions than anything else.

throwaway894345 5y ago

Criticizing "trust the science" isn't the same thing as criticizing science. "trust the science" is a euphemism for "trust the system" i.e., the media, special interest groups (e.g., pharma), government, etc. "Trust the system's portrait of 'the science' irrespective of whether or not it accurately represents the views of a quorum of scientists". In other words, "trust the system" is about institutions broadly, not science in particular. That said, "trust the science" rhetoric works precisely because science is so complicated for individuals to tease out--we depend on someone (our epistemological institutions) to synthesize it for us.

whatshisface 5y ago
I agree with you in the abstract level you're operating on, but in the two cases I know of where the slogan "trust the science" is applied (vaccine safety/efficacy and global warming), the claims about the opinions of scientists are mostly true and the question is whether the studies are right. The big studies do say that the vaccine is effective, and they do say that global warming is real, and you don't have to trust the Institutions(tm) because, well, you can read the studies yourself. Disclaimer: I have not read anywhere near every news article published on either topic, and if you want to make the case that the media is presenting a consensus different from scientist's, that would be worth looking in to.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I'm generally in agreement with you about those two cases as well, but it's hard to ask the public to "trust the science" in those cases when "the science" (i.e., epistemological institutions) don't seem trustworthy more broadly. Moreover, my understanding of the actual science (and it's hard to say for certain because again, science is complicated and institutions distort) is that natural immunity performs at least as well as vaccine immunity (and maybe even quite a lot better), but a lot of people are (perhaps understandably) upset at "vaccine passport" policies which don't make exemptions for the naturally immune. Moreover, "the science" i.e., the media, governments, etc seem (or at least seemed--I haven't kept up with the issue recently and perhaps the media has finally picked it up?) very reluctant to talk about the merits of natural immunity. So even in what seemed like a slam-dunk, happy path where "the science" and the actual science seemed to align, the picture seems plausibly distorted. :(

sjwalter 5y ago

Everyone knows about "regulatory capture", the mechanism via which regulators who are supposed to work for the people become captured by the elite few who control the organizations they ostensibly regulate. But what I think most people fail to see is that the ruling class have effectively captured every major institution in the west, possibly the globe. From the academy, to the science industry, the press, government, the courts, everything, all the way down, is completely and utterly captured by a tiny elite. That anyone, after the past couple years, could think that the elite are in any way well-meaning is absurd--I think the most charitably you could interpret the data is that they are so incompetent they shouldn't be trusted to judge a high school gymnastics competition. When it comes to the scientific institutions, I think Horton, current editor of The Lancet, sums it up well: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."